You can and should find it here. Good stuff. Not sure I’ll read his book, but I might buy it at least. I mean, Ehrman’s.
It’s not that I don’t like Ehrman, but I just have a lot going on right now.
Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier « Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog.
One thing though… if I was Carrier, I’d go with the degree in Classics because it would seem that at least at that point, he would have a better chance to argue his points than a degree in Ancient History. His overblown rebuttal of the degree proffered by Ehrman by mistake only creates this sense that Carrier is a rather tiny little man, bent only on his own self-aggrandizement. Further, what I thought was a poor attempt by a Classicist to use a math formula has now turned into what I consider a laughable gag that someone with a degree in Ancient History, who should know better about how Ancient History was done, would attempt to pretend to use a math formula to discover the probability of the Historical Jesus.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
That is how a scholar responds. That was a convincing for me, I’m sure plenty of Carrier’s acolytes will call it hogwash, but that was sound logic and interpretation of data.
Amen, Nate.
Math goes where?!
Not generally in history.