tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post562911314794498903..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Bart Ehrman Scams his Students (Jesus vs. Apollonius of Tyana)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-57459109591637334372024-03-11T17:03:47.928-07:002024-03-11T17:03:47.928-07:00So I got your point, but disagree. IMO, Ehrman is...So I got your point, but disagree. IMO, Ehrman is not just guilty of a scholarly error, but of a moral wrong, and deserves to be called out on it. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-18607239738799399762024-03-11T16:53:22.532-07:002024-03-11T16:53:22.532-07:00Well, I think he WAS being dishonest, and have exp...Well, I think he WAS being dishonest, and have explained why. And I think he has robbed ignorant young people of their faith by his dishonest twisting of the facts. And that pisses me off. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-70269305046273046122024-03-11T11:25:14.337-07:002024-03-11T11:25:14.337-07:00You totally misinterpret my criticism. I don’t car...You totally misinterpret my criticism. I don’t care if you disagree with Bart.Perfectly fine. Calling him dishonest and a scammer is the issue. You can make your point without resorting to name calling.Sam M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00314003920295058195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-31430556023674201812024-03-10T15:20:39.483-07:002024-03-10T15:20:39.483-07:00Sam: You're welcome to dispute any facts you t...Sam: You're welcome to dispute any facts you think I got wrong, if you can back your criticism up. As for Ehrman's internal state, often people fool themselves, first, and I am willing to consider that that is what is going on. But he's not being straightforward in the arguments he himself admits to giving his students. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80471456438828362032024-03-10T15:14:23.168-07:002024-03-10T15:14:23.168-07:00I heard this same story on Medium that Bart Ehrman...I heard this same story on Medium that Bart Ehrman was dishonest and scamming his students. I totally disagree that he is dishonest. If you think he is wrong, that is your right to do so, but saying he’s dishonest and a scammer is ridiculous. He was only using this story as an example of how pagans in this era see things. Just my opinion.Sam M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00314003920295058195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23716878184040479372021-07-20T12:05:47.889-07:002021-07-20T12:05:47.889-07:00Dan: Thanks for the suggestions. I am presently w...Dan: Thanks for the suggestions. I am presently writing a book entitled "The Case for Aslan," so have finally learned how to spell "faun" properly. But typos and the tone are among the dangers of blogging, for me: I didn't always have time to give it that last, mellowing edit. And as you may have picked up, I was feeling irritated at the man. But you're quite right: it's better not to show it. <br /><br />Interesting about Dr. Longstaff. I have not read his work. My friend Ward Gasque, a former student of Funk's, told me he had been invited to join the Jesus Seminar, but declined. <br /><br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-62305367529561226942021-07-20T11:31:28.013-07:002021-07-20T11:31:28.013-07:00Thank you for taking on Dr. Ehrman. It was a good ...Thank you for taking on Dr. Ehrman. It was a good start. "Bears," not "bares." "Faun," not "fawn." "Ephemeral." Maybe a little more light and less heat. I haven't read _The Life of Apollonius..._; I'm sure that by now you've read it systematically. <br /> Back in the 1990s I was part of Synoptic-L, an online forum hosted by the Jesus Seminar. I respectfully challenged one of the founders, Dr. Thomas W. Longstaff. For whatever reason, he left the University of Chicago, moved out East, and became a state senator in order to help low income people get health insurance. He had been a devout Jew, defining essentials of Judaism as circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and dietary laws, but later told me, "Jesus is my Savior."Dan Eumurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04725081258544798719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-52177138330526863762017-09-18T04:18:53.227-07:002017-09-18T04:18:53.227-07:00Physeter: Pay attention. Bart Ehrman is scamming ...Physeter: Pay attention. Bart Ehrman is scamming his students by trying to make Apollonius sound more like Jesus than he really was. That's the point. Every case in which Ehrman misrepresents the facts about Apollonius, is a piece of evidence in support of that point. <br /><br />(1) I didn't say it was "totally different because the god came from Egypt not from heaven," I said Ehrman MISREPRESENTED the god's domicile in an effort to make the Apollonius story sound more like the Jesus story. Get the point now? <br /><br />(2) If they "really aren't that different," why did Ehrman feel obliged to misrepresent the facts as he did? That's the point. Ehrman is betraying his scholarly background by shifting facts around to make Apollonius sound more like Jesus -- which he doesn't. <br /><br />(3) Jesus didn't do "magic," he did "miracles." Completely different kinds of phenomena, as I explain. You're not listening. You don't want to listen. Deaf as a stone to my explanations, it seems. <br /><br />Yes, those are entirely different. Jesus is not offering folk remedies out of his storehouse of medical wisdom, as Apollonius is doing, he is healing people by the power of God. Usually Jesus thus uses no props at all -- the mud is an anomaly. Failing to recognize the differences, which are striking, you fail to understand either story properly. <br /><br />When Jesus said "the girl is only sleeping," he meant death was only sleep for her, not that she hadn't died. This is obvious. Why do you fail to see it? Jesus raised other people from the dead, and sometimes spoke of death as sleep. (As he does with Lazarus, who had been dead -- the text insists -- for THREE DAYS.) A girl who is still breathing is different from a man who has been dead for three days! <br /><br />"God" is not "a god." Again, obviously. The two concepts are miles apart. You are confused by coincidences in spelling. <br /><br />Your final complaint is that I called someone a liar for falsely accusing me of calling Ehrman an "agent of Satan." You don't deny that the charge is false, yet you wish to make the accusation stick against me somehow, anyway. Why do you twist your mind into such pretzels? Of course nothing at all follows about the truth or falsity of Brown's comment: the issue is telling the truth. I find it troubling when people don't care about telling the truth. And please don't put words in my mouth: I'd rather speak for myself, thank you. <br /><br /><br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-77147459055539182017-09-15T10:39:55.396-07:002017-09-15T10:39:55.396-07:00How can you be so highly educated and so well-read...How can you be so highly educated and so well-read but also be so abysmally lacking in common sense and critical thinking? Almost every point you have listed here of "rebuttal" actually supports Bart Ehrman's point, not your own. Is your whole book similiarly useless? <br /><br />Point a - you say the mother was visited by A GOD in the story, and yet you say it's totally different from the Jesus story because Jesus' angel came from Heaven but this god came from Egypt. If they're both celestial, does it really matter that much where they take their mail? <br /><br />Point b - so a lightning bolt went up, so a really bright star went up...are they really that different? Remember the Gospel of Matthew doesn't have the singing angel choirs at all, that came later in Luke. <br /><br />Point e and g, or "doing magic." This is easily your weakest point. Apollonius's magic was DIFFERENT from Jesus's magic, therefore it totally doesn't matter tha both of them went around doing magical healing. You start off by claiming Jesus is different because Jesus's magic is REAL but Polly's wasn't...which kind of misses the whole point of comparing the two stories. Other than that, so Polly had a dog drink water to cure rabies, and Jesus put mud and spit on a man's eyes to cure blindness...are those really that different? Jesus rose from the dead a girl everybody SAID was dead, but Jesus said she was only sleeping...how is that not exactly the same as Polly noticing a woman was still alive in her funeral procession? <br /><br />Later you say the Emperor asked Apollonius why his followers called him a god, but earlier in your piece you claimed Apollonius wasn't called a god at all, and this was a false claim by Ehrman. <br /><br />Jesus wasn't that unique, even if the stories of the two aren't identical. <br /><br />Also? You called one of the commenters here a LIAR because he claimed you thought Ehrman was an agent of Satan. And yet just a few days later commenter William Brown, who took your side in the issue, said "He (Ehrman) seems to be nothing more than an agent of the devil, who subtly misleads students and seekers away from faith in Jesus Christ," and you said nothing at all to correct him; in fact you seemed to agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80586830950893122242016-08-04T05:48:35.254-07:002016-08-04T05:48:35.254-07:00K: Why don't you show where anything I say is ...K: Why don't you show where anything I say is wrong? And if you can't, why manufacture a complaint? I offer more than adequate reasons for the criticisms I make here of Ehrman. His errors are not mere lapses: he is an intelligent, well-read scholar, and clearly knows better. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-301123882389602072016-08-04T03:45:40.271-07:002016-08-04T03:45:40.271-07:00Why do you keep attacking Ehrman as an individual?...Why do you keep attacking Ehrman as an individual? Why not just focus on taking down his arguments with solid citations. "I couldn't find anything" seems to indicate you are looking more to disprove someone else than find the truth. If the truth doesn't challenge your beliefs then you aren't looking hard enough. Kurosawafanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09363063388662149467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45556253595178977282015-12-14T13:30:45.994-08:002015-12-14T13:30:45.994-08:00It easy to be fooled by Ehrman's persona. And...It easy to be fooled by Ehrman's persona. And I wouldn't deny him the title "real scholar." But after he fooled a couple good friends of my sister into giving up their faith, I do think he'll appear in my crosshairs more regularly. What tipped me off first, was his patronizing ad hominem in his debate with "Bill," William Lane Craig. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-19946113560087504022015-12-14T09:29:42.007-08:002015-12-14T09:29:42.007-08:00Thanks so much for this. I am so sick of the tole... Thanks so much for this. I am so sick of the tolerance that has been extended to this man who is such a deceiver. His attitude toward Christianity is so hateful. I have noted for many years how hard he works to control his visceral spite, but at times it just comes frothing out. He seems to be a deeply angry man with a massive vendetta. How anyone could not see this is beyond me. There are so many real scholars that the media and documentary makers could talk to who can very easily refute his bizarre, unorthodox ideas. Yet his stage persona and self-aggrandizing ways seem to always push him into the spotlight, at the expense of true scholarship. <br /> I find it very, very revealing that he is so often the go-to man for the media when they want to interview or quote a "religious historian". He seems to be nothing more than an agent of the devil, who subtly misleads students and seekers away from faith in Jesus Christ. His arguments are so weak and full of holes, but new believers and those who have not done the groundwork are too untutored to know this. Ehrman will face the judgement, just as we all will, and will have much to answer for.bbrownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02679936591494267078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73146301606591936832015-12-12T06:51:40.972-08:002015-12-12T06:51:40.972-08:00Ehrman clearly has an agenda. Unfortunately, I hav...Ehrman clearly has an agenda. Unfortunately, I haven't read much of his work because I'm reading so many other things right now, but I have watched several video seminars he's done. It's not hard to tell that he has some deep-seated anger at the <a href="http://godsfoolishness.blogspot.com/2015/10/evangelicalism-questioners-and-seeking.html" rel="nofollow">fundamentalism</a> he came out of. I found this article helpful in understanding some of the mental gymnastics he's participating in. I hope to get to reading some of his stuff soon, if only to sharpen my ability to critique other authors. Thanks for the post!<br /><br />http://godsfoolishness.blogspot.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775423593353210290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85099682499639646912015-12-08T18:18:37.246-08:002015-12-08T18:18:37.246-08:00OK, I'll count that as an improvement in tone,...OK, I'll count that as an improvement in tone, despite your continued attempts to justify over-the-top attacks. <br /><br />I think there's an enormous amount of "good information" in the article above. Some points are, obviously, more important than others. But far from "hair-splitting" (and good scholarship does attend to details, especially when the details are being used to make a case, as here), as a whole the points I raise utterly decimate the tendentious and unscholarly analogy Ehrman uses to try to undermine the faith of his students. If you want to say that makes him an "eater of children's souls," well that's your hypobole, not mine. <br /><br />Nor is there anyhing "hair-splitting" about pointing out that Philostratus wrote 150 years after the gospels. Nor that his work is chock-full of Hogwarts-type zoology that ought to discredit it in the eyes of anyone who cares about historical truth. Nor in pointing out that it fails to pass the very criteria that Ehrman himself sets up as valid for researching the historical Jesus. Those are just a few of thirty important differences that render his analogy bogus, and that honest comparison ought to touch on. <br /><br />Ehrman's character is defined, in part, by his actions. Engaging in the sort of ahistorical propaganda I am describing is, indeed, a grave knock against Ehrman's character, but not by me -- by the proper canons of historical method and honest scholarship. <br /> <br /><br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61100374202442715762015-12-08T16:44:51.564-08:002015-12-08T16:44:51.564-08:00Christian doctrine asserts that Satan is in contro...Christian doctrine asserts that Satan is in control of this world and the world is opposed to Christianity. Christians DO think that someone is out to get them, and that that person is probably empowered by the devil, if they are actively opposing Christian claims. It's how Christians think. My assessment is caricatured, sure, but not unjustifiably so.<br /><br />Fair enough point about Julia's husband being a persecutor of Christianity. That's an important point and I appreciate the pointer, as I appreciate good information. I'm actually very grateful for this piece of information! I look always for good information and I take the historical Jesus quest very seriously. I've dedicated a good portion of my life to it and would like to write a book some day. I've never seen this piece of evidence before, so it's very appreciated.<br /><br />What I don't appreciate is the hair splitting you are doing to avoid similarities between Jesus and a pagan figure. It gives me a bad taste in my mouth and makes me lose respect for evangelical scholarship.<br /><br />Even more do I not appreciate the personal attacks against Bart Ehrman's character. You've set him up as an eater of children's souls here, who is out to make sensational claims for money or worse.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01444471039280406086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-30684444064924485042015-12-08T13:37:13.130-08:002015-12-08T13:37:13.130-08:00As for Julia Domna, her husband forbade conversion...As for Julia Domna, her husband forbade conversion to Christianity, and her son continued persecutions against Christians. Those are sufficient reasons, by themselves, to consider the possibility that a court writer under Julia Domna might have seen Christianity as a threat to the paganism he promoted: <br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13721a.htmDavid B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-67114084512670875032015-12-08T13:28:44.030-08:002015-12-08T13:28:44.030-08:00Garrett: You're new here, so let me explain th...Garrett: You're new here, so let me explain the rules. This is not a toilet, where we let our cognitive bowels go. I expect civility, reason, and, if you make "shocking" claim, that you back them up with evidence. <br /><br />You claim that I think the "Devil" is "possessing" Bart Ehrman. That, sir, is a lie, and a stupid, childish one. Nothing I say here, or anywhere else, offers the faintest support for it. <br /><br />You call me "hateful." But I do not "hate" Bart Ehrman: I don't even dislike him in small degree. I demonstrate that he is wrong and dishonest, but I don't confuse evaluation with emotion. <br /><br />So that's two lies in your very first sentence. This does not bode well, and suggests that perhaps you have blundered into the wrong room in the urgency of the moment. <br /><br />Ehrman used the word "heaven" to exagerrate alleged similarities. But he's supposed to be a scholar, which means getting facts right, and the more one examines this alleged parallel, the more absurd it becomes. Why is it wrong for me to look at the details of the analogy, and show how far-fetched it is? <br /><br />"God" is not "god," son is not the god, and Proteus wasn't even a major figure in the Greek pantheon. It is like saying "George W. Bush is called 'God' by Republicans, because his father was president." It doesn't even make bad sense. <br /><br />You come in here with bombast and snark, and can't make a single substantive point in response. But I'll give you one more chance to behave yourself, and show you can think and talk like a reasoning adult, which is all that this forum is open to. But first, apologize for your lies. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20942474320662120662015-12-08T11:20:48.504-08:002015-12-08T11:20:48.504-08:00As I continue to dig into this blogger's claim...As I continue to dig into this blogger's claims, I have stumbled upon the fact that, ironically, he himself is guilty of making misleading, and baseless claims. He claims in this essay that the Life of Apolonius was sponsored by Julia Domna, an empress, who was "hostile to Christianity". However, as I've investigated this, I've found no evidence that this empress was "hostile to Christianity". Nowhere. Everyone knows that Julian Domna is said to have sponsored this well known writing on Apolonius, but there is 0 evidence collaborating the idea that she was "hostile" to Christianity.<br /><br />This seems to be an often repeated fabrication, as I've heard it from William Lane Craig as well, and is probably really an unjustified assumption from the fact that Julia Domna was an Empress, and the royal families were not always welcoming of Christianity, but it's also not something that should be just taken for granted and asserted as fact.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01444471039280406086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85974641141372810502015-12-08T10:21:34.867-08:002015-12-08T10:21:34.867-08:00This is just another hateful evangelical who think...This is just another hateful evangelical who thinks the Devil is possessing all those whom he disagrees with. This review is pedantic and, I'll say it, dumb. Does Ehrman slightly exaggerate the similarities? Sure. Is it to an unreasonable degree? No. <br /><br />For example, the writer here contests Bart's description of the messenger at Apolonius' birth as "from Heaven" by pointing out that the messenger is a god who has a specific realm here on earth. But isn't the point that the messenger is divine?<br /><br />Likewise, he contests that Apolonius was called "The Son of God" or was considered a god, apparently finding the following to be irrelevant - "To his mother, just before he was born, there came an apparition of Proteus, who changes his form so much in Homer, in the guise of an Egyptian demon. She was in no way frightened, but asked him what sort of child she would bear. And he answered: ‘Myself.’ ‘And who are you?’ she asked. ‘Proteus,’ answered he, ‘the god of Egypt.’” (Flavius Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius, 1:4).<br /><br />So maybe no one ever literally called Apolonius "The Son of God" as a title, in our records, but there's clearly evidence that he was thought to be the son of a god, and the incarnation of one, just like Jesus, and just like hundreds of cult leaders throughout history, so Ehrman's point that Jesus is "not unique" in that sense, I think clearly stands.<br /><br />The author even later goes on to note that the work of Philostratus records Apolonius' disciples calling Apolonius a god. <br /><br />As an aside, I find it laughable that the author mocks the idea that Apolonius was the incarnation of a god, while himself being a Christian.<br /><br />This whole essay is ridiculous and pedantic. Another evangelical convinced everyone else is a sad empty shell in need of Jesus, who must serve the devil. Just another shoddy, pedantic, and silly evangelical work further confirming by disallusionment with evangelicals and their ability to do honest scholarship, in general. Thanks Alan Hainline for the link! :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01444471039280406086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-78562277722934717052015-12-08T02:44:17.303-08:002015-12-08T02:44:17.303-08:00Thanks, folks. Jdog, see my reviews of Carrier...Thanks, folks. Jdog, see my reviews of Carrier's recent books on Amazon. My review of On the Historicity of Jesus can be found here:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/On-Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason/product-reviews/1909697494/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_two?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addTwoStar&showViewpoints=0<br /><br />Carrier will also be a target in the new book. But to answer briefly, Ehrman is more representative of the liberal scholarly community and therefore usually more reasonable, IMO. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-34020562486085908162015-12-08T01:57:53.322-08:002015-12-08T01:57:53.322-08:00Love the article- surprised by the lack of depth i...Love the article- surprised by the lack of depth in Ehrman here. Wondering how you'd compare the work of Ehrman with the work of Richard Carrier? JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-18423241899297664592015-12-08T00:01:43.822-08:002015-12-08T00:01:43.822-08:00Excellent work David!Excellent work David!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25658719176842117842015-12-06T16:33:30.241-08:002015-12-06T16:33:30.241-08:00Good stuff. I had a similar reaction when I read t...Good stuff. I had a similar reaction when I read through this section of Ehrman's book, and I didn't know even half the problems you mention here. It's frustrating how this becomes best selling material. Glad to see some thorough response to it, though.<br /><br />-RobertAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781546103268453531noreply@blogger.com