Steven Carr

So the very same identical job (according to Ehrman's own expert) could have different titles, but it was a 'plain mistake' to use the wrong one?

A bit like calling a 'certified accountant' a 'chartered accountant'? Or calling a newsreader a newscaster?

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

CARR
How can it be a 'plain mistake' to call Pilate a procurator rather than a prefect, when Ehrman's expert said they were the same job?

Even Ehrman knew he had to get something else when he heard his expert say that.

Take a hint from Ehrman....

I still find it amusing to hear Bart Ehrman channel GA Wells, on Pilate as a procurator. That always struck me as a stretch by Wells.

And now Bart revives Wells theories....

Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman's expert said that both titles existed for the same job, but not simulataneously in the same place. An equestrian magistrate was called one or the other, but not both.

Ehrman's expert AGREED with him. He said Pilate wopuld NOT have had both titles simulatneously.
Why? What does it have to do with Ehrman? There are a number of plausible explanations for why Tacitus gave an anachronistic title to Pilate, the most likely being that he didn't care to look it up. He was most likely just repeating what he'd heard from Roman Christians and gave Pilate what would have been the normal title for the time he was writing. It would have been a largely immaterial detail to him, not worth any documentary research. The entire passage is pretty much just a passing mention.
Ehrman says exactly this himself and says that Tacitus is NOT good evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Steven Carr

No, I said it wasn't a mistake, and Ehrman didn't say 'exactly this himself.'

Ehrman said it was a 'plain mistake', and his expert pointed out to him that procurator was a possible title.


Which led Bart to try to find another expert :-)

''He said Pilate would NOT have had both titles simulatneously.'

Which is as irrelevant as saying it is a 'plain mistake' to call somebody a chartered accountant when they are a certified accountant. Even if you can't be both at the same time, the fact that both titles are possible for basically the same job does not mean you are 'plainly mistaken' if you use the wrong one.


I agree with the rest of your stuff. I don't see how Tacitus being mistaken about Pilate being a procurator helps Bart crush mythicist arguments.

Especially as Pilate being mistaken *was* a mythicist argument. GA Wells used to say that.

Steven Carr

I guess Bart's response means we will never see him defend against the more serious of Carrier's charges - the ones toward the end that Bart skipped.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's not what I SAID he said. What I was saying was Ehrman himself ALSO said the anachronism was not necessarily a mistake - it was WRONG, but not necessarily a mistake.

GakuseiDon

I'm not interested in discussing those details either. I think we've come to a natural end on such discussions. Time to let others enjoy the Earl Doherty Experience. I'm referring to Ehrman's comment, in light of what I have also observed: readers come away from your books more confident about your conclusions than you are. They are unaware of which views you express that aren't even on the radar of modern scholarship. So when you quote scholars that agree with you on this point or that point, your readers think that the only controversy is whether or not your analysis can be applied to Christianity, rather than whether your analysis makes sense in terms of modern scholarship in the first place.

As I wrote above, I don't see it as a ploy on your part, or even wrong. It's more of a gap, that only those who know something about the subject will see. The rest of your readers won't pick up that most of your speculation (not trying to be perjorative, but IMV that's what it is) is not even on the radar of modern scholarship, your numerous quotes from scholars besides. They just see the numerous quotes from scholars and think "I guess that part is supported by modern scholarship". This is what Ehrman is referring to, I think.

I would disagree that it's evident, and I think that is the thrust of Ehrman's criticism.

Yes, I did. I bought your first book because of my interest in pagan mythology. So I was very curious (and even a little excited) to read the details from your book, since I had never come across that idea in any of the other books I had read on pagan beliefs. If you remember, trying to get you to explain where your ideas came from was my "obsession" for a number of years. I know now where they came from. I'm no longer obsessed.

Actually, I did. If you did this, my bad. I'll have a hunt through my copy of your book.

youngalexander

Yes, indeed - and what of his conclusion:
Oh dear! See what Carrier has let himself in for. It gets worse,
Polemic is an Art - personal abuse is just uncouth.

GakuseiDon

I think Stark was referring to comments made by Carrier in Carrier's discussions with philosopher David Wood (which has eerie similarities of tone with that between Carrier and Ehrman).

This is from Wood's website. Carrier had written (my bolding):
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...aristotle.html

In "Is Richard a Philosopher?" Wood yet again misrepresents what I say about the nature of philosophy and what it means to be a philosopher, and his lies will be wholly exposed by anyone who actually reads my chapter on this subject (pp. 23-26). At the very least, Wood cannot argue against the fact that I am no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications certainly match theirs in every relevant respect.

Carrier corrected the wording slightly on his website, and added a footnote. From here:
http://www.richardcarrier.info/contrawood.html

In "Is Richard a Philosopher?" Wood yet again misrepresents what I say about the nature of philosophy and what it means to be a philosopher, and his lies will be wholly exposed by anyone who actually reads my chapter on this subject (pp. 23-26). At the very least, Wood cannot argue against the fact that I am as much a philosopher as Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications are comparable to theirs in every relevant respect.[30]

...
[30] Note of Correction: I previously used the phrase "no less a philosopher than" with respect Aristotle and Hume, which Wood then took out of context as a reference to my equivalence to them in fame or accomplishment, rather than what the context clearly established as my meaning, which is my equivalence to them in being a philosopher. Wood also ignored the word "relevant" and babbled on about such irrelevancies as my not knowing as much about octopus biology as Aristotle, which has nothing to do with philosophy or being a philosopher. I also changed the word "match" to "comparable" to prevent anyone thinking I ever meant my knowledge is identical to theirs.

It's interesting to read the back-and-forwards between Carrier and Wood, whom had given an unfavorable review of Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness without God." Carrier responds to Wood's review with a webpage called "On the Deceptions of David Wood" (link above). Carrier writes:

It is essentially a trash-talking diatribe, filled with open disdain and lack of manners or respect, entirely founded on misrepresenting the facts. It is hard to take it seriously. But I must correct the many false statements and impressions Wood gives about my book, and this lengthy reply accomplishes that aim...

[At the end of the review]:

Instead of honestly reporting what I say, Wood invents motives out of whole cloth... Instead of telling his readers any of this, Wood prefers to lie instead. But if liars are the only ones who can defend the Christian religion, I think we can dispense with it.

It's like I tell Neil Godfrey: Isn't it unlucky that nearly everyone who questions mythicism (though above it is Carrier rather than mythicism) is dishonest, a liar, and lacking scholarly integrity? What horrible luck! As the old TV show "Hee Haw" put it in "Gloom, Despair and Agony on me", which has four mythicists singing: "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all!"

Solo

Get well soon, Earl ! We wouldn't want you to be deprived of a purely intellectual agony ! :wave:

Best,
Jiri

Toto

This is definitely not true. I recall Mark Goodacre discussing mythicism in a rational manner, without comparing mythicists to holocaust deniers. I think most people hoped that Ehrman would write something in that vein, instead of starting off with his barrage of insults.