Bart Ehrman wrote:Since I am an agnostic who does not believe in Jesus, one could easily argue that a mythicist position would be more attractive to me personally. I too could then argue, as a scholar, that Jesus did not exist and that people should seriously consider leaving the Christian faith as I myself did.
So why don’t I argue that, if it would be more palatable with my personal view of the world? Because I’m a historian, and I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can. If we rewrite history according to our own agendas and in light of our own deeply vested interests, how are we any better than other ideologues — for example those that made such a mess of the twentieth century, in various parts of the world, with their rewriting of history? We simply cannot allow ourselves to rewrite history to suit our purposes.
This is typical "from the belly-button Bart" (aka navel-gazing inspired philosophy & expression of it)
First, he claims that, if he argued "that Jesus did not exist," that "people should seriously consider leaving the Christian faith as I myself did." That's laughable ego-centricity. Who does he think he is? The Pied Piper?
Secondly, he says, "I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can."
One would think he might have said, "I think the evidence really matters," and then given a potted summary of 'the evidence.'
But he merely gets pious with, "it matters that we get history right," and then goes off on a tangent and waffles about "agendas," deeply vested interests." and "ideologies...that made such a mess of the twentieth century".
Maybe he thinks or is even implying "mass mythicism" will make a mess of the twenty-first century?
Weird ramblings.
by 
