labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 2, 2012 18:32:36 GMT
I have started blogging on the Ehrman/Carrier exchange. Below is the first post with some general remarks. ______________________________________ With the web abuzz with the warring posts of Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, and with Ehrman’s already stated purpose not to engage Carrier and his confused minions of Jesus mythicisim further, it might be a good time to examine the fallout of this exchange. I obviously agree with Ehrman (and almost every scholar on the subject of every persuasion) that Jesus existed. But I have also noted Ehrman’s tendency to frame discussions in such a way as to overlook key elements that could lead to other conclusions, his sleight-of-hand maneuvers to negate such concerns, and his summary dismissals of those with whom he disagrees as though disagreeing with Bart Ehrman is enough to prove their unpreparedness for the debate. That being said, I think Ehrman was rather shocked by the reactions of Carrier and the strange denizens of the “New Atheists” who once hailed Ehrman as a conquering hero and a potential ally in the “Jesus mythicist” camp. I think Ehrman genuinely saw Carrier as an intelligent young potential scholar who was wasting his abilities defending a position that was exposed as untenable a century ago. Depending on how much of his own PR he believes (and I think he believes a lot of it), Ehrman might even have entertained the idea that this corrective might have put Carrier back on track for a fruitful career in academia. Obviously, Ehrman has neither done much reading on Carrier’s blog in the past nor done much reading of the tone of discourse in the web atheist community. Despite maintaining the centerpiece of the movement is rationality, this claim is little more than a facade as large segments of it are rooted in ideologically motivated anti-Christian polemics. Their “rationality” is one that is assumed, not demonstrated, and deviance from the groupthink elicits shunning and character assassination no less vehement than one would find among hardcore Christian fundamentalists. This is hardly surprising as many were once Christian fundamentalists and have merely transferred their intellectual modus operandi to the opposing team. Carrier’s frequently abusive characterizations of those who dare challenge him in the public arena, off the cuff psychological evaluations of those who return fire, and his release of tomes as blog posts defending his previous blog posts have become the butt of jokes for more level headed internet voices on the topic. This is certainly the case in the recent exchange with Ehrman as those outside the “New Atheist” subuculture are starting to see his recent rants as more than a little odd. Most significantly for Carrier, those inside academia who have kept track of the affair now have a less than flattering image of him firmly planted in their minds. While Carrier’s tactless responses might have played well with his fanboys, it has only reinforced the image of Jesus mythicism as a position left to conspiracy theorists and other ideologues impervious to anything resembling historical or logical argumentation. Carrier is quickly changing whatever impression he had as someone intelligent but misguided to someone who has veered into the claptrap end of the historical Jesus spectrum. In other words, he is now seen as a promoter of “woooo” out there with Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, Jordan Maxwell, and perhaps a few short steps from the guy with the gravity defying hair on the Ancient Aliens TV program. Please note that I am not saying he deserves such a classification but rather that his recent conduct in the controversy over Ehrman’s book has made him look just as bizarre as those mentioned. Given most academic historians and New Testament scholars who have kept track of this affair have never read his books or even have heard of him prior to Ehrman’s recent effort, their first impression of him is his recent blogposts, comments of those who have been doing battle with Carrier for some time, and the often delusional comments by Carrier’s fanboys. It’s not a pretty picture. All of this may be a blow to Carrier as he despises the books by the “wooooists” and is preoccupied with gaining Jesus mythicism a respectable place at the academic table. At this point, I will not go into detail into the reasons why academics who have examined the arguments of Carrier and other mythicists have found them unpersuasive but merely will point out they have been dismissed as flawed and ideologically motivated. More pertinent to the discussion here is the things that have been pointed out about Carrier’s own conduct in putting forth his arguments. For example, while a graduate student in history, Carrier had an exchange with Christian apologist David Wood where the latter alleged some major deficiencies in Carrier’s grasp of philosophical issues. To this allegation, Carrier responded: At the very least, Wood cannot argue against the fact that I am no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications certainly match theirs in every relevant respect. The above assertion of being the superior to two of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world while having supplied nothing to the intellectual patrimony of Western culture is hubris to the point of being delusional. Nor does it stop there as can be seen in his biography at his website where a rather inflated picture of his accomplishments are presented: Richard Carrier is a world-renowned author and speaker. As a professional historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement, Dr. Carrier has appeared across the country and on national television defending sound historical methods and the ethical worldview of secular naturalism. His books and articles have also received international attention. World-renowned? Published philosopher? His books and articles and have received international attention? Let’s see … he is only a few years out of graduate school, has not secured a tenure track position within academia, has not published anything of note within an academic journal in his field of study, has primarily written articles for atheist websites and publications along with his own blog, and his books were either self-published or published by an atheist press. Recognized experts in the field of history, philosophy, and New Testament studies have probably never heard of him. Any renown he has comes from the world of the blogosphere where the most anti-Christian elements of the secular web have heralded his every word. It appears that just as Ehrman might be reading his own publicity, so Carrier has been carried away by the hero worship of his fanboys. Well, at least Ehrman can claim his ego was inflated by actual accomplishments. Having given some overall impressions of the dispute between Ehrman and Carrier, I will in posts to follow examine the specifics of the case in detail. In particular, I will look at the evidence presented for each of the claims made in Carrier’s review, Ehrman’s response, and Carrier’s counter-response. As one might guess, I was far more impressed with Ehrman than Carrier as the latter started to sound like a five year old trying to explain that his hand was not really in the cookie jar to take a cookie. But that will wait till then.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 2, 2012 18:38:22 GMT
Below is my second post on the general tone of the exchange ________________________ When viewing the treatment of Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, one thing stands out: Ehrman was far more civil to Carrier than the latter was to Ehrman – a rather strange turn of events considering the professional record of accomplishments is completely one-sided in Ehrman’s favor. Yet this is sort of behavior is not unusual within the loud and cranky world of the “New Atheism” where those who are experts in the history of religion have scorn piled upon their work by cranks and quacks of all sorts if they do not unswervingly follow the New Atheist party line. I have the feeling Ehrman is only now beginning to realize he has entered a world where conspiracy theories are always the first option. Welcome to the internet, Dr. Ehrman. The differences in civility were quite telling for all concerned. Ehrman went to great lengths to separate those mythicists who attempted to give an academic presentation (Carrier, Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty), despite thinking their position is completely untenable, from those who are cranks from the outset (Acharya S, Freke and Gandy) with whom he was completely dismissive. In other words, Ehrman treated Carrier as one of the more serious of the Jesus mythicists although his conclusion was that his arguments could not withstand serious scrutiny. While I will grant you that Ehrman does not take the Jesus mythicist position seriously (but then neither does almost any other scholar in any related field) and he probably thinks the whole thing is more than a little nuts, he nonetheless treated Carrier respectfully. Carrier, in his review, reacted as anything but an academic whose views were being challenged. His demeanor was one of an adolescent who had never been properly disciplined by his parents and was used to throwing hissy fits when he did not get his way. Rather than soberly challenging Ehrman’s claims, he framed them within an unsightly heap of polemic that included the following: • Filled with factual errors, logical fallacies, and badly worded arguments • Lousy with errors • So full of errors that they will badly mislead and miseducate the reader • Commits so many mistakes that Carrier has to substantially and extensively correct them • Misinforms more than it informs • Worse than bad • Readers will come away with more false information in their heads than true • Ehrman makes Carrier’s job as a historian harder, because now Carrier have to fix everything Ehrman screwed up • Officially sucks Keep in mind this comes from a self-published blogger barely out of graduate school and aimed at a scholar who actually has earned the title of a “world renowned author whose books and articles have received international attention” that Carrier has applied to himself. If you want someone to treat your work with respect, it is it is always a good first step to treat theirs in the same manner – particularly when they have a track record you could not match in your dreams. Instead, Carrier unleashed a stream of invective towards Ehrman as though the latter was a blogger rival who might be drawn into a protracted struggle where he could be overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of Carrier’s verbiage and the endless twaddle of his fanboys’ comments. Since Ehrman has openly stated he would not cooperate by wasting further time on Carrier and his mindless yesmen, it has only succeeded in giving the impression that the whole bunch are in need of gainful employment or a more productive hobby. Certainly, it appears Ehrman was more than a bit annoyed at Carrier’s demeanor in his hit piece posing as a review. In his reply, he pointed out: As many readers know, Richard Carrier has written a hard-hitting, one might even say vicious, response to Did Jesus Exist. I said nothing nasty about Carrier in my book – just the contrary, I indicated that he was a smart fellow with whom I disagree on fundamental issues, including some for which he really does not seem to know what he is talking about. But I never attacked him personally. He on the other hand, appears to be showing his true colors.
Still, the one thing this bit of nastiness has shown me is that even though I seem to stir up controversy everywhere I go and with everything I write, I really don’t like conflict. I would much prefer that we all simply get along and search for truth together. But alas, the world does not appear to be made that way. And I seem to be a lightning rod for criticism. This morning I woke up to the old Stealer’s Wheel song in my head, “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.” It’s a good place to be, stuck in the middle, when there are so many outlandish options to the left and right. While Ehrman painting himself as standing in the middle ground between Christian and atheist radicals is grossly inaccurate (there are many non-fundie Christians and far less extreme nonbelievers among Biblical scholars and Ehrman is clearly to the left of center), his point about Carrier’s conduct is spot on. Carrier has acted like a comnplete ass towards someone who has real accomplishments in the field where Carrier wants to be taken as a serious scholar. Instead of acting as such, he resorted to arrogant posing to prove to his fans (and perhaps himself) that he, the world-renowned Richard Carrier, deserves to be taken seriously. Astonishingly, Carrier not only tried to justify his boorish behavior but also attacked Ehrman for pointing it out: Ehrman does appear to want to hide the substantive errors and mistakes and fallacies I document, and one strategy he uses to do that is to deflect it all by reframing the debate as being about personal attacks and my being mean to him (when he was so nice to me). This of course has nothing to do with what really matters and just serves the purpose of trying to convince people that all my substantive points about his scholarship are really just personal attacks and since personal attacks are fallacious (being the fallacy of ad hominem), all my points can be dismissed as fallacious. Which may be the first time I’ve ever seen an actual ad hominem fallacy used to rebut a non-existent ad hominem fallacy. He attacks me personally, by claiming I attacked him personally, which I didn’t, and has the gall to then say (correctly) that personal attacks can be ignored as fallacious. Yeah. Think about that for a minute. Not only is the above tirade complete nonsense and a total mischaracterization of what Ehrman actually wrote, but Carrier’s own posts prove it! At no point does Ehrman state Carrier’s points can be dismissed because of his personal attacks. What Ehrman actually wrote on the topic (apart from the earlier quote above) was: Carrier, as many of you know, has written a scathing review of Did Jesus Exist on his Freethought Blog. He indicates that my book is “full of errors,” that it “misinforms more than it informs” that it provides “false information” that it is “worse than bad” and that “it officially sucks.” The attacks are sustained throughout his lengthy post, and they often become personal. He indicates that “Ehrman doesn’t actually know what he is talking about,” he claims that I speak with “absurd” hyperbole, that my argument “makes [me] look irresponsible,” that I am guilty of “sloppy work,” that I “misrepresent” my opponents and “misinform the public,” that what I write is “crap,” that I am guilty of “arrogantly dogmatic and irresponsible thinking,” that I am “incompetent,” make “hack” mistakes, and do not “act like a real scholar.” Most of his review represents an attempt to substantiate these claims. Some readers may find the overblown rhetoric offensive, but I have no interest in engaging in a battle of wits and rhetorical flourishes. I would simply like to see if the charges of my incompetence can be sustained. Thus Ehrman is clearly drawing a line between the objections Carrier raises and the showboating antics in which he frames them and then states he will engage the latter without returning fire on the former. In other words, Bart Ehrman is claiming to be an adult. He will answer the reasonable objections but refuses to sink to Carrier’s level of behavior. As for Carrier not attacking him personally, most people reading that review would disagree. Of course, since the “New Atheists” as a whole seem predisposed to name calling, perhaps Carrier’s sensitivity to what is and is not a personal attack has been shaped by the wide-eyed fanaticism of his fanboys. The point of Ehrman not summarily dismissing Carrier’s points because of his childishness is further illustrated by the fact that Ehrman does answer them. If he had made the claim that Carrier’s points could be summarily dismissed because of name-calling, he would not have bothered responding. Moreover, Carrier himself implicitly acknowledges this point by spending two lengthy blogposts attempting to neutralize Ehrman’s replies. The blogger doth protest too much, methinks. Now that we have examined the general demeanor of the two participants in the controversy, we will turn next time to Ehrman’s strategy in engaging Jesus mythicism.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 2, 2012 18:44:15 GMT
I think that's a good idea. I'll start doing the same. It would help to restore some balance to the way the debate is being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 2, 2012 18:50:04 GMT
Carrier gives the appearance of trying to make a name for himself by riding on the coattails of Ehrman's genuine prestige.
He wants to be Jack the Giantslayer, but he's more like the Jack who broke his crown while attempting the ludicrously simple task of fetching a pail of water.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 2, 2012 18:58:02 GMT
Excellent post. You are absolutely right to note that Carrier is an appalling self-publicist whose current public persona is ironically counterproductive. I can't imagine too many universities champing at the bit to hire this young gun! Just a few typos: Given most academic historians and New Testament scholars who have kept track of this affair have never read his books or even have heard of him prior to Ehrman’s recent efort efforts, their first impression of him is his recent blogposts, comments of those who have been doing battle with Carrie Carrier[/color] for some time, and the often delusional comments by Carrier’s fanboys. It’s not a pretty picture. All of this may be a blow to Carrier as he despises the books by the “wooooists” and is preoccupied with gaining Jesus mythicism a respectable place at the academic table. At this point, I will not go into detail into the reasons why academics who have examined the arguments of Carrier and other mythicists have found them unpersuasive but merely will point out they have been dismiised dismissed as not flawed and ideologically motivated. ... For example, while a graduate student in history, Carrier had an exchange with Christian apologist David Wood where the latter allged alleged... Let’s see … he is only a few years out of graduate school, has not secured a tenure track position within academia, has not published anything of note within an academic journal in his field of study, has primarily written articles for atheist webites websites and publications along with his own blog, and his books were either self-published or published by an atheist press. Recognized experts in the field of history, philosophy, and New Testament studies have probably never heard of him. Any renown he has comes from the world of the blogosphere where the most anti-Christian elements of the secular web have hearlded heralded his every word.[/quote] Nothing significant, but 'Carrie' instead of 'Carrier' will not go down well (particularly considering his obvious paranoia) and the part where you say mythicist theories 'have been dismissed as not flawed and ideologically motivated' is currently stating the opposite of what you've intended!
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 2, 2012 19:15:45 GMT
Excellent post. You are absolutely right to note that Carrier is an appalling self-publicist whose current public persona is ironically counterproductive. I can't imagine too many universities champing at the bit to hire this young gun! Just a few typos: Given most academic historians and New Testament scholars who have kept track of this affair have never read his books or even have heard of him prior to Ehrman’s recent efort efforts, their first impression of him is his recent blogposts, comments of those who have been doing battle with Carrie Carrier[/color] for some time, and the often delusional comments by Carrier’s fanboys. It’s not a pretty picture. All of this may be a blow to Carrier as he despises the books by the “wooooists” and is preoccupied with gaining Jesus mythicism a respectable place at the academic table. At this point, I will not go into detail into the reasons why academics who have examined the arguments of Carrier and other mythicists have found them unpersuasive but merely will point out they have been dismiised dismissed as not flawed and ideologically motivated. ... For example, while a graduate student in history, Carrier had an exchange with Christian apologist David Wood where the latter allged alleged... Let’s see … he is only a few years out of graduate school, has not secured a tenure track position within academia, has not published anything of note within an academic journal in his field of study, has primarily written articles for atheist webites websites and publications along with his own blog, and his books were either self-published or published by an atheist press. Recognized experts in the field of history, philosophy, and New Testament studies have probably never heard of him. Any renown he has comes from the world of the blogosphere where the most anti-Christian elements of the secular web have hearlded heralded his every word.[/quote] Nothing significant, but 'Carrie' instead of 'Carrier' will not go down well (particularly considering his obvious paranoia) and the part where you say mythicist theories 'have been dismissed as not flawed and ideologically motivated' is currently stating the opposite of what you've intended! [/quote] Thanks and I will correct them. By the way, I'm a lousy typist too! But I am a bit tempted to leave "Carrie" in there.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 2, 2012 20:12:16 GMT
Great initiative and awesome posts. Here are a few other typos you might want to change. With the web abuzz with the warring posts of Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, and with Ehrman’s already stated purpose not to engage Carrier and his confused minions of Jesus mythcisim mythicism further, it might be a good time to examine the fallout of this exchange. I obviously agreee agree with Ehrman (and almost every scholar on the subject of every persuasion) that Jesus existed. But I have also noted Ehrman’s tendency to frame discussions in such a way as to overlook key elements that could lead to other conclusions, his sleight-of-hand maneuvers to negate such concerns, and his summary dismissals of those with whom he disagrees as though disagreeing with Bart Ehrman is enough to prove their unpreparedness for the debate. ... Carrier’s frequently abusive characterizations of those who dare challenge him in the public arena, off the cuff pschological psychological evaluations of those who return fire, and his release of tomes as blog posts defending his previous blog posts have become the butt of jokes for more level headed internet voices on the topic. This is certainly the case in the recent exchange with Ehrman as those outside the “New Atheist” subuculture are starting to see his recent rants as more than a little odd. Most significantly for Carrier, those inside academia who have kept track of the affair now have a less than flattering image of hjm him firmly planted in their minds. While Carrier’s tactless responses might have played well with his fanboys, it has only reinforced the image of Jesus mythicism as a position left to conspiracy theorists and other ideologues impervious to anything resembling historical or logical argumentation. Carrier is quickly changing whatever impression he had as someone intelligent but misguided to someone who has veered into the claptrap end of the historical Jesus spectrum. In other words, he is now seen as a promoter of “woooo” out there with Achary Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, Jordan Maxwell, and perhaps a few short steps from the guy with the gravity defying hair on the Ancient Aliens TV program. Please note that I am not saying he deserves such a classification but rather that his recent conduct in the controversy over Ehrman’s book has made him look just as bizarre as those mentioned. Given most academic historians and New Testament scholars who have kept track of this affair have never read his books or even have heard of him prior to Ehrman’s recent effort, their first impression of him is his recent blogposts, comments of those who have been doing battle with Carrier for some time, and the often delusional comments by Carrier’s fanboys. It’s not a pretty picture. While Ehrman painting himself as standing in the middle ground between Christian and atheist radicals is grossly inaccurate (there are many non-fundie Christians and far less extreme nonbelievers among Biblical scholars and Ehrman is clearly to the left of center), his point about Carrier’s conduct is spot on. Carrier has acted like a comnplete complete ass towards someone who has real accomplishments in the field where Carrier wants to be taken as a serious scholar. Instead of acting as such, he resorted to arrogant posing to prove to his fans (and perhaps himself) that he, the world-renowned Richard Carrier, deserves to be taken seriously. By the way, may I ask what's the link to your blog?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 2, 2012 20:13:35 GMT
Carrier really is slipping. In his response he failed to address what I wrote, and made the mistake of misreading me.
My reply.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 2, 2012 20:22:21 GMT
You know, that leaves me wondering whether it wouldn't be smart tactics by Ehrman if he would write, say, two more replies to Carrier. I understand that's a really unnecessary drain on his time, but if Carrier becomes less convincing it might actually help a few Mythicists to deconvert.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 2, 2012 21:13:48 GMT
Great initiative and awesome posts. Here are a few other typos you might want to change. With the web abuzz with the warring posts of Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, and with Ehrman’s already stated purpose not to engage Carrier and his confused minions of Jesus mythcisim mythicism further, it might be a good time to examine the fallout of this exchange. I obviously agreee agree with Ehrman (and almost every scholar on the subject of every persuasion) that Jesus existed. But I have also noted Ehrman’s tendency to frame discussions in such a way as to overlook key elements that could lead to other conclusions, his sleight-of-hand maneuvers to negate such concerns, and his summary dismissals of those with whom he disagrees as though disagreeing with Bart Ehrman is enough to prove their unpreparedness for the debate. ... Carrier’s frequently abusive characterizations of those who dare challenge him in the public arena, off the cuff pschological psychological evaluations of those who return fire, and his release of tomes as blog posts defending his previous blog posts have become the butt of jokes for more level headed internet voices on the topic. This is certainly the case in the recent exchange with Ehrman as those outside the “New Atheist” subuculture are starting to see his recent rants as more than a little odd. Most significantly for Carrier, those inside academia who have kept track of the affair now have a less than flattering image of hjm him firmly planted in their minds. While Carrier’s tactless responses might have played well with his fanboys, it has only reinforced the image of Jesus mythicism as a position left to conspiracy theorists and other ideologues impervious to anything resembling historical or logical argumentation. Carrier is quickly changing whatever impression he had as someone intelligent but misguided to someone who has veered into the claptrap end of the historical Jesus spectrum. In other words, he is now seen as a promoter of “woooo” out there with Achary Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, Jordan Maxwell, and perhaps a few short steps from the guy with the gravity defying hair on the Ancient Aliens TV program. Please note that I am not saying he deserves such a classification but rather that his recent conduct in the controversy over Ehrman’s book has made him look just as bizarre as those mentioned. Given most academic historians and New Testament scholars who have kept track of this affair have never read his books or even have heard of him prior to Ehrman’s recent effort, their first impression of him is his recent blogposts, comments of those who have been doing battle with Carrier for some time, and the often delusional comments by Carrier’s fanboys. It’s not a pretty picture. While Ehrman painting himself as standing in the middle ground between Christian and atheist radicals is grossly inaccurate (there are many non-fundie Christians and far less extreme nonbelievers among Biblical scholars and Ehrman is clearly to the left of center), his point about Carrier’s conduct is spot on. Carrier has acted like a comnplete complete ass towards someone who has real accomplishments in the field where Carrier wants to be taken as a serious scholar. Instead of acting as such, he resorted to arrogant posing to prove to his fans (and perhaps himself) that he, the world-renowned Richard Carrier, deserves to be taken seriously. By the way, may I ask what's the link to your blog? More to change but thanks. The blog is: www.labarum.net
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 2, 2012 21:17:16 GMT
You know, that leaves me wondering whether it wouldn't be smart tactics by Ehrman if he would write, say, two more replies to Carrier. I understand that's a really unnecessary drain on his time, but if Carrier becomes less convincing it might actually help a few Mythicists to deconvert. If mythicists can't see why Carrier is less convincing by now, they'll never get it.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on May 2, 2012 21:39:07 GMT
You know, that leaves me wondering whether it wouldn't be smart tactics by Ehrman if he would write, say, two more replies to Carrier. I understand that's a really unnecessary drain on his time, but if Carrier becomes less convincing it might actually help a few Mythicists to deconvert. I don't think that will happen even after a dozen exchanges. Part of the problem is a significant percentage of the mythicist camp are conspiracy theorists of some sort or other and their mythicism is part of their conspiratorial outlook. I have had a lot of experience interacting with conspiracy theorists of both the KJV Onlyist and Zeitgeist varieties and exchanges on specific points does nothing. For them the conspiracy theory is not built upon a collection of facts but is an overarching hermeneutic within which all of reality is processed. If you point out this or that point in their system is wrong, then they merely reinterpret these new details within the conspiracy theory and move on unfazed. This is why it is so frustrating to deal with these people: they really don't care about facts because for them the conspiracy is everything. They jump from topic to topic throwing up a wall of ignorance and don't care if the individual points are true since it is only the system that matters.
|
|
|
Post by euglena on May 3, 2012 4:16:08 GMT
You know, that leaves me wondering whether it wouldn't be smart tactics by Ehrman if he would write, say, two more replies to Carrier. I understand that's a really unnecessary drain on his time, but if Carrier becomes less convincing it might actually help a few Mythicists to deconvert. I notice several people on this board who seem quite knowledgeable and experienced with the mythers. Have you guys ever considered putting together a group blog where you can debunk Carrier and other mythers as a team? There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, but it's not exactly easy to find. I would bet you'd be quite the thorn in Carrier's side and real scholars, like Ehrman, would probably give you publicity if you contacted them.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on May 3, 2012 4:21:11 GMT
I don't think that will happen even after a dozen exchanges. Part of the problem is a significant percentage of the mythicist camp are conspiracy theorists of some sort or other and their mythicism is part of their conspiratorial outlook. I agree. Ehrman even says in his book that he does not expect to convince the mythicists (like you, he sees a connection between conspiracy theorists and mythicism). DJE is really aimed at people who are still exploring the question of Jesus' historicity for themselves. This is from Ehrman's introduction:
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on May 3, 2012 4:31:52 GMT
You know, that leaves me wondering whether it wouldn't be smart tactics by Ehrman if he would write, say, two more replies to Carrier. I understand that's a really unnecessary drain on his time, but if Carrier becomes less convincing it might actually help a few Mythicists to deconvert. I do agree with this, but I see this solution of yours as entirely viable. labarum's site is a start, I could add mine (http://christianstudies.wordpress.com), I'm sure others here have a site or two, and we can crosslink to other posts on the subject such as James McGrath and Thom Stark.
|
|