I just found out that this debate will take place next October from other websites. This is wonderful news. Both men are very widely read and very intelligent. These are the two best representatives of each side. I have read most of DR. Ehrmans works and a few of DR. Prices. I am going to read and reread all of the works before watching this debate. I tend to side somewhat on Bart Ehrmans side. I agree with both sides that there is a whole lot of deeds and narratives of Jesus that never happened. What are your views of the historical and mythic views?
Jimmy said
I just found out that this debate will take place next October from other websites. This is wonderful news. Both men are very widely read and very intelligent. These are the two best representatives of each side. I have read most of DR. Ehrmans works and a few of DR. Prices. I am going to read and reread all of the works before watching this debate. I tend to side somewhat on Bart Ehrmans side. I agree with both sides that there is a whole lot of deeds and narratives of Jesus that never happened. What are your views of the historical and mythic views?
There seems to be considerable interest in the debate. My concern is that the two participants will simply talk past each other instead of engaging with arguments from their opponent. Price will repeat his case for non-historicity and Ehrman will repeat his case of historicity. Perhaps the debate might influence those on the fence – I don’t see it making any headway in the actual debate between the Jesus historicists and the ahistoricists/mythicists. Apart from that – the fact that a well-known NT scholar, one who holds to a historical Jesus (of some variant) will debate with Price, an ahistoricist, about the gospel Jesus, is perhaps a good thing – for the ahistoricist position i.e. giving this position a degree of respectability.
My view on the historical and mythic views? Don’t agree with either views. Both sides need to find common ground before progress in the debate is possible. That common ground is history, Jewish history. Both sides, so it seems to me, shy away from opening a history book….
gmatthews said
It won’t influence anyone. I don’t understand the point of any of these debates. They seem pointless to me.
The way most debates are structured I agree. Most debates are prewritten material that are read at the debate. This does not contribute to a better understanding to the subject. I hope this debate has more open dialog between the two debaters at least for the last half of the debate. Personally I do not have any pony in this race but lean to a very minimal Jesus of history. To see these two well read and knowledgeable men dialog one on one would be ideal. This is not the same old debate about did Jesus rise from the dead with bad apologetical arguments from Christians.
Mixed emotions. For one thing the subject is too complex to deal with in a ninety minute debate in other than a superficial way. Prof Ehrman’s book is 350 pages and Richard Carrier’s book is 700 pages! Judging from his comments I think the only reason Prof Ehrman is doing it is for charity. I suspect the mythicists will take it a lot more seriously since they have the most to gain. I suppose there will be some entertainment value. And yes it would be better if they skipped the formal debate structure and had a one on one conversation for a couple hours.
Jimmy said
I just found out that this debate will take place next October from other websites. This is wonderful news. Both men are very widely read and very intelligent. These are the two best representatives of each side. I have read most of DR. Ehrmans works and a few of DR. Prices. I am going to read and reread all of the works before watching this debate. I tend to side somewhat on Bart Ehrmans side. I agree with both sides that there is a whole lot of deeds and narratives of Jesus that never happened. What are your views of the historical and mythic views?
I’ve seen the October dating too, BUT Ehrman stated on his blog that it would be in the spring
maryhelena said
(…)
My view on the historical and mythic views? Don’t agree with either views. Both sides need to find common ground before progress in the debate is possible. That common ground is history, Jewish history. Both sides, so it seems to me, shy away from opening a history book….
You can’t be serious. New Testament scholars have been searching every little wrinkle of ancient Middle East history since the discipline was invented.
You might profit from starting with this classic: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
There’s no debate among scholars. The idea that there is some important debate standing in the way of progress is an incredible belief. Prof. Ehrman isn’t debating in order to make progress. His willingness to debate is based largely on the causes that motivated this site. If Mythicists like Price want to make progress they need to detach themselves from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc
spiker said
There’s no debate among scholars. The idea that there is some important debate standing in the way of progress is an incredible belief. Prof. Ehrman isn’t debating in order to make progress. His willingness to debate is based largely on the causes that motivated this site. If Mythicists like Price want to make progress they need to detach themselves from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc
NT Scholars, writing scholarly articles and books, are debating almost every aspect of NT studies with each other. The kind of debate to take place between Ehrman and Price is of course something quite different. Looking forward to it!
spiker said
There’s no debate among scholars. The idea that there is some important debate standing in the way of progress is an incredible belief. Prof. Ehrman isn’t debating in order to make progress. His willingness to debate is based largely on the causes that motivated this site. If Mythicists like Price want to make progress they need to detach themselves from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc
Robert Price is not a crackpot that wears a tin foil hat. He is a scholar in the field with two PhD’s. Most of the stuff online by mythicists is bad and downright wrong information and arguments. I think Robert price is head and shoulders above the online rabble. Although I disagree with about half his stuff, he does have a point that some of the Jesus stories have a striking resemblance to mythology known at that time and some old testament stories. The gospels were written decades later in different geographical locations, to different audiences. The information for the gospels were from mostly oral traditions that were spread by people who were converted from any number of religions and mythologies. To think that none of these ideas crept into the traditions is naïve. I agree with Bart that some guy name Jesus did walk the earth and there are a few things we can know about him. I agree with Robert that some of the stories abought Jesus were influenced by different religions and mythologies. Some traditions in the old testament with out a doubt were influenced by cultures that they mingled with and were conquered by. What makes us think this did not happen in the stories about Jesus.
gavriel said
spiker said
There’s no debate among scholars. The idea that there is some important debate standing in the way of progress is an incredible belief. Prof. Ehrman isn’t debating in order to make progress. His willingness to debate is based largely on the causes that motivated this site. If Mythicists like Price want to make progress they need to detach themselves from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etcNT Scholars, writing scholarly articles and books, are debating almost every aspect of NT studies with each other. The kind of debate to take place between Ehrman and Price is of course something quite different. Looking forward to it!
Yes, me too! But 1.) I’m increasingly disappointed in Price. He’s very intelligent but his arguments aren’t really that good and
2.) What I had in mind was the non debate between Historicists and mythicists. I’m hoping to enjoy this debate, but Prof Ehrman isn’t debating for academic reasons. Richard Dawkins has debated Creationists, but that doesn’t indicate a difference of opinion among biologists or “scholars”. The only reason Ehrman is debating is to raise money for his charity
Jimmy said
Robert Price is not a crackpot that wears a tin foil hat. He is a scholar in the field with two PhD’s. Most of the stuff online by mythicists is bad and downright wrong information and arguments.
Which is why I wrote he needed to “detach [himself] from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc. Further “a striking resemblance” is not proof or even evidence and it seems the “striking resemblance” more a matter of bad scholarship than anything else.
There’s a vast difference between whether ” these ideas [which are?] crept into the traditions” and whether they shaped those traditions. That myticists can’t get by on anything more than faulty schoarship and “striking resemblances” says it all.
spiker said
Jimmy said
Robert Price is not a crackpot that wears a tin foil hat. He is a scholar in the field with two PhD’s. Most of the stuff online by mythicists is bad and downright wrong information and arguments.Which is why I wrote he needed to “detach [himself] from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc. Further “a striking resemblance” is not proof or even evidence and it seems the “striking resemblance” more a matter of bad scholarship than anything else.
There’s a vast difference between whether ” these ideas [which are?] crept into the traditions” and whether they shaped those traditions. That myticists can’t get by on anything more than faulty schoarship and “striking resemblances” says it all.
In your opinion were all of the supernatural stories in the bible made up? If so where did they come from
Jimmy said
In your opinion were all of the supernatural stories in the bible made up? If so where did they come from
Not sure what your getting at here. “made up” ? Are you suggesting people deliberately invented the stories?
But so long as you’re not loading the question, I’m going to go with the idea that the “supernatural stories” are probably not just a bunch of lies. It’s likely that people telling the stories believed they were telling the truth. Why do you seem to think the “stories” must have come from external sources? Is it that only non Jews could make up stories? That they just didn’t have time to sit around and concoct stories so they just imported them?
Consider, that Paul complains about the response he gets from Jews and Greeks, (1 Corinthians 1:23)
we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness…” Thus despite the fact that dying and rising messiah’s seem to have occupied every street corner throughout the region, Paul’s Greek audience seems to know nothing of Adonis, Dionysus or “striking similarities” What is striking here is that Paul is preaching the very thing that is supposed to be the dominant trend in the region (dying and rising Messiah’s) but gets ridiculed for it by Greeks. Further, with all the “Striking similarities” you’d think the Romans would have been less hostile.
spiker said
Jimmy said
Robert Price is not a crackpot that wears a tin foil hat. He is a scholar in the field with two PhD’s. Most of the stuff online by mythicists is bad and downright wrong information and arguments.Which is why I wrote he needed to “detach [himself] from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc. Further “a striking resemblance” is not proof or even evidence and it seems the “striking resemblance” more a matter of bad scholarship than anything else.
There’s a vast difference between whether ” these ideas [which are?] crept into the traditions” and whether they shaped those traditions. That myticists can’t get by on anything more than faulty schoarship and “striking resemblances” says it all.
The debate statement will be very revealing (has that been decided yet?) and there is obviously the potential for the debate to be uninformative as mentioned above, but there is also the possibility for light to be shed. My hope is that the debate will cover the historical evidence for both sides of the case and given the recent (and not so recent writings) of Wells, Carrier and Price there is certainly sufficient information for a meaningful debate. I do not think “arguments from authority” (e.g. there is no debate among scholars) has any meaningful place in the evidentiary debate, indeed this appears to be one of the major criticisms of Dr Ehrman’s recent foray into this arena. At the end of the day there will have to be a balancing of the evidence and hopefully Dr Price and Dr Ehrman will be able to identify the critical evidence that warrants their position. Furthermore, can it not be argued that 200 years ago formal Christian theology was based on “faulty scholarship” and “striking resemblances” (between OT and NT)? I am also reminded that Wegener’s theory of continental drift was vehemently opposed by the majority of “scholars” for nearly 50 years before it was accepted as one of the driving forces of modern geology. [I am not saying that the evidence for “mythicist” position is comparable to the evidence for the continental drift hypothesis but I am saying that a debate by two stalwarts of the opposing views could be very informative.
Seriously!?
The statement that there is no debate among scholars is not an argument from authority. There was no argument being made. This has got to be the shibboleth here. Not only can’t mythicists get their facts straight they can’t even get the fallacies straight.
Yes that may be one of the” major criticisms of Dr Ehrman’s recent foray into this arena.” But the charge is made with stunning incompetance. How can you have a fallacy from authority when the person allegedly committing this fallacy, after mentioning scholarly consensus, repeatedly states that THAT is not evidence!? If that is the only “major criticism” Prof Ehrman needs to worry about, he is well ahead of the game.
ianc123 Are you available for parties? “200 years ago formal Christian theology was based on “faulty scholarship” and “striking resemblances” .
Well Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh my!
200 years ago scientific knowledge was based on faulty scientific knowledge, I guess that means quantum mechanics is just a myth
If Mythicists like Price want to make progress they need to detach themselves from the army of crackpots, tin foil hat brigade, New World Order Nut jobs, Pink Squeaks, Screaming Greenies, Sanders Soviets etc
Well Richard Carrier has spent a lot of his career trying to distinguish his own views from the mythicist wackos. He wrote an interesting article pointing out the problems with not believing Paul was historical, for example. I think Carrier’s semi-hysterical response to Prof Ehrman’s book was generated in large part because he didn’t think Prof Ehrman differentiated enough between Carrier’s work and the rest of what tends to be a fairly frenzied crew.
Robert Price is not a crackpot that wears a tin foil hat.
True which I suspect is why Prof Ehrman agreed to debate with him. That and the money for charity of course.
Actually I first became aware of Price years ago through his writings about supernatural horror fiction, H P Lovecraft and the like. Didn’t realize he was a bible scholar and mythicist until much later.
Richard Dawkins has debated Creationists, but that doesn’t indicate a difference of opinion among biologists or “scholars”.
Actually Dawkins generally avoids debates with creationists because he doesn’t want to give them publicity. In this case perhaps a debate can serve some useful purpose. I am disturbed at the uncritical way the Jesus myth meme has swept through the atheist/skeptical community. So much so that otherwise on the ball people have fallen for it. Perhaps Prof Ehrman can demonstrate how history actually works to folks who are showing an amazing lack of skepticism on the subject.
…were all of the supernatural stories in the bible made up?
Well I don’t believe in the “supernatural” for the simple reason that I don’t see any evidence that such a thing exists so if I told a supernatural tale as if it actually happened you could say it was in fact “made up”. But the first century Christians were completely comfortable with the idea of the supernatural so I suspect they were repeating stories they believed were true.
But remember the gospels were literary constructs. I’m sure the authors used whatever tools and sources that were available to them. This would have consisted largely of the Hebrew messianic OT scriptural tradition. I’m sure Mark was riffing off Psalm 22 in his depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion but contra Price it doesn’t follow that the crucifixion itself was made up. It means Mark was mining his sources for help in telling his story. His audience would have made the connection instantly. It takes fundamentalist Christians – or mythicists – to make the error of confusing the map with the territory.
Actually Dawkins generally avoids debates with creationists because he doesn’t want to give them publicity.
Yes and notice the word “has”. If he has debated them, it hardly matters what he generally does and the point was rather simple.
I am disturbed at the uncritical way the Jesus myth meme has swept through the atheist/skeptical community. So much so that otherwise on the ball people have fallen for it. Perhaps Prof Ehrman can demonstrate how history actually works to folks who are showing an amazing lack of skepticism on the subject.
Ahh yes, and their are many fine christian skeptics when it comes to evolution (ok I couldn’t finish that without laughing)
But there’s some difference between people who fashion themselves as skeptics and those who actually are. Someone predisposed to skepticism because of ideas they, on the face of it, consider ridiculous, isn’t quite a skeptic in the sense of applying critical thinking.
What else would the gospels be, except literary constructs? I’m a bit skeptical of the whole people were mining the OT argument because of the literacy rate (less to do with the writers and more to do with the generl availability of books) and it’s not like they could go to Barnes and Noble or the library and pick up a copy.
gavriel said
maryhelena said
(…)
My view on the historical and mythic views? Don’t agree with either views. Both sides need to find common ground before progress in the debate is possible. That common ground is history, Jewish history. Both sides, so it seems to me, shy away from opening a history book….
You can’t be serious. New Testament scholars have been searching every little wrinkle of ancient Middle East history since the discipline was invented.
You might profit from starting with this classic: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’m very serious indeed. You might profit from doing a historical exercise as outlined in the chart I will post below. It’s simple really. Make a historical listing on one side of a chart and list the gospel story on the other side. It’s the history that informs the gospel story. It’s within Jewish history that the gospel story finds it’s ground zero. The gospel story is a political allegory – it is not itself history. From it’s base of political allegory the gospel story runs the gambit of theological and philosophical musings.
Apologies for the state of the chart re the text – could not find a way to adjust the font in the chart.
|
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)