Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chocky · 04-20-2012, 04:19 AM

All the book really does is exposes Ehrman as careless to the other side of his audience. Having just finished a degree in Biblical Studies I found it interesting that for one of the supposed "top scholars" in the field, very little he wrote was ever worth using. He has made a career out of popularising and watering things down.

There are far better scholars out there who only publish specialist books and articles, but they seem to be happily deluded that mythicism poses no threat at all.

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2012, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think Carrier succeeds at bringing up some mistakes in Ehrman's research but a lot of it seems like he is gnawing at the margins. Maybe Ehrman didn't treat the mythicists with the respect they deserved but is a heavy-weight fighter to be faulted for not training very hard to fight a guy in a wheelchair?

A lot of these arguments come down to things like 'Ehrman says there are no free giveaways at Starbucks, well let me tell you a friend of mine just got a free cup of coffee.'

Yes, I got that impression from Carrier's review as well. Take his first point, for example. Under the heading "Errors of Fact":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Errors of Fact

This is just a selection, to collectively illustrate a general point:

The Priapus Bronze: In response to D.M. Murdock’s claim that there is a statue of a penis-nosed cockerel (which she says is a “symbol of St. Peter”) in the Vatican museum, Ehrman says that “there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up” (p. 24). Ehrman evidently did no research on this and did not check this claim at all. Murdock quickly exposed this by providing numerous scholarly references, including actual photographs of the objec

Now, it is obvious that Ehrman is right when he writes that "“there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else". Carrier responds that "Murdock quickly exposed this by providing numerous scholarly references", to the effect that the statue was... not of Peter.

So, there was such a statue of Priapus. But how is that an "error of fact" on Ehrman's part? And while such a statue of Peter might be relevant to the Christ Myth debate, how is a statue of Priapus relevant? It is a strange objection from Carrier.

This is from Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy", page 168:

Quote:

"Peter" is not only "the rock" but also "the cock", or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day. As Walker says, "The cock was also a symbol of Saint Peter, whose name also meant a phallus or male principle (pater) and a phallic pillar (petra). Therefore, the cock's image was often placed atop church towers." Higgins elucidates on the phallic nature of Peter the rock:

On this stone, which was the emblem of the male generative principle, the Linga, Jesus founded his church...

Furthermore, the veneration of the peter or lingam is reflective of the homoeroticism within the patriarchal cults. So fervent was this lingam-worship that the "cock" was considered the "Saviour of the World"

If Acharya S is saying the sculpture is related to Christianity, then how is it related? And if she is saying it is not related to Christianity, then what is the point?

dog-on · 04-20-2012, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think Carrier succeeds at bringing up some mistakes in Ehrman's research but a lot of it seems like he is gnawing at the margins. Maybe Ehrman didn't treat the mythicists with the respect they deserved but is a heavy-weight fighter to be faulted for not training very hard to fight a guy in a wheelchair?

A lot of these arguments come down to things like 'Ehrman says there are no free giveaways at Starbucks, well let me tell you a friend of mine just got a free cup of coffee.'

Yes, I got that impression from Carrier's review as well. Take his first point, for example. Under the heading "Errors of Fact":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Errors of Fact

This is just a selection, to collectively illustrate a general point:

The Priapus Bronze: In response to D.M. Murdock’s claim that there is a statue of a penis-nosed cockerel (which she says is a “symbol of St. Peter”) in the Vatican museum, Ehrman says that “there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up” (p. 24). Ehrman evidently did no research on this and did not check this claim at all. Murdock quickly exposed this by providing numerous scholarly references, including actual photographs of the objec

Now, it is obvious that Ehrman is right when he writes that "“there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else". Carrier responds that "Murdock quickly exposed this by providing numerous scholarly references" to the effect that the statue was of... Priapus.

So, there was such a statue of Priapus. But how is that an "error of fact" on Ehrman's part? And while such a statue of Peter might be relevant to the Christ Myth debate, how is a statue of Priapus relevant? It is a strange objection from Carrier.

I think Carrier's point is that Ehrman is being sloppy, which he is.

Quote:

It does not have the name “Peter” on it (Murdock never claimed it did; that it represents him is only an interpretation), but it apparently exists (or did exist) exactly as she describes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

I do not assume Murdock’s interpretation of the object is correct (there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter). But it’s existence appears to be beyond dispute. She did not make that up.

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2012, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think Carrier's point is that Ehrman is being sloppy, which he is.

No, Carrier calls it an "error of fact". What fact is at error?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

It does not have the name “Peter” on it (Murdock never claimed it did; that it represents him is only an interpretation), but it apparently exists (or did exist) exactly as she describes.

"That it represents him [Peter] is only an interpretation". Is it a CORRECT interpretation? If not, then how is Ehrman's comment an error?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

I do not assume Murdock’s interpretation of the object is correct (there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter). But it’s existence appears to be beyond dispute. She did not make that up.

The existence of WHAT is beyond dispute?

dog-on · 04-20-2012, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think Carrier's point is that Ehrman is being sloppy, which he is.

No, Carrier calls it an "error of fact". What fact is at error?

That there exists such a statue somewhere other than a book like AS's, obviously, regardless of what it is interpreted to be a statue representing.

Quote:

"That it represents him [Peter] is only an interpretation". Is it a CORRECT interpretation? If not, then how is Ehrman's comment an error?

Perhaps, perhaps not. You could, I suppose dig up the sculptor and ask him if you wish to know for sure, but barring that... Proving a negative is a bitch...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

I do not assume Murdock’s interpretation of the object is correct (there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter). But it’s existence appears to be beyond dispute. She did not make that up.

The existence of WHAT is beyond dispute?

The existence of the statue that Murdoch interprets as being Peter Dicknose.

Steven Carr · 04-20-2012, 06:15 AM

Ehrman
'Here Acharya shows (her own?) hand drawing of a man with a rooster head but with a large erect penis instead of a nose, with this description: "Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasure [sic] of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter"' [There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up)

CARR
Ehrman is correct. There is no such statue of Peter...

... except that Acharya used the word 'symbol', and Ehrman claimed she meant a statue of Peter himself.

Perhaps Ehrman didn't know what 'symbol' meant??

And Ehrman clearly insinuates that Archarya drew it herself and just made it up.

But please feel free to quote Archarya claiming it is a statue of Peter himself. Go ahead, help yourself....

Or did Ehrman just make that up?

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2012, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think Carrier's point is that Ehrman is being sloppy, which he is.

No, Carrier calls it an "error of fact". What fact is at error?

That there exists such a statue somewhere other than a book like AS's, obviously, regardless of what it is interpreted to be a statue representing.

"Regardless of what it is interpreted to be"? Ehrman is assuming that Acharya S interprets the statue as representing Peter. Carrier agrees. Otherwise, what is the point of her bringing this up? Ehrman counters that there is no such statue of Peter, either in the Vatican or anywhere else. The book is countering mythicism, after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

I do not assume Murdock’s interpretation of the object is correct (there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter). But it’s existence appears to be beyond dispute. She did not make that up.

The existence of WHAT is beyond dispute?

The existence of the statue that Murdoch interprets as being Peter Dicknose.

And is Ehrman denying the existence of the statue that Murdock interprets as being Peter Dicknose? Or is he denying the existence of any statue of Peter Dicknose, in the Vatican and elsewhere?

dog-on · 04-20-2012, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The existence of the statue that Murdoch interprets as being Peter Dicknose.

And is Ehrman denying the existence of the statue that Murdock interprets as being Peter Dicknose? Or is he denying the existence of any statue of Peter Dicknose, in the Vatican and elsewhere?

Ehrman says that it exists only in her book, or books like hers. He does not say that the statue exists, but AS's interpretation leaves something to be desired.

Sloppy...

GakuseiDon · 04-20-2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

[Ehrman says that it exists only in her book, or books like hers. He does not say that the statue exists, but AS's interpretation leaves something to be desired.

Sloppy...

In fact, this is what he wrote: "There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else..."

Is he correct? Yes. Does Carrier believe that Acharya was interpreting the statue as representing Peter? Yes. Does Carrier disagree with that intepretation? Yes, Carrier writes: "there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter". So Ehrman's comment that "there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else" is correct. And he isn't just talking about that statue, but as a general statement, which the "or anywhere else" makes clear.

Carrier wants to make it appear that Ehrman is focusing just on that statue, and denies that there was any statue at all. But remember the topic Ehrman is addressing. Why should Ehrman care about a statue that has nothing to do with Christianity? He isn't just denying that the statue that Acharya S is interpreting has anything to do with Peter, he is making the stronger claim that there are no such statues anywhere.

dog-on · 04-20-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

[Ehrman says that it exists only in her book, or books like hers. He does not say that the statue exists, but AS's interpretation leaves something to be desired.

Sloppy...

In fact, this is what he wrote: "There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else..."Is he correct? Yes. Does Carrier believe that Acharya was interpreting the statue as representing Peter? Yes. Does Carrier disagree with that intepretation? Yes, Carrier writes: "there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter". So Ehrman's comment that "there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock" is correct.

Carrier wants to make it appear that Ehrman denies that there was any statue at all. But remember the topic Ehrman is addressing. Why should Ehrman care about a statue that has nothing to do with Christianity? He isn't just denying that the statue that Acharya S is interpreting has anything to do with Peter, he is making the stronger claim that there are no such statues anywhere.

What he said was sloppy and in the context, a misrepresentation of the actual facts. If he didn't buy AS's particular interpretation, he could have easily made his case.

and you left off "except in books like this, which love to make things up" from your Ehrman quote above.

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

04-20-2012, 04:19 AM	#11
Chocky Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 40	All the book really does is exposes Ehrman as careless to the other side of his audience. Having just finished a degree in Biblical Studies I found it interesting that for one of the supposed "top scholars" in the field, very little he wrote was ever worth using. He has made a career out of popularising and watering things down. There are far better scholars out there who only publish specialist books and articles, but they seem to be happily deluded that mythicism poses no threat at all.

04-20-2012, 06:15 AM	#16
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Ehrman 'Here Acharya shows (her own?) hand drawing of a man with a rooster head but with a large erect penis instead of a nose, with this description: "Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasure [sic] of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter"' [There is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up) CARR Ehrman is correct. There is no such statue of Peter... ... except that Acharya used the word 'symbol', and Ehrman claimed she meant a statue of Peter himself. Perhaps Ehrman didn't know what 'symbol' meant?? And Ehrman clearly insinuates that Archarya drew it herself and just made it up. But please feel free to quote Archarya claiming it is a statue of Peter himself. Go ahead, help yourself.... Or did Ehrman just make that up?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.