Are you sure? Is Ehrman not saying "the historical record contains the Gospels", rather than "the Gospels contain the historical record"?
Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)
- Thread starter phelix
- Start date
- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If Ehrman starts to believe in the historical reality of house elves, I'll really begin to get worried for him!
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If???
Agatha has one of these to show for her extensive knowledge of the ways of DOCology.
Without context, it's difficult to determine what Ehrman is saying. There are two options: He's either saying that the Gospels are part of the historical record, in the same way that, say, the Greek myths are; or he's saying that the Gospels contain historical information and thus they themselves contstitute a historical record.Craig B said:
If he's going by the first concept, he's of course right. The Gospels clearly existed in the past, and have had profound impacts on our culture and our world. This does not, however, mean that there's anything TRUE in the Gospels. Fiction can often be more powerful than fact. Uncle Tom's Cabbin, for example, is a work of fiction, yet Lincoln referred to it as "...the little book that started the war" (or he referred the the author as a little woman who started the war; I forget, but the point remains--fiction book, real bloodshed). Another example is science fiction, which can be credited with inspiring many great scientific advancements.
If he's going by the second concept, he's gone bonkers. Again, the Gospels contain information we know is false (the census, requiring everyone to return to their ancestrial homes, etc) or which are only found in the Gospels (a rather damning fact, considering how fond of paperwork the Romans were). We also know that many books (the Gnostic Gospels, for example) were excluded from the final version of the Bible. Thus anything in the text itself is suspect, and the only safe way to handle it is to ignore it entirely, or to treat it like any other mythology (that is to say, maybe see if there's a grain of truth in it, but don't try to view it as literally true).
But to figure out which interpretation is correct we'd need to have context, something DOC is suspiciously loath to provide...
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
Stories about his death too.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Here's how this always works.
Bob: A man named John Smith invented a cold fusion device in 1860 in Omaha Nebraska.
Ted: What? That's absurd! Where's your proof?
Bob: Right here. Evidence that a man named John Smith lived in Omaha Nebraska in 1860.
Ted; Okay... so where's the evidence that he invented a cold fusion device?
Bob: Stop asking for unreasonable proof! You agree that John Smith lived right?
Ted: No I agree that a man named John Smith lived. I see no evidence of the outrageous claims you're pinning to him.
Bob: Well see I have this unsubstantiated claim written decades after the fact about a man named John Smith inventing a Cold Fusion device, and I have evidence that man named John Smith existed!
Bob: A man named John Smith invented a cold fusion device in 1860 in Omaha Nebraska.
Ted: What? That's absurd! Where's your proof?
Bob: Right here. Evidence that a man named John Smith lived in Omaha Nebraska in 1860.
Ted; Okay... so where's the evidence that he invented a cold fusion device?
Bob: Stop asking for unreasonable proof! You agree that John Smith lived right?
Ted: No I agree that a man named John Smith lived. I see no evidence of the outrageous claims you're pinning to him.
Bob: Well see I have this unsubstantiated claim written decades after the fact about a man named John Smith inventing a Cold Fusion device, and I have evidence that man named John Smith existed!
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
To be fair, it isn't so much an apologist book, but was meant to be a response to some of the more "out there" points made by the Jesus-as-Myth supporters. I haven't seen Ehrman make any argument that Christianity is true, or that Miracle Jesus existed, so I don't think I would classify him as an apologist.
However, I do agree that this particular book is one of his weakest, as he goes a bit too far outside of his field as a linguist and textual expert, into the field of history, where he isn't an expert.
It is also worth noting, it is entirely possible that both the Jesus-as-Myth crew and the Miracle-Jesus-Existed crew are both wrong.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I think what you're trying to say is that many times skeptics have told you that using the circular reasoning of asserting that the bible is true because it says itself that it's true is a logical fallacy.
Are you still unable to see that this is indeed the case?
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
It's the evidence, or rather the lack of it, which dismisses the gospels from the historical record, not the Meanie™ skeptics.
It will surprise approximately nobody that both Ehrman and yourself have massive problems when it comes to dealing with evidence.
I've found that to be an occupational hazard for literary types. They seem to develop the belief that since they're trained in interpreting literature, they therefore know history. They forget that history consists of more than merely the literature of the culture.Hokulele said:
Sure. I would be extremely surprised if there weren't a bunch of Jeshua bin Josephs running around that part of the world at that time. Given the tendency of that part of the world to produce saviors, it'd be equally surprising to learn that none of the saviors had that name. Which is actually something that the Miracle-Jesus-Existed crew needs to be very concerned with: how do you know that THIS Jeshua was the RIGHT Jeshua? Could be that Jeshau #1 did the water-to-wine thing, but Jeshua#2 raised Lazurus, while Jeshua #3 was arguing about truth with Pilot, and only Jeshua #5 was actually crucified. When Jeshua #6 shows up, everyone swears that Jesus rose from the dead!
It's not a problem only religious people have. There were two decapod paleontologists, A. Milne Edwards and H. Milne Edwards. I can't count the number of times I got the name wrong and spent a day tracking down documents that didn't exist....
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
It's true, I wear it with pride.
The kindle version of the book has 4 reviews on amazon.co.uk (and no, I'm not going to spend £8.49 to see if I agree with the reviewers who give it an average of 3.2/5)
The most highlighted phrase in the book by kindle users is "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence."
Are you still trumpeting the book as a "win" for your particular brand of Christianity, DOC?
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Hokulele;;8354707 said:
Fair cop. I seem to have gone into auto-rant and I agree that while Ehrman is in fact nothing like the 'skeptic's favourite', he's leagues ahead of DOC's usual sources.
Mind you, I'll maintain that using the blurb from the cover of any book is way down at the pathetic end of the evidence scale.
Hokulele;;8354707 said:
That won't slow DOC down at all. His only requirement in an authority to which he can appeal is agreement with himself, and expertise be damned. I call it argumentum ad sirramsiam.
Hokulele;;8354707 said:It is also worth noting, it is entirely possible that both the Jesus-as-Myth crew and the Miracle-Jesus-Existed crew are both wrong.
Well, we know for sure that one of them is.
I have access to the book, and I have spent about a half hour so far skimming it. Just from that short time it seems most of the book is Ehrman giving facts as to why he believes the historical Jesus existed.
- Status