Bart Ehrman has been blogging about the quaint way too many biblical scholars (himself included) play games with the meaning of “myth” in relation to the gospel narratives. The message strikes me as being something like saying Aesop’s fables are true stories because they contain useful lessons.
Why can’t they just say, yes, Aesop’s fables and the Bible stories are fables or myths or fairy tales but they contain valuable lessons or moral guidance?
Why try to give the stories a fabricated status of “truth” simply because they supposedly contain what some people consider worthwhile lessons?
The following two tabs change content below.
Neil Godfrey
Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Is Everything a Question of Probability? - 2024-12-15 03:04:03 GMT+0000
- The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History” - 2024-12-13 05:51:46 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 4: Did Jesus Exist? - 2024-11-27 08:20:47 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
THANK You!
-D
Fantastic Four # 25 of the original series promotes self-sacrifice, courage in the face of adversity, loyalty to family & friends and accepting responsibility for failure.
But that doesn’t mean the Thing really fought the Hulk.
What wasn’t either immoral, wrong, or bonkers in the Bible was ubiquitous old hat. What was new was either immoral, wrong or bonkers. Marvel and DC are one up in that super powers might be impossible but they usually in universe come from science and human invention or have a natural explanation, even if that natural explanation, Kryptonite for instance, is fictional. Keep banging away, David and Neil, Tim too. You are a helluva way more right than Ehrman and ilk will ever be.
Because there is still money to be made by Bart by hedging his bets and using just enough ambiguous language to keep people guessing?