Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 04-25-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Correction: Ehrman has no standing in the fundie community, and I'm guessing you know that very, very well.

Chaucer

you can bet that Ehrman will start showing up in their reference lists now, though. Ehrman has immeasurably weakened his position on that front, though. Now he seems to argue that at the dawn of Christianity, at the very critical moment when the religion was born, the followers of an itinerant, obscure failed messiah "just started to say" that Jesus had risen from the dead. And that between 30AD and 33AD these followers from Galilee had managed to spread their message even to Damascus where Saul was on his way to persecute this new "church.". Here we ARE talking about Holding's Impossible Faith. They seemed to not be weighed down by obvious objections, such as, grave robbers stole the body...at least not until decades later when Matthew is forced to invent guards at the tomb, something Mark didn't have to address. Does this strike you as plausible?

badger3k · 04-25-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Erhman is a theologian, and trained as a Christian one, in Christian communities - an academic one & likely a socio-cultural ones in his family and local & extended neighbourhoods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Wrong: he is an "agnostic with atheist leanings" (his words), and all his published work is grounded on detailed and rigorous research pursued entirely and exclusively in the wake and context of his deep skepticism, and his published results from all that research entirely reflect that skepticism. In fact, his published work has long been deeply resented by all fundies for precisely those very reasons and continues to be.
Chaucer

I did not comment on Erhman's religiosity - I am well aware he is agnostic-atheist. I am well aware of his previous work, and his standing in the fundie community. My comments are in relation to his latest book and his bias through poor reflection on all the issues around allegations for a historical jesus, including that a historical human Jesus is a christian heresy.

His CV lists his degrees, but doesn't say what his PhD is in:

Ph.D.
Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985

M.Div.
M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981

B.A. B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

badger3k · 04-25-2012, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

correction2 - Ehrman has had little or no standing in the fundie community, and has possibly bought some with DJE

Total bullshit and shameless propaganda. DJE is entirely antithetical to the fundie agenda, and you fucking well know it.

Chaucer

If the discussion is such a complete waste of your time that your idea of an appropriate counter argument is pure assertion and expletive, then why not just spare yourself the trouble and not post.

Ehrman says himself that people who have been previously uncomfortable with his scholarship might be pleasantly suprised to find him on their side of the court this time. It's not outrageous to suggest conservatives might be reevaluating Ehrman in light of this book. He claims that oral sources can be dated to the 30's, for crying out loud. Don't try to tell me he won't be cited by apologists on that.

Joseph

If his standing improved with anyone, it would be with liberal Christians - the fundies need the "Jesus is God" too much to accept that he was a living man only. However, I agree that he will be cited by apologists, although I suspect they will downplay the "only a man" angle. He will be the poster child for "even atheists/non-believers/etc say he existed".

Chaucer · 04-25-2012, 12:20 PM

There is a terrific response to Carrier from Bart Ehrman now up on Ehrman's blog --

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Way overdue and my congratulations to Professor Ehrman!!

Chaucer

Grog · 04-25-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

DJE fails to live up to its promise to be the definitive rebuttal to mythicism....

An historical Jesus cannot be defended. Ehrman must know that and that is precisely why the book is a failure.

Ehrman must have realized that all he has produced are logical fallacies using unreliable sources.

If Ehrman could have made better arguments then he would have made them. He could NOT.

Even if Ehrman removes all the diatribe against those he opposes the book will still be horrible and without substance.

Did Jesus Exist? is the very worst but is the only HJ argument.

I am so happy that Ehrman wrote his book.

NOW HJers have been forever SILENCED--not from outside but from within--from EHRMAN.

Ehrman has ended the Third Quest in disaster

I agree with much of what you say here. I do think this is a watershed moment in this debate. Will it crack the edifice of Biblical/NT studies departments?

Chaucer · 04-25-2012, 02:22 PM

On second thought, it's well worthwhile to put up today's entire Ehrman response to Carrier right here --

=========

--
Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier is one of the new breed of mythicists. He is trained in ancient history and classics, with a PhD from Columbia University – an impressive credential. In my book Did Jesus Exist I speak of him as a smart scholar with bona fide credentials. I do, of course, heartily disagree with him on issues relating to the historical Jesus, but I have tried to take his views seriously and to give him the respect he deserves.
Carrier, as many of you know, has written a scathing review of Did Jesus Exist on his Freethought Blog. He indicates that my book is “full of errors,” that it “misinforms more than it informs” that it provides “false information” that it is “worse than bad” and that “it officially sucks.” The attacks are sustained throughout his lengthy post, and they often become personal. He indicates that “Ehrman doesn’t actually know what he is talking about,” he claims that I speak with “absurd” hyperbole, that my argument “makes [me] look irresponsible,” that I am guilty of “sloppy work,” that I “misrepresent” my opponents and “misinform the public,” that what I write is “crap,” that I am guilty of “arrogantly dogmatic and irresponsible thinking,” that I am “incompetent,” make “hack” mistakes, and do not “act like a real scholar.”
<snipped - please consult link http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ >

Chaucer · 04-25-2012, 02:22 PM

<snipped>

-- [Bart Ehrman - http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/]

Steven Carr · 04-25-2012, 02:43 PM

Well, at least Bart made an attempt. And not too bad a job either.

But apart from admitting that he did not have any knowledge that people had questioned the authenticity of Tacitus, he simply whitewashed his attack on Doherty, blanked out from history his insinuation that Acharya had drawn the statue herself, continues to wipe out from history the fact that it was HIS claim that the statue was of Peter - a claim Acharya never made.

Nor does Ehrman deal with Ehrman's amazing claim that Aramaisms mean Jesus existed.

But it seems we were all expecting too much.

' Carrier seems to expect Did Jesus Exist to be a work of scholarship written for scholars in the academy and with extensive engagement with scholarship, rather than what it is, a popular book written for a broad audience.'

Come on guys, you expected scholarship from Ehrman? You honestly waited all those months in the hope of scholarship?

What are you?

Don't you know the book was never intended to be scholarship and 'with extensive engagement with scholarship'?

Leave that to the scholars. Ehrman writes books for the general public. He doesn't waste scholarship on them.

You can see Ehrman's point.

Carrier has picked up on the fact that this is not a scholarly work.

Hence Bart's waving invisible documents around as evidence..... Hey, it's for the public, not for scholars like Carrier.

Grog · 04-25-2012, 08:40 PM

Before I start this, I want to say that I recognize Ehrman as a fully qualified scholar who is respected in his field. I have stated in previous posts that Carrier should have toned down his rhetoric and focused only on the most important points that Ehrman's book raised. However, here Ehrman, I am sure, has given Carrier plenty of new material to work with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

On second thought, it's well worthwhile to put up today's entire Ehrman response to Carrier right here --

=========

Thank you.

Quote:

Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier is one of the new breed of mythicists... snip...

I took out all this introductory material. Except the bit about Carrier's credentials, a mistake Ehrman takes responsibility for, none of it was very substantive. You can all choose to disagree with me, if you so like.

Quote:

The Pilate Error
In my book I take the Roman historian Tacitus to task for claiming that Pontius Pilate was a procurator rather than a prefect. The question has little to do with my overall point – that Tacitus is one of the first Roman authors to refer to Jesus – but Carrier takes great offense at my assertion and indicates that it shows that I do not know what I’m talking about. According to Carrier, provincial prefects were often also imperial procurators. He indicates that “recent literature on the subject confirms this, as would any consultation with an expert in Tacitus or Roman imperial administration.”

Note the bolded sentences. So Ehrman consulted an expert:

Quote:

I have to admit that I was surprised to see this objection – as I had never heard of this before, that procurators could be prefects. I am certainly not an expert on Roman imperial magistrates. But I do try to get my facts straight and work hard to make sure I do not get things like this wrong. But it was news to me. So I decided to look into it. I have acquaintances and colleagues who are among the world’s leading authorities on Roman history. I emailed one of them the following:

My question: The New Testament indicates that Pontius Pilate was a procurator; the inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima indicate that he was a prefect. Is it possible that he could have been both things at once?

His answer was quick and to the point. I quote: ‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job.

Ok, did I miss something here? Doesn't Ehrman's expert support Carrier's point?

Quote:

The initial growth of equestrian posts in the emperor’s service was a gradual, haphazard process, and there was little concern to fix titles for them [see, e.g., Talbert's chap. 9 in CAH ed. 2 vol. X]. PP could just as well have had the title procurator, but evidently he didn’t … PIR (ed. 2, 1998) P 815 sums it up neatly: “praeses Iudaeae ordinis equestris usque ad Claudii tempora non procurator, sed praefectus fuit….” [This comes from the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (i.e., The Prosopography of the Roman Empire); I translate the Latin as follows: “Up until the time of Claudius [i.e., 41-54 CE], the provincial governor of Judea, a man of the equestrian order, was not a procurator but a prefect.”].

That having been unsatisfactory, Ehrman consults the PIR. But having already seen that there was "little concern to fix titles," could we not see then that the "mistake" made by Tacitus is not really a mistake? Tacitus merely uses one acceptable title for the same job.

But now watch. Ehrman does a bait and switch. The argument was about procurator vs. prefect. Carrier states that he actually agrees with Ehrman "that it’s 'highly unlikely' this passage wasn’t what Tacitus wrote."

Quote:

The Tacitus Question

This is a long explanation, a lot of it isn't necessary. In short, Ehrman agrees that he didn't know the citations that Carrier referred to, but qualifies what he initially meant. He doesn't know of any current controversy on this question, he wasn't talking about any question ever. He then goes on a lengthy defense of his position on Tacitus. Notably, Carrier states that he actually agrees with Ehrman "that it’s 'highly unlikely' this passage wasn’t what Tacitus wrote."

Below I am going straight to where Ehrman says Carrier is wrong, since he spends quite a bit of time on what he later says Carrier agrees with.

Quote:

The Dying and Rising God:
His counter claim is that “Plutarch attests that Osiris was believed to have died and been returned to earth… and that the did indeed return to earth in his resurrected body.” He gives as his reference Plutarch “On Isis and Osiris,” 19.358b.

I do not need to relate all the details of the myth in this context. Suffice it to say that Osiris is killed by an enemy and hidden away in a chest/coffin that was lost. Isis finally finds it and mourns the loss of her dead lover. But (another) enemy finds the body and does something unspeakable. Here is the passage from Plutarch, in the Babbitt translation of the Loeb Classical Library:

18 As they relate, Isis proceeded to her son Horus, who was being reared in Buto, and bestowed the chest in a place well out of the way; but Typhon, who was hunting by night in the light of the moon, happened upon it. Recognizing the body [of Osiris] he divided it into fourteen parts and scattered them, each in a different place. Isis learned of this and sought for them again, sailing through the swamps in a boat of papyrus. This is the reason why people sailing in such boats are not harmed by the crocodiles, since these creatures in their own way show either their fear or their reverence for the goddess. The traditional result of Osiris’s dismemberment is that there are many so called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it. Others deny this and assert that she caused effigies of him to be made and these she distributed among the several cities, pretending that she was giving them his body, in order that he might receive divine honours in a greater number of cities, and also that, if Typhon should succeed in overpowering Horus, he might despair of ever finding the true tomb when so many were pointed out to him, all of them called the tomb of Osiris. Of the parts of Osiris’s body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival. 19 Later, as they relate, Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle.

In this telling of the myth – the one the Carrier refers to – Osiris’s body does not come back to life. Quite the contrary, it remains a corpse. There are debates, in fact, over where it is buried, and different locales want to claim the honor of housing it. It is true that Osiris “comes back” to earth to work with his son Horus: ἔπειτα τῷ Ὥρῳ τὸν Ὄσιριν ἐξ Ἅιδου παραγενόμενον. Literally, he came “from Hades.” But this is not a resurrection of his body. His body is still dead. He himself is down in Hades, and can come back up to make an appearance on earth on occasion. This is not like Jesus coming back from the dead, in his body; it is like Samuel in the story of the Witch of Endor, where King Saul brings his shade back to the world of the living temporarily (1 Samuel 28). How do we know Osiris is not raised physically? His body is still a corpse, in a tomb.
Evidence to that comes from various places in the treatise. For example, section 20, 359 E

not the least important suggestion is the opinion held regarding the shrines of Osiris, whose body is said to have been laid in many different places. For they say that Diochites is the name given to a small town, on the ground that it alone contains the true tomb; and that the prosperous and influential men among the Egyptians are mostly buried in Abydos, since it is the object of their ambition to be buried in the same ground with the body of Osiris. In Memphis, however, they say, the Apis is kept, being the image of the soul of Osiris, whose body also lies there. The name of this city some interpret as “the haven of the good” and others as meaning properly the “tomb of Osiris.”

It is his soul that lives on, in the underworld. Not his body in this world. Carrier wants to argue that the body comes back to life, and points to a passage that speaks of its “revivification and regenesis.” But that is taking the Plutarch’s words out of context. Here is the relevant passage:

35 364F-365A Furthermore, the tales regarding the Titans and the rites celebrated by night agree with the accounts of the dismemberment of Osiris and his revivification and regenesis ὁμολογεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ Τιτανικὰ καὶ Νυκτέλια 5 τοῖς λεγομένοις Ὀσίριδος διασπασμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀναβιώσεσι καὶ παλιγγενεσίαις. Similar agreement is found too in the tales about their sepulchres. The Egyptians, as has already been stated, point out tombs of Osiris in many places, and the people of Delphi believe that the remains of Dionysus rest with them close beside the oracle;

Note: whatever his revivification involves, it is not a return to his physical body, which remains in a tomb someplace. It is his soul that lives on, as seen, finally in a key passage later:

54 373A It is not, therefore, out of keeping that they have a legend that the soul of Osiris is everlasting and imperishable, but that his body Typhon oftentimes dismembers and causes to disappear, and that Isis wanders hither and yon in her search for it, and fits it together again; for that which really is and is perceptible and good is superior to destruction and change.

Carrier and I could no doubt argue day and night about how to interpret Plutarch. But my views do not rest on having read a single article by Jonathan Z. Smith and a refusal to read the primary sources. As I read them, there is no resurrection of the body of Osiris. And that is the standard view among experts in the field.

Here Ehrman notes two instances when Plutarch seems to say that Osiris comes back to life.

1) Later, as they relate, Osiris came to Horus from the other world and exercised and trained him for the battle.

2)the tales regarding the Titans and the rites celebrated by night agree with the accounts of the dismemberment of Osiris and his revivification and regenesis

To this Ehrman has the scholarly view that it just remains true that Osiris "remains a corpse." How is this corpse training with Horus? Ehrman, again: "Note: whatever his revivification involves, it is not a return to his physical body..." Revivification sure sounds like bringing new life to. Maybe Ehrman has too narrow a definition of coming back from the dead or resurrection.

I think I've done enough on this. I am sure others more qualified than I will have a stab.

Steven Carr · 04-25-2012, 11:26 PM

EHRMAN

In my book I take the Roman historian Tacitus to task for claiming that Pontius Pilate was a procurator rather than a prefect.

EHRMAN
‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job.

GROG
Ok, did I miss something here? Doesn't Ehrman's expert support Carrier's point?

CARR
Well, yes. You didn't miss anything,

Ehrman wrote that Tacitus was 'precisely wrong'.

'Precisely wrong' in using one of two possible titles for the same job?

And as you point out, Ehrman then goes all NT Wright on Carrier, by claiming that people who return to life after death are not rising gods. They are simply alive after death, which has nothing to do with a dying god rising again.

Yes, Bart, tell that to the Bishop of Durham. He's got that line down pat.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2012, 12:20 PM	#24
Chaucer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: New York, U.S.A. Posts: 715	There is a terrific response to Carrier from Bart Ehrman now up on Ehrman's blog -- http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ Way overdue and my congratulations to Professor Ehrman!! Chaucer

04-25-2012, 02:22 PM	#26
Chaucer Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: New York, U.S.A. Posts: 715	On second thought, it's well worthwhile to put up today's entire Ehrman response to Carrier right here -- ========= -- Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier Richard Carrier is one of the new breed of mythicists. He is trained in ancient history and classics, with a PhD from Columbia University – an impressive credential. In my book Did Jesus Exist I speak of him as a smart scholar with bona fide credentials. I do, of course, heartily disagree with him on issues relating to the historical Jesus, but I have tried to take his views seriously and to give him the respect he deserves. Carrier, as many of you know, has written a scathing review of Did Jesus Exist on his Freethought Blog. He indicates that my book is “full of errors,” that it “misinforms more than it informs” that it provides “false information” that it is “worse than bad” and that “it officially sucks.” The attacks are sustained throughout his lengthy post, and they often become personal. He indicates that “Ehrman doesn’t actually know what he is talking about,” he claims that I speak with “absurd” hyperbole, that my argument “makes [me] look irresponsible,” that I am guilty of “sloppy work,” that I “misrepresent” my opponents and “misinform the public,” that what I write is “crap,” that I am guilty of “arrogantly dogmatic and irresponsible thinking,” that I am “incompetent,” make “hack” mistakes, and do not “act like a real scholar.” <snipped - please consult link http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ >

04-25-2012, 02:43 PM	#28
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Well, at least Bart made an attempt. And not too bad a job either. But apart from admitting that he did not have any knowledge that people had questioned the authenticity of Tacitus, he simply whitewashed his attack on Doherty, blanked out from history his insinuation that Acharya had drawn the statue herself, continues to wipe out from history the fact that it was HIS claim that the statue was of Peter - a claim Acharya never made. Nor does Ehrman deal with Ehrman's amazing claim that Aramaisms mean Jesus existed. But it seems we were all expecting too much. ' Carrier seems to expect Did Jesus Exist to be a work of scholarship written for scholars in the academy and with extensive engagement with scholarship, rather than what it is, a popular book written for a broad audience.' Come on guys, you expected scholarship from Ehrman? You honestly waited all those months in the hope of scholarship? What are you? Don't you know the book was never intended to be scholarship and 'with extensive engagement with scholarship'? Leave that to the scholars. Ehrman writes books for the general public. He doesn't waste scholarship on them. You can see Ehrman's point. Carrier has picked up on the fact that this is not a scholarly work. Hence Bart's waving invisible documents around as evidence..... Hey, it's for the public, not for scholars like Carrier.

04-25-2012, 11:26 PM	#30
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	EHRMAN In my book I take the Roman historian Tacitus to task for claiming that Pontius Pilate was a procurator rather than a prefect. EHRMAN ‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job. GROG Ok, did I miss something here? Doesn't Ehrman's expert support Carrier's point? CARR Well, yes. You didn't miss anything, Ehrman wrote that Tacitus was 'precisely wrong'. 'Precisely wrong' in using one of two possible titles for the same job? And as you point out, Ehrman then goes all NT Wright on Carrier, by claiming that people who return to life after death are not rising gods. They are simply alive after death, which has nothing to do with a dying god rising again. Yes, Bart, tell that to the Bishop of Durham. He's got that line down pat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.