Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-23-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdl

It sounds as though the book is of decent quality, which makes the Huffington Post article even more inexplicable. I can only hope the same holds true for his rhetoric. The glib condescension of that article was insufferable.

James McGrath makes an interesting point on his blog on this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explori....html#comments

Let me begin by emphasizing that when scholars write op-ed pieces for newspapers, what we write almost never ends up preserving the precise nuance that we consider important. I do not believe I have ever had such a piece published that did not end up having editorial changes made to the wording. Public scholarship of this sort involves a trade-off – we either allow others less concerned about nuance and accuracy be the only voices, or we participate despite the fact that we are unable to ensure that our precise wording will be what people get to hear. And so anyone who picks apart the wording of Ehrman’s recent piece in the Huffington Post, rather than interpreting it in light of what he says elsewhere and what mainstream scholarship concludes, is at best engaging editors rather than Ehrman himself, and at worst using quotes from a brief summary for a popular audience in order to assess a matter of mainstream scholarship.

jdl · 03-23-2012, 06:28 PM

I don't think that goes far enough to explain the piece. I'm no expert on what changes an article typically undergoes during the editing phase, but I'm inclined to think the tone and content weren't so far out of Ehrman's hands that he can't take a large amount of responsibilty. Are we really to imagine a reasonable and polite write-up that was utterly transformed at the hands of controversy-loving editors?

blastula · 03-23-2012, 06:40 PM

Eh, does HuffPo even edit those kind of posts?

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is an argument for the mythical jesus but those involved arent up to developing a historical context for the concept. most of the arguments develop from little more than shared hatred

What a load of BS.

You very well know that the QUEST for an historical Jesus was INITIATED because of the contents of NT Canon itself.

Matthew 1.18-20 was NOT written by an MJer.

Luke 1.26-35 was NOT written by an MJer.

John 1 was NOT written an MJer.

Mark 6.48-49 was NOT written by an MJer.

Mark 9.2 was NOT written by an MJer.

Acts 1.9 was NOT written by an MJer.

Galatians 1 was NOT WRITTEN by an MJer.

It is MOST remarkable that you will make statements that EXPOSE your irrational tendencies.

The QUEST for an historical Jesus is really a SEARCH to discredit the Bible.

The QUEST for an Historical Jesus is really a search in an attempt to confirm that Jesus of the NT was a product of falsehood and imagination.

If actual evidence can be found that Jesus was human with a human father then Christianity is based on a pack of Lies.

The person who is acknowledged as the one who INITIATED the QUEST for the Historical Jesus did accuse the Bible authors of FRAUD.

Quote:

Reimarus composed a treatise rejecting miracles and accusing Bible authors of fraud, but he didn't publish his findings.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Robert Wahler · 03-23-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He accuses Price of relying too much on Eisenman (who Ehrman calls "discredited"). Richard Carrier, Ehrman calls "one smart fellow," and acknowledges his legit credentials, but thoroughly demolishes Carrier's attempt to use the Dead Sea Scrolls to show a Jewish connection of Isaiah's suffering servant to the Messiah.

Ehrman's tone is frequently dismissive, or borderline mocking (especially when talking about Acharya), he does sometimes gratuitously appeal the authority of academia, and becomes near perseverative at times about pointing out the near unaminity of scholarship, and the lack of credentials of most mythers,

Well, that's no surprise. Ehrman is dismissive of anything inconvenient to his book sales. Ehrman is not even in the same league as Eisenman, whom I have met personally. No one knows the DS Scrolls better, including Vermes. I can vouch for that, because I also know a perfect Master personally, and his teaching is supportive of his findings.

Even in the video blurb in support of his latest book he once again asserts that Jesus said he will establish his kingdom on earth, which I have pointed out to him is in direct contradiction to what Jesus is quoted as saying in John 18:36. He says, "We each see it differently." Yeah, I see it Jesus' way, he sees it who knows how... :huh:

Academic types are dismissive generally, of anything they didn't think up. Even if it is pivotal.

stephan huller · 03-23-2012, 07:38 PM

aa,

It isn't just that people reject that Jesus was a man. This has a basis in the reports about early Christianity. The specific interest in rejecting a 'historical' Jesus is simply too all encompassing. The argument shouldn't be whether the gospel is a lie but whether Jesus was originally only understood to be a god and thus not a historical person.

When you go beyond 'Jesus was a god' most of the arguments have little basis in historical reality.

I have not bought Ehrman's book so I can't comment on the specific arguments he brings forward. But Jesus was originally conceived as a god by the Marcionites and the Marcionites were likely to have been the first to put together a canon of New Testament writings. The idea that Jesus was thus originally a god and not man has legitimacy. It is not as crazy as some of the people arguing on its behalf.

Vorkosigan · 03-23-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Eh, does HuffPo even edit those kind of posts?

Nope. I have published there.

Vorkosigan · 03-23-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Let me begin by emphasizing that when scholars write op-ed pieces for newspapers, what we write almost never ends up preserving the precise nuance that we consider important. I do not believe I have ever had such a piece published that did not end up having editorial changes made to the wording. Public scholarship of this sort involves a trade-off – we either allow others less concerned about nuance and accuracy be the only voices, or we participate despite the fact that we are unable to ensure that our precise wording will be what people get to hear. And so anyone who picks apart the wording of Ehrman’s recent piece in the Huffington Post, rather than interpreting it in light of what he says elsewhere and what mainstream scholarship concludes, is at best engaging editors rather than Ehrman himself, and at worst using quotes from a brief summary for a popular audience in order to assess a matter of mainstream scholarship.

McGrath's general point is right, but I have published at Huffpost and they don't alter pieces substantially, they lack time and expertise. Instead they kill them wholesale. It is likely that Ehrman's piece is as unaltered. Did he disavow that awful load of dreck?

Vorkosigan

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa,

It isn't just that people reject that Jesus was a man. This has a basis in the reports about early Christianity. The specific interest in rejecting a 'historical' Jesus is simply too all encompassing. The argument shouldn't be whether the gospel is a lie but whether Jesus was originally only understood to be a god and thus not a historical person.

When you go beyond 'Jesus was a god' most of the arguments have little basis in historical reality.

I have not bought Ehrman's book so I can't comment on the specific arguments he brings forward. But Jesus was originally conceived as a god by the Marcionites and the Marcionites were likely to have been the first to put together a canon of New Testament writings. The idea that Jesus was thus originally a god and not man has legitimacy. It is not as crazy as some of the people arguing on its behalf.

Your claim that "Jesus was originally conceived as a god by the Marcionites and the Marcionites were likely to have been the first to put together a canon of New Testament writings" appears to be from sources that appear to have been manipulated.

Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephraim the Syrian do not support your claim.

First Apology

Quote:

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son...

Ephraim the Syrian Against Marcion III

Quote:

...These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker...

"Refutation of All Heresies

Quote:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

Apologetic sources appear to contradict any claim that Marcion had a Canon of the new testament.

Sheshbazzar · 03-23-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I seem to repeat myself so often - but history is where it's at. History has to be put on the table. Yes, there are problems there - with both Josephus and Philo. Consequently, while that road has it's own potholes - at least it is a road that has the potential to move the debate into more productive avenues than the cul-de-sac of the NT JC storyline.

I agree. Too bad that so often we mythicists get suckered in. Human nature I guess.
We see a pile of horse-crap in the road and rather than walking around it, we feel we just have to stuff our foot into it at every time we encounter it.
Makes for a bigger stink, and only leaves us with shoes that need to be scraped clean and sanitized again

Not saying if we ignore it will go away, but we can walk on, and around it and leave it behind.
Science and knowledge will move on, and that old horse that craps on the road will eventually run out of ...er...stuff.
One of these days the world is going to be chuckling at the Ehrman's and other old historicist ass-hats.

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

03-23-2012, 06:28 PM	#182
jdl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auckland Posts: 85	I don't think that goes far enough to explain the piece. I'm no expert on what changes an article typically undergoes during the editing phase, but I'm inclined to think the tone and content weren't so far out of Ehrman's hands that he can't take a large amount of responsibilty. Are we really to imagine a reasonable and polite write-up that was utterly transformed at the hands of controversy-loving editors?

03-23-2012, 06:40 PM	#183
blastula Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 6,070	Eh, does HuffPo even edit those kind of posts?

03-23-2012, 07:38 PM	#186
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	aa, It isn't just that people reject that Jesus was a man. This has a basis in the reports about early Christianity. The specific interest in rejecting a 'historical' Jesus is simply too all encompassing. The argument shouldn't be whether the gospel is a lie but whether Jesus was originally only understood to be a god and thus not a historical person. When you go beyond 'Jesus was a god' most of the arguments have little basis in historical reality. I have not bought Ehrman's book so I can't comment on the specific arguments he brings forward. But Jesus was originally conceived as a god by the Marcionites and the Marcionites were likely to have been the first to put together a canon of New Testament writings. The idea that Jesus was thus originally a god and not man has legitimacy. It is not as crazy as some of the people arguing on its behalf.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.