ApostateAbe

Sort of. I haven't read Ehrman's book (or via: amazon.co.uk) either (I ordered a paper copy), but I expect that it would be something like the way Richard Dawkins made the case for the theory of evolution in his book. The positive case for the historical Jesus is primary, and the counterpoints to general themes of mythicist arguments are secondary (i.e. arguments from silence). Counterpoints to specific mythicist arguments (i.e. an argument from silence of a particular passage) would be tertiary, at best.

judge

I have you on ignore, so unless Im logged off I dont see anything you post

judge

I'm not a fan of Ehrman. I bought two of his books and wasn't impressed. Disappointed actually.

Diogenes the Cynic

I would suggest that the way to make a case for the historicity of Jesus is to make a case for the historicity of Jesus, not to bog down with attempting to refute every specific mythicist argument. If the evidence is there for HJ, then it defeats all mythicist arguments ipso facto.

Godfrey

Defense of what? I'm not defending anything, merely observing.

By the way, I hereby prophesy that Barack Obama's next speech will FAIL to even ADDRESS the rampant overuse of CAPITAL LETTERS and LOADED LANGUAGE by HIGHLY emotional mythicists. The REAL TRUTH will soon be KNOWN.

behrman

Steven, Yes, I do talk a good deal about Early Doherty in the book (contrary to your prediction!). And no, I do not thnk that Galatians is THE reason for thinking there was a historical Jesus (again, contrary....) . I would be interested in knowing how you react to the book once you read it!

Diogenes the Cynic

Wow. If it's really you, thank you for posting here.

jdl

This is untrue. It's not a question of whether there is evidence for a historical Jesus. The question is which paradigm fits the evidence best. And for that to be answered, the opposing arguments have to be addressed in full.

Diogenes the Cynic

If historicity is proven, then opposing arguments become moot.

GakuseiDon

Bart, FYI: Steven Carr is a mythicist who tends to post little screeds everywhere around the Internet on the subject of the historicity of Jesus, causing much ill-will towards mythicism. You won't find many straight responses to your points from him; mostly pithy statements that don't represent what you actually write. He is a living example of how fringe-thinkers react with the mainstream, which is probably a good thing. But I suggest not taking his responses too seriously.

One question about your book: Earl Doherty believes that the majority of extant Second Century apologists, with Justin Martyr being the exception, were members of a Christianity that had no Jesus Christ at its core. This includes Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Minucius Felix and Athenagoras of Athens. (Doherty incredibly believes that Justin's "Trypho" letter contains evidence that Justin Martyr himself originally converted from a Christianity that had no Jesus Christ at its core.)

This is a view that other mythicists don't accept. Richard Carrier described it to me as one of "his [Doherty's] wilder flights of fancy". Do you discuss the question of Doherty's use of Second Century apologists in your book? (I should explain that my interests are much more in Second Century Christian and pagan writings than in Paul and the epistles of the NT)