MrMacSon wrote:Why is the Pauline theology addressed to East Asian communities?
East Asian?
Have Erhman and Carrier read the Dutch Radicals? If so, what do they think?
Carrier doesn't bother with them (although, I can't say I know what he's read) because he thinks he sidesteps the issue by granting the more conservative assumptions to historicity (arguing "a fortiori"). Can't say anything about Ehrman except that he'd only be imagined to read them on the toilet; scholars in his position aren't really known for flip flopping on the authenticity of Paul's letters.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Ehrman wrote:Ph.D. in classics from Columbia University
a Ph.D. in classics from Columbia
Technically, it is a Ph.D. from Columbia in "Ancient History." Not that it matters much (or is it an attempt to distance Carrier's training from the subject?).
It is an attempt at argumentum ad verecundiam - he's essentially saying there is him (Ehrman), the second tier (such as Carrier), and the distant rest
maryhelena wrote:
... mentions of Carrier in Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist'.
(1) Page 19. Some of the other mythicists I will mention throughout the study include Richard Carrier, who along with Price is the only mythicist to my knowledge with graduate training in a relevant field (Ph.D. in classics from Columbia University);
(2) Page 30. I do not think that the serious authors who have pursued a mythicist agenda (for example, G. A. Wells, Robert Price, and now Richard Carrier) can be tarnished with the same brush or be condemned with guilt by association.
(3) Page 167. One mythicist who addresses the problem is Richard Carrier, whom I mentioned in an earlier context as one of the two mythicists in the world (that I know of) with a graduate degree in a relevant subject, in his case, a Ph.D. in classics from Columbia. He is one smart fellow. But I’m afraid he falls down on this one. Even smart people make mistakes.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 355). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Ehrman wrote:Ph.D. in classics from Columbia University
a Ph.D. in classics from Columbia
Technically, it is a Ph.D. from Columbia in "Ancient History." Not that it matters much (or is it an attempt to distance Carrier's training from the subject?).
Ehrman can’t have learned my degree is in classics from any reliable source. He can only have invented this detail. I am left to wonder if this was a deliberate attempt to diminish my qualifications by misrepresentation. Or if he is really so massively incompetent it never even occurred to him to check my CV, which is on my very public website (he also has my email address, and we have corresponded, so he could even have just asked). Did he not even think to check? Why? And if he didn’t check, why did he decide to say my degree was in “Classics”? Where did he get that notion? This is important, because Ehrman makes such an absurd issue out of exactly what our degrees are in, so for him to even get it wrong is again damaging to his reliability.
One of the mistakes I make in the book I should state up front, because Carrier found it particularly offensive. I indicated in the book that Carrier’s degree was in Classics. I was wrong about that. His PhD is in Ancient History. I am not sure where I got the wrong impression he was a classicist; I think when I first heard of him I was told that he worked in ancient history and classics, and the “classics” part just stuck with me, possibly because I have always revered the field. In any event, I apologize for the mistake. His degree is in Ancient History, although he is trained as well in classics.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Ehrman
'I think when I first heard of him I was told that he worked in ancient history and classics, and the “classics” part just stuck with me"
So he didn't check but made a derogatory put down in his book based on partly remembered second hand information - he 'thinks'?
That's sloppy. and in poor taste.
Peter Kirby wrote:
And having read GDon's thread here, and elsewhere on Carrier, and his essays on Doherty and the one who will not be named, my impression is that GDon is one of the most level-headed writers and fastidious researchers in this field. Head and shoulders above most, on any side of any aisle
.
That may be. My only issue is he has way more certainty on many of these topics then I would ever attribute. But yes I agree.
While I do not endorse his work, I respect and value it. His arrow/conclusions are aimed in the right direction, which only applies to a select few here.
I think when one gets to a level academic knowledge, difference are tolerated more so then the mire less educated play in.
GakuseiDon has taken quite a bit more abuse than he deserves for attempting to unravel this (pointless, IMO) issue.
Agreed, hats off to him.
Seen him beaten up by the ignorant for years now. He puts up a good honest fight to help educate those who refuse it.
GakuseiDon wrote: This is why I want to see the quotes indicating what Ehrman said as his before and after positions. It does seem important to establish this. If you can't give direct quotations, then I'll let you go your way.
Let's go back to ignoring each other. Thanks.
Although Ehrman writes many times that he has changed his position, this makes no difference to GDon who must have Ehrman on his ignore list.
GakuseiDon wrote:Thanks maryhelena. You are the only one being positive on this thread by actually quoting the sources on this particular topic!
There seems to be some confusion between "God" and "God the Father" from one of the parties (not Ehrman, who is clear on how he uses the term). It would be nice to discuss how that impacts the support for mythicism, but I'll leave it with the above on this particular topic, unless someone wants to discuss this further.
Yep, I'm thinking Carrier has not got a handle on what Ehrman is saying in 'How Jesus Became God'. Surely, the very title of the book indicates that Ehrman is holding fast to his historicist position - and therefore anything he writes is in line with that position.
Since Ehrman is a historicist he has far more interest in the christological arguments than arguments over the historicity of Jesus. Carrier's version of mythicism has no place for christological arguments i.e. Jesus was originally a celestial being - end of argument for Carrier. On top of that is the problem that christological arguments have to deal with the gospel story not just Pauline theology. And since Carrier has written off gMark as allegory - christological arguments are simply dismissed with, seemingly, no interest in dealing with the nuances Ehrman brings to the christological debate. The result being that Carrier joins the fundamentalist chorus of anti-Ehrman rhetoric. ('How God became Jesus' hitting the bookstores alongside 'How Jesus became God'....)
Christology is a big deal for Ehrman. It will be interesting to see where his two christology positions will take him...methinks there are possibilities there re finding that middle road between the historicists and the ahistoriests/mythicists. Carrier can continue to bang his head against Ehrman but Ehrman's 'obsession' might yet open new avenues for research on early christian origins...Carrier has said his piece - Ehrman is a work in progress...
Ehrman: So now I understand my obsession better. One could argue that the historical Jesus himself is a footnote in history. The overwhelming majority of Christians do not, and never did, believe in the historical Jesus – despite what they may say or think. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher of the imminent destruction of his world. But Christians believe in the God Christ. Had Jesus not been proclaimed God, nothing like the Christian faith would have emerged. And we would not have our form of civilization.
And so I’m still obsessed with Jesus – not just the man, but even more, the man who became God.
GakuseiDon wrote:There seems to be some confusion between "God" and "God the Father" from one of the parties (not Ehrman, who is clear on how he uses the term). It would be nice to discuss how that impacts the support for mythicism, but I'll leave it with the above on this particular topic, unless someone wants to discuss this further.
I think part of the confusion is because of Ehrman's sloppy writing. E.g. in "Did Jesus Exist?" one of his main arguments against the idea that Jesus was a "dying-rising god" is that "his earliest followers did not think he was God".
