Apart from my own views of Ehrman’s book, my own sentiments have been mirrored by the various responses Ehrman has been given by Mythacists. I have gone through them very carefully and I must that his responses are very shoddy if not to the point of making shit up. Like him saying that D.M. Murdock fabricated hand drawing of an archaeological artifact in the Vatican library without even attempting to look for it or even asking here where she got the drawing from. In fact her response is the following to the charge of fabrication :
In insinuating that I drew the image myself, Ehrman is indicating he did not notice the citation under it in my book, clearly referring to Barbara Walker’s work. He is further implying that I simply make things up, and he is asserting with absolute certainty that no such bronze has existed in the Vatican, essentially stating that I fabricated the entire story. Contrary to these unseemly accusations, the facts are that I did not draw the image, the source of which was cited, and that, according to several writers, the image certainly is “hidden” in the Vatican, as I stated.
In The Woman’s Dictionary (397), Walker cites the image as “Knight, pl. 2,” which, in her bibliography, refers to: Knight, Richard Payne. A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus. New York: University Books, 1974.
Consulting an earlier edition of Knight’s book (1865), we find a discussion of the object in question (32):
...the celebrated bronze in the Vatican has the male organs of generation placed upon the head of a cock, the emblem of the sun, supported by the neck and shoulders of a man. In this composition they represented the generative power of the Ερως [Eros], the Osiris, Mithras, or Bacchus, whose centre is the sun. By the inscription on the pedestal, the attribute thus personified, is styled The Saviour of the World…, a title always venerable under whatever image it be presented.
There is more to the response of fabrication and I don’t recall Ehrman ever actually admitting or responding to Murdock and saying he was wrong regarding the charge of the bronze cock statue.
Some people in there even indicated that the Testimonium Flavianum was correct because of the earlier mention of Jesus by Josephus (for which the basis of this is the 3rd century church father Origen gave a brief commentary on it that was equivilent to a single sentence, and it doesn’t mention the TF but should the reference “He did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah” in reference the TF or should it be more in reference to the assessment that Vespasian is the Christ?) which makes absolutely no sense given the larger context of what Josephus did, his text and the surrounding history of references (or lack thereof) of the TF OUTSIDE of Eusebius who advocated lying for the religion and fabricating documents to bring people to the “truth.” At any rate, I just wanted to briefly comment on the TF. Give me your thoughts on what you think about Mythacist responses and let me know… (fyi I will only your thoughts seriously only if you have actually read and researched the articles in question).