FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-21-2012, 06:25 PM   #121
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post

...
“... not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone living in the first century. We simply don't have birth notices, trial records, death certificates or other standard kinds of records that one has today.”
It sounds to me like Ehrman is saying that we have few records of anyone living in the First Century, and don't have the "standard kinds of records" available to check that one has today. A charitable reading might suggest that Ehrman was speaking in relative terms rather than absolute.

I thought initially that Carrier was taking Ehrman in absolute terms. I.e. Ehrman is claiming no such records exist today. But Carrier appears to read Ehrman as claiming that the Romans simply didn't keep such records AT ALL. Which of course would be an extraordinary statement by Ehrman. Carrier explains (my bolding):
Although his conclusion is correct (we should not expect to have any such records for Jesus or early Christianity), his premise is false. In fact, I cannot believe he said this. How can he not know that we have thousands of these kinds of records? Yes, predominantly from the sands of Egypt, but even in some cases beyond. I have literally held some of these documents in my very hands. More importantly, we also have such documents quoted or cited in books whose texts have survived. For instance, Suetonius references birth records for Caligula, and in fact his discussion of the sources on this subject is an example I have used of precisely the kind of historical research that is conspicuously lacking in any Christian literature before the third century...

Ehrman only demonstrates how little we can trust his knowledge or research when he says such silly things like, “If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don’t have any” (p. 44). He really seems to think, or is misleading any lay reader to think, that (a) we don’t have any such records (when in fact we have many) and that (b) our not having them means Romans never kept them...
Can someone with Ehrman's book check the context of Ehrman's quote above against what he says elsewhere in the book? Is Ehrman apparently suggesting that the Romans never kept such records AT ALL?
The context is that Ehrman is listing erroneous statements made by Acharya S, including her claim that the Romans kept careful meticulous records, so it is an anomaly that we don't have any records of Jesus' trial. He then mocked this statement, saying, if the Romans were such good record keepers, why don't we have anybody's birth records, death records, etc.?

Ehrman's statement is not precise, but he did seem to dispute the idea that the Romans kept records of births and deaths. I suspect he would like to rewrite that sentence.

I have a Kindle for PC version, and a search on a few key terms does not show any other place where Ehrman discusses Roman record keeping. I suspect that is sufficiently outside his area of expertise that he does not in fact know the details of Roman vital statistics, birth records, etc.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 06:26 PM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
DonG:

It is hard to tell what Ehrman means, but I'm going to go with the charitable interpretation here. If only Ehrman had spent less time misrepresenting what mythicists are and more time defining what he meant.....
Surely he is referring to "detailed records" here. What claim is Ehrman responding to? If it is to a mythicist book claiming that "Romans kept detailed records of everything", then Ehrnan's comment makes sense.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 06:31 PM   #123
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
DonG:

It is hard to tell what Ehrman means, but I'm going to go with the charitable interpretation here. If only Ehrman had spent less time misrepresenting what mythicists are and more time defining what he meant.....
Surely he is referring to "detailed records" here. What claim is Ehrman responding to? If it is to a mythicist book claiming that "Romans kept detailed records of everything", then Ehrnan's comment makes sense.
Acharya S makes the claim, which I have heard before, that the Romans kept detailed records of everything, so the fact that we don't have records of Jesus is evidence of absence.

The reason this is not a good argument is not that Romans records weren't good enough, but that after 2000 years, most of the records have not survived.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 06:47 PM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
So Bart Ehrman is actually claiming in DJE that (to quote Carrier) "Romans never kept them", with "them" being "birth notices, trial records, death certificates—or other kinds of records that one has today”?
On second thought, the "if romans kept such records...." suggests that Ehrman is denying that they ever did.

Vorkosigan
Isn't Ehrman specifying "the world of Roman Palestine" in that extract you pasted? It looks like he was going to go on to discuss records kept about Pilate, "the single most important" [man in that part of the world at that time?]. I suspect he is reacting to a mythicist claim about records kept in that part of the world, esp trials like that about Jesus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carrier appears to be extrapolating this to a general comment about Romans throughout the Roman world.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 06:49 PM   #125
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post

On second thought, the "if romans kept such records...." suggests that Ehrman is denying that they ever did.

Vorkosigan
Isn't Ehrman specifying "the world of Roman Palestine" in that extract you pasted? It looks like he was going to go on to discuss records from the time of Pilate. I suspect he is reacting to a claim that the Romans in that part of the world would have kept records of Jesus and his trial before Pilate, or something of that nature.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carrier appears to be extrapolating this to a general comment about Romans throughout the Roman world.
I think you may be right. But Ehrman reiterates this point later. Is the other quote in an identical context?

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 07:04 PM   #126
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post

On second thought, the "if romans kept such records...." suggests that Ehrman is denying that they ever did.

Vorkosigan
Isn't Ehrman specifying "the world of Roman Palestine" in that extract you pasted? ....
No, he's not.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 07:19 PM   #127
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Acharya S makes the claim, which I have heard before, that the Romans kept detailed records of everything, so the fact that we don't have records of Jesus is evidence of absence.

The reason this is not a good argument is not that Romans records weren't good enough, but that after 2000 years, most of the records have not survived.
Toto, where did Acharya make such a claim??? This is EXACTLY what Dave is talking about. People here are making statements that they themselves cannot verify.

We have the statement of Carrier that Ehrman is INCOMPETENT and we have Ehrman's book.

Let us NOT divert from the OP.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 07:23 PM   #128
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Isn't Ehrman specifying "the world of Roman Palestine" in that extract you pasted? It looks like he was going to go on to discuss records from the time of Pilate. I suspect he is reacting to a claim that the Romans in that part of the world would have kept records of Jesus and his trial before Pilate, or something of that nature.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Carrier appears to be extrapolating this to a general comment about Romans throughout the Roman world.
I think you may be right. But Ehrman reiterates this point later. Is the other quote in an identical context?
Yes, that's what I'm wondering. What is the context of Ehrman's statement:
"... not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone living in the first century. We simply don't have birth notices, trial records, death certificates or other standard kinds of records that one has today.”
Ehrman uses the present tense: "We simply don't have, etc" I find it hard to believe that Ehrman is claiming that the Romans never kept such records at all, or as Carrier puts it: "our not having them means Romans never kept them". Maybe Ehrman is claiming that all such records have gone, but Ehrman does say just before "NEARLY anyone living in the first century". So I'm wondering about the context there.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 07:23 PM   #129
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Well, for what it's worth, we all agree that Acharya is wrong!
hjalti is offline  
Old 04-21-2012, 07:31 PM   #130
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai (late first/early second century) claims that he found a scroll of genealogical record in Jerusalem, in which was written: A certain person was illegitimately born of a married woman (m. Yebam. 4:13; cf. b. Yebam. 49a). This was understood to apply to Jesus. This in no way proves that Jesus existed, only that the Jews thought he was a mamzer - perhaps owing to gnostic speculation about the fall of Sophia?
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:30 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.