Dio - do you mean what is the difference between Bart and scholars like Richard Carrier who believe in a mythical Jesus?
There is a useful discussion of the opposing views here...
Did Jesus say the God of the OT is not the same God as mine??
by Diogenesister 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
nischansr
Why the heck would anyone take what Bart Erhman says to heart who cares what he says or thinks
I've read his books and posts and believe he has an axe to grind with Christians and Christianity, his main purpose seems to be to create doubt and weaken ones faith in theology and scripture.
I for one shall not be moved!!
-
nicolaou
Creating doubt is a good thing, doubt is the engine that drives research. Without doubt where would curiosity be? What new truths would remain undiscovered if no-one ever doubted orthodoxy?
I for one shall not be moved!!
Terrible attitude. Fossils and corpses don't move, the living should be ever moving and inquisitive.
-
slimboyfat
The best book by Bart Ehrman is probably one of the least read: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. It’s in part what won him his reputation as a scholar. I don’t think his books since then have been as careful or comprehensive. I’ve read his book about Jesus as a millenarian prophet, his popular book on textual criticism “Misquoting Jesus”, Lost Christianities, his book refuting mythicism, and his book about how Jesus came to be viewed as God. They are of variable quality. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is worth reading.
-
Diogenesister
SBF The best book by Bart Ehrman is probably one of the least read: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture
Thanks, Slim, I'll check it out as I've not heard of it much less read it. I've read a few of his best known books. I tended to lean towards Carriers view but the more I learn the more I appreciate the historicist scholars deep knowledge. Carrier tends to look at things as a mathematician would - or rather with a mathematical methodology perhaps??
-
Diogenesister
Dio do you mean what is the difference between Bart and scholars like Richard Carrier who believe in a mythical Jesus?
Cheers Cofty looks like another interesting resource. I'll have a read later this evening, thanks. And yes, that is what I was sort of driving at.
-
slimboyfat
Yes I read Carrier’s book on Bayesian probability and history. I can’t say I was convinced. It all begins with making guesses. That’s fine, he claims, because the method works whatever starting point, but is my guess really as good as yours? His bigger book “On the Historicity of Jesus” doesn’t seem to have impressed many scholars. There’s one Australian scholar who gave it a good review. I found it a very dry read cut into small parts on diverse topics with slow and confusing progression.
I liked his more recent book “Jesus from Outer Space” where he argues that the first Christians believed Jesus was the archangel Michael - remind you of anyone? But again, it don’t think it’s likely to become widely cited by scholars.
I just looked it up and it’s cited by four scholars, including Christopher Hansen who wrote an article in response to mythicism. The abstract sounds like it will be an interesting read:
In recent years a number of scholars (such as Richard Carrier and Robert Price) have published arguments in favour of a new model of the origination of Christianity from a mythological Jesus. Part of their argumentation has been to make the case for the concept of a pre-Christian Jesus who was worshiped, or a part of Judaism before Christianity ever arose. This article seeks to provide a new analysis of this topic, since there has been almost no academic literature published in response to the pre-Christian Jesus thesis in several decades. This article largely concludes that the concept, while interesting, is not convincing and would require far more substantial evidence to be considered a better alternative to historicist conceptions of early Christianity's development.
Hansen, C. M. (2022). Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus. Journal of Early Christian History, 12(2), 17-40