Pages

▼

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Secular catfight



Ehrman's new book has prompted a catfight between unbelievers of various stripes. Ehrman attacking other unbelievers (mythicists). Unbelievers counterattacking Ehrman. Some unbelievers defending Ehrman while other unbelievers attack his defenders. Watch the fur fly:
at

6 comments:

  1. zilch3/27/2012 8:46 AM

    Not that I'm an expert on the historicity of Jesus by any means (I've read Misquoting Jesus and a bunch of stuff online, which hardly suffices to scratch the surface of the material, of course), but I have to agree that this really is a catfight. The only really important question about Jesus, imho, is whether or not He was God.

    But on atheism, it doesn't seem to me that there can be a simple yes or no answer to Jesus' existence: yes, there were people named Jesus (or Yeshua) back then, and there's the body of literature connected with that name; but the historical possibilities range on a continuum from one person of that name who did and said everything reported in the Gospels (except the miracles, presumably), through conflation of a number of people and/or traditions, to out and out fantasy (which seems unlikely). And at this remove, it seems unlikely ever to be known exactly what went on- on atheism, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John3/27/2012 9:10 AM

    Because there is a range of *possibilities* it's unlikely to ever be known?

    ReplyDelete
  3. zilch3/27/2012 9:47 AM

    Jonathan- what I meant to say is that there exists a range of more or less plausible possibilities, and there's not enough indisputable information to say with any certainty which of them (if any) was the case. At least that's the way it seems to me.

    It's obvious why there's polarization about the issue between Christians and atheists, but the polarization among atheists, who seem to be pretty much either/or about Jesus' existence, seems unrealistic to me. In fact, it reminds me of C.S. Lewis' Trilemma in its oversimplifying pigeonholing of possibilities. Thus, I agree with Steve's characterization of this as a catfight.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3/27/2012 9:57 AM

    So Steve, do you mean to imply that McGrath is an unbeliever? If so, are you sure that's correct. McGrath is a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  5. steve3/27/2012 11:16 AM

    Yes, that's what I meant to imply. McGrath is a nominal Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rhology3/27/2012 12:24 PM

    McGrath is a nominal Christian.

    After hearing him speak at some length numerous times, I'll second that.

    ReplyDelete