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

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It just downloaded to my Kindle. I'm going to read it and give some chapter summaries/reviews as I go.

Now if only Carrier's book would drop already.

[stephan happy huller]

You sound like a kid waiting for Christmas to come. 'Drop' implies weightiness.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You sound like a kid waiting for Christmas to come. 'Drop' implies weightiness.

It's a music industry reference. Records get "dropped."

I've been waiting on this book a long time. It sounds like Ehrman's getting back to some real scholarship this time, at least I hope so. Gonna go read now.

[stephan happy huller]

I like Ehrman. I don't think he stopped engaging in scholarship. I think everyone is trying hard to make sense of this stuff. No one's perfect. No one deserves the kind of abuse heaped upon people on both sides of this stupid debate. I look forward to your summary of his arguments. This is a very nice thing for everyone at the forum.

[stevencarrwork]

There is an excerpt at salon.com

[stevencarrwork]

No one deserves the kind of abuse heaped upon people on both sides of this stupid debate.

So in the first 10 pages of his 'Did Jesus Exist' book, Ehrman compares people who disagree with him to Holocaust deniers.

And yet somehow , we are not allowed to point out all the errors and bad logic he stuffed his book with.

[Peter Kirby]

Rhetoric like that rallies the base and makes those already sold feel more secure. It doesn't make converts.

Hence it is strategic for those defending the historicity of Jesus and defeatist for those not doing so.

[stevencarrwork]

It just downloaded to my Kindle. I'm going to read it and give some chapter summaries/reviews as I go.

Don't forget to tell us how Ehrman explains that Jesus was killed as a potential troublemaker by the Romans, but none of his followers, even when they started taunting the Romans by installing Jesus very own brother as their leader, and claiming that Jesus was still alive and directing their movement.

[maryhelena]

Interesting, Ehrman making much of 'king of the Jews' on the crucifixion notice.

According to our accounts, the trial of Jesus before Pilate was short and to the point. Pilate asked him whether it was true that he was the king of the Jews. Almost certainly, this was the actual charge leveled against Jesus. It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26).......... The charge is specifically that he called himself “king of the Jews.”.....Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he were in fact calling himself this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he meant no trouble and that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews, and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender .......The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the king of the Jews was precisely that he did call himself the king of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense: when the kingdom arrived, he would be made the king.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/did_jes ... elf_image/

my bolding


If this Jesus crucifixion story is dated to 33 c.e., well then, that would make it's setting 70 years from the Roman execution of the last King of the Jews, Antigonus, in 37 b.c. Perhaps Ehrman needs to get out a history book...Maybe then he might discern that a historical reality has been used as a basis upon which the gospel writers created their pseudo-historical gospel crucifixion story.

[maryhelena]

It just downloaded to my Kindle. I'm going to read it and give some chapter summaries/reviews as I go.

Don't forget to tell us how Ehrman explains that Jesus was killed as a potential troublemaker by the Romans, but none of his followers, even when they started taunting the Romans by installing Jesus very own brother as their leader, and claiming that Jesus was still alive and directing their movement.

Strange indeed that none of the followers of the 'king of the Jews' get punished by the Romans.

When Herod took Jerusalem in 37 b.c. - he made sure that followers of the King of the Jews were killed - he had 45 of Antigonus' followers killed...

005 Meanwhile, now that he had taken Jerusalem, he took away all the royal ornaments and despoiled the wealthy of what they had acquired, and after collecting a large amount of silver and gold, he gave it all to Antony and the friends in his circle. 006 He also killed forty-five of the officers of Antigonus's party and set guards at the gates of the city, that nothing might be brought out along with the dead.
Ant. book 15, ch.1.