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

[neilgodfrey]

Ok you win. Jesus is proven never to have existed because Ehrman misattributed a scholar's dating of 1 Clement. Yay!! Next you will prove up is down because of "cyber bullying." Go on mad cyber-paladin of godless relativity. Go on champion of empty victories. Your work is never done.

Oh please, please do get over your hangup about mythicism. I am not the least bit interested in arguing for Jesus' nonexistence. What a waste of time, as far as I am concerned. Why are you suddenly throwing all this shit at me here and in other threads. Sheesh -- I think you actually said I'm a "ally of evil". Seriously? I am only asking for civil and reasonable debate. If you can't do it, at least stay quiet.

[John T]

Has Neil ever published anything? It's one thing to broadcast 'ideas' because 'ideas' are never wrong.

Although Ehrman is not perfect in researching every insignificant detail of his opponents crackpot theories, he does research/debate in good faith. That is, he tries to keep the main thing, the main thing. I don't ever recall watching a mythicist debate Ehrman who actually stayed on subject. How about you Neil?

Feel free to correct me with a link that proves otherwise.

On the other hand, when Neil does provide a link to support his ideas, all too often his sources are biased and misleading. Sometimes they even support the opposite of what he claims they reveal. As if, Neil only reads the title of the link and not the article it self. Like the time he claimed to have read/understood Timaeaus.

That provided a good belly laugh.

Talk about sore losers. Pay attention next time. When you point out the fundamental flaws of the atheist and/or mythicist do they thank you for the correction or do they default to ad hominem attacks and strawmen arguments?

Wet, lather, rinse, and repeat.

Now do you understand why Ehrman no longer wastes his time responding to mythicists?

[Chrissy Hansen]

Has Neil ever published anything? It's one thing to broadcast 'ideas' because 'ideas' are never wrong.

Although Ehrman is not perfect in researching every insignificant detail of his opponents crackpot theories, he does research/debate in good faith. That is, he tries to keep the main thing, the main thing. I don't ever recall watching a mythicist debate Ehrman who actually stayed on subject. How about you Neil?

Ehrman isn't even good at researching the significant details. I don't recall watching a mythicist debate where Ehrman wasn't treating hypothetical sources like Q as though they were reliable historical records of Jesus, nor taking note of any significant criticisms he has received even from fellow historicist scholars (many of whom found his book on the subject a bit trite, I might add). As a note, also, he does not research in good faith. If he did, his books wouldn't singularly cite English language texts, and he would actually be familiar with what current studies have been indicating. As Neil pointed out, his book on Jesus and "memory" doesn't remotely even deal with actual memory theory or the contemporary discussions on memory theory and historical Jesus studies. He is just completely out of touch.

Not that you would know. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't bother reading any cited materials. Ehrman's colleagues criticize him for his outdated methods, research, and lack of citations. He is also criticized by his colleagues for frequently misciting or misrepresenting them, even non-mythicists. His DJE? is a prime example, filled with numerous misrepresentations, bad arguments, and poor research. Just in the span of three pages I noted several mistakes he made just on the basic (very basic) history of the debate. He clearly isn't actually that familiar with it at all.

[John T]

Not that you would know. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't bother reading any cited materials. Ehrman's colleagues criticize him for his outdated methods, research, and lack of citations. He is also criticized by his colleagues for frequently misciting or misrepresenting them, even non-mythicists. His DJE? is a prime example, filled with numerous misrepresentations, bad arguments, and poor research. Just in the span of three pages I noted several mistakes he made just on the basic (very basic) history of the debate. He clearly isn't actually that familiar with it at all.

Junk retort of no value, distractions if you will.

I sense you are still smarting over your last public embarrassment and want a redo. So, once again I turn the stage over to you and hope this time you actually get to your best argument, right off the bat.

So, tell us Chris, what basic mistake did Ehrman make in his book: "Did Jesus Exist?"

Fair warning, I will not let you go on your default tactic of first I got to read all of your papers. I tried reading one until I couldn't stomach the tripe anymore. So, just get to the main point will ya, that is, what is the fatal flaw of Ehrman regarding the mythicism that Jesus did not exist?

Ready, set, go!

[Chrissy Hansen]

In just three pages he makes the following errors:

-He claims that Volney was a mythicist... which is false. Volney did think Jesus existed actually
-He claims that Dupuis' work was more influential than Volney's which is... wrong. Volney's work was translated in large part by Thomas Jefferson, was used by early English mythicists all over, and sparked numerous rebuttals. Dupuis' work was a massive sprawling series of tomes that I cannot find near the amount of engagement actually. Volney's was the primary target by most critics and defenders and has continued to be more influential than Dupuis to this day to my knowledge.
-His claim of a "relative hiatus" after Drews' is just false and a lazy attempt not to document or do any serious research on mythicism's history from between Drews and G. A. Wells. Georges Ory, Prosper Alfaric, P. L. Couchoud, Soviet Mythicists, Chinese mythicists (whom Ehrman never even mentions even though they had an academic majority in China), the prevalence of mythicism in the growing atheist movements and found in publications like American Atheist Magazine, the Truth Seeker, etc. is just... bad.

And that is just from pages 15-18 in his book... and these are basic errors that he could have fixed had he consulted basically any actual primary or academic secondary sources on the matter. I mentioned all of this a little bit ago.

Also, I doubt you read anything and you've yet to show an ounce of honesty as to why I should believe anything you say. You lie, verbally abuse, and bully people while acting all smug. In reality, you have only made it clear to everyone, including the several professional academics on this site, that you are not worth even having discourse with.

[John T]

Most of those non-sequitur canards have already been addressed by me and others on this forum. I'm sorry that you didn't take the time to fact check your so-called sources, but be as it may:

How does any of those allegations prove that Erhman was wrong and the Mythicists were right in that, Jesus did not exist?

Last chance before I put you back in the peanut gallery with your bizarre mythicist friends.

What is the fatal flaw of Ehrman regarding the mythicist claim that Jesus did not exist?

Do you have anything other than ad hominem attacks and strawmen arguments?

[Chrissy Hansen]

I don't think mythicists are right. I'm not a mythicist. We've been over this John. This thread isn't about whether Bart is right or wrong on mythicism. It is about him being a careless researcher.

Which, I've now given several examples of.

Also, please send me back to the peanut gallery. At least there we can have fun watching you make an ass of yourself.

[Secret Alias]

careless researcher

Ummm. We are "researchers." Careless or otherwise. He's a scholar a professor an academic. There is an order of rank. In some cultures we'd have to call him "doctor" or "sir." Just keeping it real. Not even a particular "fan" or adherent in any sense of the word other than to respect the order of rank here. Chris, Neil, Stephan one order. Bart another rank. Sorry.

[Secret Alias]

And let's be honest. When he wrote his book did "mythicists" or "mythicism" deserve his full attention? People criticized Morton Smith for suggesting in his "popular work" that Jesus might have been gay. It was just a popular work. It wasn't a serious academic paper. Even in Smith's big academic tome which took forever to complete there are errors. There is this disrespect for authority in the waning years of western civilization. A sign of decay.

[neilgodfrey]

careless researcher

Ummm. We are "researchers." Careless or otherwise. He's a scholar a professor an academic. There is an order of rank. In some cultures we'd have to call him "doctor" or "sir." Just keeping it real. Not even a particular "fan" or adherent in any sense of the word other than to respect the order of rank here. Chris, Neil, Stephan one order. Bart another rank. Sorry.

Rank and authorities have to be justified every time they are demonstrated. Otherwise you end up with a society ruled by the less than competent and the less than moral. We all have a responsibility to expect those with status or rank to justify their claims. Otherwise one ends up with what is in effect a cultic society.

If a teacher cannot justify what they are teaching, or a speaker cannot justify what they are writing, then they do not deserve to be respected when they teach or say those things.

Readers, students, listeners, have a responsibility to hold those with rank to account. Otherwise democracy and truth will die.

We don't live -- or at least we don't want to live -- in a class-based society, do we? Isn't that what Americans fought the Brits for way back? (I know a bit about American history and the many protests that that final sentence might invoke. I meant it rhetorically, not as a cutting analysis of history.)