Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 04-25-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Understatement of the year !

Best,
Jiri

I was amazed to see an English translation of his newest (I think) book in the Amazon Kindle store for $3.70 US. Since I haven't been able to read anything of his yet, I scarfed it up. It will be interesting to see what he has to say. I did google translate his reply/review of Ehrman, but it wasn't the best. I did get the basics of it, I think, and it was interesting.

Thanks for the heads up of the availability of this. Is it substantially different than what is already translated in PDF on his site?

Steven Carr · 04-25-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

But to treat a scholar who is actually addressing mythicist arguments -- even if you think it is in a half-assed way -- as though he were but another poster on the Internet is so counter-productive, that it makes mythicists appear indistinguishable from the lunies pushing any number of other fringe ideas. Result: one foot, one gun-shot wound.

GDon has a point.

Ehrman's book wasn't even intended to 'engage with scholarship'.

It seems he didn't even get his graduate students to check he got his facts right, as he would do for his scholarly books.

Hence his putting Pliny's letter number 10, just like a poster on Freeratio who hasn't yet learned that you have to get these things right to get any credibility.

Or not bothering to find out if any scholars had questioned the authenticity of the Annals entry mentioning Jesus before pronouncing that if you don't know of anybody who did, then there just can't have been anybody.

Meanwhile , Ehrman writes a book basically accusing mythicists of making up the existence of statues (because he couldn't be bothered to check if it existed) and then going on radio to laugh at how this statue was 'completely made up', only to write a few days later about how this statue 'does appear to exist.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Let the evidence speak for itself.

Really?

Does this mean we get to see these invisible documents that Ehrman waved around as evidence?

These earlier sources which date to within a few years of the death of Jesus?

We want to see them.

Toto · 04-25-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Bart Ehrman has responded to Carrier: Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier

Thanks for the link, hjalti.

Ehrman writes:

I am absolutely positive that Carrier and his supporters will write response after response to my comments here, digging deeper and deeper to show that I am incompetent. They will expect replies, so that then they can write yet more comments, to which they will expect more replies, so that they can write more comments. I am finding, now that I am becoming active on the Internet, that engaging in discussion here can mean entering into a black hole: there is no way out once you hit the event horizon. Many critics of my work have boundless energy and, seemingly, endless time. I myself have lots of energy, but not lots of time. I have had my say now, in an attempt to show my scholarly competence. I do not plan on pursuing the matter time and time again in this medium.

and

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. There is a big difference. I write both kinds of books. My scholarly books would never be mistaken for books that would be read by a wide, general public...

A non-scholarly book tries to explain things in simple terms, and to do so without the clutter of detail that you would find in a work of scholarship. The book should not be faulted for that. If I had wanted to convince scholars (I’m not sure whom I would then be writing for, in that case) I would have written a different kind of book

But Ehrman would not be looking down that black hole if he had written an honest book that did not exaggerate the extent of the evidence for a historical Jesus or malign mythicists with comparisons to Holocaust deniers.

Quote:

Ehrman has written a popular book for a broad audience, to counter popular books written for a broad audience. The obvious answer here is for mythicists to write scholarly books for scholars. Carrier will be the first to do so, at least in modern times. But his shocking hatchet job on Ehrman, as well as the vitriol directed towards Ehrman on the Internet, is going to make a difficult job impossible. He has set the standard for how his own books can be received. And down the spiral we go.

This makes absolutely no sense. There is no personal vitriol directed at Ehrman. His opponents on this issue all respect his other work.

Quote:

Guys, why do you have to do that? If you have the evidence, let the evidence speak for itself. Maybe on the Internet, a few zingers here or there aren't going to matter. We're all pretty much amateurs here, and that's part of the game. But to treat a scholar who is actually addressing mythicist arguments -- even if you think it is in a half-assed way -- as though he were but another poster on the Internet is so counter-productive, that it makes mythicists appear indistinguishable from the lunies pushing any number of other fringe ideas. Result: one foot, one gun-shot wound.

Let the evidence speak for itself.

The evidence does speak for itself. The evidence is that historical Jesus studeis are intellectually bankrupt.

aa5874 · 04-25-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Bart Ehrman has responded to Carrier: Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier

It is most remarkably that Ehrman still repeats his mistakes in his response to Carrier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ehrman

The Pilate Error
In my book I take the Roman historian Tacitus to task for claiming that Pontius Pilate was a procurator rather than a prefect. The question has little to do with my overall point – that Tacitus is one of the first Roman authors to refer to Jesus – but Carrier takes great offense at my assertion and indicates that it shows that I do not know what I’m talking about.....

Ehrman repeats the very same error that Tacitus refer to Jesus when he did NOT.

Not even Apologetic sources ever claimed Tacitus mentioned Jesus. Not even Eusebius who is accused of forgeries mentioned that Tacitus referred to Jesus.

Eusebius used the forgeries in Josephus for his reference to Jesus in non-apologetic sources.

Steven Carr · 04-25-2012, 03:14 PM

Ehrman couldn’t even be bothered to check which letter by Pliny mentioned Christians.

Scholars already know which letter it is.

But the book wasn’t written for them.

Scholars know that Ehrman’s invisible documents that he waved around as evidence for the existence of Jesus don’t actually exist.

But the book wasn’t written for them.

CARRIER
We don’t in fact have those sources, we aren’t even sure they exist, and even if we were, we have no way of knowing what they said.

CARR
Come on Richard, the book wasn’t written for you.

What do you expect scholarship? Stop saying that we don’t have those sources. The book wasn’t written for you.

Sheesh, Richard. Your expectations were way too high.

Grog · 04-25-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Bart Ehrman has responded to Carrier: Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier

It is interesting to me that Ehrman's response to Carrier's critique is actually better written and argued than his book. It makes me think that he underestimated the adversary here.

I agree that some of Carrier's critique was nitpicking at the insubstantial stuff, as I said in previous posts.

No Robots · 04-25-2012, 03:21 PM

R. Joseph Hoffmann weighs in.

aa5874 · 04-25-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.......Guys, why do you have to do that? If you have the evidence, let the evidence speak for itself. Maybe on the Internet, a few zingers here or there aren't going to matter. We're all pretty much amateurs here, and that's part of the game. But to treat a scholar who is actually addressing mythicist arguments -- even if you think it is in a half-assed way -- as though he were but another poster on the Internet is so counter-productive, that it makes mythicists appear indistinguishable from the lunies pushing any number of other fringe ideas. Result: one foot, one gun-shot wound.

Let the evidence speak for itself.

Is this G'Don who used to be delighted by Carrier reviews on Acharya S?? Well, you got your review of Ehrman from Carrier and he is deemed to be Incompetent.

Carrier was hoping to use Ehrman but incompetency has ruled that out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

....... Let the evidence speak for itself.

Carrier saw evidence of incompetence. It spoke for itself. I have the book. I have the evidence that Carrier used to show Ehrman is incompetent.

Adam · 04-25-2012, 05:12 PM

It has been four days, Shesh,
Since I asked you in Post #113 to verify that you were correct in condemning me for saying that Q1 and the Passion Narrative were originally in Aramaic. So I may have been right after all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Your alleged 'arguments' consist of little more than bald face assertions that the Passion Narrative and 'Q1' were written in Aramaic.
Those who are experienced experts in the Greek language and Mss. are virtually unanimous in their agreement that they were originally composed in Greek and only latter translated into the other languages, including the Aramaic....

Can you name scholars who are sure that the sources Q and Passion Narrative were originally written in Greek? Perhaps they argue that part of each was in Greek (such as Q2) or that each was translated into Greek

And here's what I said earlier in Post #54 in Richard Carrier blogs about Ehrman's article
"Of course, in my own Gospel Eyewitness thread here on FRDB I have argued not just that the Passion Narrative was written in Aramaic, but Q1 as well. I also accept that James R. Edwards in The Hebrew Gospel & the development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) has adequately shown that L is replete with Semitisms (from Hebrew, in his opinion), and displays this quite well in his Appendix II pp. 294-332). All these I include in my "Gospel According to the Atheists".

These three sources in Aramaic are most conveniently found in Posts #1, #5, and #6 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ "

So there is support for Ehrman's wilder claims, even though he is currently ignoring these problems. They are not ideas he himself researched, but he could have cited Casey and Crossley.

MrMacSon · 04-25-2012, 05:42 PM

The fact there were several languages prominent in the region during the times, and that there were likely numerous stories that were being told, in numerous languages, does not make those stories true.

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

04-25-2012, 03:14 PM	#205
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Ehrman couldn’t even be bothered to check which letter by Pliny mentioned Christians. Scholars already know which letter it is. But the book wasn’t written for them. Scholars know that Ehrman’s invisible documents that he waved around as evidence for the existence of Jesus don’t actually exist. But the book wasn’t written for them. CARRIER We don’t in fact have those sources, we aren’t even sure they exist, and even if we were, we have no way of knowing what they said. CARR Come on Richard, the book wasn’t written for you. What do you expect scholarship? Stop saying that we don’t have those sources. The book wasn’t written for you. Sheesh, Richard. Your expectations were way too high.

04-25-2012, 03:21 PM	#207
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	R. Joseph Hoffmann weighs in.

04-25-2012, 05:42 PM	#210
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	The fact there were several languages prominent in the region during the times, and that there were likely numerous stories that were being told, in numerous languages, does not make those stories true.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.