Ted Hoffman

Doherty never claims any scholar agrees with his "overall thesis" if you want the answer to that, it is you to do the research. Even Carrier may not agree with Doherty's "overall thesis" (we wont know until he publishes his book) - though he favours and leans towards Doherty's theory. Even Bob Price favours Doherty's thesis. Thomas L. Thompson would agree with Doherty but I am not sure he has read Doherty's book.

Grog

I think you might be missing the point.

thief of fire

Sorry I meant overarching thesis not "overall"

I might be missing the point, but you are saying that Ehrman claimed Doherty never points out that none of the scholars [that he quotes?] agree with his overarching thesis.
But you say this is a false charge. In what way is the charge false.

thief of fire

Which is?

thief of fire

Ehrman corrects himself to claim that Ehrman has a PhD is Ancient History.
You are saying Carrier has a degree in "early christian history"?

Just what is a degree in "early christian history"?

According to Wiki he has a BA (History), MA (Ancient history), MPhil (Ancient history), PhD (Ancient history)

No mention of this category "early christian history".



Uh huh.

Wow! Guilty of phrasing something badly. A win for the mythicists I guess.

Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman does not say that NO mythicists have relevant degrees and specifically acknowledges it in the case of both Carrier and Price as well as GA Wells and Thompson. He acknowledges every single one of them in his book as being credentialed.
What charge is that? There is no factual error here. He was mildly rude to Acharya S. So what? That proves Jesus never existed?
What false charge did Ehrman make? It's true that Doherty often quote scholars without acknowledging that they believe in a historical Jesus.
This is a mischaracterization, and an irrelevant one. He simplified material for a lay audience, but he did not present anything factually false.
Pilate was, in fact, a Prefect, not a Procurator. The title of "procurator" is anachronistic relative to Pilate. carrier tries to argue that they are the same thing, or close enough top the same thing that the titles are fungible. Ehrman cites an unnamed expert on Rome to rebut this.
This is a perfect example of simply over-parsing the way words are phrased to pretend to have spotted an error. Carrier references a cache of Egyptian documents which have no relevance to Judea, which is what Ehrman was talking about.

The rest later.....

Steven Carr

As Ehrman has been forced to say that his book was never intended to engage with scholarship, and that Carrier was wrong to expect the book to be different from what it was, it seems we will have to wait for a work of scholarship on mythicism.

Carrier put his criticism in order of seriousness, with the most serious at the end.

Steven Carr

Let's have a look at this rebuttal that the titles are fungible, and this rebuttal of Carrier's claim that they are close enough.

For those of you who do not like to see Carrier's nose rubbed in it, look away now.

This is not going to be pretty for Carrier fans.

EHRMAN EXPERT
‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job.

CARR
Wow!

That really puts a spoke in Carrier's claim that the two titles are close enough that either could be used.

That had to sting, when Ehman read that. Still, he was honest enough to publish it, which does him great credit. He didn't try to spin it away by saying that his unnamed expert actually meant the titles were totally different.

So +10 to Ehrman for integrity there.

thief of fire

Who ever expected Bart Ehrman to write the book for scholars? Only a fool would have expected that. Bart wites books to sell to the masses (there may be one exception to that).

Yes, Carrier was foolish to expect otherwise.

We wont be seeing it. First we need something from mythicists aimed at serious scholars, or something peer reviewed.
Scholars dont tend to take fringe theories that dont appear in scholarly circles that seriously. Why would they? There are endless amounts of such theories. Why would a scholar bother to write something for scholars on mythicism when it isnt really on their radar?

Grog

Well which is it then? When he says that mythicists don't have degrees and then he says they do, that sounds like talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Ehrman admits error here, or at least not clarity.

Can you provide an example of when Doherty does this when he shouldn't? In other words, if I quote Lee on Demonic Powers in Paul, my point being that Lee's article supports my interpretation of 1 cor 2:7-8, is it necessary for me to state that he doesn't agree with my overarching thesis? Do scholars NORMALLY do this? Can you provide examples of that? No, in this case, it would be my responsibility to distinguish that Lee also presents the argument that Jesus was killed by Roman proxies and that disagrees with my point. But whether or not Lee agrees that Jesus was a myth is not relevant to the point of how to read this passage. Steven Jay Gould could cite other evolutionists without everywhere qualifying that they don't necessarily agree with his overarching thesis of punctuated equilibrium. It is only when quoting an author in such a way that would cause a question as to whether you might be claiming them to be supporting your thesis that you need that qualification. So please cite where Doherty does that (I haven't read Doherty so I don't know). I have only seen assertions that he does that.

Did you read Ehrman's reply? His unnamed expert states that procurator and prefect are essentially "different titles with the same name." That was Carrier's point. Ehrman's unnamed expert AGREED with Carrier, but Ehrman presents it the other way around! Read that part a little more carefully:

"My question: The New Testament indicates that Pontius Pilate was a procurator; the inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima indicate that he was a prefect. Is it possible that he could have been both things at once?

His answer was quick and to the point. I quote: ‘Not really’ has to be the answer to your question, because prefect and procurator are simply two possible titles for the same job."

Notice that "not really" was to Ehrman's phrasing that makes it sound like two different jobs. That wasn't Carrier's argument. Carrier's argument was exactly what Ehrman's expert said, "different titles for the same job."

Due to this fail, Ehrman reaches for a different source, the PIR. But Carrier cites "recent scholarship" and the PIR is not recent.

Ehrman acknowledges that Carrier is correct on this point. Ehrman left the impression with his amateur audience that those records were not kept. Carrier corrected that impression.