Toto

If you repeat this, I will close this thread.

It has already been explained to you that Ehrman slanders mythicists in his HuffPo column. His book attacks their arguments, but badly.

What's your problem with this?

Steven Carr

Give me the money, and I will.

By the way, was Carrier right on the money when he pointed out that Ehrman was wrong about Tacitus alleged mistake in calling Pilate a 'procurator'?

Let us quote Ehrman's expert that he wheeled in - ‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job.’'

If only Ehrman had asked an expert before writing the book, or got one of his graduate students to check sources, as he would for one of his scholarly books, but , he tells us, not for his 'popular' books.

Carrier's review expressed disappointment that Ehrman's book was not a work of scholarship, a disappointment that is not assuaged by Ehrman's assurances that it was never intended to be a work of scholarship.

CARRIER
I was certain this would be a great book, the very best in its category. And I said this, publicly, many times in anticipation of it.

GakuseiDon

Dr Price writes this about how Ehrman's book portrays him:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...but-not-cheap/

As an advocate of the theory that there was no historical Jesus, I get “my fair share of abuse.” Take a look at what Bart D. Ehrman says about me in his new book Did Jesus Exist? ... I am there painted as a blatant thought-criminal.

And on Doherty:

Of course it’s nothing compared to his slanderous attack on Earl Doherty! Professor Ehrman must be hoping Doherty, author of Jesus: Neither God nor Man is not in a suing mood.

Pretty strong stuff. Some have already said that Ehrman didn't mock mythicists like that in his book, despite the comment I used in the OP, but it is good to have that confirmed.

Grog

Carr cites page 5 in the book, comparison to Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers would be the gold standard for fallacious reasoning with nefarious intent. (I am aware that there are Holocaust deniers who read this forum.) This would certainly be true within the general population. Ehrman apparently makes the comparison twice, once in his HuffPo piece where he leads the whole article with that comparison and once on page 5 of his book (I don't have his book).

This, as you know, is called poisoning the well and Ehrman uses the tactic masterfully and deliberately to a very wide audience. He paints here with a broad brush making no distinction between PhD mythicists and amateurs. That alone is enough to bring condemnation down on him. Carrier, at least, only addresses Ehrman's arguments in this case.

GakuseiDon

This is from his book:

Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

And so, with Did Jesus Exist?, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

So sounds like it wasn't specific to "Holocaust deniers", but more widely to conspiracy theorists. Which isn't flattering either, of course. But it was more about how conspiracy theorists won't be convinced, rather than a flat "mythicists are like Holocaust deniers".

Actually, I thought he did make distinctions between PhD mythicists and amateurs?

I believe he calls Carrier "one smart fellow" and on Dr Price, he writes "Robert Price is highly trained in the relevant fields of scholarship." Also, Wells, Price and Carrier are described as "serious authors". Can anyone else help with what else he says either good or bad (i.e. not neutral) about Dr Carrier and Dr Price?

Grog

1) Where is he making a distinction here between PhD's and amateurs who hold the view that Jesus was a myth.

2) Here we have it again.

3) Case closed. Thank you much for proving my point.

James The Least

:clapping:

Exactly. The "credentials" of theologians include the dogma that Jesus is real while all the other god-men of the ancient world are myths. And how do we know this? Because the holy scriptures insist that it's all true.

Bible scholars are like the inquisitors of old. Don't question anything we say, because we're the experts and correct interpreters of God's word.

Steven Carr

You mean Ehrman can tell us that Mark produced a saying of Jesus in Aramaic as Jesus brought a dead girl back to life, and people simply will not be convinced, even though some of the story of a dead girl being raised from the dead is in Aramaic?

Toto

Ehrman makes several references to the Holocaust, usually with some sort of implied comparison to mythicists: (I don't know how Kindle locations translate to pages)

He also discusses a novel about the Holocaust and says that the fact that it is a novel does not mean that the Holocaust never happened. (How stupid does he think his readership is? If some novels are written about historical events, does that mean that every novel references a historical event?)

However, he does state that some mythicists are worth taking seriously, even if they are wrong.

I think that Robert Price was referring to the way Ehrman treated his arguments, not that Ehrman made an ad homimen argument against either himself or Doherty.

Toto

A distinction without a difference. Ehrman can't support a direct comparison between mythicists and Holocaust deniers, but he can plant the idea in the readers mind that they are at the same level of crazy denial of facts.

Do you have a copy of the book? Can you not read for yourself? Why are you trying to tease out bits of information from other people and force them into your preconceived categories?

Are you unwilling to buy a copy because, as a believer, you are unwilling to buy books by non believers??