I am still curious enough to want to read Bart Ehrman's latest book despite my rapidly declining expectations. There have been a handful of reviews and articles about his recently published Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Arguments for Jesus of Nazareth that have not exactly instilled much confidence in me that it won't turn out to be the worst thing he has ever written. Ehrman's own article and interviews have been particularly disappointing and annoying. It is not the conclusion, as baseless as it is, that most disturbs me but rather his resorting to personal attacks on those who do not agree with his conclusions.
Despite claims to the contrary by ignorant reviewers like Yonat Shimron, Ehrman's insistence that Jesus was a real person is not new. If Shimron had actually read any of the previous books he should have known that. It is actually one of the aspects of of his books that has always seemed odd to me. In more than one book Ehrman takes the time to lay out what constitutes legitimate historical research and then throughout the book rigorously applies them with one major exception, Christ's historicity. He clearly shows, by using valid methods and criteria, that all the miracle claims and the various folkloric/legendary aspects of the Jesus narratives are fabrications. However, when comes to the overall historical account of Jesus he simply refuses to use the same criteria. He doesn't seem to even notice that he has discarded the standards he uses in all other aspects.
Instead of mounting anything that resembles a substantial argument Ehrman resorts to a mixture of ad hominem attacks, distortions, conflations, and false comparisons. He starts by trying to claim that those that don't support the idea that Jesus was real are unqualified to make any such claim. This would be true if all scholarship were dependent on holding both degrees and professorships. Unfortunately for Ehrman that is not the case. He also in a few separate instances tries to characterize all of those who fit the label "mythicist" as "internet kooks" and conspiracy nuts. He never makes any distinctions between the various individuals he associates with the label. By his rather low standards for such a characterization he is himself not free from the accusation. Men like Richard Carrier and Robert Price are just as knowledgeable about scripture and early religious history as Ehrman.
Ehrman's grasp on reality only gets worse. Among other things he tries claiming that the Roman's were bad record keepers and that is why there are no records of Jesus existence. Bullshit. We know plenty about the Roman Empire in large part due to what they left behind. He also conveniently leaves out that the few instances where claims in the New Testament about Jesus life can be tested against what we do know about that time-frame end up being thoroughly refuted. For example, the claims about Joseph and Mary having to travel to Bethlehem for a census. Wrong. No census was taken at that time and we know that the Romans did not conduct their census in that manner even if one had been conducted.
His comparisons are equally misleading and invalid. Ehrman tries using the recent incident where Rush Limbaugh savaged Sandra Fluke. It is his sad way of defending scriptural sources from the minor criticism that they are biased. He points out that sources on the Limbaugh/Fluke incident being biased does not mean the incident itself never occurred. True. But it is also true that non-biased sources can be found to verify the existence of both individuals. That is the more valid criticism of scripture in regard to Jesus. Not that they paint a particular view about him but that there are no outside sources that even come close to confirming that he actually existed in the first place. This is also a good example of how he conflates proof of the existence of Christians with proof of the existence of Christ. It is not the same thing. There are still Taoists in the world but that does not mean that Lao-Tzu was a real person. Taoist scholars long ago conceded that their founding figure probably never existed.
Ehrman in some ways ends up refuting some of his own writing. He goes on about "independent accounts of his life in sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)." The problem is that they no longer exist and may never have existed. Think about that for a moment. Basing the conclusion of an extraordinary figure on what amounts to religious propaganda. Then claiming, despite no existing copies, that the original sources of the propaganda pieces that you know to have been altered and amended over centuries are somehow able to verify historical facts. Are you fucking kidding?! And Paul? Most of what we know about Paul are based on his own writings. Ehrman writes, "Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it." To which, I would add that that is all according to Paul. Being associated with the presumed founding figure of Christianity would not have helped Paul's career, would it? Preachers and missionaries never exaggerate or lie? Oh, wait, YES they do! Ehrman himself has more often than not pointed out the inaccuracies and manipulations within the scriptures we do have copies of.
To top it all off, after spewing all sorts of nonsense Ehrman has the balls to claim, "compelling historical evidence." I'd love to see anything resembling evidence let alone compelling evidence. Though I have always been an atheist, I once simply assumed Jesus (the teacher/reformer/rabbi not the miracle working god or demigod) was real. I became curious and sought out information on his life and was genuinely upset and disappointed that I could not find any. That is how I came to the conclusion that he never existed. It was not a matter of falling for some conspiracy theory or wanting to mess with Christians. He is simply the only alleged "historical" figure I have never been able to find any valid sources of information on. If you cannot verify a single historical fact about an individual it does not matter how beloved that figure is they simply are not "historical" but rather mythical or legendary. That is "compelling... evidence."
*John Blake's "The Jesus debate: Man Vs. Myth" on CNN was probably the best article on the topic but was still a bit misleading. He fell for some of the bullshit being spread about those who do not simply assume Christ existed. For example, not all who have been slapped with the label "mythicist" insist or assume that the fabrication of the Christ figure was deliberate or nefarious. Plenty of myths evolve without any individuals outright controlling the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment