The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by stevencarrwork » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:08 am

toejam wrote:Well, Ehrman calls it as he sees it. He wholly accepts the Q hypothesis. I lean towards the existence of some sort of Q also, but am not as convinced as he. But I agee that it is problematic to use a hypothetical source as "evidence". I agree with you on that one. But I think you have to read the Huff Post piece for what it is - an edit/summary of his views - the idea being that you read the book to find out how he comes to those conclusions. Whether you agree with him is a different issue. I agree with Ehrman on some things, and not on others. But I think these accusations of "slimey dishonesty" are uncalled for. As to the accusations of vitriol and unprofessionalism, it's like "Who shot first, Greedo or Hans?" ... I couldn't give a toss.
It is slimey dishonesty to say there are no sources which mention Pilate and that we have numerous Aramaic accounts of the life of Jesus, dated within a year or two of his life.

That is what Ehrman said, hence his belated claims that obviously he didn't mean what he wrote and anybody reading his article should have read the book to see that he just didn't mean what he said in his article.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by toejam » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:19 am

^Would I be justified in accusing you of "slimey dishonesty" because in the process of summarising, you failed to mention that Ehrman said there were no "Roman" sources? You've just stated that Ehrman said there were "no sources" - that's not what he said - He said there were "no Roman sources" Are you being slimey and dishonest? You've just done exactly what I've been saying happened in the Huff Post article LOL.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by stevencarrwork » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:34 am

Roger Pearse wrote: I ought to point out that we have contemporaries, own writings and archaeology for a very tiny handful of people in antiquity (indeed to have all of those would probably apply to ... well, something like a dozen or two?). For the vast majority of people, we do not have any of this. Consequently we don't use that method to establish whether people existed.
How do we establish whether or not Jesus's wife existed? (By seeing if people are silent about her?)

How do we establish whether or not Pilate's wife (Claudia Procula) existed?

Is the default position that men existed, but their wives did not?

stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by stevencarrwork » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:38 am

toejam wrote:^Would I be justified in accusing you of "slimey dishonesty" because in the process of summarising, you failed to mention that Ehrman said there were no "Roman" sources? You've just stated that Ehrman said there were "no sources" - that's not what he said - He said there were "no Roman sources" Are you being slimey and dishonest? You've just done exactly what I've been saying happened in the Huff Post article LOL.
You would not be justified in accusing me of slimey dishonesty , because I only spent a minute on that post.

While Ehrman is probably regretting the 10 minutes he took writing that Huff Po article, he should be held to higher standards than a quick comment on an Internet forum.

To be honest, I just don't think Ehrman bothered too much when writing his Huff Po article. After all, mythicists are just like Holocaust deniers, they are not scholars, they won't know about this Pilate inscription - why bother fact checking?

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by toejam » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:46 am

I agree that Ehrman probably didn't spend much time on the Huff Post article. And I agree that I don't think it's fair to accuse mythicists as being in the similar category as Holocaust deniers (that said, some mythicist theories are trash). But making accusations of deceptive motive regarding the Pilate Stone issue is as uncalled for as me accusing you of deceptive motive because you failed to quote Ehrman correctly. So he rushed the Huff Post article and made a gaff... Again, what does this amount to?
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4982
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:41 am

[quote="toejam" failed to quote Ehrman correctly.

So he rushed the Huff Post article and made a gaff... Again, what does this amount to?[/quote]
Steve Carr did quote Ehrman correctly
'With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves).'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-eh ... 49544.html
Ehrman had previous, in the same 2012 Huff Post article, said
It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.
Ehrman also said this nonsense immediately after the first quote above
Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.
Ehrman has failed to justify his Aramaic sources assertion; and - in appealing to the writings of Paul - has failed to acknowledge disputes about Paul's writings, and has also failed to engage conclusions of the likes of AD Loman that the Pauline works were from a Gnostic-Messianic sect & the Gospels were, separately, Jewish-Messianic.
.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by toejam » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:59 am

^MrMacSon, this is where I said Stevencarrwork misquoted Ehrman:
stevencarrwork wrote:It is slimey dishonesty to say there are no sources which mention Pilate...
The point I was getting at is that we all make such mistakes. When Stevencarrwork said this, he failed to quote Ehrman correctly. In the Huff Post article, Ehrman said there "[Pilate] is not mentioned in any Roman source of his day", not "there are no sources which mention Pilate". Stevencarrwork has apparently made the same mistake that Ehrman did in the Huff Post article, leaving out a crucial word in the hurried process of summarising his views. Stevencarrwork uses Ehrman's mistake to accuse him of being "deceptively slimey". My point is simply that not all mistakes should be rendered with such an accusation. Indeed, doing so would be as unfair as me accusing Stevencarrwork as being "deceptively slimey" when he misquotes Ehrman.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

User avatar
pakeha
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by pakeha » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:54 am

stevencarrwork wrote:...Ehrman's Huffington Post article also made the astonishing claim :-

'With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves).' ...
What are these "numerous, independent accounts of his [Jesus'] life?"

stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by stevencarrwork » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:40 am

toejam wrote:^MrMacSon, this is where I said Stevencarrwork misquoted Ehrman:
stevencarrwork wrote:It is slimey dishonesty to say there are no sources which mention Pilate...
The point I was getting at is that we all make such mistakes. When Stevencarrwork said this, he failed to quote Ehrman correctly. In the Huff Post article, Ehrman said there "[Pilate] is not mentioned in any Roman source of his day", not "there are no sources which mention Pilate". Stevencarrwork has apparently made the same mistake that Ehrman did in the Huff Post article, leaving out a crucial word in the hurried process of summarising his views. Stevencarrwork uses Ehrman's mistake to accuse him of being "deceptively slimey". My point is simply that not all mistakes should be rendered with such an accusation. Indeed, doing so would be as unfair as me accusing Stevencarrwork as being "deceptively slimey" when he misquotes Ehrman.
Ehrman is not admitting to any mistakes in his Huff Po article. He accuses people of vitriol for daring to suggest that he could not even summarise his own book.

Meanwhile, Toejam thinks a quick comment on an Internet forum should be held to the same standards as a Distinguished Professor attempting (unsuccessfully) to paraphrase his own arguments in his own book in a major article on a major web site.

manoj
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:53 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Post by manoj » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:48 am

toejam wrote:^MrMacSon, this is where I said Stevencarrwork misquoted Ehrman:
stevencarrwork wrote:It is slimey dishonesty to say there are no sources which mention Pilate...
The point I was getting at is that we all make such mistakes. When Stevencarrwork said this, he failed to quote Ehrman correctly. In the Huff Post article, Ehrman said there "[Pilate] is not mentioned in any Roman source of his day", not "there are no sources which mention Pilate". Stevencarrwork has apparently made the same mistake that Ehrman did in the Huff Post article, leaving out a crucial word in the hurried process of summarising his views. Stevencarrwork uses Ehrman's mistake to accuse him of being "deceptively slimey". My point is simply that not all mistakes should be rendered with such an accusation. Indeed, doing so would be as unfair as me accusing Stevencarrwork as being "deceptively slimey" when he misquotes Ehrman.
As far as I know, Steven had no issues admitting that this comment was not accurate.
Steven's comment was in a discussion thread where his previous comments are clear and hardly anyone here can claim to have been mislead.
Steven did not say you were ill tempered.

That Ehrman made a gaffe is not the issue. He got called out on it as he should be.
The problem is that he is shifting the argument and framing it as a personal attack.
...Richard Carrier, the mythicist (i.e., one who does not believe that Jesus existed) who has shown more vitriol, hatred, and mean-spiritedness toward me than almost any of the fundamentalists who attack me from the other side.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Charles Wilson, Jax, MrMacSon, Ulan and 80 guests