Why Bart Ehrman Pisses Me Off..... sometimes

[The Grand Nudger]

Just how many mulligans are we going to give this story?  It is a highly thematic establishment myth meant to convey the doctrine of a new religion..even the "pluasible" parts...not the story of any man, anywhere.

In this regard, it;s entirely similar to the OT, and cannot be understood for what it is unless one understand this. Neither the doctrine nor the history of christianity can be explained without this acknowledgement. There's no man there, believers wouldn't have been satisfied with a man, they'd have written any hypothetical man entirely out of the narrative.

[Anomalocaris]

Just how many mulligans are we going to give this story?  It is a highly thematic establishment myth meant to convey the doctrine of a new religion..even the "pluasible" parts...not the story of any man, anywhere.

I am not giving it any mulligan.  I simply don’t hold the mundane parts of it to a higher standard of evidence normally only demanded of claimes of extraordinary occurances.

[The Grand Nudger]

There;' no "higher standard of evidence" being employed..only the acknowledgement that there -is- no evidence of any man..of any standard.  Only the myth. For that..otoh, there is ample evidence of a very high standard. Next.

[Anomalocaris]

There;' no "higher standard of evidence" being employed..only the acknowledgement that there -is- no evidence of any man..of any standard.  Only the myth.  For that..otoh, there is ample evidence of a very high standard.  Next.

There is no evidence for Alexander the Great taking a piss into the Nile at river mile 72 either, but I will not waste breath arguing with those who asserted it happened, nor cling onto any inward position about whether it really happened. But I will spend time argue against the assertion that Because he fulfilled the prophesy of pissing into the Nile, and because his hair is said to gave off a brilliant golden light during the height of the battle of Issus, therefore he is 1. divine being and 2. Must be worshiped if I were to be a good person.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, I see the disconnect, now.  When I'm discussing the historicity of the NT with you (or, honestly, anyone who isn;t a raving loon), I'm not actually concerned with establishing that there is no godman, or that people shouldn't worship him.  

I'm assessing the story itself as a historical artifact, and trying to determine how and why it took the shape it did...which has nothing to do with any jesus the man. This is an issue of cultural anthropology, not arguing with batshit apologists. My wider position, here, has absolutely nothing to do with actual gods or reasons not to worship them. It's a complete non issue. The issue is that the particulars of this story are the thematic elements of a myth..even the "plausible" ones, whose existence serves as a narrative device to move us from parable to parable and establish the traditional bona fides of a myth that people believed in.

This is not the biography of a man in any single detail, it's the biography of a religion in-every- detail. You picked out three and I immediately identified their purpose in the narrative for you. We can do this back and forth all day. The NT is chock full of this stuff, that's part of what helped it to persist all this time.

[Angrboda]

If you proceed by eliminating the implausible from a story, by definition what you will have left is therefore plausible. To then turn around and accept those details on the basis of their plausibility alone is an irrational procedure. It's tautological. Whenever you remove the implausible and are left with only the plausible, and declare that core as true based upon its plausibility, then all stories become certifiably true. If you reduce Sherlock Holmes to the claim that a man lived in a flat in London, it's automatic that the remaining details are sufficiently mundane to pass muster. If you are going to reduce a story in this way, you must then look to other sources for its veracity, lest you engage in a pathetically reasoned circle.

[Anomalocaris]

If you proceed by eliminating the implausible from a story, by definition what you will have left is therefore plausible.  To then turn around and accept those details on the basis of their plausibility alone is an irrational procedure.  It's tautological.  Whenever you remove the implausible and are left with only the plausible, and declare that core as true based upon its plausibility, then all stories become certifiably true.  If you reduce Sherlock Holmes to the claim that a man lived in a flat in London, it's automatic that the remaining details are sufficiently mundane to pass muster.  If you are going to reduce a story in this way, you must then look to other sources for its veracity, lest you engage in a pathetically reasoned circle.

Accepting what is plausible may be true is not the same as accepting what is plausible is therefore true.  

In the absence of further evidence, it certainly is irrational to argue what is plausible is definitively not true, especially if the grounds of that argument is merely that the proposition in question by happenstance found itself amongst a collection of other propositions some of which are extremely dubious or demonstrably false, but that were likely arrived at through different methods.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nom, the trouble is that "what is plausible" -is- true., but only of the doctrine that the myth seeks to establish, not a man. There is no "absence of further evidence". There is nothing -but- "further evidence".

[Minimalist]

If you proceed by eliminating the implausible from a story, by definition what you will have left is therefore plausible.

You've given me a great idea, Jorm.  Let's see what people think is "plausible" or not.

I'll go first.  Is it "plausible" that this jesus guy chased the money lenders out of the temple?

{Keeping in mind that the Temple comprised about 30 acres and had armed guards stationed therein. }

[Anomalocaris]

If you proceed by eliminating the implausible from a story, by definition what you will have left is therefore plausible.

You've given me a great idea, Jorm.  Let's see what people think is "plausible" or not.

I'll go first.  Is it "plausible" that this jesus guy chased the money lenders out of the temple?

{Keeping in mind that the Temple comprised about 30 acres and had armed guards stationed therein. }

It seems most likely that some deranged preacher tried to pick a argument with some one minding his own business, literally, as lunatic street preachers down the age are wont to do, and was tossed out on his ears by the holy security guards. Then his dim witted and suggestable followers spun derangement into righteousness and embarassement into victory, as dim witted and suggestable followers down the ages are wont to do.

Seems more productive to point out how pathetic and banal any real man behind the jesus myth was most likely to have been than to deny without evidence the possibility of his existence.