Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

[John T]

Well, it looks like Carrier is at it again.

Carrier has done a review of Ehrman's latest book; "How Jesus Became God". Carrier gives several back handed compliments before he proceeds to thoroughly trash it.

To Carrier's credit, at least this time he took the time to actually read the book first before trashing it, unlike the last Ehrman book; "Did Jesus Exist?".

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/

Carrier acts as if he knows the Bible better than Ehrman and tries to school him on proper terminology, e.g. henotheism vs monolatry. I found Carrier's tone, petty and self-serving. He muses that Ehrman is quickly becoming a mythicist; "It’s nevertheless nice to see Ehrman finally on board now arguing things we mythicists have been arguing for decades.."...Carrier

Then there is this gem: "Unfortunately, Ehrman then distorts the evidence in other places, leaving out damning information and thus disturbingly mis-informing his readers."...Carrier

The hypocrisy of Carrier accusing Ehrman of deliberately misleading his readers deserves a special chutzpah award.
Never have I read someone so viciously and falsely accuse someone of dishonestly while actually describing what he himself does.

Although Carrier purports himself to be a superior Biblical scholar, he is not, not by a long shot but he is getting better at finding obscure sources that he thinks he can tease out proof that Jesus is a myth.

Carrier warns us to fact check everything Ehrman writes but who fact checks the tripe that Carrier writes about Ehrman?
I guess I will have to buy the book; "How Jesus Became God" and see if Carrier is actually telling the truth this time.

[Peter Kirby]

One thing I noticed is a possible contrast between this blog post and Carrier's own book. In his book, Carrier magnanimously assigns the "Gospels" as equal evidence for either hypothesis (and, thus, evidence for neither). Here he seems quite adamant that the Gospel of Mark was "allegorical" (also, that all references to Jesus being crucified by Pilate trace back, without any exception, to the Gospel of Mark) and that anyone taking it otherwise is somehow blinded to the facts; therefore, no historical Jesus. Those seem to be two distinct positions.

[neilgodfrey]

I was actually surprised and impressed with how Carrier toned down his rhetoric in his review of this book. I had just finished "How Jesus Became God" and was preparing to write my own review of it and my thoughts about Ehrman's respect for his readers and slack lapses in professional standards were at the time far more negative than anything Carrier expressed: so in this instance Carrier's genuine compliments for Ehrman's work where they were due left me feeling somewhat ashamed at my own surely over-negative thoughts.

The one difference my own review would have contained from Carrier's: where Carrier commented on the way Ehrman had changed his mind about his earlier arguments he had used against Carrier, I was thinking as I read Ehrman that it looked as though Ehrman had let Doherty's arguments sink in and he had subconsciously come around to agreeing with Doherty's points in so many areas. There was one list of scripture quotations he presented to demonstrate his point and I really wondered if he was adapting the very similar sort of list of references he had seen in Doherty's works.

But then on the other hand it was easy to criticize Ehrman in his "Did Jesus Exist" for backtracking on a number of views he had expressed in his earlier works. Maybe in this book he was picking up again from his earlier viewpoints and his attack on mythicism was just an aberration: he needed to find ways to attack mythicism come what may.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks for your comments here, Neil. I noticed you saying on your blog that in many ways he scooped your own review in progress!

[neilgodfrey]

Thanks for your comments here, Neil. I noticed you saying on your blog that in many ways he scooped your own review in progress!

I have little more to add to what Carrier has already said: from the beginning of his work where he repeated the same old fallacies about the many sources of the evangelists through to his failure to acknowledge the full spectrum of Christianity (Nestorians etc omitted).

What I find significant and perhaps worth mentioning in a future effort of my own is the reasons so many other scholars have said they enjoyed E's book.

[neilgodfrey]

One aspect of Ehrman's book towards which I am not as forgiving as Carrier are the "little mistakes" that are common enough in lay circles, such as confusing henotheism with monolatry. Such mistakes are naturally excusable in lay circles but their correct meanings are among the first things undergraduates learn. Ehrman is a public figure who charges good money for people to hear and read his words. (That his money goes to charity makes no difference -- in fact it might be argued that that fact makes his unprofessionalism in such "little things" less excusable.)

Such mistakes from him are unprofessional and deserving of censure. He owes greater respect to those who pay to hear him speak and read what he writes -- especially his lay audience.

[MrMacSon]

It's interesting they seem to be moving to discuss things along the same lines, rather than sparring highly adversarially

... But he [Ehrman] is right about Jesus being deified, and recognized as a pre-existent deity descended into flesh, right out of the gate. And that does disagree with the “traditional” consensus, that such a so-called “high Christology” evolved later over time. But in fact the majority of recent studies in the field have been taking the same view Ehrman now does. So he is joining a rising tide against the traditional consensus and, as I’ve surveyed this literature and evidence myself, I have also concluded that that consensus has been effectively refuted by this new collective of scholarship; dozens of books and articles of which Ehrman cites in his notes.

Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6923

I'm not sure Ehrman is ... 'joining' a rising tide against the traditional consensus" - considering he seemed to have been a leader of critical appraisal of perceptions of Christianity's apologetic themes with his earlier books, and seemed to trip up with "Did Jesus Exist?", Ehrman now seems to be re-joining the peloton after having detoured from the course he seemed to have helped set.

[maryhelena]

One thing I noticed is a possible contrast between this blog post and Carrier's own book. In his book, Carrier magnanimously assigns the "Gospels" as equal evidence for either hypothesis (and, thus, evidence for neither). Here he seems quite adamant that the Gospel of Mark was "allegorical" (also, that all references to Jesus being crucified by Pilate trace back, without any exception, to the Gospel of Mark) and that anyone taking it otherwise is somehow blinded to the facts; therefore, no historical Jesus. Those seem to be two distinct positions.

Interesting observation here. Is Carrier ditching BT when it suits him to do so? gMark is allegorical thereby not of equal weight in a historicist vs ahistoricst debate.....i.e. gMark viewed allegorical becomes a big stick to use against the historicist Ehrman. My my - a 50/50 gospel evaluation (or whatever the numbers Carrier has used) is of no use in actual gospel debate with a historicists......Maybe Carrier, up against an actual argument re Ehrman has seen the folly of his BT approach to the gospel story....

Actually, I said at the time of this Ehrman book that it was his real attack upon the ahistoricist/mythicist position. (His did Jesus exist book only throwing out the obvious, the standard, anti-mythicist rhetoric).

Maybe Carrier is indeed getting less cautious. I'm not sure how seriously he takes the subject at this point, now that he's published his triptych (with Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ as a collection of his historical essays) and defended his case before the authorities (the SBL at Azusa) and has spoken the good news openly and without inhibition (the book tours). It seems there's just a chance that he's fully ready to take his laurels and move on (or, rather, to become a philosopher again). If so, and with Doherty also receding from view, it's a good question who will be crowned the next King of the Mythicists. (Or is it time for a Queen?) We shall see.

Also an interesting observation on Carrier. If I remember correctly, did not Carrier say that he would not have chosen the topic re did Jesus exist, as the subject matter for the book that he was being sponsored to write? With Carrier's background having a rather anti-Christianity colouring, it seems to me that his approach to the subject might limit the value of the book in the historicists v ahistoricist debate. Sure, Carrier has done a great job in marshaling all the sources - and his book has value in that department. Carrier's problem, to my mind, is not only that his interpretation of the sources can be questioned - but that he does not have a 'feel' for the material he is studying. By that I don't mean any sort of reverence for the material. I don't think Carrier has a 'feel' for the subject itself. I think he could easily walk away from it now that he has produced OHJ. No doubt Carrier will continue to reference his book in debates - he has said what for him is what needed to be said - and probably has no more inclination to continue with the research into the subject.

I don't think anyone with a 'feel' for the subject could walk away. I don't think Ehrman could walk away from his research into the gospels. Of course, Ehrman is paid for his work - but paid or not - Ehrman is a biblical scholar with a 'feel' for the work that requires of him. I recently watched a few Ehrman videos for the first time - the man lives and breaths his subject matter. I paid the few dollars for his website and am amazed the amount of new blog posts the man puts out in any one week. Considering that he is a very busy man re work commitments, the time spend on his blog posts reflects someone 100% committed to his NT scholarship - for itself not for any personal gain.

That Ehrman is wrong re the historicity question, wrong on a question that can't be decided on the evidence available, reflects more on his lack of a history background than it does on his NT scholarship. Just as Carrier's lack of a NT background has reduced the value of his history approach to the gospel story.

Carrier might well walk back to history and philosophy. His sojourn into NT scholarship via a BT route will not be the last word on the historicist vs ahistoricst debate. Carrier did what he was paid to do. The job is done. I don't think he has the 'feel' or the' heart' to run with this debate in a forever mode....Whither goes Ehrman - that is the far more interesting question...

[maryhelena]

Earlier thread on Ehrman's book.

Ehrman's "How Jesus Became a God" is now out.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=482

[GakuseiDon]

My bolding below.

The most startling feature of this new book is that in it Ehrman has now completely reversed a position he took against me in Did Jesus Exist (as is well known, I published a detailed critique of that awful book). He now admits that from the very earliest recorded history, indeed even earlier than that, even possibly their very first year, Christians regarded Jesus as a pre-existent divine being...

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 many mythicists have been arguing this very point for decades now. And Ehrman can’t have that.

Does Carrier actually quote where Ehrman has "completely reversed a position he took against [Carrier] in 'Did Jesus Exist'? Because 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...
  
  What is most significant is that Christ--whether a preexistent divine being, Adam, or an angel (I prefer the final interpretation myself)...

What is the actual position that Ehrman has reversed himself on? I don't have his latest book, so if someone can quote it, I'd appreciate it. Carrier does point on his blog post to page 167 of Ehrman's DJE, and states that:

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.

Well, on page 167 of DJE, Ehrman writes that:

• In his recent book, Not the Impossible Faith..., Carrier states that "this idea of a suffering, executed god, would resonate especially with those Jews and their sympathizers who expected a humiliated messiah." This statement is problematic on all counts. For one thing, the earliest Christians from, say, the early 30s CE--as we will see later--did not talk about or think of Jesus as God. Second, we know of no Jews who thought, even in their wildest dreams, that God could be executed. And third, of particular relevance to my argument here, there were none who expected a humiliated messiah.

My guess is that there is confusion over the terms "god", "God", "angel" and "divine being". Carrier is a sloppy writer and one of the most uncharitable readers I've come across, so my bet is on him causing the confusion. But I don't have Ehrman's latest book. Does he state he has reversed any position since he wrote "Did Jesus Exist"?

(ETA) In fact, can anyone actually unpack Carrier's criticism here? What has Ehrman reversed himself on? What, according to Carrier, is Ehrman now admitting that Carrier was entirely correct on? For reference, I found this quote from Ehrman's book

• “It should be noted that all four of these exalted roles—Jesus as messiah, as Lord, as Son of God, as Son of Man—imply, in one sense or another, that Jesus is God. In no sense, in this early period, is Jesus understood to be God the Father. He is not the One Almighty God. He is the one who has been elevated to a divine position and is God in a variety of senses.”
  ― Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

In this case, Ehrman resorts to a literalist reading of Mark, treating the text essentially just as Christian fundamentalists do. But Mark is not writing literal history. He is writing allegory (as I have thoroughly demonstrated, citing both evidence and scholarship on the point, in On the Historicity of Jesus, ch. 10). So reading Mark literally is to get exactly wrong everything he is saying...

And here is where Ehrman falls off the rails of sound method: as in DJE, despite no longer being a Christian, he is still towing the Christian party line that Mark is a history book and is intending to tell his readers what actually happened, as some straightforward story.

Again, I don't know what Ehrman writes in his latest book, but based on DJE, Carrier is almost certainly exaggerating here. Criticize Ehrman for thinking that there is any history in the Gospels, okay, that might be fair. But "Ehrman resorts to a literalist reading of Mark, treating the text essentially just as Christian fundamentalists do"? C'mon, that's just ridiculous.