καλεῖ δ᾽ ἀκούοντας οὐδὲν ἐν μέσᾳ δυσπαλεῖ τε δίνᾳ: γελᾷ δὲ δαίμων ἐπ᾽ ἀνδρὶ θερμῷ, τὸν οὔποτ᾽ αὐχοῦντ᾽ ἰδὼν ἀμαχάνοις δύαις λαπαδνὸν οὐδ᾽ ὑπερθέοντ᾽ ἄκραν: δι᾽ αἰῶνος δὲ τὸν πρὶν ὄλβον ἕρματι προσβαλὼν δίκας ὤλετ᾽ ἄκλαυτος, αἶστος. (Aeschylus, Eumenides 558-565)
In Ehrman's recent response to Carrier's criticisms of his book, Ehrman writes the following (rather shocking) statement:
As many readers know, Richard Carrier has written a hard-hitting, one might even say vicious, response to Did Jesus Exist. I said nothing nasty about Carrier in my book – just the contrary, I indicated that he was a smart fellow with whom I disagree on fundamental issues, including some for which he really does not seem to know what he is talking about. But I never attacked him personally. He on the other hand, appears to be showing his true colors.
So what is the point? Carrier appears to want to show that he is very much a better historian than I am. This is a repeated theme throughout his scathing critique. I, frankly, did not realize that this was supposed to be a contest between the two of us, and am not interested in the question of who wins.
After reading the response I mainly wanted to focus on his excuses for why such glaring and egregious problems existed in his book. But now, after I have had a day to reflect, I wanted to come back to this because, frankly, Ehrman seems to have completely forgotten what he wrote in his book and in various articles about his book over the past few months.
First, I want to stress that Ehrman is a professional scholar--he is a very well established academic with many, many publications. Not only has he published dozens of books but he has two Loeb texts (on the Apostolic fathers, quite the accomplishment) and many smaller articles in journals and such that should hammer home his credentials. He is an excellent textual critic and knows a lot about the ins and outs of manuscripts, of scribal practices, of copyist errors. Indeed his best work is, in my opinion, on these very subjects. He studied under the late Bruce Metzger and co-authored with him on occasion and that only goes more to his credit.
I say this because there is a great difference between his extremely well-researched book Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (HarperCollins, 2011) and his recent book Did Jesus Exist. This is primarily due to the subject matter of his work. Of the former, Ehrman's expertise, there is no doubt-it is a superb book. Of the latter, well, clearly there is a disconnect somewhere between what Ehrman knows and what he doesn't. And that is really what surprised me so much about his recent articles hyping his book.
He spends a lot of time challenging the credentials of Carrier (who has three graduate degrees in Christian origins, Classics, and ancient science), Price (who has relevant degrees in NT), and Thompson (who has worked in the field of Biblical Studies for over four decades). In his book, in fact, he writes only that Carrier has a PhD 'in classics' (which is simply inaccurate--he holds three graduate degrees: an M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D.) and in his article he hints that even with degrees, mythicists like Carrier are unhireable.
In fact Ehrman consistently drives home the point that mythicists--even credentialed ones--are simply weaker historians, like a creation scientist is not really a scientist, or like the way a chiropractor isn't really a doctor. That is his whole point; and throughout his book he strives to prove that (a) mythicists are wrong because (b) they aren't doing history correctly. So when Ehrman writes, "Carrier appears to want to show that he is very much a better historian than I am.... I, frankly, did not realize that this was supposed to be a contest between the two of us, and am not interested in the question of who wins." those of us who have been paying attention cannot help but fall out of our chairs. Did he really just say that?
His whole point is about proving he is a better historian--because he is a historicist and not a mythicist--than Carrier, Price, Thompson, etc.... That is the point! His whole book, Did Jesus Exist, is nothing if not one giant attempt to say 'This is what real historians do; this is why real historians accept a historical Jesus.'
So when Carrier (and I--forthcoming academic article due out on the subject in early May) show that Ehrman has utterly and completely failed at his task, that he has been exposed as unreliable in this particular area (i.e., historical Jesus studies--not his work in textual criticism which is still top notch), what is it that he does? He seems to forget precisely what it was his goals were in writing the book to begin with. And that is seriously troubling.
Indeed, Carrier has shown his true colors--his true colors are that of an actual credible scholar who takes pride in their research and tries, with due diligence, to publish work that is solid and sound and reasonable. And he is not afraid to confront scholarship that is anything but sound and reasonable. And while that may not win him friends, it is an admirable quality as so many scholars tend to handle these matters with kid gloves when, in fact, sometimes bad arguments just need a swift kick in the pants. It isn't my style, but it certainly is Carrier's. That is okay with me.
But more than this, Carrier has undermined Ehrman's point that all mythicists are unreliable. Certainly MANY mythicists are unreliable (Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, Atwill, etc...) but not all mythicists are in the same boat (just as not all historical Jesus scholars are the same). And this is a point Ehrman fails to make and as a result he has suffered a blow. For all his boasting and credential-toting he has not shown himself to be as competent a scholar in the area of historical Jesus studies as Carrier, a mythicist, has.
Still, and I want to be clear, I don't think this means that Ehrman is an unreliable scholar. To the contrary, he is quite reliable and should be respected, even though he has not produced a very well argued book on this particular subject. And if I may use his own words, "[h]e is one smart fellow. But I'm afraid he falls down on this one. Even smart people make mistakes." (p. 167)