Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

JC better documented than Ceaser or Pythagoras or any other historical character. Check

Who mentioned Caesar? Can you find me someone who wasn't a king that had so much written about them within 100 years of their supposed life?

Argument from authority-all Historians agree with the HJ. Check

It isn't a fallacy when the authority is relevant. They study the subject all their lives, but you watch a you tube video and now you know more than them? Really?

Argument from embarrassment-no ancient Jew would believe in a crucified messiah. Check

Well, they didn't, generally. They wanted a new king, not spirits of salvation.

Argument by ridicule-MJers are just like Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers........Check

Maybe if you guys stopped using the same forms of arguments as them, you wouldn't be compared to those people.

Bart Ehrman BELIEVES there certainly was an historical Jesus. See "Did Jesus Exist?"

Bart Ehrman is NOT an historian but claims he is.

Why does Bart Ehrman claim he is an historian when he is not?

See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 6 of the Introduction.

Bart Ehrman admits he BELIEVES the Bible, especially the Pauline writer who stated Jesus was NOT a man but was God's Son.

The Pauline writers are known LIARS based on Irenaeus, Aristides, Justin, Arnobius, Origen, Eusebius and Rufinus.

Why does Bart Ehrman believe known liars or known sources of fiction without a shred of corroboration?

Why don't you study History and find out, instead of pretending to be an expert online?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Bart Ehrman BELIEVES there certainly was an historical Jesus. See "Did Jesus Exist?"

Have you read the book?

Bart Ehrman is NOT an historian but claims he is.

Explain how he is not an historian.

Why does Bart Ehrman claim he is an historian when he is not?

Probably because he has a Ph.D. and is a university professor in a field of historical study that specializes in the history of the New Testament and the early development of Christianity.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" page 6 of the Introduction.

Again, have you read the book?

There's an interesting comment on page five of my copy:

"Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced."

Bart Ehrman admits he BELIEVES the Bible, especially the Pauline writer who stated Jesus was NOT a man but was God's Son.

Why do you still resort to these sorts of lies in attempting to support your position. Any one who says that anyone BELIEVES the Bible, the way a Baptist fundamentalist does, simply because he thinks that it contains some factual information is a pathetic liar. And anyone who insists that one has to either completely reject every aspect of the Bible as false, or else accept everything in it as completely reliable, is making an incredibly stupid argument.

Why does Bart Ehrman believe known liars or known sources of fiction without a shred of corroboration?

Are you still beating your wife?

 

[IanS]

Have you read the book?


Explain how he is not an historian.


Probably because he has a Ph.D. and is a university professor in a field of historical study that specializes in the history of the New Testament and the early development of Christianity.

Well he is not a “historian” by the usual definition, because he does not have any qualifications in mainstream history as a subject, and he does not teach or conduct research in a university history department.

All his qualifications are in Christian religious studies. And he teaches bible studies, not history, in a bible studies department. That makes him a “Bible Studies Scholar”, not a historian.

It’s true that there is an overlap with mainstream non-religious university history studies, i.e. in so far as Bible Studies Scholars, Theologians (and Christian Religious studies academics in general) do study ancient religious writing such as the New testament writing. But those studies are specifically concerned with what is said in religious writing, not historical writing in general.

And as has been shown here numerous times in unarguable terms, Bible Studies Scholars like Bart Ehrman invariably have a background arising from very devout religious belief, and a professional life totally immersed in religious and theological studies, and with some of them being practicing priests.

That is by no means the typical neutral baggage-free background that academics have in other fields of university study, teaching and research.

There's an interesting comment on page five of my copy:

"Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.".

Why do you think that is an “interesting” comment?

Ehrman is making the utterly absurd and completely untrue claim that everyone who has expressed doubts about the existence of Jesus, is pedalling a “conspiracy theory”. He ought to know very well that highly qualified senior academic writers like G.A.Wells and Alvar Ellegard are not in any sense conspiracy theorists.

And then Ehrman compares all sceptics to Holocaust deniers etc., complaining that they do not “believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing” … but notice that he does not say that the sceptic position is “contrary to the known evidence of Jesus” … he says that the sceptic position is merely contrary to what "the overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing” …. well the “overwhelming majority of people” probably have absolutely no idea how weak the case for Jesus actually is! …

… most people in Christian countries, e.g. in Europe and the USA, grow up with religious studies taught to them in junior schools where they are told about Jesus and the bible as if it was all uncontested certain fact. And most people never have reason to doubt the existence of Jesus, because they never bother to check whether the claims made by the Christian church for the past 2000 years are actually confirmed by reliable evidence.

And if Ehrman actually means Bible Scholars like himself when he refers to “the overwhelming majority”, then as I just explained above - Bible scholars are most definitely a very specific and unique group of academics who almost always turn out to have a lifelong background totally immersed in religious belief and religious studies as just about the only thing that most of them have ever done in their entire lives. … and that is not by any means the typical sort of neutral background which objective academics are normally expected to bring into their life’s work.

 

[maximara]

So now the majority of historians agree that Jesus was myth ? News to me. Do you have a link for that ?

Yes they do given the historian definition of myth:

Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (Oxford online dictionary)

myth (full definition): a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Myth: traditional story usually regarded as a true account of the past (Bascom, William. "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives". 'Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 5–29; "myths", A Dictionary of English Folklore; Eliade, Mircea. (1967) Myths, Dreams and Mysteries Pettazzoni, Raffaele. "The Truth of Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 98–109.)

"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. "Nothing great has been established," says Renan, "which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived." (Remsburg, John (1909) The Christ)

I have previously given examples of historical myth but since we are getting this bogus historians define myth as false story BS again I will reiterate them:

Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round. (A half truth)

George Armstrong Custer as the courageous soldier who manipulated by greedy men knowing leads his soldiers to certain doom as he feels he has no choice (They Died with Their Boots On (1941)) or the narcissistic egotistical maniac who leads his men to certain doom because he is essentially a military idiot (Little Big Man (1970)) - neither version of Custer is strictly historical but rather mythical in nature.

It is thought that King Arthur and Robin Hood are both historical people but the stories of them are largely fictional.

Stop lying. I'm talking about the (possibly entirely fictional) new testament. It's evidence, whether you like it or not. Remember I said the evidence is terrible ? Well, terrible evidence is evidence.

Calling the new testament evidence of Jesus is on par with saying the ramblings of Berlitz of evidence of there being something in the Bermuda Triangle, or von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods that aliens stop by on occasion to help us figure out which end of a spear to hold, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is evidence of the mammoth Jewish conspiracy, or that all the oral testimony regarding John Frum mean he really existed.

 

[maximara]

And then Ehrman compares all sceptics to Holocaust deniers etc., complaining that they do not “believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing” … but notice that he does not say that the sceptic position is “contrary to the known evidence of Jesus” … he says that the sceptic position is merely contrary to what "the overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing” …. well the “overwhelming majority of people” probably have absolutely no idea how weak the case for Jesus actually is! …

To put this in perspective, comparing the existence of Jesus to the Holocaust is essentially claiming:

1) there would have to be 3,000 tons of written records dating from 6 BCE to 36 CE showing Jesus existed
2) the most powerful government of the world (i.e. Rome) collected said evidence no later then 36 CE
3) the evidence was presented no later then 37 CE; AND
4) there was a 62 volume index of this evidence dating no later than 44 CE and a 92 volume index of this evidence dating from no later then 92 CE.

Ehrman has this kind of evidence then the ...oh he does NOT have such evidence. Then what why is he making such a brain dead comparison then?!?

 

[Brainache]

Yes they do given the historian definition of myth:

Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (Oxford online dictionary)

myth (full definition): a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Myth: traditional story usually regarded as a true account of the past (Bascom, William. "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives". 'Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 5–29; "myths", A Dictionary of English Folklore; Eliade, Mircea. (1967) Myths, Dreams and Mysteries Pettazzoni, Raffaele. "The Truth of Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 98–109.)

"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. "Nothing great has been established," says Renan, "which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived." (Remsburg, John (1909) The Christ)

I have previously given examples of historical myth but since we are getting this bogus historians define myth as false story BS again I will reiterate them:

Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round. (A half truth)

George Armstrong Custer as the courageous soldier who manipulated by greedy men knowing leads his soldiers to certain doom as he feels he has no choice (They Died with Their Boots On (1941)) or the narcissistic egotistical maniac who leads his men to certain doom because he is essentially a military idiot (Little Big Man (1970)) - neither version of Custer is strictly historical but rather mythical in nature.

It is thought that King Arthur and Robin Hood are both historical people but the stories of them are largely fictional.




Calling the new testament evidence of Jesus is on par with saying the ramblings of Berlitz of evidence of there being something in the Bermuda Triangle, or von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods that aliens stop by on occasion to help us figure out which end of a spear to hold, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is evidence of the mammoth Jewish conspiracy, or that all the oral testimony regarding John Frum mean he really existed.

Really?

Again?

How many times are we going to have to go through this conflated definition argument?

Remember that stuff about definitions being context dependent?

I'm just asking questions...

 

[maximara]

Really?

Again?

How many times are we going to have to go through this conflated definition argument.

Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (Oxford online dictionary)

myth (full definition): a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Myth: traditional story usually regarded as a true account of the past (Bascom, William. "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives". 'Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 5–29; "myths", A Dictionary of English Folklore; Eliade, Mircea. (1967) Myths, Dreams and Mysteries Pettazzoni, Raffaele. "The Truth of Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 98–109.)

That is conflated? You are telling us Oxford does not know how to define myth? That Merriam-Webster also does not know to define myth? No, the reality it is the apologists who don't know the definition historians actually use and keep prompting their nonstandard BS definition.

 

[Brainache]

Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (Oxford online dictionary)

myth (full definition): a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Myth: traditional story usually regarded as a true account of the past (Bascom, William. "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives". 'Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 5–29; "myths", A Dictionary of English Folklore; Eliade, Mircea. (1967) Myths, Dreams and Mysteries Pettazzoni, Raffaele. "The Truth of Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 98–109.)

That is conflated? You are telling us Oxford does not know how to define myth? That Merriam-Webster also does not know to define myth? No, the reality it is the apologists who don't know the definition historians actually use and keep prompting their nonstandard BS definition.

Your argument has devolved to definitions AGAIN.

Why should I care about these definitions when we are discussing the relative merits of Carrier's ideas as compared with mainstream Scholarship?

It's all Mythology by your definition.

OK.

Now what?

 

[Belz...]

Yes they do given the historian definition of myth:

You know what I mean, since we've had this discussion before.

Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round. (A half truth)

Half ? We knew the Earth was round 17 centuries prior to that, with a pretty darn good estimate of its size. Columbus was misinformed, something the people he was trying to get funding from were quick to remind him of. And he went for money, not science.

Calling the new testament evidence of Jesus is on par with saying the ramblings of Berlitz of evidence of there being something in the Bermuda Triangle

Except for the little fact that none of the triangle stories fit the facts when you manage to check them, and several of them violate known laws of physics. It just so happens that, in a lot of instances, the bermuda triangle stories have slivers of truth in them, such as ship names or location of departure. In short, the non-supernatural stuff in those stories tend to be more true than the supernatural stuff. In other words, we could, in many instances, at least read those stories to indicate that ships and planes _did_ get lost, although often not much else. Which is exactly the kind of analysis people are talking about here.

I'm not sure that was the example you were looking for.

 

[Belz...]

How many times are we going to have to go through this conflated definition argument?

Myth: A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (Oxford online dictionary)

myth (full definition): a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. (Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Myth: traditional story usually regarded as a true account of the past (Bascom, William. "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives". 'Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 5–29; "myths", A Dictionary of English Folklore; Eliade, Mircea. (1967) Myths, Dreams and Mysteries Pettazzoni, Raffaele. "The Truth of Myth". Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dundes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 98–109.)

 

[dejudge]

There is NO larger body of literary evidence for an HJ.
The Large body of evidence is about a character that was BORN of a Ghost

Stop lying. I'm talking about the (possibly entirely fictional) new testament. It's evidence, whether you like it or not. Remember I said the evidence is terrible ? Well, terrible evidence is evidence.

Stop lying.

I LIKE THE EVIDENCE.
The LARGE body of evidence supports a mythological Jesus.

The NT and Apologetics are INUNDATED with Evidence of MYTH Jesus:

1. Mark 6.49--Jesus WALKED on the sea.

2. Mark 9.2--Jesus TRANSFIGURED.

3. Mark 16.6--Jesus RESURRECTED.

4. Matthew 1.18--Jesus was BORN of a GHOST.

5. Matthew 4.-- Jesus and SATAN were on Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

6. Luke 1--Jesus was BORN of a GHOST.

7. Luke 24.--the RESURRECTED Jesus commissions the disciples AFTER he ATE food.

8. John 1--Jesus is GOD CREATOR--the Logos.

9. John 21---the RESURRECTED Jesus COOKS FOOD at a "beach party".

10. Acts 1--the RESURRECTED Jesus Ascends in a CLOUD.

11. Galatians 1--Jesus was NOT a Man.

12. 1 Corinthians--Jesus IS a SPIRIT.

13. Ignatius' Ephesians--Jesus was God Born of a Ghost.

14. Justin's Apology--Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.

15. Irenaeus' Against Heresies--Jesus was BORN of a GHOST.

16. Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ--Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.

17. Aristides' Apology--Jesus was GOD who came down from heaven.

18. Origen's Against Celsus 1--Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.

19. Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies--Jesus was GOD CREATOR--the Logos.

20. Eusebius' Church History--Jesus was GOD Incarnate.


Jesus of Nazareth NEVER had any real existence.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Myth invented in the 2nd century or later.

 

[dejudge]

....Bart Ehrman admits he BELIEVES the Bible, especially the Pauline writer who stated Jesus was NOT a man but was God's Son.

Why do you still resort to these sorts of lies in attempting to support your position. Any one who says that anyone BELIEVES the Bible, the way a Baptist fundamentalist does, simply because he thinks that it contains some factual information is a pathetic liar. And anyone who insists that one has to either completely reject every aspect of the Bible as false, or else accept everything in it as completely reliable, is making an incredibly stupid argument.

What lies.

I NEVER claimed Bart Ehrman was a Fundamentlist.

Bart Ehrman is an admitted BIBLE Believer.

1. Ehrman himself claimed he BELIEVES Paul in the BIBLE.

2. Ehrman himself claimed Jesus in the BIBLE CERTAINLY existed.

3. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was Baptized.

4. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

5. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE contains INDEPENDENT historical sources for his Jesus.

6. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus was a PREACHER.

7. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

 

[Craig B]

What lies.

I NEVER claimed Bart Ehrman was a Fundamentlist.

Bart Ehrman is an admitted BIBLE Believer.

1. Ehrman himself claimed he BELIEVES Paul in the BIBLE.

2. Ehrman himself claimed Jesus in the BIBLE CERTAINLY existed.

3. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was Baptized.

4. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

5. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE contains INDEPENDENT historical sources for his Jesus.

6. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus was a PREACHER.

7. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

That's quite wonderful as a definition of "Bible Believer". To most minds the concept of "bible believer" includes the concept of believing supernatural things because the bible possesses divine authority. But to you anyone who accepts a canonised source as evidence (NOT certain proof) of a perfectly commonplace circumstance is indistinguishable from a fundie bible thumper. Great stuff!

 

[maximara]

Half ? We knew the Earth was round 17 centuries prior to that, with a pretty darn good estimate of its size. Columbus was misinformed, something the people he was trying to get funding from were quick to remind him of. And he went for money, not science.

Yes half truth because Columbus did indeed sail west but as you point out it was not to prove the world was round but for money.

Except for the little fact that none of the triangle stories fit the facts when you manage to check them, and several of them violate known laws of physics.

Many of the theories violate known laws of physics but the disappearances as presented don't.

It just so happens that, in a lot of instances, the bermuda triangle stories have slivers of truth in them, such as ship names or location of departure. In short, the non-supernatural stuff in those stories tend to be more true than the supernatural stuff. In other words, we could, in many instances, at least read those stories to indicate that ships and planes _did_ get lost, although often not much else. Which is exactly the kind of analysis people are talking about here.

And in some cases there is enough to show the story likely never happened.

Take the Ellen Austin and derelict story for example. According to the story in 1881 the Ellen Austin discovered a derelict and put a prize crew abort her and then they we separated by a squall. The Ellen Austin found the derelict again but the prize crew was gone so she put another prize crew abort and a second squall separated and neither the derelict of the two prize crews were seen again.

Even on the surface the story is a little wonky and some digging shows the Ellen Austin sailed exactly once in 1881: London December 5, 1880 to New York February 11, 1881. (She was later renamed the Meta later in that year). Now this is an unusually long voyage even for the time but any loss of crew would have to have been reported and yet no such report can be found. Believers in the Bermuda Triangle point to the renaming of the ship and suggest the year reported is likely wrong (sound familiar?).

The thing is we have reasonably good records to check the claims of the Bermuda Triangle but that has never been the case since the whole Jesus was a philosophic myth idea kicked off in the 1790s.

 

[Belz...]

I LIKE THE EVIDENCE.

And yet you claim there isn't any.

Stop lying.

 

[Belz...]

And in some cases there is enough to show the story likely never happened.

Yeah but that's my point: in general, I suppose you could argue that each bermuda triangle story is evidence that a boat or plane has dissapeared. You wouldn't necessarily discount the story based on the supernatural elements therein. If you find details from the story that fit the time and place, even if you don't find corroborating evidence from the period, especially after 2 millenia, you could conclude that, probably, such a ship was lost at that time.

Would you agree ?

 

[maximara]

Yeah but that's my point: in general, I suppose you could argue that each bermuda triangle story is evidence that a boat or plane has dissapeared. You wouldn't necessarily discount the story based on the supernatural elements therein. If you find details from the story that fit the time and place, even if you don't find corroborating evidence from the period, especially after 2 millenia, you could conclude that, probably, such a ship was lost at that time.

Would you agree ?

Except evidence of these ships even existing in the first place couldn't be found. The Lotta of 1866, the Viergo of 1868, and the Miramon of 1884 are prime examples of this kind of nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

Except evidence of these ships even existing in the first place couldn't be found. The Lotta of 1866, the Viergo of 1868, and the Miramon of 1884 are prime examples of this kind of nonsense.

You didn't answer my question:

Yeah but that's my point: in general, I suppose you could argue that each bermuda triangle story is evidence that a boat or plane has dissapeared. You wouldn't necessarily discount the story based on the supernatural elements therein. If you find details from the story that fit the time and place, even if you don't find corroborating evidence from the period, especially after 2 millenia, you could conclude that, probably, such a ship was lost at that time.

Would you agree ?

 

[Craig B]

And as has been shown here numerous times in unarguable terms, Bible Studies Scholars like Bart Ehrman invariably have a background arising from very devout religious belief, and a professional life totally immersed in religious and theological studies, and with some of them being practicing priests.

That's quite a piece of "guilt by association" verbalisation you give us there. Ehrman is "like" a practicing priest because both he and the priest study scriptural texts. Mmmm.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well he is not a “historian” by the usual definition, because he does not have any qualifications in mainstream history as a subject, and he does not teach or conduct research in a university history department.

All his qualifications are in Christian religious studies. And he teaches bible studies, not history, in a bible studies department. That makes him a “Bible Studies Scholar”, not a historian.

It’s true that there is an overlap with mainstream non-religious university history studies, i.e. in so far as Bible Studies Scholars, Theologians (and Christian Religious studies academics in general) do study ancient religious writing such as the New testament writing. But those studies are specifically concerned with what is said in religious writing, not historical writing in general.

And as has been shown here numerous times in unarguable terms, Bible Studies Scholars like Bart Ehrman invariably have a background arising from very devout religious belief, and a professional life totally immersed in religious and theological studies, and with some of them being practicing priests.

That is by no means the typical neutral baggage-free background that academics have in other fields of university study, teaching and research.

I see, so Ehrman's branch of study relating to the origins and growth of early Christianity is too specialized for him to be termed an historian. That strikes me as rather like saying that a biochemist isn't an engineer because he's too specialized and doesn't know how to design a suspension bridge. History is defined as, "the study of past events", and an historian is defined as, "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon". Ehrman and other secular New Testament scholars would certainly seem to fit that bill.

By the way, the UNC Department of Religious Studies states, "The UNC Department of Religious Studies is dedicated to the study of religions as historical and cultural phenomena".

Why do you think that is an “interesting” comment?

Because it describes you and dejudge quite well.

Ehrman is making the utterly absurd and completely untrue claim that everyone who has expressed doubts about the existence of Jesus, is pedalling a “conspiracy theory”.

No, he isn't. Once again we see evidence of your poor reading comprehension. He is describing a certain class of mythicists. Nowhere does he claim that all who doubt the scholarly consensus are "conspiracy theorists". In fact, in the same introduction that dejudge cited, Ehrman states, "These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it".

He ought to know very well that highly qualified senior academic writers like G.A.Wells and Alvar Ellegard are not in any sense conspiracy theorists.

Again, he hasn't called them that. But I'm sure that he's also aware that neither of them are historians, either. Wells is a professor of German and Ellegård a professor of English.

And then Ehrman compares all sceptics to Holocaust deniers etc., complaining that they do not “believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing” … but notice that he does not say that the sceptic position is “contrary to the known evidence of Jesus” … he says that the sceptic position is merely contrary to what "the overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing” …. well the “overwhelming majority of people” probably have absolutely no idea how weak the case for Jesus actually is! …

Let's look at what Ehrman actually wrote, rather than your edited version:

"Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced."

So we see that Ehrman isn't really saying, as you claim, that everyone who is skeptical of the historicity of Jesus is like a Holocaust denier. He does state that there are people among the mythicists who are similarly motivated to those who deny the Holocaust, etcetera. And remember, he's talking specifically about the Internet here. He's talking about people like you and dejudge.

… most people in Christian countries, e.g. in Europe and the USA, grow up with religious studies taught to them in junior schools where they are told about Jesus and the bible as if it was all uncontested certain fact. And most people never have reason to doubt the existence of Jesus, because they never bother to check whether the claims made by the Christian church for the past 2000 years are actually confirmed by reliable evidence.

And this has what to do with Ehrman or any of the other secular academic scholars who hold that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was executed and who's life became the foundation for a broad mythology (mythologies, really)?

And if Ehrman actually means Bible Scholars like himself when he refers to “the overwhelming majority”, then as I just explained above - Bible scholars are most definitely a very specific and unique group of academics who almost always turn out to have a lifelong background totally immersed in religious belief and religious studies as just about the only thing that most of them have ever done in their entire lives. … and that is not by any means the typical sort of neutral background which objective academics are normally expected to bring into their life’s work.

That's just a pathetic argument. "Ehrman and other scholars study the New Testament. And religious fundamentalists who believe the Bible to be historically true in every sense also "study" the Bible, therefor Ehrman's position is no better logically supported than those of fundamentalist believers." You know full well that Ehrman isn't referring to people like James Dobson or Bob Jones when he refers to New Testament scholars.