First, James McGrath has pointed to Thompson’s recent essay, calling it rather odd. McGrath points out what many of us see in other academic mythicis that “Thompson seems to be trying to both defend mythicism and distance himself from it.” That’s the problem, ain’t it. Mythicism is being redefined merely as a healthy dose of doubt. I would say that if we are redefining the word, then we should see that it is a healthy dose of the loss of reality, but… Tom didn’t like that. He suggests that because McGrath doesn’t believe Thompson and then sees that Thompson
Jim has posted some of it, in response to Bart’s failure to respond properly here. Seems that Prof. Ehrman thinks that a challenge is mean-spirited. I got this from Steph: Maurice Casey has responded which I repost here: “Ehrman’s blog comments are extraordinarily self-centred, and make one wonder which New Testament scholars he has ever talked to about the existence of Jesus. For example, he comments, ‘before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing abut the mythicist movement’. Most of us knew perfectly well that there was a massive attack on the existence of
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
Carrier has a review up on Bart Ehrman’s book on the historical Jesus. I haven’t yet read it yet, as I am, as you know, WRITING MY OWN (and while not dealing expressly with the historical Jesus, it will, however, I hope, have something to say in that regard). Anyway, so as I started to read Carrier’s review, his opening paragraph essentially said all I needed to know: Moreover, it completely fails at its one explicit task: to effectively critique the arguments for Jesus being a mythical person. Here’s the thing… one would have to first assume that the
“I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that’s right or not,” Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz. The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists. “It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are,” Ehrman says. “Historically, they’ve been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some
While reading this post, a commentator post a link to what we will examine below. One of the issues with KJV-Onlyism is that it is Anglo-centric, meaning that many of those who promote it would declare England/American as the lost tribe(s) of Israel. I want to just answer a few things from Sam Gipp’s take on why there is not perfect bible in any other language.
Yes, yes, we know that Bart Ehrman is the world re-known ‘I was born again bible-believing Evangelical and now it is my mission to destroy the bible’ but can we not just go without him this one time? The BBC writes: Had this [the epistle of Barnabas] remained in subsequent versions, “the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse”, says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman. And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from