I have been criticized for my latest assessment of Ehrman’s response to Carrier; apparently I am not reading Ehrman with a grain of generosity towards his meaning. But let’s be clear, here. What we’re actually saying is, yes, Ehrman was not at all clear (so the initial criticism is not at all wrong), but since he has clarified his position after the fact, we should let this one slide.
But that isn’t what Ehrman is saying. He is saying that he was clear–very clear–in his book on the statue and that Carrier misunderstood him. But I am not convinced this is the case. Reading the book without reading his response would not permit one to know what he meant. And it seems as though Ehrman is suggesting we should criticize Carrier for not being able to read Ehrman’s mind.
That said, I would be willing to let this go as a misunderstanding if Ehrman admits some error here. I do believe this is one of Carrie’s weaker points of contention (which is why I believe he listed it towards the top–not because it was the strongest, as Ehrman believes to be the case) and it is possible that Ehrman just got sloppy with his point on Acharya. And in truth there is no real disagreement here between Ehrman, Carrier, and myself (as it goes). Acharya S is wrong and she does make a lot of things up–so Ehrman isn’t necessarily wrong in his final conclusion, but he is wrong about the statue (or how he worded his argument about the statue).
Filed under: Uncategorized |