avi

HI Doug!!

Many thanks, very good. First of all:
NO, you don't need a "relevant c.v."

However, you do need to have mastery of both Greek and Hebrew, as does, apparently, Bart Ehrman. I don't know that he does, I have never asked him, nor studied his CV, nor do I have any intention of doing so.

His approach is meritorious, in my opinion, because he cites the ancient texts, in support of his position. I am not suggesting that alternative explanations are not available for different interpretations of the same texts.

Ehrman, in those 24 lectures (thanks again, Abe), frequently references lectures that he has given to his undergraduate students, so I would conclude from those multiple assertions, that he was not on the university payroll when he made these lectures. I suppose that his effort was funded by some organization or other, but not his own university.

I think you would be an EXCELLENT speaker, Doug, based on what I have read, from your submissions to the forum. You have a thorough knowledge of the breadth of the discipline, and an excellent grasp of logic. I think you would also be a great organizer, of others on the forum, in creating a 24 part syllabus, in which you would play the role of chief organizer, and one who would deliver one or more of the 24 spiels.

There is an incredible amount of talent on this forum. Harnessing that energy, is a little bit tricky, though, because of some exotic personalities. This is not a mundane, orthodox, conventional, horizontal axis, California windmill converting wind energy into electricity. This is grasping, some times at straws, and some times at straws blowing in the wind....

With regard to your question of sponsorship, alas, I personally have little money to spare, but, I would be willing to put up a modest sum.

There would be some expenses. For one thing, we need a camera. For another, we need to be able to edit the productions, which means a central computer accessed and accessible to all of the participants. Third, we need some (group) to engage in fact checking of each speaker's content, to avoid the same mistake as Ehrman, i.e. Toto's valid criticism of citing "facts" which are unsupported by the ancient texts.

The bottom line: Organizing this endeavor, is not as trivial an undertaking, as some may suppose. It is not wrong to hurl criticisms at Ehrman, especially as they may have been well deserved, eleven years ago, when he made that series of lectures, however, it is something else again, to produce our OWN version of the origin of Christianity, serving to rebut some of Ehrman's arguments, which affect the mythicist view of Christianity......

I think it a worthy task, and one suitable for someone like a Doug Shaver, but, someone with perhaps a bit more time on their hands, and somewhat less requirement for "sponsorship", may be more productive, in the long run....

Ehrman will apparently produce his "e-book", opposing a mythological basis for interpreting Christianity, in November. If we wish to offer substantive criticism of his effort, then, we must put the shovel in the wagon, sooner, rather than later....

avi

avi

Thanks, I agree with you. Mea Culpa.

I would attempt a rebuttal of Ehrman, if only I knew what I was talking about. I know nothing, and as a result, any effort I made would only make the forum look bad......

There are very talented folks on this forum, including those who:

a. know the gospels and Paul's letters;

b. have attained proficiency in both Greek and Hebrew;

c. have satisfactory presentation skills;

I am ignorant of the New Testament. I have no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and I lack satisfactory presentation skills. When I speak, the sounds that emerge bear little semblance to an organized, methodical, logical, coherent presentation, and instead seem: random, chaotic, monotonous, and childish. I mumble, stutter, and swallow my verbs, for fear of exposing my mediocre knowledge of English.

I can think of a dozen folks on this forum with the skills needed to perform such a task. Whether or not they have the inclination to do it, is something else again....

avi

stephan huller

I have to say in all fairness to Ehrman I truly loved one of his early works I have here. The gospel citations of Didymus the Blind (or via: amazon.co.uk). It really rocks. You have to respect someone that took the time to do that. I just think imagination is undervalued quantity in scholarship. He's not very imaginative as can be seen by his inability to reinvent his sense of style from the 1980s

avi

1. at book sellers, there appears to be no extant reviews, therefore, it is difficult to assess the merits of the book;

2. Your description is insufficiently detailed for my taste:

Can you elaborate on these points:

a. "respect someone..." What is there about Ehrman's travails that is so praiseworthy? I do not write this question in hostility to your conclusion, but rather because there is nothing about "rocks" that expresses to me the nature of his contribution. What makes his task so arduous? What sources did Ehrman employ, since, so far as I am aware, (quite possibly COMPLETELY WRONG), we possess today zero original documents from Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria. How did Didymus compose anything, since he was blind? Did he dictate his opinions, what language did he use for dictation? Coptic? Greek? Hebrew? Aramaic? Latin? Why was Didymus hostile to Manichaeism? Does Ehrman address this question? Since Didymus approved of Origen, was he also ostracized, once Origen had incurred the wrath of the orthodox? Is this discussed by Ehrman? Ditto for Didymus' disapproval of Arius....

b. How does Ehrman's effort with Didymus, of which you approve, differ from your assessment of Ehrman's 24 part lecture series, produced fifteen years after the Didymus analysis? In other words, why do you find his written analysis/summary of Didymus' output meritorious, while concurrently dismissing his video lectures? Does Ehrman follow "standard" scholarly protocol with the 1985 book on Didymus, but not with the 2001 video series? Why do you like his earlier work, and dislike his subsequent efforts? Has his methodology changed? I was impressed, watching his videos, by his attempt to cite many sources, including original Greek, and Hebrew writings. What sources did he provide for Didymus?

avi

Toto

A review of Ehrman's Didymus the Blind on JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3267489

An article with the same title is here

aa5874

Well, I would suggest that you stop complaining because history will repeat itself.

Based on history Ehrman's HJ of Nazareth will become OBSOLETE rather quickly the more he writes.

Doug Shaver

His c.v. doesn't say in so many words, but he could not possibly have the reputation he has earned, or published most of what he has published, without a mastery at least of Greek. I'm not sure how much Hebrew one has to know in order to be competent in the origins of Christianity. So far as I'm aware, none of the relevant documents was written in Hebrew. Even those that reference Jewish scripture, so far as I'm aware, cite the Septuagint.

I am, alas, illiterate in Greek, and you're right that any counter-presentation of my own would be handicapped thereby. However, there is not, to my knowledge, any point on which I disagree with Ehrman such that any disputes over how a given text should be translated would have any bearing on which of us is more likely to be right.

Thank you very much. Concerning my organizational skills, affiant sayeth nothing, but I certainly agree that a team effort by several of this forum's regulars could result in something pretty spectacular -- certainly better than anything I could do alone, even in my own immodest judgment.

I am of retirement age, but I have no pension aside from Social Security, and I have a wife to support who, in the current state of the economy, is effectively unemployable, and so I can't give up my regular job yet. Our situation could improve considerably about a year from now, but at the moment that is in no way assured. All this means is that the time I could devote to the project, even as one member of a team, is severely limited. But, if enough of us can commit to it, all kinds of very interesting things could happen.

I've got that. It isn't much, but if we need something better, I wouldn't mind having an excuse to buy one.

I'm not sure about the wisdom of editing by committee, but this is certainly not going to be a deal breaker.

I suspect the fact-checking will take care of itself without being specifically delegated. But somebody does need to make sure it gets done, for sure.

avi

Thank you, Doug, wonderful reply. I agree with most of what you wrote, particularly the essential components.

Listening to those tapes, it seemed clear to me, at least, that Ehrman was fluent and literate in both Greek and Hebrew. Maybe I err, but that was my interpretation of his skill level.

We do have a slight, and probably inconsequential difference of opinion on the subject of Hebrew: I think it is important for the FRDB pro-mythicist position, to articulate the likelihood of forgery, in several important, extant, ancient documents, including, obviously, those attributed to Josephus, but also the Septuagint itself. For me this issue of kyrios versus theos is non-trivial, for it gets to the heart of the forgery dimension--i.e. much broader than is typically acknowledged, in my opinion.

For the debate on this point, even within FRDB, let alone with Ehrman, to have any meaning, it seems to me essential to access the DSS, at least some of which do show, in Deuteronomy, YHWH, not adonai--which I believe was introduced, even into the Judaic culture, by the third or fourth century Christians. So, if someone produced, by way of refutation of my ardent belief in widespread forgery, a Masoretic text displaying adonai, rather than YHWH, I would then respond, that this only shows how pervasively the Christians have penetrated orthodox Judaism.

I simply find it difficult to imagine ancient Judaism accepting, post Babylon, the idea of a human term, "lord", as equivalent to a description of the supreme God to whom one committed blood sacrifices in the temple--(Ehrman's explanation of WHY Jesus fought with the money changers, was a genuine eye-opener for me. A really well thought out explanationj--score one for him!!!)

As for the oft-repeated argument that Jews themselves employed adonai, rather than utter YHWH, I am not buying it. That is a purely Christian aberration, done to elevate the stature of a mere human, JC, to the same lofty position of authority as his "father", in my opinion.

The point then, is that someone from the FRDB group, seeking to refute Ehrman, better have a handle on Hebrew: if nothing else, how can we accurately explain the significance of Origen, without discussing his Hebrew concoctions....?

Listening to his lectures, it seems apparent to me, that Ehrman's comfort with the "original" Greek texts, enabled his smooth and transparent delivery. I don't disagree with you, at all, about your point, vis a vis translation not having a bearing on interpretation. Your illiterate stance with Greek would not deter an excellent delivery, and I know your topic within the presentations will be a success.

The one word, which sticks in my craw, and which I would hope that someone who IS FLUENT in Greek, would argue for my benefit, is this word:

grafas

To me, this single word is one of the three or four most important words, upon which to focus a distinction between the mythicist versus historical debate.

Grafas does not mean "scripture". It means "writings". If Paul and the others who used grafas, had intended the word to refer to the ancient Hebrew texts, rather than the gospels, or some other texts (Diatessaron, or Memoirs of the Apostles, or Q, for example), then they had words in the language to indicate that distinction.

I believe the intention was to juxtapose the more common "word of mouth", description of JC, with the more lofty, more educated, more "believable" source: a written document. Such an argument demands examples of usage from about the same time period, by other authors, both to illustrate how others used "grafas" to indicate texts rather than "sacred texts", AND an illustration by one or more of the patristic authors, in Greek, showing that there was a word, representing "sacred", which they could and did employ as adjective for some noun, whether grafas, or any other noun.

For all practical purposes, such a demonstration would be accomplished, and believed most readily, when presented by someone who is an acknowledged expert in Greek, rather than by you or me, someone who is acknowledged to be a non-expert!!!

I hope you will serve both as a supervisor, Doug, and a presenter. You have the talent, and the skill.

avi

aa5874

Ehrman SPECULATED or INVENTED an unsubstantiated "explanation" why "Jesus" fought with the money changers.

Ehrman is an INVENTOR of unsubstantiated "explanations" about his HJ of Nazareth.

Have you forgotten that "Jesus" in the NT, the one who fought with the money changers, was the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth that was God?

We have the WRITTEN sources from antiquity.

See Matthew 1.18 and Matthew 21.12

See John 1. and John 2.

Ehrman DISCREDITS the authorship and contents of the NT yet uses that same ADMITTED unreliable source for his unsubstantiated "explanations" about his HJ of Nazareth.

Ehrman appears to be doing EXACTLY as the authors of the Jesus stories.

The Jesus character, God INCARNATE, as found in the EXTANT Codices was BELIEVABLE but unsubstantiated so too is Ehrman's HJ of Nazareth.

One does NOT need to be an EXPERT in Greek and Hebrew to present EVIDENCE. Even in court trials, translators are employed.

The Extant Codices have been translated and they ALL show or describe Jesus as a Non-human character or one who ACTED Non-human.

Ehrman MUST first find a CREDIBLE source of antiquity for his HJ of Nazareth and stop making unsubstantiated "explanations" of which there is ZERO supporting credible sources of antiquity.

I am NO longer interested in Ehrman's Belief.

I am ONLY interested in Ehrman's sources of antiquity and he has ZERO credible sources.

Ehrman's lecture is a waste of time and may appeal to those who have very little knowledge of EXTANT sources of antiquity.

The Pope BELIEVES Jesus was really God Incarnate.

Ehrman BELIEVES Jesus was really an ordinary man.

Their BELIEFS are unsubstantiated.

In the NT, Jesus was some kind of WORD or the Child of a Ghost. See John 1, Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35

Doug Shaver

Well, you've run it up the flagpole. Let's see who else salutes it.