aa5874

It is most remarkable that Bart Ehrman who can show that the NT is NOT historically reliable will ask people to TRUST the same NT and to do so without any external non-apologetical corroborative source.

This is Ehrman in a debate on the Resurrection with William Craig.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

When Ehrman argues against the Christian, William Craig, he shows that the NT is NOT credible but when he argues for the HJ of Nazareth, the very same NT is suddenly credible.

Ehrman himself is NOT consistent.

EmmaZunz

Ehrman is going to have to work very hard to take down the Price-Doherty axis of criticism.

If all he's got is remarks like "Paul says James was Jesus' brother" then his book will be risible.

I'm itching to know whether he's got any game at all. I suspect it's going to be a load of bluster.

ApostateAbe

Why do you suspect a load of bluster? Do you think Ehrman has such a record?

ApostateAbe

The reason why the book was initially scheduled to be published as an e-book is that the publisher thought that a paper book would be a poor investment. It is not a topic that sells like hotcakes.

Toto

I think we should wait until March 20 and see what Ehrman writes before either praising or condemning him. There's a lot going on in the world in the meantime that is more important and entertaining than this issue.

ApostateAbe

I think the book Forged would make good reading. Not all of the New Testament books were forged. Half of the canonical Pauline epistles were apparently authentic, and all four gospels were anonymously authored, not forged. Even forged writings would strongly reflect common ancient beliefs, but the forged writings are not so relevant in this matter. The gospels would be the most important sources concerning the historical Jesus. This isn't as credulous as you may think. It is typical for ancient sources to subscribe to miracle myths about actual human figures (i.e. Vespasian or Apollonius of Tyana). It is not a matter of believing them, but it is a matter of explaining their contents with probability. For example, the gospels reflect the reality that early Christianity was a personality cult (a doomsday cult, to be specific), and every reputed human figurehead of a personality cult actually existed as a human being, as far as we are aware. The various models that require that Christianity was founded without a historical Jesus would also require that Christianity was a very extraordinary personality cult. I think good historians are biased toward making sense of things in terms of what is normal, and, if Ehrman is right, Christianity was somewhat normal.

aa5874

It is a complete waste of time trying to get people here to BELIEVE the Gospels when Ehrman himself has argued vehemently AGAINST Christians that the Gospels are NOT reliable source.

You very well know that Ehrman claims that stories in the NT Canon were INVENTED and changed so please stop your propaganda.

Unless you and Ehrman FIND credible non-apologetic sources for your HJ of Nazareth then you all don't make any sense.

This is the 21st century. People here ALREADY know the NT Canon cannot be trusted.

And even most ridiculous, you have REJECTED the Jesus story and re-modeled it based on your imagination and is now telling people that the NT contains history.

Please, please. please. We NEED evidence from antiquity not the DISCARDED criteria of embarrassment.

Jesus of Nazareth was a MYTH FABLE the Son of a Ghost, and God the Creator that WALKED on sea water.

Minimalist

I wonder what Ehrmann means by the "historical" jesus?

The absurd miracle-worker portrayed in the gospels or some sort of wandering preacher who ran afoul of the Romans and got his ass nailed to a cross?

If the former, he is going to have to present some powerful evidence to make a convincing case.

If the latter, who cares? That isn't what the xtians worship.

To quote H. L. Mencken:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

Which is it going to be, Bart?

ApostateAbe

It would be the latter. It matters because even non-adherents of the Christian canon use their model of the historical Jesus to reinforce their own social/political/religious viewpoints, typically by creating the historical Jesus in their own image. The "apocalyptic prophet" theory of Jesus seems to be most reasonable and independent from ideology. The conservative Christian camp has been the primary opposition. The secondary opposition has been the camp of liberal Christian scholars who paint Jesus as a progressive philosopher or anti-authoritarian revolutionary. The tertiary opposition is now the anti-religious camp that believes that Jesus never existed, fitting both their negative perspective on God and their anti-trust of religious canon.

EmmaZunz

No, because from a quick Google the only thing I could find of him talking on this exact topic he resorted to this "brother" business in a very naive and blustery way, when it has already become highly controversial and much debated.

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/bart-eh...ristmyththeory

His claim that "no serious historian doubts the historical Jesus" is a ridiculous comment when you look at the work of people like Price and Doherty. You cannot doubt they are serious historians, and in fact they have investigated this issue far more thoroughly as far as I can see than the historicist side has.

If his book is this naive and dismissive, then it will probably be full of bluster and rhetoric rather than engagement. Is Doherty (e.g.) out to "make a lot of money" from his work as the interview suggests? Ridiculous comment from Ehrman.

He makes out the mythicists are treating historical evidence as if it "doesn't count". Wow. Has he read Price or Doherty?

His arguments in the interview sound basically clownish: stuff that ppl on these pages would be ashamed of making.