Here's a review in German by Dr. Hermann Detering.
Wider die historische Skepsis (Teil 1)I ran it through Google Translate, but I don't have time to clean it up. If someone else wants to, feel free! He might already have an English translation somewhere else.
Looks like Detering's had some of the same thoughts I have, such as: How could someone who has investigated Christ for so many years be completely oblivious to the notion that he might have been a mythical figure? If Ehrman's doubting half the gospel story already, claiming that people added all kinds of fictional details to it - a scandalous perspective to the devout believers in the first place - why would it not occur to him that someone may have made up the story altogether? And that
others might have thought that way? That's a real blind spot!
Seriously, is it that hard to believe there have been many thousands of people who have wondered if the Christ figure is not as mythical as the Greek son of God Hercules? That thought has never occurred to him, who spent most his life studying the subject? How
did he miss the subject when reading Schweitzer, for example? Schweitzer talks about the Christ myth and several mythicist scholars, such as Drews and W.B. Smith - Ehrman never read Schweitzer's famous work,
The Quest of the Historical Jesus?
I stumbled upon this information over 20 years ago, while doing pretty much the same: Searching out information about spirituality, religion and the truth about Christianity, etc. All it took was one book -
Forgery in Christianity - to crack open the flood of information in this regard. And there's no way that Ehrman's cursory prancing in the field of mythicism in the past few years can compare to the past 20+ years of heavy-duty study I've been doing.
Unfortunately, Detering has to jump on the bandwagon and have at me and Freke and Gandy, saying our books contain a "series of errors" without naming a single one, and expressing the snooty opinion that scholars surely would not read a book with a title like mine! (Are all professional scholars little old ladies?) Of course, that impression is completely false, as I know
many scholars who have read Christ Con. Or, is this another "No Serious Scholar" fallacy, "scholar" being defined as someone who has not read my book? In which case, Ehrman could no longer be considered a scholar - unless he did not read my book in the first place...
Detering actually advises Ehrman not to waste time on the likes of me and Freke and Gandy but to confine himself with more worthy sparring partners. Ahem, I've already shown myself to be far more knowledgeable about the subject of mythicism, but the credentialists are always standing in the wings ready to wave around their pedigrees.
It sounds as if Detering thinks Ehrman should have abused me further by ignoring me completely, not mentioning my book at all and affording me no respect. Typical and disappointing.
While Detering's holding my book as if it's a dead skunk because he's too good for it, he's not too good to have this picture on his website:
Quote:
Against the historical skepticism (Part 1)
Bart Ehrman: "Did Jesus exist?"
The hook of the book is the following: Bart D. Ehrman, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wanted to write a completely different, more important work, it fact, as a Jewish end time prophet named Jesus, a divine being and God was. But then he was startled by a few emails. He found himself suddenly in the claim made by a scene which he had hitherto apparently unknown Mythizisten, which is given for its assertion that there was no Jesus, appealed to his authority! Cause and reason, "New Testament scholar" enough for a conscientious, things take a closer look.
Although Ehrman had by then already "thousands of books about Jesus in English and other European languages, the New Testament and early Christianity," read, he was "completely clueless as most colleagues skeptical about the extent of the literature on this subject [] "(p. 2). For a theology professor and biblical scholar, who was supposed to be up to date and also in daily conversation with his students, this long period of ignorance is astounding enough, especially as the question of the historical existence of the man from Nazareth in the mass of the Jesus literature that he has read, have occurred repeatedly once. For example, in the widely cited by Ehrman, "Quest of the Historical Jesus research" by Albert Schweitzer, in which it goes to hundreds of pages about this very subject. This book and others would have to curb Ehrman boundless surprise at least, and show him that the question "Did Jesus exist?" Not completely out of thin air and has engaged the New Testament research periodically over again. It is, moreover, not only since yesterday on the agenda of those American "humanists" who read his books and with whom he was in his own words has long been in contact.
But it probably will not all be taken so literally that Ehrman writes. This and other contradictions, the reader must be used in casual conversational tone of his book ever written. The latter is not meant as a veiled criticism: For readability, you should be grateful, especially since it saves German readers with "mediocre" in the dictionary of English Nachschlagearbeit much. That the relaxed presentation and simple language again and again transformed into pure superficiality of course, the flip side, we still need to talk about.
Instead of immediately to shine with new perspectives and factual discussion of the theories of Mythizisten to Ehrman employed on several pages, and once with the Mythizisten - always happy - with himself. Ehrman on Ehrman - a broad ... The professor is seeking clear demarcation:
There, the "breeding" (as indeed Ehrman in an interview) the Mythizisten a shadow public who shuns the light, and in the global channels network of dark conspiracy theories cooking up. Apart from some few exceptions, neither degree nor entitled to legitimized a meaningful contribution to the difficult historical and historical and religious problems that Professor Ehrman and His peers for decades at the forefront of science afford to grapple. This loud, brash and aggressive in appearance, enemies religion, atheists, and by half-knowledge, ignorance and error, from cliff thrown to the cliff. Avanti Dilettanti!
Here, the "New Testament scholar," the splendor of his academic title, Honors and Awards, among his many students, whose questions he conscientiously and competently answered a proven author of numerous
Nonfiction, such as receiving tons ("tons of e-mails", p 94) (Apropos, as it actually weighs emails?). A biblical scholar and Theologian, as he stands in the book - permeated his matter what heard from him that the Bible daily in the original Greek or Hebrew is read, studying and teaching for over 35 years and "I do not plan to stop any time soon "(p. 36). Yes, why? Will it because someone stop them? The Mythizisten about?
And yet no apologist! Ehrman wants to be understood as a mere historian, exclusively interested in the historical evidence. "I'm not a Christian and have no interest in it to represent a Christian thing or agenda.
I am agnostic with atheist leanings and my life and my Views would be about the same whether Jesus existed or not ... The Answer to the question of the historical existence of Jesus makes me neither less happy nor unhappy, happy, hopeful, sympathetic, rich, famous or immortal "(p. 5).
With these words, Ehrman says all suspicions that it could once again as is so often exist in answering the question Did Jesus? Bias in the Be games, to have put a stop. No, this man is not only competent, not sensations or filthy lucre from, like most Books written denial of the historical Jesus, but completely
unbiased, a selfless champion of historical truth. Of this standpoint, the book is that the reader how to
Hammer eingebläute, repeated suggestive thesis, "Jesus certainly / actually / really lived! "werden1 understood. "From a dispassionate point of view, there was a Jesus of Nazareth "(p. 7)
But wait! Was not there recently an interview in which Ehrman postulated that "Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives, on the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I do not agree with the apocalyptic framework # in which they were put. "2's drum was however, we want to decrease the time being Ehrman that he prejudices or biases approach is, even if the tone that he, in his book and in previous Interviews with the Mythizisten, which he compares with Holocaust deniers (p. 5) strikes, academic relations and uncouth sounds a little too excited. Consider the intent, the question of the existence of the man from Nazareth prejudice, in any case deserves respect. Respect for the views of others and good manners should academic areas but also not deny the other side's good will in the search for historical truth. What ultimately counts is anyway not only the good intentions or the relevant philosophical background, but the better historical arguments.
It is certainly true that there are also among the publications of the "Christ-myther" some pretty big differences in quality exist. That the arguments used, for example, Acharya SDM Murdock their theories in books such as: is represented, etc., can convince a professional biblical scholar hardly clear, "The Christ Conspiracy The Greatest Story Ever Sold" (!). The Jesus Mysteries Freke-Gandy duo of authors included in historically highly problematic and in some cases completely outdated theories. A series of errors and Schludrigkeiten in both books is not to be overlooked. And yet it would be absurd, of course, if you wanted the picture that emerges from this generalized and applied to all "Mythizisten" and radical critics. Under this method, one could Ehrman with the author of the Da Vinci Code thrown into a pot, since both authors are clearly convinced of the historical existence of the man from Nazareth. Mythizisten could now claim that the thesis that there is no historical Jesus, had been so absurd, because its existence would be constantly provided by Dan Brown and other bestselling authors in their books. Logic in the sense of Ehrman ...
By Ehrman in interviews repeated accusation against Freke and other Mythizisten, they would deny the existence of Jesus just to sell books, is disingenuous. As a man of honor should rather be grateful for Ehrman them that their books gave him an opportunity, himself a public appeal bestseller, selling even with its own trailer (see his Facebook page). If it were only himself to selfless dissemination of his ideas, he might be able to free his book as a pdf file put on his website.
As for the claim that "Mythizisten" generally possess no theological or doctor or other appropriate title, which they legitimized the work, Ehrman knows and calls himself exceptions, eg Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier and Tom Harpur. He would still highly revered by me, and unfortunately prematurely deceased Darrell Doughty able to take. With Google's help and a small view of the pond it would be perhaps the writer of these lines, the security forces since his dissertation in 1992, the Fake Paul, 1995, or The False Witness, 2011, and in many of his articles website and elsewhere on this issue dealt and represents a radically critical position, come to mind. Worse is that Ehrman also the representatives of so-called Dutch radical criticism that he had from Albert Schweitzer's book must know, completely ignored: Ph.D. theologians, practicing pastor, high school teacher - and who dispute the allermeist
Historicity of Jesus. The last of these, G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, "Grand Master of the radical critique" died, 1957. Well, that's been a while. Yet a look at these honorable gentlemen, Professor Ehrman about his obsession, who dispute the historical Jesus, would by definition uneducated amateur and fanatical atheists would be able to cure with appropriate agenda and foaming at the mouth. The research work of the American professor is ignoring these radical critics of the New Testament from a bad witness. It is as if we were reading a medical history of the exploration of the tubercle bacillus without the mention of Robert Koch. As a professional biblical scholar Ehrman should not bother too much time on light as Acharya opponents or Freke-Gandy, but have so much confidence to fighten against equal sparring partners.
Apparently Ehrman wants to marginal from the mere existence or nonexistence of Mythizisten to the biblical studies / theology faculties to infer that their theories were nonsense. But since when the question of the (historical) truth is decided by majorities? Did not all the new theories started small and had to do prevail against fierce opposition and against just academic conceit? And the thing with the non-historical Jesus really is so abstruse that it therefore is not academic teachers who have pity? Apparently not, because how else could she - infect more people, so that more and more skepticism threatens to become a phenomenon of our culture - by Ehrman's own statement? Rather, the problem is not that candidate for the chair of theology - must meet even today certain theological and ideological prerequisites and preconditions - in addition to the academic qualifications? The case was Lüdemann, revealing at least for German theologian, as an eye-opener right. From the causa Muhammad Kalisch could be learned. Against this background must appear either completely thoughtless Ehrman omissions or cynical.
But we want this to banter, to the Ehrman strange fixation on silly accessories as there are PhDs and other academic vanities, repeatedly misled the real thing, ie turn to the arguments for and against. It's amazing enough that Ehrman takes 370 pages to refute a thesis that is in his opinion, absolutely scientifically unfounded. After his interviews and introductory remarks, one would expect that a few sentences or psychiatric reports were sufficient to completely.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
. I enthusiastically joined his blog yesterday as a paying member, and I was the 1st member to post a comment on his page. I read his "members only" article on the 1st century Mark fragment, and made a comment saying I enjoyed his article and that I was very excited about the new blog site. I told him I was a proud member. I also made a "p.s." note that throughout the article he referred to the earliest copy of Mark as P46 (P46 does not contain Mark). I figured he was talking about P45. I open the blog up today to find that he has made the correction, but has deleted my comment. Why? We all make mistakes. He could have at least left my positive remarks, even if he was embarrassed that a dummy like me pointed it out... I know its a miniscule issue, but a paying member deserves better...