Yes, Ehrman consistently refuses to debate me (because I’m ‘too mean’). But he has agreed to debate Robert Price, another prominent and well-qualified doubter of the historicity of Jesus. As long as the event gets funded, in order to demonstrate sufficient interest and demand to warrant his time (I do believe that though Ehrman charges a lot to speak or debate, he gives it to charity). So…do you want to see that debate happen? Then help fund the kickstarter. And spread the word to others who might.
(Note that I am not in any way involved in this. But I am certainly curious to see it happen!)
If he acknowledges his mistakes in his historicity book and drops the somewhat circular arguments (such as the gospels can be dated back to oral traditions rising around the time of Jesus’ death, which he seemed to believe mostly because he thought there would be oral traditions dating back to Jesus death) and the unverified claims, such as the gospels are evidence of a historical Jesus because the parts he doesn’t think match up closely with Old Testament passages are probably historical, then it could be interesting
Otherwise, I am not so sure
Richard,
Hi! I chipped in $50. I would love to see that debate. I assume it will be on YouTube after it occurs.
Karen (met you in Seattle, writing book of women atheists, have new blog page but haven’t written on it yet)
The wurd in sceptic street is that Ehrman’s been sloppy of late. Why debate him at all, then?
I daresay, if a more robust and scholarly headway’s sought, none better to talk to than NT Wright.
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/04/wright-church-world-god
Alif
NT Wright is awful. He makes so many mistakes it’s embarrassing. Note, he has minimal qualifications in the field (a Doctor of Divinity that is mostly about ministry and very little about ancient history or doing history). He would be the worst get for this. I have documented several of his errors (e.g. here and here and Chapters 3 and 11 of Not the Impossible Faith). From these examples added together, I have come to conclude I cannot trust him at all as a historian.
Yes, I daresay he is a mite prolix. Robert Price says the same in a review of wright’s book.
How about Steve Mason http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/people/profiles/steve.mason/?publications&page=6
Or Chris Keith http://www.stmarys.ac.uk/education-theology-and-leadership/staff/chris-keith.htm#page=teaching
Or John Barclay https://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/profile/?id=2008
There must be lots. Don’t such people have conferences where you can present papers and overturn their tables, so to speak?
Perhaps you’d like to join academia…jobs are here: http://www.jobs.ac.uk
students would flock to your fold…
I don’t quite fathom your point.
You didn’t even name American defenders of historicity (expenses have to be managed, you know), nor anyone who has ever written any peer reviewed defense of the historicity of Jesus. To be fair, Ehrman never has either, but he at least published a book about it and teaches courses on it. Do Keith and Barclay meet either criteria? So why mention them?
And I am a member of academia. I have a Ph.D., am a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, a member of several academic societies, including the Association of Ancient Historians and the Society of Biblical Literature, and have published a peer reviewed book on the subject with a major academic press, as well as several articles in peer reviewed journals, and debated the topic at a formal academic conference.
Price is no less qualified.
Richard, have you seen this statement by Dr. Ehrman; and if so, what is your take on it?
https://youtu.be/Qd7Lanms-gY?t=1h18m
Progress??
Sort of. See my review of the book he is talking about.
Um, Dr. Carrier, you *are* a mean man. You describe some people as “liars”, some as “insane”, and others as being grossly incompetent. You don’t just criticize; you are abusive. You remind me so much of James Holding, it’s ridiculous. Both of you have huge egos. Both of you abuse people. Both of you take fringe positions and think people who disagree with your genius either are incompetent or stupid. Please get over yourself. Maybe if you make a lot of money from your books you can afford surgery and remove your head from your ass.
I just tell the truth. When someone acts crazy, I say so, and present the evidence so people can judge for themselves (Ehrman hasn’t acted crazy, so I’ve never said he was; whereas R.J. Hoffmann has). When someone lies, I say so, and prove it with documentation (Ehrman has lied; and I proved it, go see for yourself).
If you think telling the truth is mean, then you have a problem with the truth, not with me.
And since I have not said everyone who disagrees with me is incompetent or stupid, your claim that I do that is false. For example, I think Goodacre and MacDonald are wrong about a lot of things. But neither are incompetent or stupid, and I’ve even said so. When I say someone is incompetent, I demonstrate it. I don’t just say it because they disagree with me. I say it because the evidence, evidence even you can see, verifies it. As far as calling people stupid, I’m not sure what you mean, since I rarely find anyone to be that, although I do document deficits in mental competence in certain people (like Casey and Fisher), but again, I actually demonstrate it with evidence, not evidence of the mere fact that they disagree with me, but that they actually fail at basic mental tasks.
So you should care more about the truth, and the evidence for it, than whether telling the truth is mean.
Who do you think is a qualified defender of historicity for a debate with someone like Price? Also, hope you’ve been well since our debate in October and sorry to hear about your divorce. Would be fun if we crossed paths again at some point.
I would like to see someone like Goodacre or MacDonald or Bermejo-Rubio debate it, since they are already on board with obvious conclusions still resisted by conservatives (like that the Gospels are mostly fiction and the extra-biblical evidence is too feeble to count on) and don’t “need” Jesus to exist except for their pet academic theories (not quite as strong a blinder as religious doctrine) yet are superbly qualified. I’d like to see how they maintain confidence in historicity. And how Price would respond to that. Of course, I’d love to have a friendly formal debate on this subject with any of them myself.
Ehrman’s made his career out of publicizing what the consensus of Biblical scholars believe; sort of airing their dirty laundry. It’s why _Jesus, Interrupted_, and _Forged_ were bestsellers. In each one, Ehrman is telling a lay audience what their pastors already know and believe (but won’t tell them). I found those books to be invaluable when I dialogue with Christians who aren’t even aware of the very basics, like, you know, that Mark didn’t write “Mark” and so on.
So I wasn’t surprised to see Ehrman take the same approach to the question of the historical Jesus. That’s his methodology: report as to the consensus of mainstream Biblical scholarship. Now, it happens *that* consensus matches up exactly with what pastors are preaching from the pulpit, so, you know, it’s not particularly interesting. But it’s not at all *surprising* that Ehrman would approach this question the way he approaches every other question about the Bible.
I threw a $20 at the Kickstarter, and I’m looking forward to seeing Price and Ehrman debate, but I imagine that, fundamentally, there will be agreement. Ehrman will say that the consensus overwhelmingly favors the existence of a historical Jesus, and Price will say that he doesn’t give a damn about what consensus says. We’ll have to see if that moves the needle with Ehrman at all.
I concur pretty much with all you said.
I just read your review. I’m surprised I missed it when it came out. Anyway, I am also encouraged that he is retreating from his semi-apologetic mode. Hopefully when this debate comes off, Dr. Price will drill him on some of your points. It can be nothing but good theater in any event.
Beg your pardon, Richard, I ment joining a university faculty, what with your credentials…you’d surely be immune from going the way of Tim Hunt…
True – the names I mention are in the UK – but there is the magic of the telephone / satellite: not only managing expenses but carbun footprints too. What with their specialisms, and others like Dale Martin or those of a Classics/ New testament faculty such as here: https://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/classics/faculty/list.php
must tuch on a Historical Jesus interest, no less than Mark Goodacre, with whum u did chat..
Now, there is a journal devoted to this sort of thing – publisht by Brill, as you’ll know: Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Any name in there must surely be wurthy as well.
As most experienced debaters will tell you, you can’t adequately perform a formal debate by remote. That’s why satellite feed debates on news channels always suck and are wholly unproductive.
If you think there is a better defender of historicity than Ehrman who should be debating, you can start your own kickstarter for that debate. Indeed, anyone other than Ehrman would likely be content to debate me, so you’d have a Carrier-X debate at that. So get started on that.