Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by outhouse »

Ulan wrote: the spirit of God himself possesses the man Jesus at baptism and leads him until his very end, at which time the spirit leaves again. So here, Christ is God himself.

.
Leap of faith in my opinion.

I see the Hellenistic use of divinity, paralleled to that of the Emperor.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by outhouse »

Stephan Huller wrote:
Why doesn't everyone follow Ulan in approaching the material with an open mind and not allowing agendas to shape how we see the evidence?
Stephan Huller Posts: 2623Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm



Your riding a pretty high pedestal. Your no different in that respect then many here.

And certainly Mark's Christology on the same human/earthly Jesus is way higher than Paul's.
Different yes, higher no.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: The passage that maryhelena has quoted
Jesus is now the Son of God for his entire life, beginning with . . . his beginning. One could argue, in fact, that this has pushed the moment of exaltation so far back that here we no longer even have an exaltation Christology, a Christology from “down below.” For here, Jesus is not portrayed in any sense as beginning life as a normal human who because of his great virtue or deep obedience to the will of God is exalted to a divine status. He starts out as divine, from the point of his conception.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (p. 244). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
His "conception" could be taken as literal [ie. literary] based on the prior sentences, if one didn't 'know' Ehrman's 'position'
neilgodfrey wrote:If you read Ehrman's book you will see that he argues Jesus was human and historical. It was his followers who attributed divinity to him -- and this myth was developed in some of the gospels. There is no contradiction in any of these statements quoted piecemeal from the book.
Sure. I realise Ehrman 'argues Jesus was human and historical' - I acknowledged that when I referred to "Ehrman's 'position'." But the premises he has based that 'postion' on are spurious.

My point was Ehrman, somewhat ambiguously in his own words (maryhelena & then I quoted) here, portrays Jesus as not "beginning life as a normal human", and "Jesus is now the Son of God for his entire life, beginning with . . . his 'beginning'."

Moreover, Ehrman writes as if about perceptions of early Christians perceptions on tenuous grounds, and without nuance for likely variations in early Christian beliefs in different locations - did the very early Christians believe in the same things at the same time in Corinth, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Thessalonica/Thessaloniki, and Sinope, etc??
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by andrewcriddle »

stevencarrwork wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:On Ehrman changing his mind.

IIUC Ehrman started working on How Jesus became God a number of years ago. I.E. he wrote Did Jesus Exist after he had already began working on How Jesus became God . If so references in How Jesus became God to Ehrman having changed his mind while researching this book probably do not mean that he changed his mind between writing Did Jesus Exist and How Jesus became God

Andrew Criddle

http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-as-god-in-t ... r-members/

Ehrman dates his change of mind to about April 2013.

Did Jesus Exist was published in 2012.


Incidentally, Ehrman has also come around to accepting Carrier's view that the first Christians did not believe Jesus physical body had been resurrected.

Reading Ehrman is like reading Carrier, but with a time-delay of a few years.
Thanks for that Steven.

I hadn't realised that Ehrman's views had significantly shifted in 2013.
However IIUC Ehrman does not attribute a theology of a pre-existing Son of God to the synoptics.

Ehrman does clearly attribute such a theology to Paul (in a rather controversial way.)

What I was particularly concerned with, was when Ehrman developed his present understanding of Paul's Christology. Do you know the relevant dates for this ?

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

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by stevencarrwork »

10 April 2013

http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/

Presumably Ehrman changed his mind on Paul recently (as dated in 2013), ie after 'Did Jesus Exist'?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by GakuseiDon »

andrewcriddle wrote:Thanks for that Steven.

I hadn't realised that Ehrman's views had significantly shifted in 2013.
However IIUC Ehrman does not attribute a theology of a pre-existing Son of God to the synoptics.

Ehrman does clearly attribute such a theology to Paul (in a rather controversial way.)

What I was particularly concerned with, was when Ehrman developed his present understanding of Paul's Christology. Do you know the relevant dates for this ?
That to me is the key question also. Steven's link is to Ehrman's change of mind is on the Synoptics, which is interesting in itself. But Carrier's claim was that Ehrman had 'completely reversed a position' on how early the Christians regarded Jesus being a 'pre-existent divine being'.

My bolding below.
Richard Carrier wrote:The most startling feature of this new book is that in it Ehrman has now completely reversed a position he took against me in Did Jesus Exist (as is well known, I published a detailed critique of that awful book). He now admits that from the very earliest recorded history, indeed even earlier than that, even possibly their very first year, Christians regarded Jesus as a pre-existent divine being...

This of course presents a problem for Ehrman. Because admitting the first Christians regarded Jesus to be a preexistent divine archangel lends unexpected support to mythicism. As many mythicists have been arguing this very point for decades now. And Ehrman can’t have that.
But, in fact, Ehrman had already decided by the time he had written 'Did Jesus Exist' that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was an angel. This is what Ehrman wrote in 'Did Jesus Exist' on page 237:
  • Another option is that this [Phil 2] is describing Christ as a preexistent angelic being... It is striking that a number of Jewish traditions speak of an angel being exalted to the level of God, sitting on a throne next to that of the Almighty...

    What is most significant is that Christ--whether a preexistent divine being, Adam, or an angel (I prefer the final interpretation myself)...
So clearly Ehrman has not changed his view on Paul regarding Jesus being an angel, but only on his views on what the Synoptics imply. Carrier might be mashing these views together, and perhaps has forgotten what Ehrman actually wrote in 'Did Jesus Exist'.

Putting aside whether Carrier got Ehrman wrong, I'd be interested to know whether Ehrman's change of view on the Synoptics, or any other changes of mind, came after reading mythicist works when writing DJE; or whether those works influenced him in any way.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Peter Kirby »

The only thing less useful than a history of scholarship is a history of the development of any particular scholar.

Its only possible use, regarding the underlying subject, is as part of a genetic fallacy.

Of course I have no choice but to blame Carrier for starting the whole inquest.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote:The only thing less useful than a history of scholarship is a history of the development of any particular scholar.

Its only possible use, regarding the underlying subject, is as part of a genetic fallacy.
I think there is more to it than that. The implication is that Ehrman has changed his mind since he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist', which perhaps suggests that his views have evolved due to being exposed to mythicist material. (That's my inference, btw, not Carrier's.) If that is true, Ehrman should acknowledge this. In fact, I would be interested to know if Ehrman has had a change of mind on the topic of early Christianity at all due to reading mythicist material.

But I still don't understand what Carrier means. According to Carrier, Ehrman not only changed his mind, he has "now completely reversed a position he took against [Carrier] in 'Did Jesus Exist'". As Carrier writes:
  • The most startling feature of this new book is that in it Ehrman has now completely reversed a position he took against me in Did Jesus Exist (as is well known, I published a detailed critique of that awful book). He now admits that from the very earliest recorded history, indeed even earlier than that, even possibly their very first year, Christians regarded Jesus as a pre-existent divine being...

    This of course presents a problem for Ehrman. Because admitting the first Christians regarded Jesus to be a preexistent divine archangel lends unexpected support to mythicism. As many mythicists have been arguing this very point for decades now. And Ehrman can’t have that.
But Ehrman had already come to that belief when he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist', as I quoted Ehrman earlier. On the face of it, Carrier is wrong. But hard to understand Carrier here.

Can anyone else shed any light on how Ehrman has "now completely reversed a position he took against [Carrier] in 'Did Jesus Exist'"? What in fact was that position that he took against Carrier in 'Did Jesus Exist'? And what is its reverse?
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by Bernard Muller »

I think Ehrman wrote in his latest book that the first Christians added up the pre-existence in front of the human earthly Jesus earlier than he postulated in "Did Jesus exist".
Just a guess. I did not read any of the two books.
Anyway that would be in the category of unevidenced scholarly opinion (like we don't have enough of those!).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

Post by stevencarrwork »

GakuseiDon wrote: What is most significant is that Christ--whether a preexistent divine being, Adam, or an angel (I prefer the final interpretation myself)...[/list]
So clearly Ehrman has not changed his view on Paul regarding Jesus being an angel, but only on his views on what the Synoptics imply. Carrier might be mashing these views together, and perhaps has forgotten what Ehrman actually wrote in 'Did Jesus Exist'.
Here is Ehrman describing how he changed his views on Paul , after 'Did Jesus Exist' in the link I gave on this thread.


http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/

'But I get it now. It is not a question of higher or lower. The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.'

Ehrman gets it 'now'. He gets it 'now' that Paul understood Christ to be an angel.

But of course, if Carrier says Ehrman has done something, a million people will automatically claim Ehrman has done no such thing. Because Carrier is wrong about everything,


On page 112 of Did Jesus Exist, Ehrman 'proves' that the earliest Christians were adoptionists by pointing out how one of the latest books of the NT ie Acts contains adoptionist theology.

You seem to be under the impression that Ehrman could remember from one page to the next of 'Did Jesus Exist' what he had written.

At present, Ehrman thinks the earliest Christians thought Jesus was a pre-existent angel who was literally descended from David - no mean feat. How can a pre-existent angel who became Jesus also be descended from David?
Post Reply