ApostateAbe

Here I review the new e-book Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), written by a menagerie of mythicists uncomfortable being in the same book together, to collectively rebut Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (or via: amazon.co.uk). The introductory sections by Zindler and Price were boring and irrelevant, so I won't review them, but I will spend a little time on part of Richard Carrier's chapter.

Ehrman's book left Carrier "thoroughly disappointed," "shocked," "appalled," and he thence judged Ehrman to be "the very worst defender of the historicity of Jesus," "more of a liability to that cause," whose "inept and illogical approach to the debate only serves to make the defense of historicity look ridiculous." Most damning of all, Ehrman's book resembles "some of the worst Jesus-myth literature." What was so ghastly about Did Jesus Exist? (or via: amazon.co.uk) to make Carrier judge it to be in the same league as The Christ Conspiracy (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

In his first section titled "Failing to Engage the Argument," Richard Carrier claims that Bart Ehrman fails to fully address any single mythicist case by a mythicist author. Carrier is correct, so I don't hold this point against him too much. Ehrman instead does something that I find more preferable: address the arguments that are common among mythicists. A good case can often be condensed into something digestible, but any single mythicist case is meandering and lengthy. To fully rebut one of Earl Doherty's books alone would require a book three times as long. To fully rebut every mythicist book currently on the market would require a publication on the scale of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Not that I completely object to Carrier's point--I would have liked to see something longer from Ehrman.

All three of Carrier, Price and Zindler make clear to the reader in their respective openings that the contributors to this book do not agree with each other. The specifics of the rift are not made explicit in the book, but anyone with background knowledge of mythicism knows that the greatest rift is between Carrier and Murdock. To give you a taste of it, here is a YouTube video of Carrier on Murdock's views. It is a little strange, then, that Carrier comes to the vociferous defense of Murdock against Ehrman's point about the claimed penis-nosed statue of Peter, in his second section, titled "Lying to Cover Up Your Mistakes: The Case of the Priapus Bronze."

But that is only a little strange. Here is what is exceptionally strange: Carrier agrees with Ehrman, dressed up in language of rabid disagreement.

The affair began when DM Murdock (pen name Acharya S) had a pencil-sketched image of a statue of a man with a rooster head and a penis nose (Christ Conspiracy, p. 295). The caption reads: "Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter. Inscription reads 'Savior of the World.' (Walker, WDSSO)." The citation refers to Barbara Walker's 1988 The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects (or via: amazon.co.uk). This image presumably was intended to provide evidence for her claim on page 168 that an erect penis was once a symbol of St. Peter. Ehrman included it in his brief list of Murdock's howlers on page 24.

"'Peter' is not only 'the rock' but also 'the cock,' or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day" [Abe's note: Christ Conspiracy, p. 168]. 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 treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter" (295) [Ehrman's note: 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.]

Murdock was slighted by this, she did the research she should have done before she first published her book, and she presented the findings on her blog (freethoughtnation.com). She finds, by digging backward through the long chain of citations of modern tertiary polemic sources, that the alleged statue is actually a statue of Priapus (with photographic evidence), not of Peter. The Greek god Priapus has absolutely nothing to do with Peter, so Ehrman was right, there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock, but it is just a claim that the author of some book made up (a book resembling Murdock's book). Specifically, the responsibility for this false claim belongs to Murdock's only source: Barbara Walker. So, Murdock apologized and issued a correction.

Just kidding. Murdock stood behind everything she wrote. And Richard Carrier came to her heroic defense, in part by splitting an improbable hair about what Murdock wrote and what she actually meant. Supposedly, Murdock meant to say that a rooster, not the penis-nosed statue featured, is a symbol of St. Peter, and whether or not the statue is a symbol of St. Peter is an open question.

Both Carrier and Murdock take Ehrman to task for claiming (or implying) that Murdock herself simply made the whole thing up. To Carrier's credit, he shows awareness that Ehrman didn't actually claim that the statue did not exist, but Ehrman claimed such a statue of Peter did not exist. To Carrier, this defense "is just a variant of a textbook masked-man fallacy." To me, it was a wise choice of words that communicates the intended meaning. It is not within Ehrman's area of expertise to know whether or not some penis-nosed rooster-head statue exists. But, he damn well better know if such a statue of Peter exists. The choice of words also places the relevance where it belongs. If such a statue of Peter does not exist, then neither does the evidence Murdock pretends for her argument on page 168. You can't use a statue of Priapus as evidence for a point about Peter, except of course in the strange and wonderful world of DM Murdock.

Maybe that is splitting hairs on my part, and maybe Herman actually believed and intended to communicate that no such statue of any sort actually existed. Well, if so, I find it easy to forgive him for that, because if he is wrong there then he is right where it counts regardless: there is no relevant statue of Peter with a rooster head and a penis-nose. Carrier of course is nowhere near as forgiving as that, instead finding the claim an egregious public deception. This example is part of what has made Ehrman's book a "Disaster." It is only the tip of the iceberg, Carrier claims, as a horrible gaffe is contained on just about every page.

This is only the beginning of Carrier's rhetorical barrage. More to come in the next thread, probably next weekend.

Toto

Herman?

I guess that should be Ehrman?

ApostateAbe

You got me there. :blush:

aa5874

I have read "Did Jesus Exist?' by Bart Ehrman and it is exactly as stated by Carrier.

I invite any one who has the book "Did Jesus Exist?" to go to page 180.

The very first sentence.

There is something radically wrong with Ehrman.

How could Ehrman write such a thing and admit that he does NOT know what was originally written? Ehrman himself has shown the Gospels are not historically reliable.

At page 180 the Gospels are among the best attested books but in page 184 it is NOW true they are RIDDLED with accounts of Jesus that most likely did NOT happen.

Now, look at page 184 of Did Jesus Exist?
Ehrman seems to have a "true" problem. He cannot determine what is true. At one time the Gospels are among the besst attested books and other time they are riddled with accounts of Jesus that most likely did not happen.

But, it gets worse.

Ehrman will identify some events in the Gospels as implausible and some that "there is no way this can be historically correct." See page 184 of chapter 6

1. The birth of Jesus in Bethlehem

2. The census by Cyrenius.

3. The release of Barabbas.

4. The Triumphal entry.

Ehrman has discreditted the Gospels as sources of fiction but still claimed they are well attested and used them for the history of his Jesus.

There can be no worse argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth book than "Did Jesus Exist?" by Ehrman.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

I'm going by memory here, so I could be wrong, but I think the problem was that Ehrman dismissed all of Murdock's work by taking a single fact out of it and claiming that there was no such object and she made it up. While, she may have mis-categorized the object, she certainly didn't make it up. If you're going to rip apart somebody's work then at least do a good job of ripping it apart. Simply taking a single fact of dubious significance to her major theory and saying she made it up does not really show that he has studied her work and it is not a real refutation of her work. Ehrman could have just as well said, "I do not like what she has to say, so don't listen to her." That would have been more honest rather than a highly dubious accusation that is meant to question her whole competency as a researcher without subjecting her work to real criticism.

I have mixed feelings about Ms. Murdock's work as I recall having read a some of it five or six years ago. I found some of it is really interesting and well put together and some of it is over the top (in a field where over the top is the norm). Certainly Ehrman's criticism was not the sharp, well-developed and well-argued type of criticism that I would have liked. It was dismissive and nasty, but not really useful in understanding her work.

If you promise to refute somebody, you can't just come out and say, "That person is a liar. There, I have refuted them."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ApostateAbe

The point about the bust of Priapus was only one of a bullet list of eleven points that Ehrman made against Murdock's book. The list was brief and came off as an explanation to the reader, "Here is why I am giving Murdock so little attention." He devotes much more space to Price, Wells and Doherty. He doesn't seem to specifically claim that Murdock herself made up the evidence, only "books like this," which turned out to be correct, and it makes sense given that Murdock cited a source (a book like her own) next to her claim.

Tenorikuma

Ehrman appeared on a recorded radio show around the same time, and specifically said that Murdock had just "made it up." Someone posted a link to the recording in a blog comment when Ehrman claimed he had not accused her of making it up.

Stringbean

Good review Abe....been holding off buying that book but now you have peaked my curosity.

Robert Tulip

And only one of those eleven points, regarding dates of Augustine, was an error on Murdock's part, and was a mere erratum with no impact on her overall thesis. The rest were just biased and incorrect interpretations by Ehrman rather like the rooster, where Ehrman was basically wrong, lazy and sloppy.

Ehrman's rejection of Murdock's natural theology is based on his political/commercial opinion that exposing the Christ Myth is unacceptable. Ehrman fails to engage with evidence.

ApostateAbe

OK, so why do you think Murdock used a bust of Priapus to make a point about a penis being a symbol of St. Peter?