Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

[_honorentheos]

10 minutes for each to question the other.

Bart questioning Price.

163 questions. haha. Surprised when Price said ancients held something like a mythisist view. Did they not describe baptism, other events that show him a real.

Price - they are exploring ideas. Ehrman encourages people to read Origen, sources to see that the views of the ancients describe a person. Ehrman notes confusion with use of ancient texts is problematic who insert moderns into these ancient proto-Christian views.

How often do they mention most powerful others in the time?

Price - they mention serpants of the house of Annus. Ehrman - Mythisist argument that Jesus isn't mentioned fail to account for other known Jews, not attested or mentioned in history? Jews from Palestine not often mentioned. Price - if so insignificant, why mention him? Ehrman - they don't mention him for the most part.

Ehrman - if you strip away the myth argument is interesting. But the examples are bad. He also agrees there weren't miracles. Price - so what happened? Joe Rabbi gets made into superman? Ehrman - there is a lot that can be said about Jesus based on the historical context that account for the development of stories around Jesus rather than the myths explain why Jesus was noteworthy from the beginning. Myth was added over time. (My note - schooled Price. I thought this was a weak discussion point earlier and glad Ehrman decided to bring it up)

Ehrman - the statement the archons of the eon killed Jesus, what does this mean? Paul uses these terms in other places. Price - never mentions earthly rulers. Ehrman - quotes other examples that shows archons are governing authorities. Common trope in New Testament, Jesus was killed by the authorities but should obey authorities. Check out gnositicism. Price believes Gnosticism goes back into early Judaism. Ehrman - Current views and history evidence show text is from 2nd century or later, not 1st century.

Done.

Price's turn.

His one question - from How Jesus Became God? You changed your mind about the story of visiting empty tomb as non-historic. How did you make this transition? Ehrman - when debating christian apologists two facts are asserted as needing to be explained that everyone agrees on, tomb was empty and Jesus appeared to people. If you can't explain these two facts you have to agree there was a resurrection. Bart agrees some followers believe they were visited but not actual event. Came to think there was no evidence for the empty tomb. Looked up everything available about crucifixion. never described in narrative accounts as to how it happened. Presumably because everyone knew what was involved. What gets described is that Romans left bodies on the cross. Part of the punishment is that the body was left to decompose and be devoured by animals and serve as an example. Part of the point was that no decent burial was allowed. Why make an exception in the case of Jesus? No explanation seems reasonable, and likely an invention to support an empty tomb. Body of Jesus was likely left to decompose on the cross, buried in common grave with others.

Price - what do you think about the Burton Mack (?) argument scholars should abandon the resurrection as the big bang of Christianity, but a latter invention. Ehrman - no longer open to that idea. The resurrection is what mattered to early Christianity and is necessary to explain Christianity. Price - agrees, but only because the other non-Resurrection believing Christians didn't culturally survive. It took a compelling belief like that in Resurrection to have the traction to go forward. Ehrman - Doesn't leave much reason for following Jesus without it. Price - that's the Clark Kent problem. How else do we explain the compelling idea of Jesus.

_________________________________

I stopped at this point. Round two of questions will have to wait. Things to do and this isn't compelling or that interesting. The gist of the debate seems to me to be more about how people use historical evidence. I'm not hearing anything yet from Price that is compelling against a historical, non-divine Jesus. It seems that while both are more accustomed to debating believers, Ehrman's position is the more rigorous.

[_honorentheos]

Finishing it, the Marcion link is hinted at in the questions section but never discussed. Ehrman offended Price visibly before then when he scoffed at the idea Paul did not write Galatians so I think Price was not willing to offer up much that he knew Ehrman would dismiss.

Two Mormon mentions. Obviously something about Mormons and mythicism I guess. They didn't present well in either case.

The questions with the audience was much more interesting than the initial position staking in my opinion.

[_Mary]

Finishing it, the Marcion link is hinted at in the questions section but never discussed. Ehrman offended Price visibly before then when he scoffed at the idea Paul did not write Galatians so I think Price was not willing to offer up much that he knew Ehrman would dismiss.

Two Mormon mentions. Obviously something about Mormons and mythicism I guess. They didn't present well in either case.

The questions with the audience was much more interesting than the initial position staking in my opinion.

Thankyou, read with interest.

[_honorentheos]

In fairness to Robert Price, I recognize that there were many things that Ehrman said that I would backfill from my own past readings of his views. And not having that same level of familiarity with Price’s work, I couldn’t do the same equally.

For example, and to tie this to Mormonism – an audience member who was almost certainly a former Mormon asked Dr. Ehrman a convoluted question that basically compared the Jesus story with the story behind the gold plates. His point was meant to attack Ehrman’s position that the invention of a Messiah who was also crucified by the Romans was so improbable an invention given the meaning of Messiah at the time it serves as strong evidence against the story of Jesus being entirely invention. Rather, it makes the most sense if one sees it as people believing the man Jesus was the Messiah and, having been crucified, this act needed explanation which was a lot for the Jews of the time to swallow. The former Mormon tried to argue that the fabrication of a Jesus figure needed a plausible way of killing him off much in the same way Joseph Smith needed angelic snatch-and-grab gold plates to pull his con off. In which case, what is more probable given the reality of the time than that the Romans executed him for claiming to be God? He managed to mangle his argument up so bad Ehrman couldn’t parse what he was trying to argue and instead came back to the basic approaches of higher and text criticism along with how historians do what they do. But his answer really relied a lot on someone have more background information on those processes, and frankly anyone asking the questions that were being asked obviously lacked that background information. So when the person said, “I don’t buy it.” Ehrman rather bluntly said, “It doesn’t matter if you don’t buy it. That’s just how history works.” And then said something about buying something in the hallway after the meeting which got a few laughs.

Backfilling in was easy to do in this case, and I was in agreement with Ehrman though clearly not just by relying on what he was able to share in the debate.

What then intrigues me about Price is his early point that the Jesus-as-myth-only came about through the variety and competition of many different competing views and stories through evolutionary processes until someone that we now would consider the recognizable Jesus the Christ of the New Testament emerged and was capable of definition. Nothing he said in the debate really fleshed that out, in my opinion, yet there were moments where I got the sense if he went to that argument and spent more time there he may have made compelling points. Instead, it often seemed more like Mormon apologists trying to explain how Egyptian currencies used before the common era combined with Mesoamerican artifacts can be construed as relevant to the Book of Mormon. It often fell flat for me and left me wondering if all apologetics end up sounding the same in order to appear plausible where plausibility is the only standard that matters? I don’t know, but I wonder if a different venue, and more casual less debate-styled discussion between Price and Ehrman would have been better? Certainly Ehrman came in with the intention of establishing his own position rather than refuting that of mythicists which worked better, in my opinion, than the approach Price took of having prepared points from which to attempt a refutation of Ehrman’s books and public positions. The debate got much better as it moved into the discussion with the audience I thought, where the majority of participants questioned Ehrman and he had a chance to tackle common beliefs about a mythic, non-existent Jesus.

One other item that came out of the discussion was related to the Bayesian Probability methods of Richard Carrier. Ehrman deferred on being able to comment on the specifics of it’s application but noted two things. One of which being that Carrier is one of two people who use Bayesian Probability to tackle the question of Jesus as a historical person. And, since Carrier comes to the conclusions BP makes it clear there is a high probability that Jesus was not a historical figure and the other scholar who uses BP has the conclusion it supports the Resurrection is a real event with a high level of probability it should raise considerable red flags. The other point on it being the accountants who have talked to him about it who are apparently in the know on BP believe it is being wrongly applied on the question in both cases. Price also offered he didn’t feel qualified to comment on it in a self-depreciation way.

[_honorentheos]

Also. I have not read this book but from the reply Price made in the debate I have reason to believe the Marcion as inventor of Paul theory is explained in this book -

https://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Colossal ... 156085216X

[_Mary]

Thankyou.

For me, the book (for the early Mormons and converts) was the hook. People like a good story that connects the supernatural with the mundane and the Book of Mormon does that. It, in part, explains the growth of Mormonism.

For the early christian converts and adherants, resurrection was the initial hook. Both Jews and Gentiles could relate to it, as a common theme running through both Greek and Jewish culture.

Still, the most sense of the evidence is by assuming a real Galilean teacher under the myth. It makes most sense of Paul's evidence in the first instance.

[_honorentheos]

Thankyou.

For me, the book (for the early Mormons and converts) was the hook. People like a good story that connects the supernatural with the mundane and the Book of Mormon does that. It, in part, explains the growth of Mormonism.

For the early christian converts and adherants, resurrection was the initial hook. Both Jews and Gentiles could relate to it, as a common theme running through both Greek and Jewish culture.

Still, the most sense of the evidence is by assuming a real Galilean teacher under the myth. It makes most sense of Paul's evidence in the first instance.

That seems very fair. I might add there are probably a spectrum of reasons both early Mormonism and early Christianity were able to attract sufficient adherents to bet the odds and become successful movements. And part of those reasons are environmental (the Roman context of the 1st Century CE on the one hand, and that of a young Republic with a unique tension between tradition and a wide frontier to escape to on the other) but I would absolutely agree that the appeal of a resurrected God and that of American scripture were major portions of those spectrums.

I'm most often confused by the mythicist position and it's almost absolute need to disprove a historical Jesus in order to create safe distance from Christianity. As if the potential for a historical, non-divine Jesus still embodied sufficient gravity to potentially threaten ones escape from Christianity as myth. Maybe many or even most are simply coming down on that side based on an objective assessment of the evidence but it doesn't usually seem that way when one is engaging on the subject.

[Schreech]

Just been watching this

https://youtu.be/LPZ39rqaIZ0


Which is a discussion with Richard Carrier, Dave Fitzgerald and Robert Price. On their own turf, it was interesting to listen to their views. Robert comes across as the most knowledgeable in christian origins specifically. I like his approach.

His argument appears to be that, yes, there could have been a historical man/men underneath the myth, but that he is totally lost to us.

I am not sure that is the case. I look at the various constructions of Q and Mark and see an an individual beneath it.

Ehrman, yesterday, discussed on his blog the incorrect assumption that mythicists hold that Mark is the only source. It isn't. There are independent sources underneath both the canonical and non canonical writings and accounts of Jesus' life.

We also have to account for people like Papias, and the writings of the Didache. For Good reason ((specially around the Eucharist) many regard it as early in part.

[_Mary]

They seem to have an issue with Paul referring to Jesus as James brother, which they take as a more more generic brother in the Lord. Okay, but somewhere, before Jesus was drawn as a God, Mark recollects he had a real mum and dad, and real brothers and sisters. One of the brothers was indeed James.

So, Mark 3:21 has his family thinking he has truly lost it.

21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

Then later in the chapter

31Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

and again in Mark 6:3

3Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,a Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Unless we want to argue that Mark copied Paul somehow initially, then these seem independent witnesses, and that, going against the grain of people who didn't want him to have brothers and sisters....because...God..

The difficulty is knowing when and how Mark was edited and who influenced whom.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Thankyou, read with interest.

Seconded! Thanks, honor!