{"id":2245,"date":"2025-12-02T01:09:35","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T01:09:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/?p=2245"},"modified":"2025-12-02T01:09:37","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T01:09:37","slug":"bart-ehrman-on-mythicism-once-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/2025\/12\/02\/bart-ehrman-on-mythicism-once-more\/","title":{"rendered":"Bart Ehrman on Mythicism, Once More"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Bart Ehrman recently appeared<\/a> on Tim O\u2019Neill\u2019s podcast to speak about mythicism, especially Richard Carrier\u2019s book on the topic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around 6:55, Ehrman asks \u201chow do you know that someone 2000 years ago is making it all up or using sources?\u201d And asserts that hypothesizing sources is justified since Luke, for example, uses Matthew and Mark and says that he is using sources (Luke 1). The issue at hand, of course, is how can we know that material in Luke or Matthew that appears in no extant prior source is from a lost source instead of simply Luke\u2019s invention. There is, effectively, no way to tell the difference from authorial invention in these situations and no justification for positing a lost source, moreover, the notion that using prior sources is the one and only demonstrated explanation (whereas authorial invention never is) is breathtaking to me. There is abundant evidence of fiction in the gospels (the nativities, for example) and even on the hypothetical that this was obtained from prior sources it would only mean those prior sources made things up. Thus, invention is a known and demonstrated phenomenon just as much as source usage is, but it is unparsimonious to theorize prior sources when literally no a posteriori<\/em> evidence of such exists. Ehrman\u2019s thinking on this seems very confused. Around 10:05 he asks, \u201cWhat is the evidence that they made it up?\u201d But that is irrelevant. With the nativity account, for example, there is abundant evidence it is fiction, and if Ehrman were to ask \u201cWhat is the evidence that Matthew specifically (as opposed to a prior source) invented it?\u201d that would be rather silly, as both invention by Matthew and invention by a prior source seek to explain the same datum (the existence of the nativity account) but theorizing a prior source is simply an unparsimonious way to do that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around 10:55 Ehrman, in defending his very realist interpretations of ancient sources, says there are ancient authors like Plutarch who aren\u2019t just making stuff up. While I agree that all ancient authors \u201caren\u2019t just making stuff up\u201d it\u2019s notable that the author mentioned, Plutarch, makes up lots of stuff (perhaps not everything, but he is a very myth heavy author!). He wrote a Life of Romulus<\/em>, the mythical founder of Rome. He believes Osiris is killed and resurrected in the sky<\/a>. He says that Typhon, sometimes called \u201cthe Egyptian Satan,\u201d and said to be red in appearance (like modern cartoons of the devil) sired two sons whose names were Judas and Jerusalem (Of Isis and Osiris<\/em>, section 31<\/a>), effectively saying that the devil fathered the Jews! Other ancient authors are like this, we need not belabor the point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At 18:30 \u201cJames, the brother of the Lord\u201d is discussed (Gal 1:19). There is no explicit statement Jesus had biological brothers in Paul or any other early epistolary literature, there are repeated explicit statements of Jesus having fictive kinship brothers (the early church was his \u201cbrothers\u201d). The $64,000 question: Which category do these two passages that refer to brother(s) of the Lord (Gal. 1:19 and 1 Cor. 9:5) slide under, the one evidenced or the one not evidenced? While the specific phrase \u201cbrothers of the Lord\u201d is not uttered outside these passages, that Christ is \u201cthe firstborn among many brethren\u201d (Rom. 8:29, also see Gal 3:26) logically entails Christian believers were brothers of the Lord, as the Lord is Christ and they are Christ\u2019s brothers. And while Ehrman seems to think it is absurd to demand an explicit statement of Jesus having biological brothers, clearly it is possible for Paul to do this without saying \u201cJesus had biological brothers\u201d as he could say \u201cthe other son(s) of Joseph and Mary,\u201d or anything equivalent that would be equally plain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gospels are used as backup, but this is simply false corroboration. Mythicism interprets the gospels as symbolic myths, and Jesus\u2019 brothers\u2019 names play right in to a symbolic purpose, recalling the name of Israel\u2019s great patriarchs and lending themselves to the interpretation that Christ is the firstborn of a new Israel (see the Fredrikson quote here<\/a>). Besides, it is made clear that Jesus\u2019 brothers abandon him (Mark 3:31) and are therefore not part of the early church as far Mark speaks of it, thus would not be whom Paul is speaking of. Thus, there is no genuine corroboration for a biological brother of Jesus named James who was part of the early church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At 21:30 Ehrman, having read a quote from Richard\u2019s book, argues that it would not make sense for \u201cbrothers of the Lord\u201d to mean Christians in 1 Cor. 9:5 since Cephas, most definitely a Christian, is mentioned in that same verse (\u201cHave we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as do other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?\u201d).

Ehrman would really do well to actually read these arguments in context instead of just snippets. As Carrier explains, Greek argumentation often used a strong example of the point being made sandwiched in between more modest examples. In the case at hand, Paul is saying this the other apostles and Cephas (the first and third examples used) who are comparable with him as all holding the office of apostle, are able to take along a wife then so can he. In the middle he uses the example of \u201cbrothers of the Lord\u201d (=ordinary believers) as a strong example, that since even they could take along a wife then so could he.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around 33:50 Ehrman notes that Carrier\u2019s scripture citations in the quoted passages don\u2019t have the Greek phrases mentioned. I do not read Greek but the English translations at least do not have any equivalent to \u201cno other apostle\u201d in the cited verses. I therefore believe there is a serious mistake of some kind in Carrier\u2019s citations. As best I can tell, if the James of Galatians 1:19 is being described by Paul as both an apostle and \u201cthe Lord\u2019s brother,\u201d (which Carrier seems to be negating, saying he is just a brother but not an apostle) then James\u2019 designation as the Lord\u2019s brother cannot be a mere reference to his being a Christian believer since that would be redundant. However, biological kinship may still not be a viable interpretation since James the Apostle is nowhere else spoken of as a biological brother of Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bart Ehrman recently appeared on Tim O\u2019Neill\u2019s podcast to speak about mythicism, especially Richard Carrier\u2019s book on the topic. Around…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"[]"},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2245"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2255,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2245\/revisions\/2255"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/humesapprentice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}