Steven Carr

Did Ehrman think Carrier was saying Pilate was a prefect by day and did a part-time job as a procurator to earn a bit extra money?

Diogenes the Cynic

The title of procurator did not exist when Pilate was a prefect. It was not possible for Pilate to have been called a procurator, and in fact we have an inscription to prove that he was called a prefect.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is a mischaracterization of what he said. He said he did not write the book for scholars, but not that there was anything sloppy about the scholarship behind it. He didn't bother enumerating some dry technical background concerning Pliny, but that doesn't mean he was wrong or sloppy about what he did say (except that he accidentally said "10th letter" instead of "10th book," which is the greatest trophy the mythers seem to be able to extract from DJE).

Steven Carr

So when Ehrman claimed his expert told him prefect and procurator are two possible titles, he was simply wrong?

Because it was not possible for Pilate to have been called a procurator....

So if, 'prefect' and 'procurator' are simply two possible titles for the same job, why was Tacitus 'precisely mistaken' to call Pilate a procurator?

Steven Carr

EHRMAN
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.

CARR
What part of Ehrman denying that the book was supposed to be 'with extensive engagement with scholarship', would you like to quote as contradicting my claim that the book 'was never intended to engage with scholarship.'?


What's wrong? Did I shorten 'engagement' to 'engage'? Is that what it is?

Diogenes the Cynic

He doesn't say that"mythicists don't have degrees." He says most of them don't have relevant degrees (which is true), but he doesn't say that none of them do.
There's no error, just poor phrasing.
I don't have an opinion on when he should and shouldn't, but he does do it.
What matters, though, is that the titles did not exist at the same time chronologically. There was no title of procurator when Pilate was a prefect. That title came along later. It's anachronistic relative to Pilate, that's the issue. It doesn't matter that he did the same job.
An irrelevant point. A pedantic non-sequitur, a perfect example of how natural speech, which can often be more open-ended or categorical or use generalities to talk about specifics is pounced on as erroneous simply because it's not precise enough to seal off unintended inferences.

If my wife asks me if we have any bananas left in the house, and I say, "no, there are no bananas," I am not intending to say that there are no bananas anywhere in the world, just not in the house. Ehrman was saying the Romans did not keep birth and death records for peasants in Judea (they didn't, and they had no reason to care), but because he wasn't closed enough with his phrasing Carrier was able to adopt a general interpretation of a more specific statement, rebut the general, and try to create an impression that this has somehow rebutted the specific.

Did Carrier really think that bart Ehrman, one of the foremost textual scholars in the country - a guy who was mentored by Bruce Metzger, and who worked on the gospel of Judas translation team - was not familiar with the Oxyrhynchus documents? Give me a break.

EarlDoherty

Only an idiot would think that I am implying, let alone claiming, that Morna Hooker is a mythicist or supports my overall view. First of all, throughout the entire book I have constantly been appealing to various scholars--many of them well-known to even the lowliest ignoramous on this forum or any other forum as being anything but mythicists--and using individual arguments they put forward in order to support this or that aspect of my own argument. This is done constantly in NT research, where one scholar will discuss the views of other scholars, agreeing and disagreeing with their various points, using the former in support of their own interpretation of a given point. Do they all trouble to point out that the other scholar being appealed to does not subscribe to their overall thesis in question?

There is probably no other objection to my procedure more frequently put forward than this ridiculous red herring, and it is obviously a red herring, deliberately used as some desperate measure to discredit me and my methodology while knowing that there is nothing to it of any legitimate nature. In other words, it is an ill-disguised phoney ad hominem because they are unable to actually address and rebut the argument itself.

Besides, if Morna Hooker were really a mythicist (or any of the other scholars, like C. K. Barrett, whose individual views I may have appealed to to support a point in my argument), do you not think I would trumpet that to the skies? And there is the occasional time when I DO make such an appeal and then go on (such as with Brandon on the "rulers of this age" meaning) to make it clear that Brandon does not support my overall thesis.

I don't offhand know who is the author of the quote I've given above (it was not specified by the poster and I wasn't going to bother trying to go back and identify it), but if that poster is also putting it forward as a deliberate red herring he is either consciously being deceptive and misrepresentative of me, or if he is not, he is making himself out to be an idiot. I don't think Ehrman is an idiot. I don't think people here, such as the above poster or like GDon who has used this ploy before are idiots.

And clearly Richard Carrier is not an idiot, and he is equally incensed as I am at Ehrman for appealing to this ridiculous and transparent ploy. And rightly so. The problem is, Ehrman and GDon and others here and in the past look to be knowingly using this ploy in the hopes that the truly ignorant among their readers, and on this forum, will actually swallow it and be led to believe that Earl Doherty is the one who is being deceptive and a charlatan and making false claims or implications that a scholar like Morna Hooker or C. K. Barrett, or Jean Hering or any of a dozen others well known to NT scholarship are ACTUALLY MYTHICISTS!!

So how about the above poster, or any others on this thread who defend Ehman on this matter--and therefore put themselves down as supporters of his objection--explain themselves. Do you really think I am deliberately trying to claim--or imply--that all those scholars I appeal to in the course of my book are mythicists? Do you really think that Ehrman or any of you are in any danger of being deceived that I am so claiming? Are you really saying that this widespread practice of scholars quoting individual arguments by other scholars without specifying that they do not agree with the overall thesis being promoted by the quoter is equally objectionable and worthy of condemnation? Or is it only mythicists who are? And if so, why does this make me "not scholarly" if non-mythicists are not when they do the same thing?

Or are you willing to truly admit that you yourselves, along with Ehrman, are idiots? Or are you so desperate for something to use against me, so bankrupt of real and effective counter-arguments against my case, that you will use anything to hand, no matter how dishonorable or deceptive it is?

Earl Doherty

Diogenes the Cynic

They were titles for largely the same function, but they came about at different times. They were never called both at the same time. Prefects were also military leaders and procurators were civilians. There is a distinction of meaning there.

Their functions were largely the same, but those titles were not interchangeable because they existed at different times.

Diogenes the Cynic

For what it's worth, I don't think your work is dishonest or deceptive, and i don't think that particular criticism by Ehrman (that you don't always point out that a particular scholar you quote is not a mythicist) is particularly important or devastating as long as you are not misquoting anybody or taking them out of context (which as far as i know you don't do), but he's not lying about anything. He's drawing an unwarranted inference about it maybe, but not making things up.

EarlDoherty

What a joke!

Someone like Diogenes is bending over backwards (or maybe it's forwards) to accommodate and defend Ehrman's very poor and obviously misleading language on the question of WHERE Ehrman meant the Romans didn't keep records, making not the slightest allowance for any fault on Ehrman's part (or possibly for him trying to worm out of something that he actually did mean in the first place),

yet Doherty the mythicist uses a practice common in scholarship to appeal to individual aspects of other scholars' views, which to a totally ignorant and unthinking reader might conceivably imply in theory that those other scholars are mythicists (!!), and Diogenes will not only refuse to bend over in any direction to acknowledge a perfectly reasonable practice on Doherty's part, he does his best to kick him to the floor on the matter.

If a defender of Protestant Reformism appeals to some discussion by a Catholic theologian and points to a specific interpretation of scripture by the latter as usable support by the former for his defense of Protestantism, does he have to point out that, no, no, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this well-known Catholic theologian is in fact a Protestant, closet or otherwise? Will other Catholic theologians have apoplectic fits and accuse the Protestant of deceit and concealment and trying to make out their colleague as a Protestant?

None of you are covering yourselves with apologetic glory!

What a farce!

Earl Doherty