Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-21-2011, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Conspiracies are a big marketing hype.

Yes! Yes, where would the JM theory be without the big HJ conspiracy to suppress the 'truth' that is out there.

Steven Carr · 06-21-2011, 10:33 AM

Has Bart Ehrman corresponded with Earl Doherty to try to get a better understanding of his theories?

ApostateAbe · 06-21-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Has Bart Ehrman corresponded with Earl Doherty to try to get a better understanding of his theories?

Ehrman told me personally a few months ago that he has read some of the writings of Earl Doherty, and he has personally corresponded with Robert M. Price, who recommended some books for Ehrman on the subject of Jesus-mythicism (according to Price on his podcast).

Solo · 06-21-2011, 01:14 PM

I note with a dash of irony that Ehrman is so well informed on how this topic has been argued he has chosen the title of G.A.Wells' first book. :huh:

Jiri

ApostateAbe · 06-21-2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I note with a dash of irony that Ehrman is so well informed on how this topic has been argued he has chosen the title of G.A.Wells' first book. :huh:

Jiri

The final authority of titles are always the editors (working for publishers), who may or may not give a darn if another book has the same title (in this case probably not). I don't think Ehrman would care so much, either.

jgoodguy · 06-21-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I note with a dash of irony that Ehrman is so well informed on how this topic has been argued he has chosen the title of G.A.Wells' first book. :huh:

Jiri

You are incorrect. Two different titles.

Wells: Did Jesus Exist?
Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

And Wells was not the first with that title. :constern01:

Did Jesus Christ Exist? by Chapman Cohen (Jan 1, 1935)
Did Jesus Exist? by John Redford (Apr 1986)
Did Jesus Exist? by Augustine Jones (1946)

Solo · 06-21-2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://www.harpercollinscatalogs.com...3138313931.htm

It seems the book is real, after all.

I assume it will cost you 6 dollars to read that Galatians 1:19 says that Paul met the brother of Jesus, so Jesus of Nazareth existed.

As a leading historicist, Ehrman naturally was unaware that Luke/Acts never makes any mention of Jesus having a brother called James.

Bart's first reaction was that everybody knew who the author was referring to.

As always, there is silence because everybody knew everything anyway....

A couple of months back I invited Ehrman to come a discuss Gal 1:19 with the group at "Jesus Mysteries".
He responded but didn't show up.

Here is my letter to him:

Quote:

Dear Professor,

I am writing to you for a group of “Jesus Mysteries” enthusiasts on yahoo com. Your name came up as someone who opposes the notion that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. You are a well known and respected author to most of the board contributors. However, some of your statements with respect to the possibility of a wholly mythical origins to Jesus, have made most of us wonder. Are you even familiar with the arguments ?

For myself, I am not a typical “Jesus Mysteries” guy. I have studied early Christianity as a hobby for over twenty years and am reasonably assured that a historical figure of Jesus existed. However, I see no direct historical evidence for him in the gospel narratives as these I hold to be literary allegories.

At any rate, as I value you books greatly, I was somewhat taken aback by the brushoff you give to the “mythical” origin of Jesus. In the “Infidel Guy” interview you said that no serious historian would consider Jesus’ “non-existence” theory. Further, the arguments that you consider “historical” would really only pass in circles who are not well acquainted with the issues around the letters and gospels. Albert Schweitzer, who was much more familiar with the arguments in his own age than you seem to be with your own, wrote in the 1913 annex to the Quest: “In terms of the history of religion, those who contest the historicity of Jesus have the advantage of the support of a general trend. It has always been accepted in academic circles generally that at some point or other Jesus has to be interpreted in the light of Greco-Oriental religions. Even those who do not entirely agree with the radicalism of Robertson, Jensen, Smith and Drews assume it self-evident that the life of Jesus originated largely in myths – even though a historical core might be acknowledged. Anyone who does not accept this view runs the risk of being considered out of touch.” G.A.Wells who long held the distinction of being the “leading” mythicist, had a formidable argument and only gave up because he unfortunately fell for another myth : that of a textual source known as “Q”. So the argument need to be taken seriously, if for no other reason that on the outside of the fundamentalist beliefs and traditional incantations, the case for a firm historical ground to the Jesus narratives has yet to be made.

There are some concrete statements you made in the interview which most of the “ mythers” (including me) believe would not withstand informed scrutiny.

For example, you said that Paul knew Jesus’ family. Forgive me, professor, for speaking plainly but this looks like a completely unsupportable assertion. Paul’s letters twice mention the Lord’s brothers, once in reference to James, second in plural (1 CR 9:5) but there is absolutely no indication in Paul that he meant it as kinship to Jesus of Nazareth. For one, Paul forswore any knowledge of Jesus ‘kata sarka’. And if that does not convince you then consider the idea that James would worship in the Temple, while accepting to have his dead brother referred to as the (non-titular) Lord. If you don’t see anything wrong with that, ask a Jewish scholar why such an idea seems wacky to her. Maybe she will tell you this: if I were to accept Hegesippus’ account (in H.E.) of James` demise as having historical background, does it seem at all probable that the Temple establishment was unaware that his congregation operated in Jerusalem for thirty years as an memorial cult to his executed brother , since upon learning it was so, they promptly threw the holy man from a tower and clubbed him to death down below ?

Now, it would be good, dear professor if you could explain your anti-mythicist convictions regarding Jesus to the group (as Mark Goodacre graciously has done recently). Maybe, if you could humor us a little, you will come out with a new appreciation of what is being talked about and how.

Incidentally, FYI, only some of us are in it for the money.

Jiri

Solo · 06-21-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I note with a dash of irony that Ehrman is so well informed on how this topic has been argued he has chosen the title of G.A.Wells' first book. :huh:

Jiri

You are incorrect. Two different titles.

Wells: Did Jesus Exist?
Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

And Wells was not the first with that title. :constern01:

Did Jesus Christ Exist? by Chapman Cohen (Jan 1, 1935)
Did Jesus Exist? by John Redford (Apr 1986)
Did Jesus Exist? by Augustine Jones (1946)

Oh, shucks !

Jiri

jgoodguy · 06-21-2011, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I note with a dash of irony that Ehrman is so well informed on how this topic has been argued he has chosen the title of G.A.Wells' first book. :huh:

Jiri

You are incorrect. Two different titles.

Wells: Did Jesus Exist?
Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

And Wells was not the first with that title. :constern01:

Did Jesus Christ Exist? by Chapman Cohen (Jan 1, 1935)
Did Jesus Exist? by John Redford (Apr 1986)
Did Jesus Exist? by Augustine Jones (1946)

Oh, shucks !

Jiri

he he, When the actual book comes out(based on its short gestation period, at least to me), I am sure you will have more substantial argument.

radius · 06-26-2011, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul’s letters twice mention the Lord’s brothers, once in reference to James, second in plural (1 CR 9:5) but there is absolutely no indication in Paul that he meant it as kinship to Jesus of Nazareth. For one, Paul forswore any knowledge of Jesus ‘kata sarka’.

Presumably Ehrman will say that I Cor. 9:5 multiplies the evidence by referring to several brothers.

Given that 'brothers' is repeatedly used to denote those who follow the Lord (including the 500), one might expect a clearer distinction to be drawn between two such radically different uses of the same word. Particularly if there were multiple biological brothers who were also religious brothers, one of whom was particularly important.

The "multiple attestation" argument (co-opting the gospels along with Eusebius, Tertullian, and Josephus) which I fear Ehrman may dredge up concerning adelphoi tou kuriou, is nonsense; but does the fact that Philippians 1:14 has "adelphōn en kuriō" rather than "tou kuriou", indicate such a distinction?

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

06-21-2011, 10:33 AM	#22
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Has Bart Ehrman corresponded with Earl Doherty to try to get a better understanding of his theories?

06-21-2011, 01:14 PM	#24
Solo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 2,579	I note with a dash of irony that Ehrman is so well informed on how this topic has been argued he has chosen the title of G.A.Wells' first book. :huh: Jiri

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.