Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
dbz
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by dbz »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:45 am A day will arise where mythicism is taken seriously by serious scholars maybe in Ehrman himself. At the time his book was written he didn't find evidence of any seriousness or truthfulness on the other side so he didn't take the debate seriously.
Per "At the time his book was written", Ehrman "didn't take the debate seriously". He was just firing a broadside of basically "propaganda" into the second-god aAhistoricist's fleet in preparing for the reception (battlefield ground) of his forthcoming How Jesus Became God in Biblical Academia.

N.B.
aAhistoricist : the set of agnostic or ahistoricist viewpoints (i.e. the elements of a set)
I do not assert that Jesus did not exist. I am a Historical Jesus agnostic. That is, I am unconvinced by the case for the Historical Jesus, and find several reasons to be doubtful. To compare these terms to those often used when discussing the issue of God’s existence, the ‘historicist’ is the equivalent of the ‘theist’, and the ‘mythicist’ is the equivalent of the ‘strong atheist’ or ‘hard naturalist’. The oft-forgotten ‘Historical Jesus agnostic’ is the equivalent of, well, the ‘God agnostic’.

I'd like to throw one more term into the mix. Not all ‘atheists’ are ‘strong atheists. Some are simply ‘agnostics’. I would like to propose, then, that we use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’. This avoids the false dichotomy, which I think historicists (much like theists) have been taking advantage of. They often frame the debate as only being between the right and the wrong, the reasonable and righteous historicists versus the silly mythicists, ironically appearing as unnuanced and dogmatic fundamentalists in the process. (As with the common false dilemma, presented by apologists, of ‘the truth’ being found in ‘Christianity’ or in ‘strong atheism’.)
  • Lataster 2019, pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-9004397934

Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

:banghead: It's not off topic insofar as I was perpetuating the use of 'man' and 'manliness' in a way which is at odds with hyper-modern political correctness. I was taking a detour to note that speaking of 'man' and 'manliness' has no inherent anti-gay agenda. There was certainly no anti-gay agenda in antiquity where a religion arose involving a 'Man' and manliness.

I've already noted that it is fruitless to engage in a debate with someone who doesn't believe in truthfulness of objectivity. I don't get to engage with a homosexual on topics related to ancient homosexuality and their resurfacing in Hellenistic Jewish religion. At least there is something 'in it' for me.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

Per "At the time his book was written", Ehrman "didn't take the debate seriously". He was just firing a broadside of basically "propaganda" into the second-god aAhistoricist's fleet in preparing for the reception (battlefield ground) of his forthcoming How Jesus Became God in Biblical Academia.
Exactly. You don't expect a heavyweight boxer to 'take seriously' a bout with a featherweight boxer. Makes sense. Thanks.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

I've already noted that it is fruitless to engage in a debate with someone who doesn't believe in truthfulness of objectivity. I don't get to engage with a homosexual on topics related to ancient homosexuality and their resurfacing in Hellenistic Jewish religion. At least there is something 'in it' for me.
And as a liberal in the original sense of the word I like to demonstrate that I am sophisticated and have no inherent hostility to anyone or anything.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

And that in itself was at the core of the early Christian idea of 'manliness' - i.e. impassability. If 'Jesus' was on the Cross crucified he was impassable (laughing as Basilides said). If 'Christ' was watching Jesus crucified he was impassable as Irenaeus speaks of 'those who prefer the Gospel of Mark' (3.11.7). Pathe was feminine and alien to god and godliness. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... l1/iss1/4/
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:18 am :banghead: It's not off topic insofar as I was perpetuating the use of 'man' and 'manliness' in a way which is at odds with hyper-modern political correctness. I was taking a detour to note that speaking of 'man' and 'manliness' has no inherent anti-gay agenda. There was certainly no anti-gay agenda in antiquity where a religion arose involving a 'Man' and manliness.

I've already noted that it is fruitless to engage in a debate with someone who doesn't believe in truthfulness of objectivity. I don't get to engage with a homosexual on topics related to ancient homosexuality and their resurfacing in Hellenistic Jewish religion. At least there is something 'in it' for me.
I am actually not straight for starters. And on top of it... the whole conversation of "hyper-modern political correctness" was off topic... because it was never the topic of this discussion until you interjected it, because you are incapable of having a single conversation without traversing your way to nonsensical conclusions that were never a part of this discussion to begin with. This was all off topic and you justifying your red herring meanderings by referring to other red herring meanderings does not change that fact. Gayness, Queerness, etc. were not topics of discussion until you made them one.
dbz
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by dbz »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:19 am
Per "At the time his book was written", Ehrman "didn't take the debate seriously". He was just firing a broadside of basically "propaganda" into the second-god aAhistoricist's fleet in preparing for the reception (battlefield ground) of his forthcoming How Jesus Became God in Biblical Academia.
Exactly. You don't expect a heavyweight boxer to 'take seriously' a bout with a featherweight boxer. Makes sense. Thanks.
Yep, that was Ehrman in 2012. We can only wonder about Ehrman in 2022. It might not be a coincidence that Ehrman has a Christian wife who has already been troubled enough by his publicly defending agnosticism.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

I mean let's be honest. I'd always advise my son to marry a religious person or at least a traditional person. Smart guy. Life is too short. Avoid unpredictability at all costs.
dbz
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by dbz »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:45 am I mean let's be honest. I'd always advise my son to marry a religious person or at least a traditional person. Smart guy. Life is too short. Avoid unpredictability at all costs.
Sound paternal advice indeed!

Off Topic:
I told my son to watch "Evolutionary Psychologist Shares How Women Select Men". YouTube. Jordan B Peterson. Interview of David Buss and per Wikipedia, "David Michael Buss (born 1953) is an American evolutionary psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, researching human sex differences in mate selection. He is considered one of the founders of evolutionary psychology."
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by neilgodfrey »

SA, I presume you did not notice my earlier responses:
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:40 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 am
Did you ever think that the two scholars (Larry Welborn and Clare Rothschild) who pointed out and discussed Ehrman's "small mistake" in a published journal were, along with the peer reviewers and editors, being petty and making an ado about nothing but a mere "typo"?
But what are you trying to get 'out' of attacking Ehrman? That's the part I am wondering about. Why the attack on him in particular?
What do you find is lacking in the reasons I gave for my post at the time I gave it and in the follow up? It's not an "attack" on Ehrman. I did not slander or abuse him personally. I tried to address the particular issue I set out. I meant nothing more or less than what I said in the OP and the follow up post.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 amMy guess is that it has something to do with his case against 'mythicism' - right?
Why do you think that? Why can't you accept the point of the post that I made in the post itself.

Why would it have anything to do with "mythicism"? I thought I made the reason clear.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 am If that's the case what does carelessness show 'prove' or 'suggest' about Ehrman's attitude toward mythicism? That he hasn't studied it very carefully? Probably true. That Jesus never existed because Ehrman didn't double check his research? Probably not.
If you read my opening post you should have seen that mythicism is irrelevant -- except that I was clearly saying that critiques of Ehrman are not limited to mythicists.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 amI have the same issue with Ehrman's attitude toward the question of whether Morton Smith forged the Letter to Theodore. I know from personal contact with people who have engaged with him on this issue that he's really not sure either way but 'decided' to tacitly accept the possibility it was forged. Do I agree with him? No. Do I think he should be tarred and feathered and driven out of academia because he doesn't agree with me. No. Why?
I think you have missed the point. Please re-read the OP and my follow up comment. It has nothing to do with a disagreement of an academic question.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 amBecause I wasn't raised as a fucking mentally retarded fundamentalist.
Nor was I. What does this have to do with anything?

(But sheesh, you sure sound like a red-neck bigot when you talk like that -- maybe a fundamentalist in some other way? You obviously know nothing about fundamentalism and you evidently don't care to understand them when you call them "fucking mentally retarded". Is this your "manliness" on show?)
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 am I can live with people not agreeing with me on marginalia like mythicism and the Letter to Theodore.
But that's not how you come across. You throw ad homs at people who you can't agree with. If LC is what one might call "hyper-cautious" on Dura Europo you accuse him of being deliberately pig-headed, or something to that effect. What is "obvious" to you, you can't handle if it is not just as obvious to someone else.


Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 amDo I think that making 'mistakes' or 'being sloppy' jeopardizes the stability of the universe? Of course not.
I'm beginning to think you are simply ignoring the point of the post that I tried to explicitly point out. It has nothing to do with mere "mistakes". Please re-read what I wrote in the OP and you will see it had nothing to do with typos or excusable mistakes or attacking a person or mythicism.

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 amI can see how believing in a 'good God' fearing a 'punishing God' can help a society run smoothly and effectively so I am not hostile to religion. My attitude here is whatever works. If belief in love and fear in punishment helps prevent social collapse I am all for it.
We are at opposite sides on that debate but that's not the point here.
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 amI don't think mythicism is an important question in the study of Christianity. I am sure that Ehrman shared my sentiments when he wrote his poorly researched and sloppily fact checked book. Obviously we disagree about the importance of mythicism.
Again, why are you always talking mythicism? What is your hang up with mythicism? I'm not the least bit interested in trying to prove the nonexistence of Jesus. It is a topic that I roll my eyes at whenever someone thinks I would be interested in discussing it. It is not a historical question, as far as I am concerned. What interests me is studying the evidence, the sources, according to the methods of classicists and historians in history departments. (The methods of historical inquiry used by certain biblical scholars have no place in "normal" history faculties.)

I don't know why you always bring up mythicism. It does not interest me and if you re-read my OP you should see that my post on Ehrman was not "about mythicism".
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:46 pm
Chris Hansen wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:18 am
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 am But what are you trying to get 'out' of attacking Ehrman? That's the part I am wondering about. Why the attack on him in particular? My guess is that it has something to do with his case against 'mythicism' - right? If that's the case what does carelessness show 'prove' or 'suggest' about Ehrman's attitude toward mythicism? That he hasn't studied it very carefully? Probably true. That Jesus never existed because Ehrman didn't double check his research? Probably not.
I think, and Neil please correct me if I'm wrong, it is because Ehrman is one of the most publicly recognizable scholar, and so his screw ups, bad research, etc. are much more visible and create bad standards for other people just entering the academy or getting a view of scholarship to follow. It is not to do with whether or not Jesus existed, but to do with the fact that Ehrman, as one of the most accessed figures to the public, and therefore his carelessness impacts how people perceive academia, and also impacts the integrity of the field. When people dissect his poor research... they also lose faith with the field.
That's exactly the reason I posted the criticism of Ehrman. It was, in fact, a re-posting of what other scholars were observing about Ehrman in published articles, with the addition of more context than those two articles. The fact that many readers here have some awareness of questions raised about Ehrman's rigour as a scholar made it important, I thought, that they should be aware that Ehrman's abuse of his reputation goes beyond mythicism. His words need to be read with caution. He cannot be read as an "authority" if we are to take any regard for the evidence others have noticed about his work.

Just because a scholar has a very high renown and is widely cited and esteemed -- we err if we treat him as anything "more than a normal species of human" and set him up as an "authority" for what we might think and believe. Never assume. Always question. Always check. Even the most notable. That's a good part of how genuine education works.
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:55 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:01 pmI don't get offended easily.
You sure sound offended when you react with abuse to those whose views you seem to have some difficulty understanding or tolerating.

SA, is it not a virtue in a discussion in a public forum of international scope to try to engage in a tone and with language that is chosen to avoid risking offence to others? Is that really being "unmanly"?

Is your "manliness" really superior to expressions of respect and tolerance?

To others, you sound like what some would call a "red-neck" and you are not ashamed to throw your "manly" weight around in a bar, say, fart in peoples faces and laugh and call them sooks if they get upset; use the foulest language and tell dirty jokes out loud without a care for who might not appreciate being forced to listen to you. Insult those who you can't understand because they think differently from you.

That's how you are coming across. Is that really what you are proud of?
Post Reply