Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
The only reason Bart Ehrman claimed to have never heard of Bob Price is that he was claiming that there were no scholars doubting the reality of a historical Jesus.
And you think this is a valid (and scholarly) reason to deny the possession of such knowledge. This is why I said that I don’t know what game Ehrman is playing, but very obviously he is playing a game (IOW, lying for his own benefit).
But the very idea that Ehrman had never heard of Price is just laughably stupid (they belong to a rather small community of scholarly individuals) and I don’t care under what pretense he was trying to deny knowing Price. This shows to me the true character of Ehrman which seems to me that he is a condescending asshole!
When pushed, It turned out that he had heard of him, and even talked to him at least once. The ‘pants down gotcha’ made Bart look a lot like Bart Simpson.
Your apologetics on behalf of Ehrman are not helping your cause JT. If you accept that scholarship can be this shoddy, self-centered, arrogant, and constructed out of mendacity, well, then this reflects very poorly on your own estimation of professional credentials.
Further on in the interview Ehrman claims that there is just as much evidence of the historical exsistence of Jesus as there is of Caesar or Lincoln. Again, this is purely mindless drivel which should disqualify him from holding any academic position. Either the man is a complete idiot or he thinks other people are sooooo stupid that they won’t notice as he pulls the “wool over their eyes” in his attempt to remain authoritative on the subject.
I did like Bart Ehrman and I certainly appreciated his work as an atheist commenting on the exaggerated nature of contemporary christianity. But after listening to him for 16 minutes I was greatly disappointed.
Your apologetics on behalf of Ehrman are not helping your cause JT.
(Andrew): Maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds to me like you and Mr TOE are on the same side. I didn’t get the impression that he was excusing Ehrman at all.
John76 - many atheists here are invested in there not being an historical Jesus. It makes them uncomfortable to think there was an actual man behind the accounts. You are correct - the people who are actually scholars in the field accept the idea of the historical Jesus, even if many don’t accept him as the Son of God. But that counts for very little with some people around here, some of whom are full-blown historical revisionists.
As far as I’m concerned, I hope it gets put to rest. I think it’s just as likely as not. Like I said, revealing him as a man diminishes the attached God myth; the motivation for attaching it to him would be greater, less mysterious and mystical. How else could he stand a chance to combat the religious-social-political order of the day?
The letters of the apostle Paul are an extant primary source of Jesus’ historical existence, and so is the Gospel of John. Even if you hold that Paul never saw Jesus (I think he did), he was alive at the same time and would have known what was going on around Jerusalem, just like you and I know that Obama is President of the US without having physically met him (I assume you haven’t).
I recall we established that Paul was the Rick Tyler of Jesus’ campaign and was about to jump ship when he got a better offer from another Messiah but decided to stick it out in the end.
Rick Tyler, a long-serving communications director to Mr. Gingrich who was among those who resigned on Thursday, said that he and other advisers had become especially worried with the candidate’s decisions about how and when to campaign.
Your apologetics on behalf of Ehrman are not helping your cause JT.
(Andrew): Maybe I’m missing something, but it sounds to me like you and Mr TOE are on the same side. I didn’t get the impression that he was excusing Ehrman at all.
Actually, Andrew, can zen and I are substantially in the same ballpark here.
Anyone who thinks I was in any way defending Ehrman would do well to go back through this string and RE - READ my comments, all of them. In this particular interview, he as at best “disappointing to those who consider him a worthy scholar” ... and at worst (I’ll leave that up to your imagination but from now on an image of Bart Simpson with his pants down will be my new version of Bart Ehrman).
But the very idea that Ehrman had never heard of Price is just laughably stupid (they belong to a rather small community of scholarly individuals) and I don’t care under what pretense he was trying to deny knowing Price. This shows to me the true character of Ehrman which seems to me that he is a condescending asshole!
Wow, harsh. Ehrman is a respected scholar and hes says or pretends he didn’t know someone else (at least immediately) in a 4 year podcast and so he is “a condescending asshole!”?
Wow, harsh. Ehrman is a respected scholar and hes says or pretends he didn’t know someone else (at least immediately) in a 4 year podcast and so he is “a condescending asshole!”?
I suspect that because you are presently reading “Forged” you continue to hold out a respect for Ehrman. I haven’t read any of his books but I’ve seen some great reviews, so I suspect that he does have some intriguing perspectives and interesting analyses. In fact I don’t think I was being “harsh” in my reporting of what I heard transpire in that interview. It happens that a lot of respected scholars (especially biblical ones) are condescending assholes and Ehrman certainly lived up to that description, in fact you have come close to calling Sam Harris a few choice adjectives yourself on this forum GAD.
Wow, harsh. Ehrman is a respected scholar and hes says or pretends he didn’t know someone else (at least immediately) in a 4 year podcast and so he is “a condescending asshole!”?
I suspect that because you are presently reading “Forged” you continue to hold out a respect for Ehrman. I haven’t read any of his books but I’ve seen some great reviews, so I suspect that he does have some intriguing perspectives and interesting analyses. In fact I don’t think I was being “harsh” in my reporting of what I heard transpire in that interview. It happens that a lot of respected scholars (especially biblical ones) are condescending assholes and Ehrman certainly lived up to that description, in fact you have come close to calling Sam Harris a few choice adjectives yourself on this forum GAD.
I don’t know seems like a really thin assumption on your part.
Forged is the 3rd book of his I have read. In one of there other there was an important typo on a scripture verse reference and I sent it to him and he sent me back a thank you for the correction. Didn’t seem like a condescending asshole.
I disagree with a lot of things Sam has said, but I don’t think I ever called him anything like a condescending asshole.
I don’t know seems like a really thin assumption on your part.
I’m perhaps a bit of an asshole myself in insisting that Ehrman has a huge character flaw, I don’t know the man at all. That said, if one is participating in a nationally broadcast interview and is asked about another published scholar whom one very obviously knows and one exclaims falsely, “I don’t know him!” only to admit a few seconds later that one has exchanged views with that same person, then I gather there is a personality defect in that one.
Maybe I’m being too moralistic, but it seems to me that deliberately deceiving listeners is the mark of an asshole. If you think this is excusable behaviour, then obviously you have a different set of ethical standards.
I don’t know seems like a really thin assumption on your part.
I’m perhaps a bit of an asshole myself in insisting that Ehrman has a huge character flaw, I don’t know the man at all. That said, if one is participating in a nationally broadcast interview and is asked about another published scholar whom one very obviously knows and one exclaims falsely, “I don’t know him!” only to admit a few seconds later that one has exchanged views with that same person, then I gather there is a personality defect in that one.
Maybe I’m being too moralistic, but it seems to me that deliberately deceiving listeners is the mark of an asshole. If you think this is excusable behaviour, then obviously you have a different set of ethical standards.
You say “deliberately” but that’s an assumption. And I might point out that in short order he said “oh that guy I know that guy I’ve exchanged mail with him”.
The letters of the apostle Paul are an extant primary source of Jesus’ historical existence, . . .
Not really. Paul was a convert after the alleged death of Jesus, not a witness to the life of Jesus. Paul’s letters are the earliest extant writings of Jesus, but he does not admit to being in Jesus’ presence.
Ecurb Noselrub - 04 September 2011 09:33 AM
. . . and so is the Gospel of John.
You mean the one with the earliest attributed date of 90 A.D. by an anonymous author who attributes the gospel to Jesus’ favorite apostle but doesn’t specifically name the apostle? I’m going to pass on the reliability of that witness, too.
Ecurb Noselrub - 04 September 2011 09:33 AM
Even if you hold that Paul never saw Jesus (I think he did), he was alive at the same time and would have known what was going on around Jerusalem, just like you and I know that Obama is President of the US without having physically met him (I assume you haven’t).
This is stretching the definition of ‘primary source’ and ‘witness’ if receiving information from someone else falls within the definition. Neither of us are witnesses to the historicity of President Obama just because we live during his term and read about him in the news.
Ecurb Noselrub - 04 September 2011 09:33 AM
John knew him, and wrote about some of his recollections in the gospel called by his name. The internal evidence of that gospel is that it was written by an eye-witness.
The reliability of this eye witness account, as mentioned above, is questionable since the earliest it is known to be written is 60 years after the reported events by an anonymous author.
Ecurb Noselrub - 04 September 2011 09:33 AM
When the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John were written, they were not part of the Bible, by the way.
Yes, Christian writing were not consolidated, codified, and approved until after the religion was given legitimacy by Constantine and the Christian leaders were pretty much forced to get their story straight if Christianity was to be taken seriously as the new state sanctioned religion. So for about 300 years Christian writings were scattered, contradictory, and in competition with each other. The Council of Nicea does a better job of expressing the power of the state rather than the power of its preferred god. However, the development of the Christian canon has nothing to do with establishing the historicity of Jesus.
Ehrman is an accomplished scholar and a very strong debater. He has said at the end of a debate that he is going to take on Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty in the E-Book on mythicism.
I don’t know seems like a really thin assumption on your part.
I’m perhaps a bit of an asshole myself in insisting that Ehrman has a huge character flaw, I don’t know the man at all. That said, if one is participating in a nationally broadcast interview and is asked about another published scholar whom one very obviously knows and one exclaims falsely, “I don’t know him!” only to admit a few seconds later that one has exchanged views with that same person, then I gather there is a personality defect in that one.
Maybe I’m being too moralistic, but it seems to me that deliberately deceiving listeners is the mark of an asshole. If you think this is excusable behaviour, then obviously you have a different set of ethical standards.
Can Zen
I’ve rarely seen you be this negative. Ehrman’s books are good reads. Also, no one is without some incident that occurred in their life where they acted inappropriately or demonstrated poor character (in fact usually this happens multiple times).
Jeff
By the way, I read alot of your stuff… I’m just worried that if I got into a prolonged discussion with you it would take up too much time… and since this is small, pink, and at the bottom of the page, you won’t read this anyway
