Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

[neilgodfrey]

As Steven took the trouble to point out, GDon knows very well that the "anything" and "something" Ehrman has changed his mind on includes the question of the earliest beliefs relating to the development of high christology. What's that word for one who latches on to one of the possible literal meanings of a single word to find a way to deny the main and obvious point of an argument?

WHAT point??? What is the position that Ehrman has completely reversed himself upon??? Just quote Ehrman on his before-and-after statements, and that is that.

[MrMacSon]

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.

Ehrman justifies his claim that the earliest Christians didn't believe what Paul wrote by his proclamation on page 238 [of 'How Jesus became God'(?)] that the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself.

OMG, Ehrman is a monster, and owes Carrier an apology, because... Is it because the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself, and Ehrman is now on the correct path?

Look, my question is simple: I'm after the exact position that Ehrman has completely reversed himself on, such that he owes Carrier an apology. Not just some position that Ehrman has changed on, but that specific one referred to by Carrier.

These two points, made in separate posts, to highlight another issues, raises, as an aside, the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances. It would be interesting to see Carrier and Ehrman (& others) address & discuss that concurrently, in peer-reviewed literature, and even if somewhat combatively (eg. also via blog posts or other writings) over a reasonable period of time (eg. a few years)

That would be ideal, I think. Even between Ehrman and Dr Robert M Price, which hopefully will happen in the near future.

You fuckwit. My point had nothing to do with besmirching Ehrman - it had to do with

the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances.

.
To drag my separate point into your quagmire is highly disingenuous to the point of being immoral.


To address your shit GDon, take note of this post by stevencarrworks on Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:52 am

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'?

ie. just before your befuddled posts -

• http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 099#p32099
  
  http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 104#p32104

Read http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/ !!!! and acknowledge it's contents !!!! which have been repeatedly pointed out by stevencarrworks

ie you appear to have failed to acknowledge http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/

It would be appropriate for you to do so!! ie. acknowledge it !!

[MrMacSon]

I think that Steven Carr & Neil Godfrey have succinctly made the most pertinent points.

Well, no, they haven't. It isn't a question of whether or not Ehrman has changed his mind on **something** since he wrote 'Did Jesus Exist'. It is specifically referring to a claim made by Carrier ...

You failed to quote my full post which contains what I think is a substantive point pertinent to your approach to this -

Trying to interpret theology is fraught with difficulty, especially changing early-Christianity; let alone people talking about their interpretation of peoples interpretation of other people's changing interpretation of changes in [early-Christian] theology.

[GakuseiDon]

These two points, made in separate posts, to highlight another issues, raises, as an aside, the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances. It would be interesting to see Carrier and Ehrman (& others) address & discuss that concurrently, in peer-reviewed literature, and even if somewhat combatively (eg. also via blog posts or other writings) over a reasonable period of time (eg. a few years)

That would be ideal, I think. Even between Ehrman and Dr Robert M Price, which hopefully will happen in the near future.

You fuckwit. My point had nothing to do with besmirching Ehrman - it had to do with

the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances.

.
To drag my separate point into your quagmire is highly disingenuous to the point of being immoral.

My apologies, but that wasn't my intention. I agree with you that there are issues around when the Paul letters were written, etc. I see problems with trying to establish nearly anything on the historicist side. So I agree with you that it would be good to see Carrier, Ehrman and others address those concerns as a long-term project. My comment about Ehrman and Price was based on Price and Ehrman's comments recently about having some kind of debate in the near future, as part of a Kick-starter program. Details here: https://www.facebook.com/AuthorBartEhrm ... 9447826851

[maryhelena]

Here are all the 11 mentions of Carrier in Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist'.

(1) Page 19. Some of the other mythicists I will mention throughout the study include Richard Carrier, who along with Price is the only mythicist to my knowledge with graduate training in a relevant field (Ph.D. in classics from Columbia University);

(2) Page 30. I do not think that the serious authors who have pursued a mythicist agenda (for example, G. A. Wells, Robert Price, and now Richard Carrier) can be tarnished with the same brush or be condemned with guilt by association.

(3) Page 167. One mythicist who addresses the problem is Richard Carrier, whom I mentioned in an earlier context as one of the two mythicists in the world (that I know of) with a graduate degree in a relevant subject, in his case, a Ph.D. in classics from Columbia. He is one smart fellow. But I’m afraid he falls down on this one. Even smart people make mistakes.

(4) Page 167. In his recent book, Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed, Carrier states that “this idea of a suffering, executed god, would resonate especially with those Jews and their sympathizers who expected a humiliated messiah.” This statement is problematic on all counts. For one thing, the earliest Christians from, say, the early 30s CE— as we will see later— did not talk about or think of Jesus as God. Second, we know of no Jews who thought, even in their wildest dreams, that God could be executed. And third, of particular relevance to my argument here, there were none who expected a humiliated messiah.

(5) Page 167. Carrier tries to establish his point about the humiliated messiah first by quoting Isaiah 53. But as I’ve shown, Isaiah is not speaking about the future messiah, and he was never interpreted by any Jews prior to the first century as referring to the messiah.

(6) Page 167. Carrier’s argument becomes more interesting when he appeals to a passage in chapter 9 of the book of Daniel.

(7) Page 168. In actual fact, as critical scholars have long known (Carrier agrees with this), it was written closer to 160 BCE.

(8) Page 168. Carrier argues strenuously that this shows that the author of Daniel expected that the messiah (the “anointed one”) had to be killed (“ cut off”).

(9) Page 169. And so, in one of the definitive commentaries written on Daniel, by Louis Hartman, a leading scholar of the Hebrew Bible (Carrier does not claim to be one; I don’t know offhand if he knows Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages in which the book was written), we read about verse 25:

(10) Page 341. Carrier, Richard. Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed. N.p.: Lulu Press, 2009.

(11) Page 355. Richard Carrier, Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed (n.p.: Lulu Press, 2009), 34, emphasis his.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 355). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

---

Ehrman: How Jesus Became God. Page 209/210. (this seems to be the reference in Carrier's blog post.)

It should be noted that all four of these exalted roles— Jesus as messiah, as Lord, as Son of God, as Son of Man— imply, in one sense or another, that Jesus is God. In no sense, in this early period, is Jesus understood to be God the Father. He is not the One Almighty God. He is the one who has been elevated to a divine position and is God in a variety of senses. As I have been arguing and will argue extensively in the next chapter, whenever someone claims that Jesus is God, it is important to ask: God in what sense? It took a long time indeed for Jesus to be God in the complete, full, and perfect sense, the second member of the Trinity, equal with God from eternity and “of the same essence” as the Father.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). 'How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee'. (p. 210). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[MrMacSon]

... I agree with you that it would be good to see Carrier, Ehrman and others address those concerns as a long-term project. My comment about Ehrman and Price was based on Price and Ehrman's comments recently about having some kind of debate in the near future, as part of a Kick-starter program. Details here: https://www.facebook.com/AuthorBartEhrm ... 9447826851

Yes, I appreciated that.

the speeches of Acts almost certainly predate the writings of Paul himself, and Ehrman is now on the correct path?

.. the issue of when the Paul texts were really written and under what circumstances. It would be interesting to see Carrier and Ehrman (& others) address & discuss that concurrently, in peer-reviewed literature, and even if somewhat combatively (eg. also via blog posts or other writings) over a reasonable period of time (eg. a few years)

That would be ideal, I think. Even between Ehrman and Dr Robert M Price, which hopefully will happen in the near future.

[GakuseiDon]

As Steven took the trouble to point out, GDon knows very well that the "anything" and "something" Ehrman has changed his mind on includes the question of the earliest beliefs relating to the development of high christology. What's that word for one who latches on to one of the possible literal meanings of a single word to find a way to deny the main and obvious point of an argument?

WHAT point??? What is the position that Ehrman has completely reversed himself upon??? Just quote Ehrman on his before-and-after statements, and that is that.

Thanks Neil.

[neilgodfrey]

My point had nothing to do with besmirching Ehrman

.

To drag my separate point into your quagmire is highly disingenuous to the point of being immoral.

.

You are learning why I scarcely bother to read GDon's stuff when he's addressing Carrier or Doherty and co. This is how he writes, it's how he "cites" the sources he puts forth as the "problems" to be solved.....

It's pointless responding to his "sincere requests" for direct quotations to the contrary. He will find a way to twist some word or phrase or half-quote a passage to turn it around to make the opposite point.

[GakuseiDon]

You are learning why I scarcely bother to read GDon's stuff when he's addressing Carrier or Doherty and co. This is how he writes, it's how he "cites" the sources he puts forth as the "problems" to be solved.....

It's pointless responding to his "sincere requests" for direct quotations to the contrary. He will find a way to twist some word or phrase or half-quote a passage to turn it around to make the opposite point.

Neil, it is bizarre to me that you say it is pointless responding to my 'sincere requests' for direct quotations to the contrary. It is far far easier to find ways to twist words when direct quotes are **not** involved. I always try to give direct quotes, or links to where the quotes can be found, for that reason. This is why I want to see the quotes indicating what Ehrman said as his before and after positions. It does seem important to establish this. If you can't give direct quotations, then I'll let you go your way.

Let's go back to ignoring each other. Thanks.

[GakuseiDon]

... I agree with you that it would be good to see Carrier, Ehrman and others address those concerns as a long-term project. My comment about Ehrman and Price was based on Price and Ehrman's comments recently about having some kind of debate in the near future, as part of a Kick-starter program. Details here: https://www.facebook.com/AuthorBartEhrm ... 9447826851

Yes, I appreciated that.

Can I ask what I wrote that made you think I was being a fuckwit? It might be something I can learn from.