Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

[stevencarrwork]

But, in fact, Ehrman had already decided by the time he had written 'Did Jesus Exist' that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was an angel. This is what Ehrman wrote in 'Did Jesus Exist' on page 237:

• Another option is that this [Phil 2] is describing Christ as a preexistent angelic being... It is striking that a number of Jewish traditions speak of an angel being exalted to the level of God, sitting on a throne next to that of the Almighty...

As GDon knows very well, but has hidden from our view, Ehrman then goes on to explicitly deny that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was an angel, by writing on page 238 that the earliest Christian traditions 'point in a completely different direction.'

But I guess Don stopped quote-mining at page 237. Or perhaps he had two pages stuck together in his book.

Ehrman justifies his claim that the earliest Christians didn't believe what Paul wrote by his proclamation on page 238 that the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself.

No wonder Ehrman's reputation is shot when he comes up with announcements like that.

he used to be a scholar,you know.....

[maryhelena]

What is most significant is that Christ--whether a preexistent divine being, Adam, or an angel (I prefer the final interpretation myself)...[/list]
So clearly Ehrman has not changed his view on Paul regarding Jesus being an angel, but only on his views on what the Synoptics imply. Carrier might be mashing these views together, and perhaps has forgotten what Ehrman actually wrote in 'Did Jesus Exist'.

Here is Ehrman describing how he changed his views on Paul , after 'Did Jesus Exist' in the link I gave on this thread.


http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/

'But I get it now. It is not a question of higher or lower. The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.'

Ehrman gets it 'now'. He gets it 'now' that Paul understood Christ to be an angel.

But of course, if Carrier says Ehrman has done something, a million people will automatically claim Ehrman has done no such thing. Because Carrier is wrong about everything,


On page 112 of Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman 'proves' that the earliest Christians were adoptionists by pointing out how one of the latest books of the NT ie Acts contains adoptionist theology.

You seem to be under the impression that Ehrman could remember from one page to the next of 'Did Jesus Exist' what he had written.

I'm sure Ehrman knows his own position!

1) Incarnation Christology - a christology re Ehrman that requires preexistence.
2) Exaltation Christology - a christology re Ehrman that does not require preexistence.

The gospel of Mark, re Ehrman has no Incarnation, preexistence, christology. The gospel of Mark has an adoptonists christology.

Ehrman's position is very straightforward. I don't get what the problem here is. Carrier can jump up and down re Ehrman 'reversing' his position (which, from 'Did Jesus Exist' to 'How Jesus Became God' looks to be only a matter of a timeframe re when the preexistence Incarnation Christology surfaced. In the earlier book Ehrman thought it was late and in the newer book he writes that he now thinks it was early BUT not prior to gMark's adoptionist, Exaltation Christology)

The bottom line in all this re the positions of Ehrman and Carrier is that gMark has no Incarnation Christology. Carrier's mythicist theory requires that the Jesus of the gospel of Mark was preexistence. Carrier cannot ascribe to the writer of Mark something that is not in this writing. Whether gMark's Jesus was historical or fictional does not change the gMark storyline - a storyline that demonstrates an adoptionist, Exaltation Christology - not an Incarnation Christology.

Ehrman's position is not dependent upon which NT writing was first written. It's based upon the christological development observed within the gospel story. That development is not negated if the gospel story was written post Paul. The christological development relates to an earlier time period than that covered by Paul's epistles.

The theories of Doherty and Wells have a period of time prior to the advent of Pauline Incarnation preexistence christology. Doherty has his imaginary Q founder and Wells has his flesh and blood Q figure. Doherty suggest an 'amalgamation' and Wells a 'fusing' of the Pauline grouping with the earlier grouping. Carrier has cut loose from Q and has therefore cut loose from having any reasonable response to Ehrman's two christological positions. i.e. the fig tree.......

• Carrier: ''Mark is fabricating a symbolic allegory. He thus cannot be taken literally at anything. He is not portraying any Christology. He is assembling lessons about Christian life and the gospel, and doing so with myths. The most obvious demonstration of this is the fig tree incident, where it is obvious Mark in no way actually means Jesus withered a fig tree for the absurd reason that it wasn’t bearing figs out of season. The fig tree represents the Jewish temple cult, and its withering represents what God allowed to happen to it, and why (as a result of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D.). So when Mark has Jesus adopted by God at his baptism, Mark is not trying to say that that is historically what happened, any more than he was trying to claim Jesus actually withered a fig tree for no sane reason. The baptism scene is a model for Christian baptism. This is what baptism meant in the church: adoption by God, cleansing one of their sins for all time. Jesus is thus simply a mythic stand-in for every model Christian. This is a story not about Jesus, but about baptism. And even insofar as it is about history at all, it only embodied the claim (true or not) that the Baptist cult endorsed the Jesus cult as their superior and successor''.

One does not have to be a historicists to recognize the adoptionist, Exaltation Christology, in gMark.....That is gMark's story! Whether that story is historical or fictional is a secondary issue! It is only Carrier's very own mythicism position that forces him to deny the gMark storyline. Up against what the text itself says - that at his baptism Jesus was exalted to being God's son - Carrier has to run to the whole of gMark being an allegory - thus allowing him to interpret the baptism in a manner to suit his own mythicism theory - i.e. being God's son is not an exaltation christology so gMark has no Exaltation Chronology.

At present, Ehrman thinks the earliest Christians thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel who was literally descended from David - no mean feat. How can a pre-existent angel who became Jesus also be descended from David?

Let me repeat - for how many times now - Ehrman has two Christological positions - the two positions mentioned above....

---

Interesting - Ehrman looks to be developing the ideas of Wells.....

[stevencarrwork]

So although Ehrman wrote many blog posts in 2013, after Did Jesus Exist? about how he has recently changed his position on what the earliest Christians believed, Ehrman has not changed his views on what early Christians believed.

In April 2013, Ehrman wrote 'And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.' Of course, he had 'got it' many years earlier. He was just recycling old stories for his paying members, as he hadn't anything new to say to them.

In his 2013 blog post, Ehrman said he would explain further in his new book. Probably quite forgetting he was simply repeating his totally unchanged views that he had already written about in 'Did Jesus Exist?'

And we know for a fact that Ehrman has not changed his views on what the earliest Christians believed because Carrier said he did. And Carrier is always wrong.

[neilgodfrey]

Something very weird is going on here. As Steven has said, and as Ehrman himself has said repeatedly and publicly in both books and online that he has come to change his mind on several things now . . . . yet when Carrier drops a throwaway line referencing this obvious and public fact that comes from Ehrman himself then the anti-Carrier vultures have to scour through text looking for some phrases to "prove" Carrier is a conniving liar.

Do we need any more evidence that the primary interest here is the denigration of Carrier. Nothing else.

And no, there is no need to attribute Ehrman's change of view to his readings of mythicists. He never really took any notice of the mythicist books he reviewed, remember? He did not even know what the central theme of Doherty's book is.

The high christology view of the earliest Christians has been gaining ground in biblical studies generally in recent years. Ehrman could hardly not be aware of this.

[MrMacSon]

I think that Steven Carr & Neil Godfrey have succinctly made the most pertinent points.

Trying to interpret theology is fraught with difficulty, especially changing early-Christianity; let alone people talking about their interpretation of peoples interpretation of other people's changing interpretation of changes in theology.

[MrMacSon]

On page 112 of 'Did Jesus Exist?', Ehrman 'proves' that the earliest Christians were adoptionists by pointing out how one of the latest books of the NT ie Acts contains adoptionist theology.

Ehrman justifies his claim that the earliest Christians didn't believe what Paul wrote by his proclamation on page 238 [of 'How Jesus became God'(?)] that the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself.

These two points, made in separate posts, to highlight another issues, raises, as an aside, the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances. It would be interesting to see Carrier and Ehrman (& others) address & discuss that concurrently, in peer-reviewed literature, and even if somewhat combatively (eg. also via blog posts or other writings) over a reasonable period of time (eg. a few years)

[GakuseiDon]

I think that Steven Carr & Neil Godfrey have succinctly made the most pertinent points.

Well, no, they haven't. It isn't a question of whether or not Ehrman has changed his mind on **something** since he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist'. It is specifically referring to a claim made by Carrier in his blog post. Not only has Ehrman 'completely reversed a position he took against me in Did Jesus Exist', but Carrier believes that Ehrman owes Carrier an apology over this! From Carrier's blog post:

• This of course presents a problem for Ehrman. Because admitting the first Christians regarded Jesus to be a preexistent divine archangel lends unexpected support to mythicism...
  
  As Ehrman now explicitly says, identifying “Jesus as messiah, as Lord, as Son of God, as Son of Man–[all] imply, in one sense or another, that Jesus is God.” And yet “in no sense” does that mean he was “understood to be God the Father” (p. 208). This is exactly what I argued in Not the Impossible Faith, and which Ehrman once denounced as misinformed (DJE, p. 167). Yet now he admits I was entirely correct. Based on past experience, I won’t hold my breath for his apology. But it’s nice to see him on board now at least.

Links and other pertinent information on first few pages of this thread from myself and maryhelena, plus whatever from Steven Carr above.

So, if Ehrman has changed his mind on any one or more particular topics since he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist', then fine. But I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in Carrier's claim that:
1. Ehrman has 'completely reversed a position he took against me in Did Jesus Exist'
2. This new position seems to lend support to mythicism, if I am reading between the lines correctly
3. Ehrman 'now admits that [Carrier] was entirely correct'
4. Carrier seems to feel that Ehrman owes Carrier an apology.

Let's assume that Carrier is completely 100% correct on the above. But what is that position? The easiest way to show that Ehrman has 'completely reversed a position' is to quote Ehrman on that position beforehand, and place it next to Ehrman's new position. Then we can see it for ourselves. Or if you like, you can paraphrase, with the appropriate references. But what is that position, such that he now admits that Carrier was entirely correct?

Again: I'm not interested here on whether Ehrman has changed his mind on **anything**, just the specific position that Carrier claims Ehrman has reversed himself on.

[neilgodfrey]

As Steven took the trouble to point out, GDon knows very well that the "anything" and "something" Ehrman has changed his mind on includes the question of the earliest beliefs relating to the development of high christology. What's that word for one who latches on to one of the possible literal meanings of a single word to find a way to deny the main and obvious point of an argument?

GDon has underscored the motive here: to find another way to denounce Carrier for "something", "anything". It doesn't really matter what particular details are included in that "something" or "anything".

[GakuseiDon]

On page 112 of 'Did Jesus Exist?', Ehrman 'proves' that the earliest Christians were adoptionists by pointing out how one of the latest books of the NT ie Acts contains adoptionist theology.

Ehrman justifies his claim that the earliest Christians didn't believe what Paul wrote by his proclamation on page 238 [of 'How Jesus became God'(?)] that the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself.

OMG, Ehrman is a monster, and owes Carrier an apology, because... Is it because the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself, and Ehrman is now on the correct path?

Look, my question is simple: I'm after the exact position that Ehrman has completely reversed himself on, such that he owes Carrier an apology. Not just some position that Ehrman has changed on, but that specific one referred to by Carrier.

These two points, made in separate posts, to highlight another issues, raises, as an aside, the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances. It would be interesting to see Carrier and Ehrman (& others) address & discuss that concurrently, in peer-reviewed literature, and even if somewhat combatively (eg. also via blog posts or other writings) over a reasonable period of time (eg. a few years)

That would be ideal, I think. Even between Ehrman and Dr Robert M Price, which hopefully will happen in the near future.

[GakuseiDon]

As Steven took the trouble to point out, GDon knows very well that the "anything" and "something" Ehrman has changed his mind on includes the question of the earliest beliefs relating to the development of high christology. What's that word for one who latches on to one of the possible literal meanings of a single word to find a way to deny the main and obvious point of an argument?

WHAT point??? What is the position that Ehrman has completely reversed himself upon that he took against Carrier in 'Did Jesus Exist'??? Just quote Ehrman on his before-and-after statements, and that is that.