Bart Ehrman quote from an article- please help refute!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdoroTeDevote
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a theist; however, all these things, many of which were quite extraordinary, would be so much more believable if someone other than those with a vested interest in them would have written about them.
What about the letters between Pliny the Younger, the governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111-113 AD, and the Emperor Trajan?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

The entire text is too long to quote entirely, but a couple of key paragraphs…
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
In case you missed it, Pliny, the governor is complaining that the Christians had been so influential among the population that the pagan temples had been left “neglected,” and the trade in sacrificial animals had dried up, until the legal sanction of Christianity by Pliny’s edict had had its effect.
 
Last edited:
Also, a couple of references to Christ and Christians in Roman historian Suetonius (died c. A.D. 140):

Lives of the Caesars - Claudius, sec. 25:
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

Lives of the Caesars - Nero, sec. 16:
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Not exactly friendly to Christianity, right?

I mean, what do you want, someone who reported that all the claims of Christianity were true, but who still didn’t get “invested” enough to convert?

Suetonius’ statements reflect a point of view where Christians and what they believed were considered too despised to even be taken seriously by the literary elites in the Empire. Who would then do the reporting you suggest should be widely available?

Yet, there were a few, as noted above, that did report on the Christians incidentally as they wrote on more important, to them, matters.
 
Last edited:
I think people’s friends and followers are going to look at them more favorably than strangers.
Sure. But, we’re looking at the strengths of the arguments being presented. Unless you’re asserting that people lied when they told their eyewitness stories about Jesus, then it all still boils down to the same question: “do you believe the eyewitness testimony?” In the end, that’s not a question of “who’s talking?”, but rather, of “what are they saying?”.
It’s the fact that at least a few people who were not his followers probably would have reported such extraordinary things.
Yes, people wrote about Einstein and Wiesel wrote about himself. But, put yourself in the context of the 1st century AD in Palestine, as a Roman: Jesus was a magic-worker. (Do you routinely write histories about magic shows you’ve seen?) Or, as a Jew in Jerusalem: Jesus was a heretic and trouble-maker. (Do you routinely take the time to tell people about all the wonderful things that a random guy you encountered has done?)

I think that the standard you’re setting up here is unreasonable. YMMV. 🤷‍♂️
I, personally, believe there are many paths to the same G-d.
That’s interesting. Doesn’t Judaism teach that there’s one path – the Mosaic covenant?
Read the book below and then tell me if you believe a false messianic religion could not have taken root during the first few centuries CE.
Two thoughts: first, the author you mention is merely arguing against a Christian who claims that the data we have forces us to believe in Jesus, so all he’s doing is pointing out that it doesn’t force us to do anything. Second, the assertion that a ‘false messiah’ is possible doesn’t mean that Jesus, therefore, is a false messiah; that would be an illogical conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Sure. But, we’re looking at the strengths of the arguments being presented. Unless you’re asserting that people lied when they told their eyewitness stories about Jesus, then it all still boils down to the same question: “do you believe the eyewitness testimony ?” In the end, that’s not a question of “who’s talking?”, but rather, of “what are they saying?”.
Eyewitness testimony is known as the least reliable testimony, especially so long after the fact. I realize no 24/7 news stations existed in the early centuries , but extraordinary deeds were recorded. Someone made the comment that thousands of people saw the resurrected Jesus. Surely there would be some record written by those without a vested interest in that resurrection. Why do you think eyewitness testimony usually requires corroboration? It is notoriously unreliable.

The fact that there were many false messiahs prior to Jesus does not mean he was also false, but it also does not mean he is genuine. Nor does its endurance. Buddhism endures, and I don’t think many here adhere to Buddhism. But millions do.

The author and book I mentioned is an expert in ancient cultures. He’s showing how a false messiah could have taken root and grown at that time in history and why the Jesus movement did and others didn’t. He’s not trying to force anyone to believe anything. I’m not, either. People believe what they do for many reasons; faith is deeply personal.

There’s no use for us to go in circles. No one’s going to change his or her mind, and I don’t expect anyone to do so. Bottom line: You cannot prove Jesus is the messiah, and I can’t prove he is not. And that’s fine.
 
Last edited:
Read the book below and then tell me if you believe a false messianic religion could not have taken root during the first few centuries CE. It’s worth reading even if one does not believe its conclusions because the author is an expert in ancient cultures.

I don’t think you’ll read it because it doesn’t agree with you or support your faith, but it does show a false religion could have arisen and subsequently flourished. There are valid reasons for all the things you brought up, and they don’t have to mean Jesus was the messiah. I, myself, don’t like the fact that the author is now an atheist, but he is very expert in ancient cultures. I do think one has to keep an open mind to find the truth, or what represents the truth for him or her. I studied Catholic theology in college for six years. I’ve read all the “big name” theologians, and some who weren’t so big. It was that study that convinced me my Jewish roots were the ones I needed to be following. If I hadn’t studied Catholicism in such depth, Judaism might not mean so very much to me.

I’m not trying to convert anyone. Jews do not evangelize. We welcome gentiles, but we also do not try to interfere with their beliefs. This is just a discussion, not a conversion attempt. I, personally, believe there are many paths to the same G-d.

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Impossib...id=1537428008&sr=8-7&keywords=richard+carrier
Richard Carrier is on the fringe as far as professional historians go, and I’ve read enough by him to know that he traffics in fractional truths and uses these to scaffold preposterous theories which do not hold up to any serious scrutiny.

I wouldn’t advise anyone with no or little training in history and logic read him because his method is to ambush those who cannot possibly defend the truth because they don’t have the tools or capacity to do so.

I also wouldn’t waste my money on his books, there are sufficient numbers of sources on the Internet to provide information on his theories that anyone can get a sufficient taste of what he thinks to know he is a charlatan. Even Bart Ehrman thinks Carrier is operating completely beyond the boundaries of accepted history.

Here is what a reasonable atheist historian writes about Carrier.


I was introduced to Carrier almost ten years ago, so he isn’t someone I am unfamiliar with.
 
Last edited:
Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they cannot be an expert on something. Carrier is an expert on ancient cultures, and his books are worth reading for that alone.

I find his books thought provoking. One cannot learn the truth by reading books that only embrace one belief. If one does that, one has no basis for comparison, no reason to say, “I believe this over that. because…”. Not unless they say, “I believe this over that because this is all I know.” It’s a form of ignorance or a lack of faith in one’s own beliefs.

Actually, he’s not “fringe” at all. Not when it comes to ancient cultures.

Carrier has a doctorate in ancient history from Columbia University where his thesis was on the history of science in antiquity. He originally gained prominence as an advocate of atheism, authoring many articles on The Secular Web and later defending his basic position in his book. Sense and Goodness Without God.

His recent books on the historicity of Jesus have established him as a leading supporter of the Christ myth theory, which claims that neither the historical Jesus nor the biblical Jesus existed in reality. Carrier asserts that in the context of his Bayesian methodology, the ahistoricity of Jesus,and his origin as a mythical deity are “true” (i.e., the “most probable” Bayesian conclusion, arguing that the probability of Jesus’ existence is somewhere in the range of 1/3 to 1/12000, depending on the estimates used for the computation.


I believe G-d exists. I believe Jesus did exist. I don’t read Carrier’s books because he’s an atheist; I read them because he truly does know about ancient civilizations, and reading his books helps one come to a better conclusion about ancient Palestine and its beliefs. One has to know the culture of a place before coming to conclusions about what and how its people thought.
 
Last edited:
Eyewitness testimony is known as the least reliable testimony
However, it is reliable, especially when corroborated. Thanks for pointing out that it’s reliable! 👍
, especially so long after the fact.
Two thoughts:
  • If they had never talked about it in the 30-40 years before it got written down, I’d agree with you. However, that’s not the case in this situation. The writings of the Early Church Fathers attest that, at each of their gatherings – that is, the early liturgies of the Church – they recounted the testimony of the apostles. This has two implications: first, it means that the apostles started giving their testimony immediately. Second, it was testimony that was told over and again, which implies that if the stories were modified, the listeners would have said, “wait a minute! That’s not the way you told it yesterday!!! Tell us the true story!”
  • I can’t help but think about the recent grand jury in Pennsylvania that took testimony from those abused by priests. The abuse happened 50-70 years ago, in most cases – and the Attorney General found eyewitness testimony from half a century ago compelling and reliable enough to publish it as accusations. Are you so sure that you want to discount eyewitness testimony? 🤔
 
Are you so sure that you want to discount eyewitness testimony? 🤔
Absolutely.



http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/the_unreliabili.html

I could go on and on and on.

As for oral testimony, that gets embroidered and changed each time it’s repeated until it bears no resemblance to what really happened. That has been proven many times, too.
 
Memory is affected by retelling, and we rarely tell a story in a neutral fashion. By tailoring our stories to our listeners, our bias distorts the very formation of memory—even without the introduction of misinformation by a third party. The protections of the judicial system against prosecutors and police “assisting” a witness’ memory may not sufficiently ensure the accuracy of those memories. Even though prosecutors refrain from “refreshing” witness A’s memory by showing her witness B’s testimony, the mere act of telling prosecutors what happened may bias and distort the witness’s memory. Eyewitness testimony, then, is innately suspect.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
 
As for the passing on of oral testimony:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/retelling_of_st.html

https://marshlab.psych.duke.edu/publications/Marsh2007_CDPS.pdf

There are many more, but there is an inherent problem in retelling, especially when communications were so poor. That just increases the distortion.

I’m just thankful G-d gave Moses the tablets with the Ten Commandments! Whether one believes he did or not, the fact remains that they have not changed. Jews are bound by rabbinic law as well, but it is identified as such. We do not say our rabbis wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit. We do not believe in a triune G-d, for one thing, so no Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Gorgias:
Are you so sure that you want to discount eyewitness testimony?
Absolutely.
Great! I’ll give the PA AG your contact info, and you can tell him why all the allegations of 50-year-old cases of abuse must be false.
Yes, you could. And yet, if you actually read what your citations are claiming, you’d see that they’re supporting my position. To wit:
The reliability of witness testimony is a vastly complex subject, but legal scholars and forensic psychologists say it’s possible to extract the truth from contradictory accounts and evolving memories. According to Barbara Tversky, professor emerita of psychology at Stanford University, the bottom line is this: “All other things equal, earlier recountings are more likely to be accurate than later ones. The longer the delay, the more likely that subsequent information will get confused with the target memory.”
So, if we have multiple Gospels, then we can can “extract the truth” from them. Good!

And, according to the professor cited in the article, the Gospels are precisely the kind of recountings that are more accurate, since they are “early recountings” that had been first circulated in the days following Jesus’ resurrection!

I’m so glad when science comes to the aid of the teachings of the Church! 😃

From another of the articles you cited:
Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion
In other words, the “distortion” isn’t in the mis-remembering of facts – what they’re describing here as ‘distortion’ is really editing, not fabrication or falsification. Thanks for pointing that out!

And again:
Lawyers place great import on testimony by the other side’s witness that favors their own side’s case. For example, defense attorneys make much of prosecution witnesses’ recollection of exonerating details. In light of psychological studies demonstrating the effect of bias on memory, the reliance and weight placed on such “admissions” may be appropriate, since witnesses are more apt to tailor their stories—and thus their memories—to the interests of the first listeners.
Scripture scholars use this precise notion in their assertions of the historic authenticity of the Gospels. They point to this “criterion of embarrassment” to point out that the evangelists – who include details damaging to their case – are actually telling a true story.

Thanks for bringing this point that helps increase confidence in the Gospels, too! You’re doing a great job! 👍
 
I’m just thankful G-d gave Moses the tablets with the Ten Commandments! Whether one believes he did or not, the fact remains that they have not changed.
Umm… the Old Testament is even worse, according to your criteria, for assertions of historical accuracy! They remained as oral tradition for generation upon generation, and were passed down as retellings of ‘eyewitness testimony’ for hundreds of years! From the Wiki article on the Torah:
The modern scholarly consensus is that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[21] This contemporary common hypothesis among biblical scholars states that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one existing today.
So, if in one breath you want to hold up the Torah as accurate history… then the Gospel stories are orders of magnitude more reliable! 😉
 
You can spin it any way you want - with the literary equivalent of soundbites - but the articles - taken as a whole - show eyewitness testimony, especially decades old, and retelling lead to mistake ay best, downright untruth at worst.

And don’t forget the fact that the Book of Daniel, written by Jews in the 2nd century BCE primed downtrodden Jews to accept Jesus. So much so that some Jews were willing to overlook the fact that Jesus did not fulfill all of the messianic prophecies, which do have to be fulfilled in one go, not two.
 
Just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they cannot be an expert on something. Carrier is an expert on ancient cultures, and his books are worth reading for that alone.
Not if he uses his training in “ancient cultures” to distort history, which is what pretty much every other expert in “ancient cultures” says he does. Carrier’s doctorate was on science in the ancient Roman world. He has no training or background in New Testament Studies or in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period. His main skill is in starting with his fringe conclusion and then finding ways to line up the evidence so it appears to non-specialists that his argument makes sense. This is why he is held in low regard as a crank theorist by the actual experts and is lauded mainly by people who don’t have enough grasp of the material or its context to see through his smoke and mirrors. This is also why he spends so much of his time on his blog screaming abuse at those same experts and screeching that they are all liars and that only he - an unemployed blogger and failed academic who makes a living by begging online - is the great genius who has discovered the truth.
I don’t read Carrier’s books because he’s an atheist; I read them because he truly does know about ancient civilizations, and reading his books helps one come to a better conclusion about ancient Palestine and its beliefs. One has to know the culture of a place before coming to conclusions about what and how its people thought.
Unfortunately Carrier does not have the training, the background knowledge or even the interest in “ancient Palestine and its beliefs” to contribute anything useful. As I said, his background is in Roman science. He teaches himself just enough about other subjects to prop up his theories and create the illusion, to people like you, that he is some kind of expert. But his lack of knowledge of Jewish material is precisely one of the (many) things wrong with his stuff. For example, a series of long and detailed posts, Thom Stark shows the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about and a fatuous little wannabe with delusions of omni-competence in areas well beyond his field. I can’t post links here, but Google “The Death of Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah” and " It Is Finished for Richard Carrier’s Dying Messiah" (Parts 1&2). These detailed spankings of Carrier are a joy to read, and show what happens when Carrier’s bluster comes up against someone who actually knows the source material and has the linguistic skill Carrier lacks.

Carrier is a joke.
 
You can spin it any way you want - with the literary equivalent of soundbites - but the articles - taken as a whole - show eyewitness testimony, especially decades old, and retelling lead to mistake ay best, downright untruth at worst.
Right. I know. Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. But, the articles that you cite make the claim that there are reliable eyewitness testimonies – and the Gospels meet the criteria which they name. Now, you can spin that any way you want, but you can’t deny what your own sources assert: eyewitness testimony can be reliable.

More to the point, if you throw the Gospels out as “unreliable oral tradition eyewitness testimony”, then in all fairness, you must also throw out the Torah. Which, based on your comments here, seems like you’re unwilling to do.

So, it seems that either you concede that the Gospels are not unreliable because they’re eyewitness oral tradition, or you concede that the Gospels are unreliable and so is the Torah. Which is it?
 
It’s interesting that Carrier should come up so prominently in a thread about Ehrman, since the two had quite a public spat and two-and-fro on the subject of the historical Jesus (Ehrman being sure Jesus existed, and writing a book, “Did Jesus Exist”, opposing the mythicists, of whom Carrier is one). The attached gives a sense of the heat of the battle.

 
He’s a trained historian.
Big deal. Dr Jerry Bouw is a trained astronomer, but pretty much every astronomer or scientist on the planet think his geocentrism is crazy and that he is a kook. A doctorate only gets you in the door, it’s what you do with it that matters. Carrier is an unemployed failure for a reason.
but he IS trained in ancient cultures
And Jerry Bouw IS trained in astronomy. But the sun still doesn’t go around the earth.
 
I see he’s on Erhman’s blog. Not so surprising to me. I guess each wants to be right!
“For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism. Before that, he was a mere mortal. For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist prior to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human. Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology).“
But no one is answering the original question. If the poster was reading Erhman, I understand the confusion.

None of the gospel writers considered Jesus a mere mortal. All considered him the Son of God from eternity. Ehrman may have very different views, I’m sure he does.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top