GakuseiDon

Not to the case, no, but to some of the mythicists. Ehrman writes on his Facebook page:

As many readers know, Richard Carrier has written a hard-hitting, one might even say vicious, response to Did Jesus Exist. I said nothing nasty about Carrier in my book – just the contrary, I indicated that he was a smart fellow with whom I disagree on fundamental issues, including some for which he really does not seem to know what he is talking about. But I never attacked him personally. He on the other hand, appears to be showing his true colors.

I was expecting those kinds of attacks from some of the usual suspects, but not from Carrier. Once attacks start on the person rather than the argument, debate will either disintegrate into abuse or it will result in people being ignored. The paranoid will thrive on this; but not those interested in debate.

Steven Carr

I posted a comment on Bart Ehrman's blog asking why anybody would research and find out the statue existed, just as depicted in Acharya's book and then insinuate that she had drawn it herself.

The post has not made it through moderation....

There are several reasons why this should be.

Vorkosigan

Oh please. The level of sanctimony here stinks. Ehrman's flow of sewage, including likening mythicism to Holocaust denial, was bound to result in this kind of response.

It looks like he's playing a game, hoping to draw people into debates so he can pose as the injured party.

I really can't stand watching this....

Vorkosigan

thief of fire

Maybe Ehrman wrongly imagines you are some kind of internet kook?
Once he realises who you are I'm sure he will post it, and deal with your inquiry. Maybe just ask him to google you and then surely he will respond.

http://tinyurl.com/7sthnoq

Steven Carr

EHRMAN
' It does not take much research to dig out this juicy bit of museum lore. Acharya S herself gives the references in her footnotes. And yes, they are both right. The statue does appear to exist. '

CARR
Indeed. Ehrman points out how little research was needed to find out that the statue existed. That Carrier must have thought he was so clever finding out that the statue really did exist, but Ehrman scoffs at how little research was needed by Carrier (to find out Bart had not done very much).



Ehrman has explained that only a tiny bit of research is needed to find out the statue existed.

But ,as only a little research (according to Bart) is needed to find out that the statue existed, what for the love of God was Bart thinking of when he insinuated Acharya drew it herself?

hjalti

Well, that depends on what we mean by "fringe thinker". Let's take for exampe the former chair of the historical Jesus section at the SBL: N.T. Wright.

Here's a guy who not only tries to make a historical case for a dead guy returning to life, but he's even unwilling to treat the mass resurrection in the gospel of Matthew as a blatant legend. Beause it's so strange that it might just have happened!

Is he agenda driven? Clearly. A "fringe thinker"? Maybe not among "biblical scholars", but wouldn't most "mainstream biblical scholars" be "fringe thinkers" among historians?

Solo

You have missed my point, Don. The book by Ehrman is by design an assault on the integrity of some people who are diligent and conscientous investigators who just happen to think that Jesus of the gospels was not a historical person at all. Ehrman has every right to disagree with Price, or Carrier, or Doherty for that matter, and he is certainly welcome to study the matter and to state his case for historical Jesus. Or he may say, look, I am unfamiliar with this theory, and its major proponents, and it lies outside of my serious academic interests. I am taking the view of the academic majority, of people who have studied this diligently and came to the conclusion that Jesus existed. I can't be expert on everything. Sue me !

That is how a self-respecting scholar would handle the accusation that he denies Jesus existed historically. But he did not do either. Instead, he made - from the start - bombastic claims impugning personal integrity or intellectual capacity of anyone who holds this theory. I don't care if he later makes small allowances for Price and Carrier in that he does not accuse them of outright fraud. The issue is prefigured in accusing them by implication of being dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists who ignore factual data and engage in irrational assaults on historical truth.
Page 5 of DJE:

Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to the evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing - whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust [sic], the landing of the moon, the assassinations of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth - will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

What did Carrier do to deserve this kind of vicious crap from Ehrman ? Any ideas ?

Now whether Carrier is smart in fighting back this outrage, is another story. I am kinda with you that he won't make his case by beating on Ehrman for little piddly errors in his putting Acharya S' dickhead fascinations where they belong.

Best,
Jiri

Grog

Ah, yes. A discipline in which arguments that a dead guy came alive again and then floated up into the sky are accepted scoffs (well, if disciplines could scoff, you get my point) at the hypothesis that these ideas all evolved out of logos-belief and suffering servant motifs. Just intuitively it should cause one to question arguments from this particular discipline.

Toto

Exactly what in Carrier's review was a personal attack, rather than an attack on the quality of the scholarship of this particular book - which Carrier felt was not of the same quality as other books?

Grog

Is Ehrman now accusing Carrier of an ad hominem attack? I don't think Carrier said anything that did not address directly ehrman's argument. It was hard-hitting, yes, but deservedly so. Ehrman's book was rank. Carrier said many good things about Ehrman's previous work.