Topic: New Bart D Ehrman Book Defends Historicity of Jesus

[GodSlayer]

Unlike some of the hard-core "Christ myth" writers, Price doesn't claim that an individual called Jesus absolutely, positively never existed; he merely argues that the question can't be settled with a reasonable degree of certainty. 

Smart tactical move if you are playing King of the Hill.  It puts the burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with you.

You're still using steeply inclined phrasing to describe a level situation.  Meeting your burden of evidence and handing someone the burden of rejoinder doesn't constitute an unfair move.  If the evidence you produced to meet your burden is weak, the person with the burden of rejoinder doesn't have to work hard to hand that burden back to you.

concurred.

one doesn't say it's a cunning tactic for a scientist to only offer the evidence his claim requires for support, one just acknowledges they've done their intellectual duty in defending the position they've asserted.

[IrishJazz]

It doesn't look like this has been linked to yet.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/

It's a very long article.  Apparently Ehrman doesn't do a good job of defending himself in an introductory article about the book.

The review- concerning the parts of the book that I have read so far- is pretty weak and unfair.  For example, Ehrman is responding to questions why the Romans excellent record keeping did not include records of Jesus' trial.   He says that Pilate is not mentioned in any contemporary Roman sources of his day.  Carrier says "what about Phlio?  Philo of Alexandria was not a Roman, but a Hellenistic Jew living in Africa.  He also mentions Josephus, who was a Jew in Judea, although he palled around with Romans.

I would read further, but generally I lose interest when somebody criticizing someone else of misstatement makes a misstatement themselves.     

[jomike]

I look forward to seeing the error of my ways.

No, you don't.

I can certainly understand that it will take some time and deep thought to explain

No, you can't.  Or won't.  At this point you're pissed off and dug in and dishing clever snark.  You're good at it, I'll give you that.

Not that it'll make any difference at this point, but where you ran amok was in misinterpreting a very limited statement I made early in the thread, which you have since blown all out of proportion in an attempt to prove, I dunno, something:

Yeah, there's nothing the least bit postmodern about his work

.... is consistent with

Um, nobody claimed Price has "no postmodernist aspects" whatsoever.

... and how both are consistent with Price's own sermon "What Language Shall I Borrow"

Robert Price quote mine

You keep flogging this.  But here's the thing:  Whatever the influences on Price himself, his work output -- writings, interviews, public debates -- bear none of the hallmarks of postmodernism.  Zero.  His output is the antithesis of postmodernism.  The fact that he employs certain postmodernist techniques such as textual deconstruction in the pursuit of his craft is beside the fucking point.  Everybody born in the postwar era uses at least some of the techniques of postmodernism, so called.  (Okay, maybe except for fundies and biblical inerrantists and so forth.  We're talking about serious scholars, here).  But coming of age in the era of postmodernism (so called), and using some of the critical techniques common to the era, does not in & of itself make one a "postmodernist," at least not as the term is generally understood.  For fuck's sake, Price's whole project is against relativism and postmodernism.   He is, if anything, a modernist, an Enlightenment rationalist.

Since the original statement, and my response to it was made several days ago, I assume that you have just not had time to put together an adequately devastating response.

You assume wrong.  I merely chose not to reply to your chest-pounding.

Frankly, I can't imagine what a convincing response would be.

Frankly, as dug in & pissed off as you appear to be, I doubt you'd be able to acknowledge any response, by anyone, no matter how well reasoned.

Pretending that you can, like pretending your second statement is consistent with your first, is, IMHO, intellectually dishonest.

Refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, you misinterpreted my statement, and then blew it way the fuck out of proportion in order to demonstrate... hell, I don't know, whatever it is you seem to want to demonstrate, here... well, I'd say that's intellectually dishonest, except that it seems your argument is driven not so much by intellect as by pique, or a need to maintain Hill Kingly status, or something.

But go ahead.  Astonish me.

It's impossible show anything to one who already knows it it all.

See, acknowledging mistakes is not so bad.][/i]

INORITE?  The irony in your sig line is rich indeed.

[Neon Genesis]

I'll just say that I love how Jomike accuses Irishjazz of being "pissed off and dug in" yet turns around and uses the word fuck in every other sentence in his response and his sole response seems to boil down to "Price may look like a duck and quack like a duck but he isn't a duck because I fucking say so!"

[Vincegamer]

yeah, this thread took a weird turn. IJ doesn't come off at all "pissed off" to me, but Jomike certainly does.
IJ may be "dug in" but that's just cause he thinks he's right and hasn't had a persuasive counter. I think "postmodern" was the wrong word to use too, but I don't know a heck of a lot about philosophy and frankly think it's a tangent that doesn't deserve dissecting so I'm not going to argue the point. I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks.

[IrishJazz]

No, you can't.  Or won't.  At this point you're pissed off and dug in and dishing clever snark.  You're good at it, I'll give you that.

Thank you.  But truth be told I am exactly the opposite of being angry.  Why should I be?

Not that it'll make any difference at this point, but where you ran amok was in misinterpreting a very limited statement I made early in the thread, which you have since blown all out of proportion in an attempt to prove, I dunno, something:

I didn't blow it out of proportion; I said it was wrong.  Exactly how this amounts to running amok is a mystery to me.  The extremism of your rhetoric, in my opinion, masks a weak opinion.  I just want to see if you will admit to being wrong. 

You keep flogging this.  But here's the thing:  Whatever the influences on Price himself, his work output -- writings, interviews, public debates -- bear none of the hallmarks of postmodernism.  Zero.  His output is the antithesis of postmodernism.  The fact that he employs certain postmodernist techniques such as textual deconstruction in the pursuit of his craft is beside the fucking point.  Everybody born in the postwar era uses at least some of the techniques of postmodernism, so called.  (Okay, maybe except for fundies and biblical inerrantists and so forth.  We're talking about serious scholars, here).  But coming of age in the era of postmodernism (so called), and using some of the critical techniques common to the era, does not in & of itself make one a "postmodernist," at least not as the term is generally understood.  For fuck's sake, Price's whole project is against relativism and postmodernism.   He is, if anything, a modernist, an Enlightenment rationalist.

First of all, thank you for using the "King of the Hill" meme.  I am trying to get it started.

Second....Wow.  You really won't admit to being mistaken.  Instead you create a strawman version of postmodernism- a very broad and difficult to define term based on its inclusiveness, you confuse it with some sort of relativism, and then you say that Price is exactly the opposite of what he says.  At the same time you essentially concede that your original statement- "there is nothing the least bit postmodern about his work" is wrong.  But you don't actually say it.  That, to me, is intellectual dishonesty.  Dude, Price himself embraces the term "postmodern."  Why can't you?

You assume wrong.  I merely chose not to reply to your chest-pounding.

Now I am pounding my chest?  You were the one who said you needed more time.  Apparently you needed more than you took.

Frankly, as dug in & pissed off as you appear to be, I doubt you'd be able to acknowledge any response, by anyone, no matter how well reasoned.

Really?  Well, I open the door to anyone who can make the slightest bit of sense out of what you are saying to try.  I may not be convinced, but they could certainly do no worse. 

Refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, you misinterpreted my statement, and then blew it way the fuck out of proportion in order to demonstrate... hell, I don't know, whatever it is you seem to want to demonstrate, here... well, I'd say that's intellectually dishonest, except that it seems your argument is driven not so much by intellect as by pique, or a need to maintain Hill Kingly status, or something.

I am not taking a king of the hill position. I am saying you are mistaken, supporting my argument with inconsistent quotations from yourself, and contradictory quotations from Price.  What makes this seem like a big deal to you is that you are the one who looks petty and defensive.  Tear apart my argument if you can.  Explain how your sentences are actually in agreement. Show me how Price's position, while shaped by postmodernism, isn't the the least bit postmodern. 

The truth is that you don't know what postmodernism is, but you think it has something to do with mush minded relativism and you don't like it.  And you like Price.  Hence he cannot be the least bit postmodern.  Show me where I make my mistake.

It's impossible show anything to one who already knows it it all.

I guess that qualifies as an ad hominem, which means you are running on empty.  I have learned a lot from the people I have disagreed with on these boards.  So far I have learned nothing from you, but I stand ready. 

INORITE?  The irony in your sig line is rich indeed.

The measure of an argument is its ability to persuade.  Ask yourself- do you think that taking this line is more effective than doing a simple escape move that covers your initial mistake.  Allow me to suggest one:

When I said there was nothing the least bit postmodern about Price, what I meant was that his arguments are focused and grounded in the way the worst of the postmodern arguments are not.  The term has gotten a bad reputation due to the excesses of some of its practitioners.  If you meant is as purely descriptive, and not pejorative,  then I have no problem with the term.

I think that is actually reflects what you believe- that your initial response was a reaction to what you thought was an insult.  That you did not take the high road out.  You relied on insult and excuses while trying to edge your way out without acknowledging that you were wrong, was what made it intellectually dishonest.  Sometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Don't waste your time being mad at me for pointing this out.  This is a small community, and a forgiving one.  Learn from it and move on.  Extra points for admitting it, of course. 

[Johnny Slick]

I admit that jomike overreached and dropped into name-calling and ad hominem. 

[Karyn]

It doesn't look like this has been linked to yet.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/

It's a very long article.  Apparently Ehrman doesn't do a good job of defending himself in an introductory article about the book.

The review- concerning the parts of the book that I have read so far- is pretty weak and unfair.  For example, Ehrman is responding to questions why the Romans excellent record keeping did not include records of Jesus' trial.   He says that Pilate is not mentioned in any contemporary Roman sources of his day.  Carrier says "what about Phlio?  Philo of Alexandria was not a Roman, but a Hellenistic Jew living in Africa.  He also mentions Josephus, who was a Jew in Judea, although he palled around with Romans.

I would read further, but generally I lose interest when somebody criticizing someone else of misstatement makes a misstatement themselves.   

To be fair, the review was in regards to a short article wrote as an introduction to the book, not a review of the book itself.  Carrier even mentions that he hasn't read the book and that he's hoping Ehrman uses better arguments in the book.  Good job with the whole misstating someone thing.

[IrishJazz]

To be fair, the review was in regards to a short article wrote as an introduction to the book, not a review of the book itself.  Carrier even mentions that he hasn't read the book and that he's hoping Ehrman uses better arguments in the book.  Good job with the whole misstating someone thing.

As a side point... Ehrman disagrees with Price, but he treats him, and his arguments with respect.

[Neon Genesis]

So according to Carrier, the reason why there's hardly any non anti-Christian Jesus Myth theorists is because there's an evil conspiracy among bible scholars to persecute anyone who espouses the theory and Ehrman is attacking academic freedom because he thinks the theory is ridiculous?  Wow, what a self-righteous drama queen.

[Vincegamer]

there's hardly any non anti-Christian Jesus Myth theorists

whoa there.  Define "anti-Christian" please.

[IrishJazz]

there's hardly any non anti-Christian Jesus Myth theorists

whoa there.  Define "anti-Christian" please.

I read that as meaning "most of the Jesus Myth theorists are hostile to Christianity in general."  I am not sure this is true, but I doubt that there are many who embrace Christianity with this point of view.  (Although Price, according to his web page, has become an Episcopalian.  Or at least an attendee of Episcopal services.)

[Johnny Slick]

That part of his page doesn't appear to have been updated since at least 2009 and possibly not since 2004.

[Neon Genesis]

whoa there.  Define "anti-Christian" please.

Google The God Who Wasn't There "documentary."

[Vincegamer]

I've seen it, and I thought it was reasonably good up til the last oh, 20-30 minutes when he just went around thumbing his figurative nose at people who were mean to him.