Ehrman's Summary of Historians' "Wish List"

From professor Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, page 42:

In short, if a historian were drawing up a wish list of sources for an ancient person, she would want a large number of sources that derive from near the time of the person they discuss: that are extensive in what they have to say about the person; that are disinterested*, to some extent, in what they say; and that corroborate one another's accounts without having collaborated.

*Earlier he had written:

The problem, of course, is that most sources are biased; if they didn't have any feelings about the subject matter, they wouldn't be talking about it. But if we find stories that clearly do not serve the purposes of the persons telling the story, we have a good indicator that the stories are (reasonably) disinterested.

Ehrman will proceed to show that there are numerous sources (at least 7) from near the time of Jesus (some within a decade); that they are extensive; and that they corroborate one another's accounts without having collaborated. But I don't remember his discussing their disinterestedness. I guess if I were going to take the mythicist position, this would probably be the weak link in the chain that I would try attacking.

And given that Ehrman himself rejects the resurrection story, and I think he rejects the miracle stories as well, one would want to know on what basis he rejects them, other than philosophical prejudice. I suspect he would point to their lack of "disinterestedness."

Update Two points: First, I remembered wrong on what exactly Ehrman claims about the historical sources. I better just quote him at length in a new post. Second, I'm not finished with the book, yet, and he's beginning to talk about he would call "disinteredness."

This Physicist Walks into an Ice Cream Parlor...

CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #247

The quantum physics joke Penny tells the guys in tonight's episode was told to us by Nobel award-winning physicist, Dr. George Smoot. Penny tells it in about twenty seconds. Dr. Smoot's version probably took about three minutes, although it felt a lot longer. No one had the heart to tell him to get to the punch line, proving my hypothesis that in addition to time slowing down as you accelerate, it also grinds to a halt when you're being courteous to a genius.

Thanks for the joke, Doc!

Bart Ehrman Asked about ME!

There I was reading along in professor Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, not suspecting for the world that he had ever given my existence a second thought, when out of nowhere there it was on page 39:

"How can we establish with reasonable probability that anyone from the past actually existed, whether our aforementioned Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar, or anyone else: Harry Truman, Charlemagne, Hypatia*, Jerome, Socrates, Anne Frank, or Bilbo Baggins?"

I read the passage again in disbelief and puzzlement. I'm humbled that he would include me among such notable historical figures, though I have no idea who Hypatia* was. But why did he refer to me as "from the past"? Hey professor Ehrman! I'm right here! How can you know? Try asking me! You know, like, "Hey Bilbo, do you exist?" Nu? What's so difficult about that?

*Update: I now know who Hypatia was. Misogyny and religious intolerance at their finest.

The 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Movement

Back in November of 2008, David Ray Griffin called for the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the idea being that we wanted the healing that comes from truth, not revenge. My Democratic friend expressed the view that right-wing extremists were behind the 9/11 Truth movement. I suspect that his opinion is one that is shared by many. I suggest that the best way to put this accusation to rest is to change the name of our movement from simply "9/11 Truth" to "9/11 Truth and Reconciliation."

We're now Fighting Alongside Al Qaeda

911blogger.com has an interesting article: The “War On Terror” Has Changed, and Not One In 1,000 Americans Has Noticed... We're now fighting alongside Al Qaeda.

An Argument for Voting

I've been in correspondence with a friend of mine who is actively involved in the Democratic party.  Naturally he disagrees with my decision not to vote, largely because he knows that if I voted it would most likely be for Democrats.  He thinks that 9/11 Truthers are a bunch of cranks.  One of his arguments was that if there was any truth to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, the media would have exposed the conspiracy long ago.  I pointed out to him that except for a few rare cases the media have not even written about or televised the collapse of WTC 7.

But then I added, "If a Democrat had been in office when 9/11 occurred, the media would have made the collapse of WTC 7 their lead story every night."

Afterwards I thought about what I had written. I don't buy the crap about having a "liberal news media." We have a media that report whatever is good for business. Since at least FDR the media have thought that Democrats are bad for business and they do what they can to make Democrats look bad.

Now if you want a free press, a press that is willing to take on politicians in power, then you want Democrats in power. If 9/11 was indeed an "inside job," then it is much less likely that it would have happened with a Democrat in the White House. The press would have eaten him for lunch.

So I'm rethinking whether or not to vote.

July 21st was Anniversary of Danny Jowenko's Death

Dutch controlled demolition expert  Danny Jowenko died in a car crash a year ago this past July 21st.  When first shown video of the collapse of WTC7 Jowenko immediately acknowledged it was a controlled demolition.  Only afterwards was he told that it was WTC7 and that it happened on 9/11.  He was shocked, but continued to maintain that it was indeed a controlled demolition.  I'm not sure, but I think he was first shown the video in 2006.  So was his death an accident?   I'll always wonder.