Peter Kirby wrote:
To be honest, given the negative press it's received in some quarters, to be reading it just now it compares quite favorably.
Wondering what quarters were in mind here. Reviews by Brodie? Dykstra? Doherty?
My recollection is that a number of somewhat emotional anti-mythicists made more of Ehrman's book than I think anyone who read it felt were warranted.
Peter Kirby wrote:In any event, I kind of filter that stuff out at this point -- it is completely unprofitable, and I don't like the way it creeps into being the entire discussion. To make a point of it is to hand the game over to the guild and paint one's self into the corner as just another conspiracy theorist, if not keeping a mainstream point of view. The rhetoric never works out in the favor of the contrarian, except of course to people who collect contrary views like postage stamps, in which case that isn't a pretty sight either. It is important always simply to return to the evidence and to the sources; we have nothing else of any relevance.
Reviews that stand out in my memory are Brodie's, Dykstra's, Doherty's and Carrier's. I don't think it would be fair to leave open any suggestion that most of these were tainted as described above. It's easy to dismiss Carrier's review for his polemics, but at the same time it should be noted that Carrier expresses indignation over what he perceives as mistreatment of others he himself disagrees with and does indeed keep turning to the evidence and the sources. We can and should object strongly to the tone without allowing those objections to blur other real positives.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
I remember discussing/citing Eharman's; "Did Jesus Exist?" a few years back on this forum and got a lot of poison arrows, ridicule, and derision from mythicists who never bothered to read it.
Erhman's conclusion as to why mythicists behave the way they do is worth repeating.
The Mythicist Agenda. "...What this means is that, ironically, just as the secular humanists spend so much time at their annual meetings talking about religion, so too the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern. Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology. To be sure, they are doing their theology in order to oppose traditional religion. But the opposition is driven not by historical concerns but by religious ones."..Did Jesus Exist? pg. 337-338.
I have several of Ehrman's books and recommend them all. His ability to cut through the non-sense and get straight to the point is refreshing. However, in "Did Jesus Exist?" he thought it was high time that a biblical scholar expose the nonsensical reasoning of the mythicists and the charlatans leading the movement.
Now if only Ehrman would do the same to the fake evangelists on T.V. and fundalmentalists like Ken Ham.
That would be a book worth reading.
John T
Last edited by John T on Thu May 18, 2017 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John T wrote:
Erhman's conclusion as to why mythicists behave the way the do is worth repeating.
The Mythicist Agenda. "...the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern.. "Did Jesus Exist? pp. 337-338.
Rubbish. That's a generalisation; a misrepresentation of many, if not most. Especially those here.
Bart's brainfart wrote:
" ..Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology ...But the opposition is driven not by historical concerns but by religious ones."..Did Jesus Exist? pp. 337-338.
John T wrote:
Erhman's conclusion as to why mythicists behave the way the do is worth repeating.
The Mythicist Agenda. "...the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern.. "Did Jesus Exist? pp. 337-338.
Rubbish. That's a generalisation; a misrepresentation of many, if not most. Especially those here.
Bart's brainfart wrote:
" ..Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology ...But the opposition is driven not by historical concerns but by religious ones."..Did Jesus Exist? pp. 337-338.
More rubbish.
Did you read the book?
Never mind you don't have to answer that.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Rubbish. That's a generalisation; a misrepresentation of many, if not most. Especially those here.
I don't know about all that.
The only ones I know here that are safe from said criticism, are those on the "agnostic" fence so to speak.
Most here that I have known for a decade now, still cannot explain the evidence, and just spend time trying to discount it in a very pathetic non academic way.
John T wrote:I remember discussing/citing Eharman's; "Did Jesus Exist?" a few years back on this forum and got a lot of poison arrows, ridicule, and derision from mythicists who never bothered to read it.
Erhman's conclusion as to why mythicists behave the way they do is worth repeating.
The Mythicist Agenda. "...What this means is that, ironically, just as the secular humanists spend so much time at their annual meetings talking about religion, so too the mythicists who are so intent on showing that the historical Jesus never existed are not being driven by a historical concern. Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious ideology. They are not doing history; they are doing theology. To be sure, they are doing their theology in order to oppose traditional religion. But the opposition is driven not by historical concerns but by religious ones."..Did Jesus Exist? pg. 337-338.
I have several of Ehrman's books and recommend them all. His ability to cut through the non-sense and get straight to the point is refreshing. However, in "Did Jesus Exist?" he thought it was high time that a biblical scholar expose the nonsensical reasoning of the mythicists and the charlatans leading the movement.
Now if only Ehrman would do the same to the fake evangelists on T.V. and fundalmentalists like Ken Ham.
That would be a book worth reading.
John T
Good reply.
IMHO its an honesty check where one needs to be honest with oneself in how much said statements apply to them.
you don't have to answer that.