Ehrman vs. Price debate on Jesus mythicism

[blastula]

[YOUTUBE]NF6Ua-G5Htw[/YOUTUBE]

Anyone else see this? It was held a coupla weeks ago. The youtube is charging $4.99 to watch it, which I did. I don't know if I can recommend it to anyone else, because I don't think you get your money's worth from Price. Each side got 30 minutes to make their case, and then they were to alternate four 10-minute question and answer sessions. Price's 30 minute talk mostly focused on knocking down historicity but didn't have much on a positive case for mythicism. Then during the question and answer period, he stopped after 7 minutes in his first turn, and then skipped his second turn entirely. I am not a mythicist but I am appalled at Price's performance. This debate had been much anticipated in those circles and he made an insultingly poor effort.

Ehrman I thought was competent enough, though it looked like he didn't manage his time well in his main talk and had to skip some material. My main criticism would be too much of "all the scholars say so" attitude. I have read his books and have been a listener to Price's podcasts so I knew their material and didn't see anything really new.

Some of Ehrman's arguments in his main talk:

• Jesus is best attested Palestinian Jew of his time except for Josephus, and has most narrative accounts for anyone in Palestine (though the question is whether he passes a minimum standard, not his relative documentation)
• Multiple independent sources (he overstates this since they are not entirely independent), the sources are problematic but have historical value
• Paul's letters:
• Paul knew of Jesus within 2 years of his puprorted death
• Paul speaks of a historical figure, not heavenly cosmic figure in outer space
• Historical particulars of Jesus noted by Paul
• "Brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor. 9:5, spends some time on this (I do find this a good argument, I have heard the rebuttals)
• If Christians/Jews were to invent a messiah, they wouldn't invent a crucified one - Paul says it's a stumbling block, expected a powerful messiah (I also like this one)

Another problem with Price is that he takes fringe positions on even less controversial topics, he holds that Paul didn't exist and that none of the NT was written in the first century. Carrier would probably be a better match, but Ehrman won't debate him because Carrier has been nasty to him in writing (unprofessionally so imo), which is unfortunate because he is civil in debates. Ehrman ignorantly dismisses Bayes as a historical tool and I think Carrier could win on that point at least.

Personally, I don't see a strong case for mythicism, the strongest case on that side to me is either agnosticism or that the certainty of those like Ehrman is way too high. He comes off as though it's undeniable, which I don't accept especially when you consider the information in Ehrman's own book Jesus before the Gospels where he cites a lot of the science of false memory to make a case about why early Christians would believe false things.

 

[Atheos]

That was a really good, even handed review. If it was free I'd watch the vid, but you've made a good case for why it's not worth the effort. FWIW I've been most unimpressed with Price for a long time. He's as bad about baseless assertion as the people he argues with. How people take him seriously (and evidently there are those who do) is more of a mystery to me than how people with a straight face argue that GMatt, GLuke and GJohn are "independent" attestation.

Be that as it may, I would speculate that the $5 price tag will be eagerly paid by Christians who want to watch a mythicist get pwned.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Price has said that he only does debates for the money. He doesn't really like them.

Ehrman's points sound like all the same stuff.

 

[Atheos]

If Christians/Jews were to invent a messiah, they wouldn't invent a crucified one - Paul says it's a stumbling block, expected a powerful messiah (I also like this one)

Although I understand the concept I really don't find this one compelling in the least. It implies too much understanding of a culture and time that cannot be reproduced for study. It's almost as transparently wrong as me saying, "If my wife really wanted to do this she would never do that." Hell, I don't understand why she does half the stuff she does, and I know her better than any other person on the planet. How should I possibly be sure I (or anyone else) understand why people living on the other side of the globe in a culture I've never visited in a time completely different from mine do whatever they do?

Add to that the fact that the Jews were already quite familiar with seeing things go from bad to worse. Assuming they even had a decent sized kingdom in the days of David and Solomon (which is archaeologically questionable) they'd spent centuries occupied by other much more powerful nations, having only puppet leaders to call their own. Greek Tragedies were all the rage when it came to story fabrication. What could possibly be more tragic than the Messiah actually showing up and instead of accomplishing his mission to liberate Israel he got crucified by the very people who didn't recognize him when he showed up? I think a decent argument could be made that if this began as a story (and I'm not saying it did) it could very easily fit in with the environment in which it appeared. It rationalizes why the messianic promises keep failing and entertains like Greek Tragedies do. Full of win.

And I don't agree that crucifixion was the stumbling block in that passage. Even that is subject to interpretation.

 

[James Brown]

Matt Dillahunty, the moderator of the debate, spoke on his reaction to both sides the day after.

[YOUTUBE]9gPlZviMHvc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I haven't seen the debate, and am unlikely to if it's behind a paywall, but I did watch Matt Dillahunty's review of it (which I was going to link to, but James Brown has spared me that effort, above). His biggest gripe appears to be Price's half-heartedness in giving up most of his time in the questioning part and in just throwing out claims with no supporting argument, or apparent interest in whether anybody cares about them. I can understand that would be annoying, especially if you're paying to see a debate between two supposedly engaged scholars.

I doubt Ehrman would be much better, though; I've seen some debates he's had, and it's obvious it's not really his thing, either. He's a lot happier-looking when just presenting a lecture on his subject then when he's hammering it out with someone else. I like him as a scholar and a lecturer - although I don't agree with several of his opinions/concusions - but as a debater, not so much.

 

[blastula]

If Christians/Jews were to invent a messiah, they wouldn't invent a crucified one - Paul says it's a stumbling block, expected a powerful messiah (I also like this one)

Although I understand the concept I really don't find this one compelling in the least. It implies too much understanding of a culture and time that cannot be reproduced for study. It's almost as transparently wrong as me saying, "If my wife really wanted to do this she would never do that." Hell, I don't understand why she does half the stuff she does, and I know her better than any other person on the planet. How should I possibly be sure I (or anyone else) understand why people living on the other side of the globe in a culture I've never visited in a time completely different from mine do whatever they do?

Add to that the fact that the Jews were already quite familiar with seeing things go from bad to worse. Assuming they even had a decent sized kingdom in the days of David and Solomon (which is archaeologically questionable) they'd spent centuries occupied by other much more powerful nations, having only puppet leaders to call their own. Greek Tragedies were all the rage when it came to story fabrication. What could possibly be more tragic than the Messiah actually showing up and instead of accomplishing his mission to liberate Israel he got crucified by the very people who didn't recognize him when he showed up? I think a decent argument could be made that if this began as a story (and I'm not saying it did) it could very easily fit in with the environment in which it appeared. It rationalizes why the messianic promises keep failing and entertains like Greek Tragedies do. Full of win.

And I don't agree that crucifixion was the stumbling block in that passage. Even that is subject to interpretation.

I agree you can't definitively know what people would have believed. I don't accept the apologetic that "Jews wouldn't believe in a resurrected messiah unless it really happened." I don't think "crucified messiah" is close to conclusive for historicity, but I do think it is more supportive of historicity than not.

 

[blastula]

I haven't seen the debate, and am unlikely to if it's behind a paywall, but I did watch Matt Dillahunty's review of it (which I was going to link to, but James Brown has spared me that effort, above). His biggest gripe appears to be Price's half-heartedness in giving up most of his time in the questioning part and in just throwing out claims with no supporting argument, or apparent interest in whether anybody cares about them. I can understand that would be annoying, especially if you're paying to see a debate between two supposedly engaged scholars.

I doubt Ehrman would be much better, though; I've seen some debates he's had, and it's obvious it's not really his thing, either. He's a lot happier-looking when just presenting a lecture on his subject then when he's hammering it out with someone else. I like him as a scholar and a lecturer - although I don't agree with several of his opinions/concusions - but as a debater, not so much.

Price is very good at making literary comparisons, he is a good literary critic, knows a lot of arcane sources. But he also comes off as having sort of a post-modernist view where everything is equally likely and you can't really know anything. If you can come up with any alternative possibility, then it's all equally likely.

Have you seen this Ehrman debate with Licona?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE[/YOUTUBE]

I think he does look like he's enjoying himself, he is very into it. He's been debating since high school, where he was on a state champion debate team.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I haven't seen the debate, and am unlikely to if it's behind a paywall, but I did watch Matt Dillahunty's review of it (which I was going to link to, but James Brown has spared me that effort, above). His biggest gripe appears to be Price's half-heartedness in giving up most of his time in the questioning part and in just throwing out claims with no supporting argument, or apparent interest in whether anybody cares about them. I can understand that would be annoying, especially if you're paying to see a debate between two supposedly engaged scholars.

I doubt Ehrman would be much better, though; I've seen some debates he's had, and it's obvious it's not really his thing, either. He's a lot happier-looking when just presenting a lecture on his subject then when he's hammering it out with someone else. I like him as a scholar and a lecturer - although I don't agree with several of his opinions/concusions - but as a debater, not so much.

Price is very good at making literary comparisons, he is a good literary critic, knows a lot of arcane sources. But he also comes off as having sort of a post-modernist view where everything is equally likely and you can't really know anything. If you can come up with any alternative possibility, then it's all equally likely.

Have you seen this Ehrman debate with Licona?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE[/YOUTUBE]

I think he does look like he's enjoying himself, he is very into it. He's been debating since high school, where he was on a state champion debate team.

No, I haven't seen that one; I'll check it out some time this weekend.

Last one I watched with him was a debate with William Lane Craig, in which I thought Ehrman looked kinda like he didn't really want to be there. Maybe that was just because of the opponent, all the same. I think it'd only be natural to want to be elsewhere than in the same room as Craig ...

 

[Atheos]

I agree you can't definitively know what people would have believed. I don't accept the apologetic that "Jews wouldn't believe in a resurrected messiah unless it really happened." I don't think "crucified messiah" is close to conclusive for historicity, but I do think it is more supportive of historicity than not.

The way you phrased it at first was

If Christians/Jews were to invent a messiah, they wouldn't invent a crucified one - Paul says it's a stumbling block, expected a powerful messiah (I also like this one)

I realize this is a quote you are merely endorsing, but it's a really far cry from "I don't think "crucified messiah" is close to conclusive for historicity, but I do think it is more supportive of historicity than not."

To me the gaping difference between those two assessments is that the first one centers all the burden on "The Jews wouldn't invent a crucified messiah" rather than "a crucified religious leader is more supportive of said leader being historical than not."

Arguing that anyone "Wouldn't invent a crucified messiah" is as absurd as arguing that nobody would invent a 30,000 year old warrior named Ramtha or nobody would invent the claptrap Joseph Smith invented, nor nobody would invent the Xenu bullshit of Scientology. The Jesus mythology wasn't a universal product of the Jews, it was the product of a small fringe group that became popularized over time.

But it is quite plausible that a charismatic religious fringe leader pissed off the wrong people and got himself crucified for his heretical teachings, or for disrespecting powerful people, or for vandalizing vendors booths. It's equally plausible hat such an individual might have been the nugget around which all the Jesus mythology developed during ensuing decades.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But it is quite plausible that a charismatic religious fringe leader pissed off the wrong people and got himself crucified for his heretical teachings, or for disrespecting powerful people, or for vandalizing vendors booths. It's equally plausible hat such an individual might have been the nugget around which all the Jesus mythology developed during ensuing decades.

These discussions ultimately come down to asking whether the Trojan War is a fictional account of a factual event, whether Paul Bunyan is a fictional rendering of an actual person. Examples are as endless as there are works of fiction. Many people accept the fiction as fact, even aside the impossible events and feats, if they know there is a grain of truth in the story. But there are a grains of truth in all stories because authors don't write any other way. And that is a fact as we see in stories like Wreck of the Titan, Old Man and the Sea, Moby Dick and countless others.

The real Jesus, the real John Rowland, the real Santiago, the real Ahab, the real Paul Bunyon, William Tell, Rhett Butler, these you invent from the story, it's where you get to play by the same rules the author did. So welcome to the world of fiction and creative writing.