Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

[MrMacSon]

Carrier is trying to sell his books via trashing Ehrman.

Carrier is using the taste test (compare and contrast) marketing ploy.

If you like the number one selling cola you should try the unknown-cola and see what the difference is.
Although it might get a short spike in sells, it is a gimmick that usually backfires in the end when people find out your product actually sucks and the ripped off consumer spreads the word, don't waste your money on it.

The 'market' will decide.

A militant atheist trying to kill Jesus under the guise of lost knowledge rediscovered is not someone I would trust to write a book review on Ehrman.

In this case, he didn't write a book review on Ehrman. The article discusses ideas. It tries to focus on knowledge and put such knowledge in context.

Remember Ehrman's 2012 Did Jesus Exist? did a fair bit of trashing others and their ideas, including Ehrman professing haughtily "I did not know about these other views" in and around that book; and that provoked another multi-author book in response in early 2013 -

• Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth Richard Carrier Ph.D. (Author), D.M. Murdock (Author), René Salm (Author), Earl Doherty (Author), David Fitzgerald (Author), Robert M. Price Ph.D. (Editor), Frank R. Zindler (Editor)

[GakuseiDon]

(ETA) In fact, can anyone actually unpack Carrier's criticism here? What has Ehrman reversed himself on? What, according to Carrier, is Ehrman now admitting that Carrier was entirely correct on? For reference, I found this quote from Ehrman's book

Ehrman changed his mind on early "high Christology", now believing that it existed.

Yeah, I suspect Carrier is saying something along those lines. However, Ehrman has already stated in 'Did Jesus Exist' that he thought early Christians might have regarded Jesus as a pre-existing angel, and since he is using Paul for that, it suggests that Ehrman -- at the time he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' -- had already decided that the "from above" Christianity was an early expression of Christianity. So where is this 'reversal'?

It would have been good if Carrier had quoted Ehrman directly with what Carrier regards as Ehrman's 'before' and 'after' positions. It does seem important to Carrier, as he concludes his blog post with:

• ... overall it [Ehrman's book] does soundly establish the key point that Jesus was regarded as a pre-existent incarnate divine being from the earliest recorded history of Christianity, even in fact before the writings of Paul, and that this was not even remarkable within Judaism... But that even Jews accepted a spectrum of divinity, and not a binary, Ehrman also well proves. He thus establishes a cornerstone of the mythicist thesis. And destroys a cherished cornerstone of liberal Christian historical interpretation. In defense of historicity, meanwhile, this book adds nothing. In fact, it takes quite a bit a way. The pillars are crumbling.

[Bertie]

Yeah, I suspect Carrier is saying something along those lines. However, Ehrman has already stated in 'Did Jesus Exist' that he thought early Christians might have regarded Jesus as a pre-existing angel, and since he is using Paul for that, it suggests that Ehrman -- at the time he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' -- had already decided that the "from above" Christianity was an early expression of Christianity. So where is this 'reversal'?

I don't have the book and was going off memories of interviews about it where Ehrman said that he had changed his mind. Well, I did remember one other place where I had read...this:

Ehrman (rightly in my view) also notes that these lofty claims about Jesus reflected in the NT seem to have erupted very early, so early that they are presupposed as widely shared already by the time Paul wrote his letters (from ca. 50 CE and thereafter). In a commendable example of changing his mind, Ehrman acknowledges that prior to immersing himself in the evidence and scholarly analysis for this book, he had assumed a much slower and more drawn-out process, but was driven to conclude that these remarkable Christological beliefs erupted much earlier and much more fully than he had thought. It’s always reassuring when a scholar admits to learning something new, and even to changing his/her mind.

[MrMacSon]

... I did remember one other place where I had read [where Ehrman had changed his mind] ... this:

Ehrman (rightly in my view) also notes that these lofty claims about Jesus reflected in the NT seem to have erupted very early, so early that they are presupposed as widely shared already by the time Paul wrote his letters (from ca. 50 CE and thereafter). In a commendable example of changing his mind, Ehrman acknowledges that prior to immersing himself in the evidence and scholarly analysis for this book, he had assumed a much slower and more drawn-out process, but was driven to conclude that these remarkable Christological beliefs erupted much earlier and much more fully than he had thought. It’s always reassuring when a scholar admits to learning something new, and even to changing his/her mind.

I wonder if people like Bart Ehrman and Larry Hurtado consider

• that we don't really know when the Pauline documents were written, or by whom (thus under what circumstances); and
• if Christological beliefs were part of a pre-existing or concurrent non-Christian theology

[maryhelena]

(ETA) In fact, can anyone actually unpack Carrier's criticism here? What has Ehrman reversed himself on? What, according to Carrier, is Ehrman now admitting that Carrier was entirely correct on? For reference, I found this quote from Ehrman's book

Ehrman changed his mind on early "high Christology", now believing that it existed.

Yeah, I suspect Carrier is saying something along those lines. However, Ehrman has already stated in 'Did Jesus Exist' that he thought early Christians might have regarded Jesus as a pre-existing angel, and since he is using Paul for that, it suggests that Ehrman -- at the time he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' -- had already decided that the "from above" Christianity was an early expression of Christianity. So where is this 'reversal'?

It would have been good if Carrier had quoted Ehrman directly with what Carrier regards as Ehrman's 'before' and 'after' positions. It does seem important to Carrier, as he concludes his blog post with:

• ... overall it [Ehrman's book] does soundly establish the key point that Jesus was regarded as a pre-existent incarnate divine being from the earliest recorded history of Christianity, even in fact before the writings of Paul, and that this was not even remarkable within Judaism... But that even Jews accepted a spectrum of divinity, and not a binary, Ehrman also well proves. He thus establishes a cornerstone of the mythicist thesis. And destroys a cherished cornerstone of liberal Christian historical interpretation. In defense of historicity, meanwhile, this book adds nothing. In fact, it takes quite a bit a way. The pillars are crumbling.

Perhaps it's from the quote below that both Carrier and Hurtado think Ehrman changed his mind.

• Ehrman: How Jesus became God.
  
  I had the hardest time understanding how, exactly, Paul viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’s Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades— especially his teaching that it was Jesus’s death and resurrection that makes a person right with God, rather than following the dictates of the Jewish law. But who did Paul think Christ was?
  
  One reason for my perplexity was that Paul is highly allusive in what he says. He does not spell out in systematic detail his views of Christ. Another reason was that in some passages Paul seems to affirm a view of Christ that, until recently, I thought could not possibly exist as early as Paul’s letters, which are our first Christian writings to survive. How could Paul embrace “higher” views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Didn’t Christology develop from a “low” Christology to a “high” Christology over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be “higher” than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are “lower.” And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.
  
  But now I do. It is not a question of “higher” or “lower.” The Synoptics simply accept a Christological view that is different from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies, and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. That, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.
  
  Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (p. 252). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

It looks to me that Ehrman is stating a problem that is very relevant to Carrier's mythicist position. The Pauline writings are viewed as the earliest writings and these writings have a high christology. The gospels, viewed as being written post Paul, have a lower christology. This appears back to front if christology developed i.e. low to high is development, high to low is regression. This bothered Ehrman until he came up with the view that 'high' and 'low' was not an appropriate way to look at things. Ehrman opted for *different* views of the two christology positions - a position in which 'high' and 'low' ceased to have relevance as to the value of the differences. They were 'high' or 'low' as to development not to value.

(Carrier's mythicism only grants value to the 'high' christology...the Incarnation Christology)

All I get from the above quote is that Ehrman now views the development of a 'high' christology earlier than he previously did. At the most this would suggest a dating issue and not a reversal of his views on christological developments. Ehrman, re earlier quotes, maintains that the 'from below' Exultation Christology preceded the later 'from above' Incarnation chronology.

Surely, the scholarly thing to do is acknowledge a development in Ehrman's position rather than throwing out allegations that Ehrman has 'completely reversed his position'. Oh, well, maybe Carrier will spell it out so that his readers can get a handle on what his issue with Ehrman really is...

[Bernard Muller]

Yeah, I suspect Carrier is saying something along those lines. However, Ehrman has already stated in 'Did Jesus Exist' that he thought early Christians might have regarded Jesus as a pre-existing angel, and since he is using Paul for that, it suggests that Ehrman -- at the time he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' -- had already decided that the "from above" Christianity was an early expression of Christianity. So where is this 'reversal'?

I don't think so. Three gospels out of four do not mention, not even suggest, any pre-existence. That notion appears to have started by Paul (& the author of 'Hebrews') and was not accepted by many Christians for a long time (evidence: the Synoptic gospels, 1 Peter, James, Ebionites).
We do not have evidence the belief of pre-existence appears before Paul.
The Philippians "hymn" (2:6-11), even if it predates the epistle, does not have to precede it by many years. Actually its manner & style are very much similar to the one of 'Hebrews' (according to my research, written by Apollos of Alexandria in 54 CE):

Php 2:6-11 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death.
[Heb 5:8 "... he learned obedience from what he suffered ..."]

... Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
[Heb 1:4b "as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."]

"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

... overall it [Ehrman's book] does soundly establish the key point that Jesus was regarded as a pre-existent incarnate divine being from the earliest recorded history of Christianity, even in fact before the writings of Paul, and that this was not even remarkable within Judaism...

I do not agree with that, of course. Paul adopted gradually that pre-existence and still later "Son of God", which most likely, for both, started from Apollos.

But that even Jews accepted a spectrum of divinity, and not a binary, Ehrman also well proves. He thus establishes a cornerstone of the mythicist thesis. And destroys a cherished cornerstone of liberal Christian historical interpretation. In defense of historicity, meanwhile, this book adds nothing. In fact, it takes quite a bit a way. The pillars are crumbling.

That's why Carrier is not as aggressive against Ehrman latest book as he was against 'Did Jesus exist'.

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

Yeah, I suspect Carrier is saying something along those lines. However, Ehrman has already stated in 'Did Jesus Exist' that he thought early Christians might have regarded Jesus as a pre-existing angel, and since he is using Paul for that, it suggests that Ehrman -- at the time he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' -- had already decided that the "from above" Christianity was an early expression of Christianity. So where is this 'reversal'?

I don't have the book and was going off memories of interviews about it where Ehrman said that he had changed his mind. Well, I did remember one other place where I had read...this:

Ehrman (rightly in my view) also notes that these lofty claims about Jesus reflected in the NT seem to have erupted very early, so early that they are presupposed as widely shared already by the time Paul wrote his letters (from ca. 50 CE and thereafter). In a commendable example of changing his mind, Ehrman acknowledges that prior to immersing himself in the evidence and scholarly analysis for this book, he had assumed a much slower and more drawn-out process, but was driven to conclude that these remarkable Christological beliefs erupted much earlier and much more fully than he had thought. It’s always reassuring when a scholar admits to learning something new, and even to changing his/her mind.

Thanks for the link, Bertie. I remember Ehrman saying something of the sort also, years ago, when he wrote or talked (can't remember which) on how he has changed his views on subjects over the years. But this particular change of mind occurred **before** he published 'Did Jesus Exist', as the quotes I give from the book show. Carrier is claiming that Ehrman's change of mind **after** publishing 'Did Jesus Exist' is the "most startling feature of this new book". If Ehrman has changed his mind since he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' (and thus after reading and being influenced by mythicist works) it would be interesting to understand. It would be a positive blow in favour of mythicism.

[GakuseiDon]

Yeah, I suspect Carrier is saying something along those lines. However, Ehrman has already stated in 'Did Jesus Exist' that he thought early Christians might have regarded Jesus as a pre-existing angel, and since he is using Paul for that, it suggests that Ehrman -- at the time he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist' -- had already decided that the "from above" Christianity was an early expression of Christianity. So where is this 'reversal'?

I don't think so. Three gospels out of four do not mention, not even suggest, any pre-existence. That notion appears to have started by Paul (& the author of 'Hebrews') and was not accepted by many Christians for a long time (evidence: the Synoptic gospels, 1 Peter, James, Ebionites).
We do not have evidence the belief of pre-existence appears before Paul.
The Philippians "hymn" (2:6-11), even if it predates the epistle, does not have to precede it by many years. Actually its manner & style are very much similar to the one of 'Hebrews' (according to my research, written by Apollos of Alexandria in 54 CE):

According to Hurtado in the link given by Bertie just above:

• Moreover, Ehrman argues (again, rightly in my view), that the early claim that Jesus is Messiah, requires us to conclude also that Jesus had excited such hopes about himself during his own ministry. Indeed, this was likely the reason that the Roman authority moved against him and crucified him. (“Messiah” = typically a divinely appointed ruler/deliverer, a claim that would have been seen as sedition against Rome.) As Ehrman observes, resurrection by itself would not have connoted that Jesus is Messiah. But, if Jesus’ followers had held such a hope during his ministry, then Jesus’ resurrection would quite readily have been taken as God’s validation of Jesus as Messiah. (This, by the way, is basically the argument made by the great Yale NT scholar, Nils Dahl, decades ago.)

To me, it suggests Ehrman sees the "from below" Christology as coming even before crucifixion, while the "from above" Christology as coming after the resurrection visions were accepted. Sounds like an interesting book from Hurtado's description.

[Bernard Muller]

Emphasis mine,

I had the hardest time understanding how, exactly, Paul viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’s Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades— especially his teaching that it was Jesus’s death and resurrection that makes a person right with God, rather than following the dictates of the Jewish law. But who did Paul think Christ was?

That's very simple regarding the human earthly Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.info/6.html
How did Paul define HJ in his (7) authentic epistles? from fully human Jewish origin, humble, poor, of no reputation, "servant" to Jews, crucified in "Zion", having brothers, one of them named James (met several times by Paul), revealed to be "Son of God" only by his alleged resurrection, etc ...

One reason for my perplexity was that Paul is highly allusive in what he says. He does not spell out in systematic detail his views of Christ. Another reason was that in some passages Paul seems to affirm a view of Christ that, until recently, I thought could not possibly exist as early as Paul’s letters, which are our first Christian writings to survive.
How could Paul embrace “higher” views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

This higher view on Christ (as heavenly one) was generated (again in my views but with lot of evidence) by Apollos of Alexandria (author of 'Hebrews') greatly influenced by Philo, also of Alexandria:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html & http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
Paul adopted it progressively. He did not explain his "high Christology" views, because Apollos explained them already, in details.

Didn’t Christology develop from a “low” Christology to a “high” Christology over time?

Yes it did, with a big leap to high Christology in the early 50's, thanks to Apollos and Paul, some 25 years after Jesus' death. So the passage from low to high Christology took some times and was far from being immediate.

And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be “higher” than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are “lower.” And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.

Christianity developed in different ways according to time and locations. It was not a linear development. Furthermore, if (as I think) the initial/original gospel of John (high Christology) was written around 75-80, preceding gLuke & gMatthew (lower Christology), that would demonstrate my preceding point (as also the Ignatian letters http://historical-jesus.info/ignatius.html).

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

Yes, that's partly true. When initially Paul adopted the pre-existence, Paul did not have Jesus as "Son of God" yet. Therefore the pre-existent Jesus was like a heavenly angel, and also the "WORD" (co-creator of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6)).

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

There are grave risks to anyone who spends his time trying to show that his fellow men are wrong. He will first think them wrong; then obstinately wrong; then deliberately wrong; then less than honest; then sometimes dishonest; then incessantly dishonest; and so on, down the spiral of hate.

Well, I think Carrier sometimes saves time by starting out from the get-go near the bottom of the spiral.

Some statements from Carrier about Ehrman (not necessarily Ehrman's arguments!) in his review:
* "Ehrman also selectively cites his evidence to distort reality."
* "acting like a Christian fundamentalist"
* "Sad Deceptions"
* "distorts the evidence in other places, leaving out damning information and thus disturbingly mis-informing his readers"
* "This evidence is damning to Ehrman’s argument here. Yet he knows all of this. So his omitting it is deeply troubling to me. It looks like an attempt to deceive, to doctor and alter the evidential record so that only his conclusion seems viable, and not even tell anyone about the evidence contradicting him, much less attempt to wriggle out of it."

And this is a fairly tame review, by Carrier standards! Compare that to the review by Larry Hurtado on the same book: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014 ... er-ehrman/

Still criticisms in Hurtado's review, but on Ehrman's arguments rather than Ehrman's person. I don't know why some people move so quickly to accusations of "personal hostility", "lies", "deceptions" and "misogyny". But it is out-of-place for any kind of debating. It's cheating, and it's despicable. And it's not just the mythicists, either. John T is a fine example on the historicists' side.

It doesn't matter what we study. But it matters greatly that we avoid this trap. I fear that Richard is falling down the spiral.

I think it says something that when Carrier reviews an article or book, people go "whew!" when he **doesn't** attack the author, accusing him/her of lies and deceptions. Carrier has already built his reputation, unfortunately.