Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-22-2012, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Given what I've heard and read from Ehrman (and how he has responded to questions concerning records before) I think he means "we have no Roman sources written while Pilate was alive." Carrier discusses Philo, but as to whether Pilate was still alive we only get "probably." Of course, Philo was Jewish, and wrote in Greek, so how he constitutes a Roman source even if Pilate was still alive (let alone a "secular" source) is something I don't understand.

I've no doubt that Ehrman, who spends more time selling and promoting popular works than he does on research and producing scholarship, has made many a claim that, under scrutiny, can be seen as fallacious. The same, however, is true of Carrier. For example, it is patently false that "The only explanation for why Philo never mentions Christianity is that it was not as important to Jews as Acts depicts, but was a tiny fringe cult of no significant interest to the Jewish elite." There are obviously other explanations (e.g., Philo didn't want to contribute to the spread of christianity by disseminating information about christians, or that he wrote an entire work about Jesus and christianity which was lost). These explanations may be improbable, even vastly improbable, but there are clearly other explanations. Carrier's nitpicking could just as well be turned on his own public statements.

Ehrman's claim does NOT make much sense.

First of all Josephus was born more than a DECADE after Pilate was governor of Judea so it MUST mean that there was a some ROMAN Record that Pilate was governor of Judea WHICH WAS known to Josephus.

It is WHOLLY Ridiculous that there was NO ROMAN records of a Roman Governor named Pilate.

Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews [c 93 CE] about 60 years AFTER Pilate was governor of Judea so there MUST have had some record of Pilate.

Just the mere fact THAT PILATE was a ROMAN Governor MUST mean that it was RECORDED in ROME.

Erhman is INCOMPETENT.

youngalexander · 03-22-2012, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

Amazon just reported that it shipped my copy of his book yesterday as well, so I will be able to review it soon.
...............................................
I am puzzled especially because this HuffPo article as written makes several glaring errors and rhetorical howlers that I cannot believe any competent scholar would have written. Surely he is more careful and qualified in the book? I really hope so. Because I was expecting it to be the best case for historicism in print. But if it's going to be like this article, it's going to be the worst piece of scholarship ever written. So stay tuned for my future review of his book. For now, I will address this brief article, not knowing how his book might yet rescue him from an epic fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So it wasn't hard to track down Ehrman's thoughts in his book.
.................................................. ..
Here is what Ehrman writes in his book (my emphasis):
.................................................. ..
Carrier then writes what he thinks Ehrman should have mentioned in his article,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

I'm told he might make a cleaner distinction between quality and crank mythicism in his book. But many more people will read this article than his book. It's therefore irresponsible of him to cast this nuance to the wind.

Carrier was referring only to the article. He states explicitly that he is yet to receive a copy of the book.

LegionOnomaMoi · 03-22-2012, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Ehrman's claim does NOT make much sense.

First of all Josephus was born more than a DECADE after Pilate was governor of Judea so it MUST mean that there was a some ROMAN Record that Pilate was governor of Judea WHICH WAS known to Josephus.

Ehrman never claimed that wasn't true: "It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate."

He doesn't claim that there is no record. We just don't have it. As for whether or not Josephus' account "MUST mean there was a SOME ROMAN Record" that seems to violate your historiographic "rules." We can only deal with EVIDENCE, as you say, and Josephus is not EVIDENCE of roman records. You are inferring and coming to conclusions which is not actually stated. And your "rules" forbid this.

Quote:

It is WHOLLY Ridiculous that there was NO ROMAN records of a Roman Governor named Pilate.

We don't have them. And, in your view, we can't simply infer what isn't stated in our EVIDENCE.

Quote:

Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews [c 93 CE] about 60 years AFTER Pilate was governor of Judea so there MUST have had some record of Pilate.

You are inferring. Where is the EVIDENCE?

Quote:

Just the mere fact THAT PILATE was a ROMAN Governor MUST mean that it was RECORDED in ROME.

Sure. By the gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

GakuseiDon · 03-23-2012, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Don,

I think you got lost a bit in your argument. First, is what Carrier charges against Ehrman in Error #1 true or not ? Is it factually a mistake or grossly misleading to say “not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” ?

If by "Roman sources" Ehrman meant Josephus, Philo and the Pilate inscription, then yes. If Ehrman meant Roman records, then no. From looking at his book, and finding him referring to Philo, Josephus and the Pilate inscription as sources for Pilate, I suggest it is the latter.

This is what Carrier writes in his blog (my emphasis):

Worst of all is the fact that Ehrman’s claim is completely false even on the most disingenuous possible reading of his statement. For we have an inscription, commissioned by Pilate himself, attesting to his existence and service in Judea. That’s as “Roman” an attestation as you can get...

And one of the most fundamental requirements of Ehrman’s profession is to check what sources we have on Pilate, before making a claim that we have no early ones. Ehrman thus demonstrates that he didn’t check; which is an amateur mistake. I’ve occasionally made errors like that, but only in matters of considerable complexity. We’re talking about something he could have corrected with just sixty seconds on google.

If Carrier had spent sixty seconds in the preview of Ehrman's book, he would have found that Ehrman refers to the inscription twice, and refers to Philo and Josephus as sources for Pilate.

As an aside: Carrier writes about "intellectual charity" at the start of his book "Sense and goodness without God", page 6 (my emphasis):

For all readers, I ask that my work be approached with the same intellectual charity you would expect from anyone else... ordinary language is necessarily ambiguous and open to many different interpretations. If what I say anywhere in this book appears to contradict, directly or indirectly, something else I say here, the principle of interpretive charity should be applied: assume you are misreading the meaning of what I said in each or either case. Whatever interpretation would eliminate the contradiction and produce agreement is probably correct. So you are encouraged in every problem that may trouble you to find that interpretation. If all attempts at this fail, and you cannot but see a contradiction remaining, you should write to me about this at once, for the manner of my expression may need expansion or correction in a future edition to remove the difficuty, or I might really have goofed up and need to correct a mistake...

It is the tone of Carrier's blog that shocks me. Ehrman's article in the Huff Post is a teaser for his book. But Carrier is treating the article as though Ehrman was making in-depth analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Second, the hyper-specific "Roman records" is a red herring. Ehrman wants to let on that the "modern myth" that Romans kept written logs about everything and therefore would have one of Jesus trial before Pilate is something that most "mythicists" believe. BS! No one I know believes that; such an argument never actually figures as a substantive issue in any theory he cites. (I am not vouching for Miss Murdock). So why this silly patter ?

Well, hopefully Ehrman is reading this. It is a good lesson for him. People are going to jump all over his words, even in a puff piece like the Huff Post.

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Don,

I think you got lost a bit in your argument. First, is what Carrier charges against Ehrman in Error #1 true or not ? Is it factually a mistake or grossly misleading to say “not even … the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate” is “mentioned in any Roman sources of his day.” ?

If by "Roman sources" Ehrman meant Josephus, Philo and the Pilate inscription, then yes. If Ehrman meant Roman records, then no. From looking at his book, and finding him referring to Philo, Josephus and the Pilate inscription as sources for Pilate, I suggest it is the latter....

Ehrman's statement does NOT make sense.

Pontius Pilate was a Roman Governor so there MUST have been ROMAN RECORDS of His day that he was GOVERNOR of Judea.

There MUST be ROMAN RECORDS of the ROMAN GOVERNORS PRECISELY when they Govern.

Steven Carr · 03-23-2012, 12:15 AM

So Ehrman's article says there are no Roman records for Pilate, just like there are no Roman records for Jesus.

But Don reminds us that Ehrman actually means there are Roman records for Pilate, and we should cut the guy some slack.

When Ehrman says there are no Roman records for Pilate , it is only charitable to interpret this as a claim that there are Roman records for Pilate.

But people are going to jump all over your words. If you say something that is the exact opposite of the truth, there are always vicious, uncharitable people who will say 'That is not true'.

It is only fair to point out that Ehrman totally contradicts his Huff Post article in his book, as Gakusei Don reminds us.

Don reminds us that people who read Bart's book will realise just how wrong his article is, and should refrain from pointing out that Bart's article contradicts his own book.

LegionOnomaMoi · 03-23-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Pontius Pilate was a Roman Governor so there MUST have been ROMAN RECORDS of His day that he was GOVERNOR of Judea.

You are ASSUMING this. You must use EVIDENCE. The fact that Josephus states that he is a governer is not EVIDENCE of roman records. And Josephus also states Moses and Abraham were historical too. So we have EVIDENCE of MYTH.

Quote:

There MUST be ROMAN RECORDS of the ROMAN GOVERNORS PRECISELY when they Govern.

How do you know he was a governer? From Philo? Josephus? The Gospels? Some inscription? We have all that for Zeus, Apollo, Jesus, Moses, etc. It's all EVIDENCE of MYTH. Quite the double standard you have.

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Pontius Pilate was a Roman Governor so there MUST have been ROMAN RECORDS of His day that he was GOVERNOR of Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

You are ASSUMING this. You must use EVIDENCE. The fact that Josephus states that he is a governer is not EVIDENCE of roman records. And Josephus also states Moses and Abraham were historical too. So we have EVIDENCE of MYTH...

Are you assuming that PILATE was an UNDOCUMENTED Governor of Judea and that Tiberius did NOT know he was there???

What absurd statement you make!!! You ARE putting forward a most illogical notion that Tiberius the Emperor of Rome was NOT aware the PILATE was governor and that in HIS DAY there was NO RECORD of Pilate as Governor OF Judea

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There MUST be ROMAN RECORDS of the ROMAN GOVERNORS PRECISELY when they Govern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

How do you know he was a governer? From Philo? Josephus? The Gospels? Some inscription? We have all that for Zeus, Apollo, Jesus, Moses, etc. It's all EVIDENCE of MYTH. Quite the double standard you have.

What a load of BS. How do you know there were characters [real or imagined] called PHILO, JOSEPHUS, ZEUS, APOLLO, JESUS, MOSES...?????

You were NOT living 2000 YEARS ago!!!!

Your statements are so bizarre.

You are extremely weak on the application of logics.

LegionOnomaMoi · 03-23-2012, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you assuming that PILATE was an UNDOCUMENTED Governor of Judea and that Tiberius did NOT know he was there???

No. I'm simply applying your historical method. According to you, we can only deal with EVIDENCE we actually have; we can't infer, read into, or extrapolate from texts. That's why (according to you) we cannot accept any and all evidence of a historical Jesus: there's EVIDENCE of MYTH and so forth, thus inference and other logical conclusions are meaningless.

So how do you know that Pilate was a governer at all? What evidence do you have, which does not also make use of myth/magic/theology/etc. (or, when it comes to the inscriptions, is also evidence of any number of greco-roman gods) that Pilate existed?

Quote:

What a load of BS. How do you know there were characters [real or imagined] called PHILO, JOSEPHUS, ZEUS, APOLLO, JESUS, MOSES...?????

You were NOT living 2000 YEARS ago!!!!

Neither were you. Yet you seem to think we have good evidence Pilate existed. Based on what source?

Quote:

You are extremely weak on the application of logics.

And again you use the plural.

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you assuming that PILATE was an UNDOCUMENTED Governor of Judea and that Tiberius did NOT know he was there???

No. I'm simply applying your historical method. According to you, we can only deal with EVIDENCE we actually have; we can't infer, read into, or extrapolate from texts. That's why (according to you) we cannot accept any and all evidence of a historical Jesus: there's EVIDENCE of MYTH and so forth, thus inference and other logical conclusions are meaningless.

So how do you know that Pilate was a governer at all? What evidence do you have, which does not also make use of myth/magic/theology/etc. (or, when it comes to the inscriptions, is also evidence of any number of greco-roman gods) that Pilate existed?..

How do you know there was some one named Pilate??? How do you know there was a character [real or imagined] called Jesus???

You don't know how to apply logics that is PRECISELY why you are so confused.

You cannot differentiate between MYTH and reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What a load of BS. How do you know there were characters [real or imagined] called PHILO, JOSEPHUS, ZEUS, APOLLO, JESUS, MOSES...?????

You were NOT living 2000 YEARS ago!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Neither were you. Yet you seem to think we have good evidence Pilate existed. Based on what source?

Well, don't tell me anything about Paul, Philo, Pilate, Jesus, Moses, Zeus. Apollo, Tiberius.......or any figures of antiquity.

You don't have any good evidence.

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

03-23-2012, 12:15 AM	#26
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	So Ehrman's article says there are no Roman records for Pilate, just like there are no Roman records for Jesus. But Don reminds us that Ehrman actually means there are Roman records for Pilate, and we should cut the guy some slack. When Ehrman says there are no Roman records for Pilate , it is only charitable to interpret this as a claim that there are Roman records for Pilate. But people are going to jump all over your words. If you say something that is the exact opposite of the truth, there are always vicious, uncharitable people who will say 'That is not true'. It is only fair to point out that Ehrman totally contradicts his Huff Post article in his book, as Gakusei Don reminds us. Don reminds us that people who read Bart's book will realise just how wrong his article is, and should refrain from pointing out that Bart's article contradicts his own book.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.