Message

The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby manoj » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:52 pm

Ehrman seems to be revisiting the "ill-tempered Richard Carrier's review".
http://ehrmanblog.org/attacks-from-the- ... carrier-2/

Ehrman revisits his point about not having any Roman references to Pontius Pilate. Here is what Ehrman actually wrote (on Huffington Post):
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.

However, in Ehrman's latest retelling of this spat, 'Roman sources" become "any (non-Christian/non-Jewish) pagan sources". He writes:
The following is in reference to my point that we do not have any references to Pontius Pilate in any (non-Christian/non-Jewish) pagan sources of the first century.

Ehrman seems to be forgetting that Carrier referenced this point when reviewing his Huffington Post article, not his book.

I am not a subscriber to Ehrman's blog. So, I have only read the teaser. Any subscribers care to share more details (or correct me)? ;)
manoj
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:53 am

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby stevencarrwork » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:49 pm

'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 lies as we have a contemparary inscription mentioning Pilate.

Unless, of course, Ehrman is the kind of historian who refuses to consider inscriptions as sources.
stevencarrwork
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby pakeha » Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:17 pm

How strange.
Doesn't Philo's On the Embassy to Gaius count as a 1st century reference?

XXXVIII. (299)
... Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! ...


http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook40.html
User avatar
pakeha
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:48 pm

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby stevencarrwork » Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:48 pm

Can't Ehrman get his graduate students to check his research? Are they too busy nowadays?

Of course, pointing out mistakes Ehrman makes, and then makes again, and then repeats years later counts as 'vitriol, hatred, and mean-spiritedness'?

No, Bart, just get the basic facts right....

Google is the friend of New Testament Professors, never forget....

I think Ehrman is hiding behind a claim that as we only find Jewish references to Pilate in Judea, so we shouldn't expect Jews to mention Jesus.
stevencarrwork
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby toejam » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:08 am

Ehrman does (briefly) discuss Philo's reference to Pilate and the Pilate Stone in DJE?. Check p.44. The Huffington Post article that stevencarrwork is quoting is a summary. So Ehrman makes a minor gaff in an edited newspaper article by failing to clarify that he's talking about scribal sources, not archeological ones - a mistake that he does not make in the book. So what? So we're going to drag him through the coals for that? Sheesh. This is such a minor point it's ridiculous. And does it really add anything to the mythicist hypothesis? Nope. Even if we didn't have Philo or the Pilate Stone, Pilate's governership would still be a safe historical bet, despite not being attested to by contemporaries. And the same goes for a historical Jesus.

Here's Ehrman on The Skeptical Fence podcast. He discusses mythicism and Carrier etc. in the last 10mins or so. He says he'd be happy to debate Robert Price and has no beef with him, but it seems his relationship with Carrier is beyond repair. Shame. I'm not a big Carrier fan. I also find him astonishinly arrogant. I also don't buy his mythicist hypothesis (I lean towards historicity, though without the conviction Ehrman has). But that said... Carrier's hypothesis is the best mythicist theory out there, whether he's a prick or not :lol:

My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
toejam
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby stevencarrwork » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:18 am

So Ehrman writes a brand new article, just a few days ago, repeating his same errors, and slamming Carrier for pointing out the error in the first place, an error Ehrman has just repeated, and it is Carrier who is arrogant?

Ehrman's logic is that apart from all the sources which mention Pilate, we don't have any sources at all which mention Pilate, none whatever , which is why there is so little evidence for Jesus, so Jesus must have existed, because Pilate did.

You can't argue with that! Literally. Ehrman will call you a Holocaust-denier if you do.

I wonder why Ehrman himself never seems to think it was the editors of the Huffington Post who put in all the mistakes, not him. I guess he leaves that to his defenders, because if he said it himself, it would make him look ridiculous,
stevencarrwork
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby Hawthorne » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:08 am

"Even if we didn't have Philo or the Pilate Stone, Pilate's governership would still be a safe historical bet, despite not being attested to by contemporaries. And the same goes for a historical Jesus."

If this is so, what sources would you rely on to establish the existence of Pilate? And how do those sources apply to "a historical Jesus."

What do you mean by "a historical Jesus," anyway? What I see is that demands that a historical Jesus be accepted use a very slippery definition of what that means or who that might have been. On this board, maryhelena offers what she refers to as a theory of euhemerism, that the character in the gospels was based on an actual human. Erich Segal based Oliver Barrett IV on Tommy Lee Jones, does that mean Ollie really existed in history (but he was just actually known as Tommy)? What does leaning toward historicity mean?

What is your methodology for sifting out true history in the Gospel stories? In a blog post, RJ Hoffmann makes the point that even though Shakespeare wrote the play Julius Caesar, that doesn't mean Caesar didn't exist. What Hoffmann doesn't seem to realize is that Caesar's weight in history is clearly felt in the writings of contemporaries, his own writings, archeological artifacts, etc. We do not rely on Shakespeare to establish that Caesar was a person in history. If the analogy were to hold, we would need some non-fictional sources (even if historical fiction) to establish both Pilate and Jesus. We do have that for Pilate (exactly the sources that do mention Pilate, Philo and Josephus, do not mention Jesus (at least not the Jesus that histoicists want to establish).
Hawthorne
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby GakuseiDon » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:31 am

pakeha wrote:Doesn't Philo's On the Embassy to Gaius count as a 1st century reference?

My guess is that Ehrman doesn't consider Philo as a "Roman source". Based on his statement, he appears to disregard Josephus also as a "Roman source", and Josephus actually lived in Rome and became a Roman citizen.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby manoj » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:53 am

toejam wrote:Ehrman does (briefly) discuss Philo's reference to Pilate and the Pilate Stone in DJE?. Check p.44. The Huffington Post article that stevencarrwork is quoting is a summary. So Ehrman makes a minor gaff in an edited newspaper article by failing to clarify that he's talking about scribal sources, not archeological ones - a mistake that he does not make in the book. So what? So we're going to drag him through the coals for that? Sheesh.


Carrier made this point while reviewing the Huffington Post article.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

After making mistakes, Ehrman is doubling (tripling?) down. And hiding behind calling Carrier, ill tempered. And seems to be forgetting where the review came from when he writes:
Read Carrier’s critique, and then read the statement beneath it taken straight from my book, Did Jesus Exist.


Yes, it is a minor point. Carrier's point is that Ehrman's Huff Post article (and his book) is littered with such mistakes. And he demonstrates these mistakes. And says,
This is simply not how to argue for historicity.


Shouldn't Ehrman accept his mistake(s) and move on? Sheesh! :)
manoj
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:53 am

Re: The Ehrman - Carrier Spat - Round 2?

Postby GakuseiDon » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:08 am

toejam wrote:Ehrman does (briefly) discuss Philo's reference to Pilate and the Pilate Stone in DJE?. Check p.44.

Looking at DJE?, I see that Ehrman has separate sections for "Jewish sources" and "Roman references". He places Philo and Josephus in the "Jewish sources" section. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are in the "Roman" section.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Advertisement

by »

 

Next

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Giuseppe, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MrMacSon, powindah, Stuart and 53 guests