Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What Changes

In the "changes" section at the bottom, I wonder if it is relevant information that Ehrman claims the last 12 verses of Mark are not original. Isn't this a well-known fact printed in most modern English Bibles? It seems like reporting that a revolutionary war scholar doesn't believe George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree.

Now, I know this along with the adulteress episode in John are passages Ehrman references a lot in interviews, but I see it as uncontroversial views that he tries to make sound controversial. I don't see why his "view" that those verses don't belong should be mentioned, since it is already referenced in most English Bibles published in the last 80 years! Joepinion (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Passage

Is this needed? See quote:

In March of 2006, Ehrman and evangelical theologian William Lane Craig engaged in a debate entitled "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" on the campus of the College of the Holy Cross, with Ehrman arguing the opposing position. Following the event, Ehrman's publisher, along with Craig, expressed interest in publishing the transcript in book form. However, Ehrman declined.[2][3][4] In June of 2006, a transcript of the debate was made available on the college's website.[5]

Also, this seems pretty loaded:

His desire to know the original words of the Bible led him to textual criticism, which in turn undermined his faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

--Jfahler; 12:02, 14 Aug. 2007

Sure - the quote above is almost directly out of his preface in "Misquoting Jesus" -- his latest work.

--Earnric 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that garbage about the debate. The references were completely unverifiable and only found on one evangelical's website. I accidently deleted with it the link to the debate - that should be put back up if someone can find it.

--brichert; 12:45, 9 March 2008

I found the link to the transcript of the debate on March 28, 2006, "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" [http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman ] --Secaroh (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Ehrman "often considered a pioneer in connecting ... manuscripts" as stated? Hasn't this area of study been around for more than a century? To me "pioneer" suggests that he was the first or among the earliest in a field of study. I have no idea whether he coined the term "Proto-orthodox Christianity." He may have. How about a reference to verify it?

Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "Proto-orthodox Christianity."

Maybe something more like: Ehrman endeavors to connect the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and coined such terms as "Proto-orthodox Christianity." --Rod Bias (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to Colbert Report Piece

I made a minor change to the Colbert Report sentence. From only to be called an "atheist without..." to jokingly called an "athiest without...". If you have ever watched the show you will know that it is satire and parody. The previous version seemed to imply that a genuine insult was being hurled at Mr. Ehrman. After watching the segment twice, I am positive that the comment was not an insult, as implied by the original poster. -Cosentino

Before the wikipedia those who took his Intro to Christian Literature had to wait until the last class to learn about his personal beliefs. Thanks for giving students another day to skip! 67.165.173.250 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that information is not available anywhere else on the internet. Wikipedia, you are the bane of education! --fleela ^±alk 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography

This biography is copied from Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios#Bart_Ehrman:

===Bart Ehrman=== James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Previously taught at Rutgers University (UNC and RU are both secular, state universities). PhD. Princeton Theological Seminary (Magna Cum Laude). He has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press). He has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field. Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

.

I leave it to others to incorprate this into the article. I'd also like to cite The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew as a significant work. archola 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional information is available...

I don't know if it would work within Wikipedia guidelines for this type of article, but Bart's CV is available on the internet. Seems to me that readers would be interested in scrolling through a list of his extensive publications, numerous teaching awards, grant history, etc. Would it be possible to expand this article using some of the widely available lists of his accomplishments? If one would need his permission, I worked with him at the Religious Studies Dept of UNC back in the 90's, and might be able to contact him for permission. If this seems a good option, please leave a note on my Wiki "talk" page. Soltera 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Should there be "scare quotes" around the word "expert" in the lead sentence? Are these even scare quotes, or does he claim somewhere that he is an expert, or what?? Alg8662 (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I believe the word scholar may be a better choice than expert. The word expert can be somewhat subjective or misconstrued. On the other hand, I believe the Career and Bibliography sections contain more than enough evidence showing Ehrman is a specialist in his field. Even those who disagree with his conclusions, cite him as a leading contributor of textual criticism (e.g., Dr Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3844.

Criticisms?

Why are there not criticisms on this page, though? Erhman is considered useful in text criticism, yet also frequently at odds with the weight the majority (?) of scholars, as well as being seen as someone who "sees supposed tampering in every text he can where few other scholars ever see such a thing"; he's also one of the only scholars I know of today that would dare defend the debunked and now ridiculed Western Non-Interpolation hypothesis; and thus he's someone at serious odds in presuppositions and methodologies of a large portion of conclusions that are considered more evidential and carefully weighed. I don't, of course, mean that a criticism section should vilianize the guy, of course, it's just that he's a scholar who's works are fraught with difficulties once they're investigated. I would consider, however, it better for those more versed in TC and the scholarly realms here involved to create such a section. TheResearchPersona

tooMuchData

12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC) [added some quotes around a paraphrase]

tooMuchData

22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! If this guy's outside the mainstream, let's hear some good, solid, sourced criticism. Leadwind (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to start, let's lay-out different instances...this could take a while, as among the more textual-scholarly persons I'm aware of Bart is treated somewhat politely, and respected for his good work, but when he goes on his tangents people let him go on them.

I mentioned he hangs on to the Western Non-interpolations theory. He does this in “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”, see pg. 217 if you have it. In the book he's grasps that theory in order to argue that people tampered with the text to react against docetism; problematically the witnesses necessary for this deservedly dead theory of Western Non-interpolation is that one sole manuscript called “D” that Bruce Metzger lamented was still described as a text type, rather than the sole and mixed manuscript that deserves no designation of being its own family. There are readings like it in other manuscripts, but practically every manuscript shares mixed readings.

I've excerpted the following from http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html which includes the scholarly consideration on the texts that Bart tries to defend, importantly it's material by Bruce Metzger, who was considered authoritative and highly respected in whatever he labored.

"The following explanation of the Committee's thinking is reproduced from Metzger's Textual Commentary (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 191-92.

Note on Western Non-Interpolations One of the features of the Western text is the occasional omission of words and passages that are present in other types of text, including the Alexandrian. How should one evaluate such omissions from a form of text which is generally much fuller than other text-types? According to one theory, popularized at the close of the last century by Westcott and Hort, 1 such readings, despite their being supported by the generally inferior Western witnesses, ought to be preferred rather than the longer readings, though the latter are attested by the generally superior manuscripts, B and א. Nine such readings were designated by Westcott and Hort as "Western non-interpolations," 2 on the assumption that all extant witnesses except the Western (or, in some cases, some of the Western witnesses) have in these passages suffered interpolation. In recent decades this theory has been coming under more and more criticism. With the acquisition of the Bodmer Papyri, testimony for the Alexandrian type of text has been carried back from the fourth to the second century, and one can now observe how faithfully that text was copied and recopied between the stage represented by Papyrus 75 and the stage represented by codex Vaticanus. Furthermore, scholars have been critical of the apparently arbitrary way in which Westcott and Hort isolated nine passages for special treatment (enclosing them within double square brackets), whereas they did not give similar treatment to other readings that also are absent from Western witnesses. 3 With the rise of what is called Redaktionsgeschichte (the analysis of the theological and literary presuppositions and tendencies that controlled the formation and transmission of Gospel materials), scholars have begun to give renewed attention to the possibility that special theological interests on the part of scribes may account for the deletion of certain passages in Western witnesses. In any case, the Bible Societies' Committee did not consider it wise to make, as it were, a mechanical or doctrinaire judgment concerning the group of nine Western non-interpolations, but sought to evaluate each one separately on its own merits and in the light of fuller attestation and newer methodologies. During the discussions a sharp difference of opinion emerged. According to the view of a minority of the Committee, apart from other arguments there is discernible in these passages a Christological-theological motivation that accounts for their having been added, while there is no clear reason that accounts for their having been omitted. Accordingly, if the passages are retained in the text at all, it was held that they should be enclosed within square brackets. On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, having evaluated the weight of the evidence differently, regarded the longer readings as part of the original text. For an account of the reasons that the majority felt to be cogent in explaining the origin of the shorter text, see the comments on the several passages. 1. B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. II, Introduction and Appendix (Cambridge and London, 1881; 2nd ed., 1896), pp, 175-177. 2. The nine passages are Mt 27.49; Lk 22.19b-20; 24.3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, and 52. 3. E.g. Mt 9.34; Mk 2.22; 10.2; 14.39; Lk 5.39; 10.41-42; 12.21; 22.62; 24.9; Jn 4.9. In all these passages the consensus of textual opinion (including that of Westcott and Hort) is almost unanimous that the Western text, though shorter, is secondary. Metzger's comments on the several passages are as follows: Matt. 27:49. Although attested by א B C L al the words ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα must be regarded as an early intrusion derived from a similar account in Jn 19.34. It might be thought that the words were omitted because they represent the piercing as preceding Jesus' death, whereas John makes it follow; but that difference would have only been a reason for moving the passage to a later position (perhaps at the close of ver. 50 or 54 or 56), or else there would have been some tampering with the passage in John, which is not the case. It is probable that the Johannine passage was written by some reader in the margin of Matthew from memory (there are several minor differences, such as the sequence of "water and blood"), and a later copyist awkwardly introduced it into the text. [p. 71]

•     *    *

So perhaps we ought include criticism on Erhman such as “Ehrman stands in the minority on scholarly certain scholarly views, including his belief in the theory of “Western Non-Interpolation”[cite book] which is rejected by mainstream text critics [cite...and there's a lot of material on this theory available]; however Bruce Metzger, considered perhaps to be “the” authority on text critical issues before his passing (recently), put it...”.

I don't know, but this is just one issue of many. It's also a touchy issues; Ehrman is reverred iconically among some as a hero against Christianity for espousing his views. However among scholars polemical reasons aren't typically regarded as permitted to settle questions, but rather evidence must settle issues. Making an argument out of text critical details and facing a minority (which he cannot seem to convince or gain an ear with) isn't a small detail.

I do want to caution, though, that he is very much respected for his considerations: considerate voices who bring-up differing viewpoints can always be helpful in looking at things in different light, and become points from which to begin critical research. I don't think it is wrong to think that Ehrman has done some great work, either. One thing, though: I'd still rather see real text critics do something on this, or other scholars.

Scholarly criticism should be included, but you've given no clear evidence that "Ehrman stands in the minority on scholarly certain scholarly views." In fact, if you actually read the views of his work, even by the most fundamentalist scholars, they respect his theses, but quibble over particular issues, as all academics do in all fields. I don't know how you think he is a "hero against Christianity", but save your personal opinion and feelings about his work. Your long blockquote doesn't back up your wider personal view.

Ehrman's work is widely regarded even by his critics. Criticism in the article is vital, but your personal opinion is not backed by any serious reading of the literature. BBiiis08 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do all the scholarly comments on Ehrman's works come from fundamentalist/evangelical Bible scholars? Shouldn't commentaries from other scholars be more broadly based, for the sake of NPOV-ness?74.177.174.198 (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Interview transcript

I removed a transcript from an interview where, according to the article, Ehrman "confessed" that he doesn't differentiate objectivity and subjectivity. An interview is not criticism. Find a reputable source that specifically criticizes Ehrman on this point and use that instead. Epistaxis (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable ideas

In the info box under 'notable ideas' the list includes: "Criterion of independent attestation, Criterion of dissimilarity, and Criterion of contextual credibility." This appears to imply that these are Ehrman's inventions, yet these are commonplace among New Testament scholars, and date back at least to Ernst Käsemann. Does anyone know what, specifically, Ehrman has added to these ideas to make them especially notable in his work? --Rbreen (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the same impression as you, except it was in the 3rd paragraph of the intro, which mentions the ending of Mark's Gospel:

Ehrman concludes that the text originally ended at verse 16:9 and that none of the endings were original.

The various endings of Mark's Gospel have been discussed for over 100 years, but the way it sounds, it makes it appear as if Ehrman has come to some kind of revolutionary new finding. I think it should read:

Ehrman concludes (as many scholars have in the past) that the text originally ended at verse 16:9 and that none of the endings were original. This is the ending in the earliest Greek texts [Mark 16:9]. Later others appear. It is no revolutionary finding it is just good detective work. Ehrman bothered to examine the earliest Greek texts, themselves. Others did not. Kazuba (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold added for discussion page only. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no one replied, I went ahead and added the text I mentioned above. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

observation and question

According to Ehrman, the last 12 verses of Mark do not appear in ANY Greek manuscript until the 9th century. This fact is held to have an effect on Christology, because Mark is the basis for Matthew and Luke, and because only the last 12 verses claim that Jesus appeared after his death.

However, the last 12 verses begin with verse 9. Meanwhile, verse 6 has the claim: He is risen. Verse 7 indicates that the resurrected Jesus is in Galilee.

Further, considering that no original manuscript exists for any NT text, how then, from variant copies, is anyone to know for a certainty which gospel is derived from which? It seems probable that widespread conjecture is being accepted as fact.

I deleted those sentences. They were confusing. If someone can reference this from the book, that would be nice. The fact that the traditional last 12 verses of Mark aren't original to the gospel doesn't mean much as near as I can tell. That said, you're not correct when you say that the evidence is too shaky to tell which gospel comes from which. The two-source hypothesis has been pretty much the scholarly consensus since it was first developed over a hundred years ago. Mark was first. Leadwind (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

POV edits, expanded lede

Ken Temple added some POV edits, but Rbreen seems to have that under control.

I expanded the lead, which should be so thorough that it could stand on its own as a concise summary of the topic. The lead could use more work. Please see WP:Lead. Leadwind (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Any criticism of his work should be in a section about his work and ideas. A separate section called Criticism should be avoided because, according to Jimbo Wales, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."

I think the criticisms in there need reworked too. For example, at the Misquoting Jesus some editors took reviews out of context to make their appear far more critical than the actually author wrote.

I took the liberty of expanding the section (called "Works") with other sources, mention his many other works, and add specific criticisms. It's not enough to say XYZ disagree with his thesis, which you don't outline when he has a variety of different theses and which ones XYZ disagree with. And in the case of what was cited, they criticize Ehrman on different points, while not completely dismissing his theses.

Now that reviews contain material that is not just criticisms, but praise, this deals with Nick Graves who wrote "Misleading to call a section "Works" when it consists predominantly of others' criticism". The section contains the work he has published and the responses he has received (some critical, some not). So a section needs a title more fitting that. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ehrman partisans

I notice from reading several WP articles on New Testament topics that Ehrman's views are often represented. This strikes me as a little unbalanced, as Ehrman does not stand in the mainstream of scholarly opinion, and has some particular axes to grind. One wonders if he has one or two champions who love his work and are trying to incorporate it into many articles. I'm not sure if there is any real fix for this, besides noting in articles that he represents a minority, or even fringe, opinion on some topics. I gues that's the nature of Wikipedia, but I've seen his name come up in so many references in different articles that I need to comment.--Iacobus (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehrman is definitely on the fringe. He is not neutral to Christianity, but is downright hostile. Of course, that is to be expected from an apostate. The way to "fix" this problem is to research the articles and make edits that point out the fact that he is on the fringe. Consider one of the methods used by Ehrman(as stated in the opening paragraph):

One method Ehrman uses for helping him analyze text is to look for changes that favor the agenda of the scribes who copied the texts

This seems to me to require some ability on the part of Ehrman to read the minds of unknown and long-dead scribes. Also, it seems to me to ignore the fact that a particular reading might favor the agenda of the scribe (assuming Ehrman's mind-reading abilities are successful) and yet still be accurate (or, more accurate) than alternative readings. So it's not a surprise to me why he's on the fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is up there with Barbara Thiering's best howlers! I'm reasonably acquainted with New Testament scholarship, and had never heard of him until stumblnig across his views and one of his partisans in the article on Apocalypticism. I think ultimately the best way to deal with him is to have well researched articles that drown out his views byt he weight of mainstream scholarship that there is little room for the views of a lone Bible critic with an obvious bias. But, the nature of Wikipedia and supposed NPOV is that everyone's views get represented, or you are accused of bias.--Iacobus (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehrman is certinly not Fringe, in fact he is on of the leading scholars of his fild. No, not the only one - E.P. Sanders might have a claim for being "more mainstream" and Geza Vermes perhaps is as or a little bit more respected, but we are talking about shades of diference among a group of scholars who are all acknowledged to be world's leading. I'd say anyone who identifis him as "fringe" is clearly, well, fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a poor choice of words, which I now "officially" retract. I had completely forgotten I had made that statement (which was about 7 months ago). Thank you for bringing it to my attention. He is still as "hostile" to Christianity as anyone else who is a former Christian. By the way, I've even read some very nice comments from Christian friends of his that praise his scholarly skills highly, even though he lost his faith. That speaks volumes. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Having read several of his books, heard him speak a few times, and actually chatted with him briefly last month, I can't say that I find him hostile to Christianity at all. What's the basis for describing him as "hostile"? Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

He is hostile to fundamentalist Bible-thumping, not to Christianity in general. In one of his interviews available on YouTube he even admitted this. He said that his wife is unimpressed by his arguments since she does not belong to his audience (namely fundies and ex-fundies). One needs to have or to have had a very literalistic understanding to the Bible to fully appreciate what Ehrman writes. He has a polemic against literalistic infallibility of the Bible. He said he has nothing against people accepting Christ as Lord, he said he is against the belief that the Bible is infallible in its literalistic interpretation. Oh, yeah, he says Muslims and Mormons appreciate his work for apologetic reasons and send him e-mails to convert to Islam or Latter Day Saints. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do think it is fair to distinguish between critical scholars and others. I am not sure how you would want to classify them (Christian Bible scholars? Or just theologians, or clerics?) What is considered mainstream and fringe is all relative to what pond you swim in. I am not saying Ehrman's scholarship is any better or sorst than that of a believing Christian, rather, that they are two different kinds of scholarship that shouldn't be compared. Slrubenstein | Talk

As far as I know, Ehrmann is quite mainstream among critical biblical scholars. His representation in many articles may well be due to the fact that he authored textbooks that are fairly widely used (Martin uses The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings in his Yale course on the New Testament [1]) and that he has written a number of accessible books. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of his most recent book is, he wishes that people would recognize the actual views expressed by the authors of the Gospels - this sounds very pro-Christian to me. Perhaps he rejects the Nicene Creed, but is that the only form of Christianity? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

He's an agnostic. In God's Problem (which I only skimmed in the bookstore, unfortunately) he said that the problem of evil was (iirc) the main reason he can no longer believe. But I've never seen an hostility towards Christianity. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it further you may find him guilty of "blaming God," which is a rather magical position for an agnostic, to say the least. (69.69.17.120 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

I've seen hostility on his part in some YouTube videos. But not in the sense of "I hate all Christians". More like a resentment or perhaps bitterness. In any case, I have no intention of adding ANYTHING of the sort to this article, so it's a non-issue for me. Furthermore, at least one of my comments can be construed as a violation of BLP (which was made when I didn't even know what a "BLP" was), and should deleted. After this thread winds down, I suggest somebody delete it (or archive it if the potential BLP doesn't actually cross the line). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Appearances and Interviews

The third item here, "Debate with W.L. Craig on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus" no longer links the reader to a transcript of the debate. (In fact, Reference #5 in the preceding section also does not link the reader to the transcript.) Both the "Appearances and Interviews" and Reference footnote #5 take one to the Holy Cross website. The actual debate transcript can now be found at http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm#EhrmanOpen David Graham, 26 September 2009

Major themes of his works and useful terminology

What is the point of this section? It appears to be written by someone very unacquainted with Biblcl studies and Ehrman's scholarly history. For example, the section on "Historicity of the New Testament tradition" is standard historical Jesus 101. This is covered by every historical Jesus book of the third quest, and there is nothing revolutionary in Ehrman's use of it. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose.

Then we get to the "What changes were made, by whom, and why?" It argues that "his more recent works" deal with this - completely unaware of the fact that this topic is probably his only notable scholarly output. Then what it lists as examples are the least controversial textual variants - variants that have been known for hundreds of years before Ehrman, yet it reads like Ehrman discovered something that has been marked in essentially every Bible for a very long time.

I am for deleting that whole section. Probably work in something on Orthodox Corruption of Scripture into the "Works" section.--Ari89 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the section.--Ari (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Denomination

What evangelical denomination did he belong to? --Gary123 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Argument from Evil?

I have removed the recent additions by Nbauman. There is no reason for some interview styled reflection on Ehrman in this wp:blp. In addition to being unencyclopedic in structure, style and content - it also fails to make sense in many places. --Ari (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless to have a biography of a theologian which doesn't explain his ideas. It is also pointless to explain his ideas in language that the ordinary non-specialist reader (which Wikipedia is written for) can understand. In this interview with Terry Gross, of which this should be an accurate paraphrase, Ehrman gave what he said was the main reason why he lost his faith -- he couldn't answer the argument from evil. The reason why a theologian lost his faith is certainly an important part of a biography WP:WEIGHT.

If you don't like the style or the way it's written, you are free to rewrite it in an acceptable style. But I think any biography of Ehrman should explain that (1) he said he lost his faith (2) he said he lost his faith because of the argument from evil (3) What he thought were the standard rebuttals to the argument from evil and why he was not satisfied with them. Nbauman (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ari. If you want to give the plain fact and a link to the original source, that's ok. Or maybe have an article on the Argument from evil (which indeed, we have!). But this back-and-forth is bad style and looks somewhat like a violation of WP:COATRACK. It's not primarily about Ehrman, but abut the Argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ari and Stephan Schulz. I think the entire new section in question can be easily reduced to one or two sentences with the appropriate links to the sources. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that we can include why he lost his faith, but we are not going to spend half the article debating the problem of evil. --Ari (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, your latest edit is perfect. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewish?

Is he from a Jewish background? I ask because there are Jews with this name such as rabbi Arnost Zvi Ehrman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.77.135 (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He says he was a born-again evangelical Christian as a young man and never mentions a Jewish background. Leadwind (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

damning citation?

Folks on various gospel article talk pages say that Ehrman is outside the mainstream. Yet he claims to be solidly within the mainstream. He claims that his books represent little more than revealing to a lay audience the scholarship that academics have been doing for two centuries. If he's outside the mainstream, certainly we should be able to find some mainstream scholar (Sanders, Vermes, Wright, etc.) who calls Ehrman out as an impostor. Can anyone find such a citation?

If the mainstream scholars aren't objecting to Ehrman's claim to be solidly within the mainstream, then maybe he might be more mainstream after all. Leadwind (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Conservative biblical scholarship has been critical of Ehrman's thesis and unconventional methodology of textual criticism"

This is just plain false. I'm a seminary student and I can tell you that Ehrman's views are standard faire in all but fundamentalist institutions. Any non-fundamentalist Bible scholar, conservative or liberal, will agree with Bart Erhman's main points, such as the Bible containing errors, forgeries, or Biblical authors disagreeing with one another. Bknapp1 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you'd think that if an encyclopedia article is going to hit Ehrman so hard, it would at least give critics like Dan Wallace the same treatment...but nooo, Wallace's rather short article contains absolutely no criticisms, just a stub-biography and a list of works. C'mon, Wikipedia. 174.39.206.211 (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman defines himself as a historian

It is obvious from "Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine", see [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Unusual Text Critical Method

There is nothing out of the norm about the way Bart Ehrman does textual criticism. In fact, his text critical work on the Apostolic Fathers is readily received by even very conservative scholars. Furthermore, the dispute between Dan Wallace and Ehrman is not about methodology. It's about how sure we can be that we have the original text. Ehrman says without the originals you can never be sure and Wallace disagrees. That says nothing about the manner in which Ehrman does text criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WholeWheatIgnatius (talk • contribs) 08:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Why is it that edits by Biblical apologists are allowed even without citations, while Biblical criticisms demand the most critical analysis of citations? I've noticed this is common "Wiki" practice. See below:

Christian apologists, such as Calvinist theologian James White and philosopher William Lane Craig, who debated Ehrman on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the gospels respectively, have strongly criticized his methodology, claiming that he employs standard criteria for authenticity, such as the criterion of multiple attestation, as negative means rather than strictly positive means of substantiating an historical claim, ignoring the canons of textual criticism and fallaciously interpreting failure to meet some criteria as evidence of falsehood.[citation needed]Manson 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

Major Themes

I corrected the following statement: "In 1 John, where we find the one and ONLY Biblical reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is shown that it was added centuries later." Since the Council of Nicea apparently affirmed the Trinity without knowledge of this passage, the statement as it was appeared to be in error. Also, italicizing the word centuries appeared to serve no purpose, so I altered that as well.

12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

'Christianity was always diversified or at odds with itself'.

The article makes this statement sound controversial, when it fact this statement is held to be true by every mainstream Biblical scholar and historian. Even at very conservative seminaries this statement is acknowledged to be true, even though they will be quick to point out which beliefs are heresies and which are orthodox. Moreover, this article misses a very important part: Virtually every statement made in Ehrman's books is the belief of mainstream historians for at least 100 years. These aren't Erhman's opinions -- they're facts acknowledged by most all secular historians. To make a parallel, anyone who isn't a conservative Muslim believes the Koran has contradictions. Naturally, every mainstream historian also believes this. You wouldn't say it's a "controversial" for a historian to say there are contradictions in the Koran. Christineval1 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you realize that people tend to conflate history with theology, it is controversial, for theological reasons. There are theological answers like the book reviewed here: http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/2010/07/27/book-review-the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-by-andreas-j-kostenberger-and-michael-j-kruger/ (see what I have answered there). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception and controversy (criticism)

Is this section really necessary? It focuses primarily on the fundamentalist scholars with whom Ehrman's views are at odds rather than trying to include a wider range of scholarly receptions of his work. Let's clear this up and make it less biased, shall we? 174.39.156.188 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A user removed the entire section. I think this is going too far, so I restored it. I agree that the scholars quoted are all critical of Ehrman, but I think it`s better to let the section stand (with an appropriate tag) and hope that views on the other side will eventually be represented. Rodney Boyd (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me that no one was giving the section so much as a thought before, so I removed it to (hopefully) force the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.27.237 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there's a WP:WEIGHT issue here. His popular books have been bestsellers, while others are standard introductory textbooks. So "reception" shouldn't simply be criticism. Secondly, it's called "controversy", when it mentions none. Finally, we can't have unsourced "controversy" in a WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Rosylyn Grock

Some points to note:

1) The edit implied that by disputing Ehrman's work on factual grounds, Carrier had proven Ehrman's work is factually inaccurate. As any reasonable person would have noted on actually reading the dialogue, all Carrier's substantive points were actually refuted. The only one that stood was an error over labelling a citation from Pliny. Therefore Rosylyn Grock's edits fail the neutrality test. This is of course exceptionally high as this is a BLP.

2) It is also worth noting that Carrier's blog is at best doubtful as a reliable source, given Carrier's known penchant for exaggeration (not to mention his rather brutal ad hominem style). As Ehrman is known to monitor this site, however, and seems happy to leave it in, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue as long as the whole issue is explained in a neutral manner.

If Rosylyn Grock wishes to make such contentious edits, I would suggest she(?) discuss them on the talk pages first in accordance with Wikipedia protocol and looks to establish a consensus.86.181.139.204 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This user claims to be a "professional historian" and yet keeps inserting a new criticism section full of Christian apologetics. Similarly on the Richard Carrier talk page, he makes various unsubstantiated assertions, trying to undermine Carrier.......P.S. If you are confused why a Christian would partially defend Ehrman against Carrier, as the user sometimes does, its because Ehrman still believes Jesus existed, something Richard Carrier doesn't. RosylynGrock (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rosylyn Grock, merely copying and pasting abuse from one talk page to another is not 'engaging in debate'. I have made these points because I am concerned at your edits. They indicate a strong bias in favour of Carrier. Therefore they are not neutral. That doesn't mean that you can't edit Wikipedia, merely that you need to recognise your own prejudices and shortcomings and engage with them constructively. At the moment I am afraid you are not doing that. Your edits on Ehrman and on Carrier reveal a straightforward unwillingness to present information in a neutral manner and that is a serious problem. Please bear in mind that content for BLP must be of a high standard. Your edits are unfortunately not.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one introducing a section full of Christian nonsense in violation of WP:BLP. Stop pretending my edits are the issue. RosylynGrock (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not reliable sources. Fails WP:RS. Carrier is an obscure academic at best. Would be an example of WP:Undue to even cite him.

Similarly, Christian Apologists are not historians. They are creating popular works, and are not publishing in historical journals. It is WP:UNDUE to cite them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that out. This now looks fine. 86.181.139.204 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal blogs are sometimes reliable sources, actually. See WP:ABOUTSELF. 86, welcome to wikipedia, please call me 74.  :-)   Can you give me the two-sentence overview of what changes you are trying to make here? RosylynGrock, I'd also appreciate your two-sentence summary. Please focus on what the sources say, in these summaries, rather than what we might logically conclude therefrom; see WP:SYNTH, wikipedians should not be drawing conclusions, we should just reflect what the sources actually say, and if they don't say, neither should we. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's easy 74. None. I was just reverting RG's edits because they failed neutrality. With hindsight as Harizotoh suggested maybe I should just have removed the whole lot. However, Ehrman does monitor this page and he had seemed happy with the rest, so I just left it.

At Carrier's page on the other hand....86.181.139.204 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"@74.192.84.101: "Personal blogs are sometimes reliable sources, actually. See WP:ABOUTSELF."

This does not have any relation to this page at all. We are not citing Ehrman's personal site/blog. Carrier would have to publish in a journal first to be accepted as a WP:RS.

@86.181.139.204: "However, Ehrman does monitor this page and he had seemed happy with the rest, so I just left it."

Irrelevant. People do not write their own Wikipedia pages, and they are too related to the subject to give an unbiased opinion on it.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that per WP:BLPCOMPLAINT we actually *do* very much care what Erhman's view of his own BLP is... but of course, that is distinct from 86's assumption about Erhman's view.  :-)   See also WP:BLPFIGHT, which might be applicable here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to 86, I've added some colons into your reply, to indent it. I was just there at the other page, actually.  :-)   I've done the work to see what the dispute is about... it seems to be the following points. Harizotoh9, note that in point#7, there is a dispute over whether we can use Ehrman's blogpost; methinks we can, right? Using Carrier's blogpost in the Ehrman article (as opposed to the Carrier article), is something else, and prolly needs a source the proves Carrier's blogpost was WP:NOTEWORTHY.

1. whether to have a "criticism" section. (Per the essay WP:NOCRIT, this is usually frowned upon, especially for BLPs. Plus, one of the book-titles didn't sound critical.)
2. whether to call Carrier an Ivy League trained specialist in Ancient History, or just the latter bit. (Per other page, we should probably call him a "historian")
3. whether to include this book in the list of responses to Ehrman: How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart D. Ehrman by Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole and Charles E. Hill,
4. whether to include this boringly-factual-looking sentence: "In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being woven whole-cloth out of legendary material."
5. whether to include this unsourced sentence: "Erhman states he expects the book to be criticized both by some atheists as well as fundamentalist Christians."
6. whether to include mention of this blogpost by Carrier. "In response, Richard Carrier published a lengthy criticism of the book in April 2012, particularly questioning both Ehrman's facts and methodology."
7. whether to include this counter-blogpost by Ehrman. "Ehrman replied to Carrier's criticisms on his website, primarily defending himself against Carrier's allegations of factual errors."

RosylynGrock and 86, can you both please tell me which of the numbered-portions you currently believe we should keep, and which we should remove? We can (different from "must") use Ehrman's blog per WP:ABOUTSELF, with care, for documenting his own views. The other stuff, some of it is non-controversial, but other bit prolly need sourcing if we want to keep them. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Number 6 must be included, with probably number 2 since Ehrman himself mentions it. Number 6 is noteworthy, because Ehrman responded to it. The rest can be discarded. RosylynGrock (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm an Ivy Leaguer but we don't normally see graduates from Ivy League schools mentioned as such in our bibliographies. And what academic historians call Carrier a historian? We have a brief mention in the LA Times[3] that does but the LA Times isn't a source that can determine that, and probably just picked it up from him or his website. It's a bit 'argument from authority' in any case. Even if he were an academic, our guidelines say we wouldn't call him 'Professor Carrier'. If we mention him, just give him a link. We are having the same discussion over at [{Talk:Richard Carrier]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Of those numbered points, the only one I think should be included in this article is #4, and to say ""In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being", omitting "woven whole-cloth out of legendary material" as not all "mythicists" say that. Richard Carrier should not be mentioned in this article at all. The stub article Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman) could be linked to and expanded to mention the debate between Ehrman and his "mythicist" critics including but not limited to Carrier.Smeat75 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with Smeat75. If there are disputes about the others it's probably best to leave them out. With the disclaimer that I know absolutely nothing about New Testament studies, I would have said however that including a recent book he published in his specialist field probably is important. The others are froth or as Dougweller points out, more or less irrelevant (we all know Columbia is Ivy League! Should we refer to everyone with a PhD from York as a Russell Grouper?)!86.181.139.204 (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made that addition, any criticism of that book should be added to the article on the book, not to the article on Ehrman.Smeat75 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at WP:ABOUTSELF:

*the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

My interpretation is that this policy is about straightforward simple claims, such as date of birth, or hometown. Not so that we can document the blog debates they get into. There has to be some kind of third party source documenting this to establish it's notability. So that is why there should be no mention of any blogposts, or blog debates or whatever. Those would violate the above rules (many claims about third parties and events not directly related to the source). --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the Ehrman blog could be used to show Ehrman's opinion upon some scholarly subject, the Cargill blog to show Cargill's opinion about Ehrman and we already know that Ehrman is a top scholar, Cargill is a mainstream scholar (albeit lower on the food chain than Ehrman), so we have trustworthy scholars voicing their opinions upon scholarly issues through blogs. The quote I offered from Cargill's blog was meant to show only what Cargill thinks, i.e. that he supports Ehrman and Ehrman's claim to make public the consensus among Bible scholars, I made no claim that it would be a reliable source for adding historical facts to Wikipedia. It only showed that a scholar defended another scholar, and this information isn't controversial, i.e. there are no reasons to doubt that Cargill has defended Ehrman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

References

First two sentences are redundant

I'm not going to argue about the content of the sentences, but it still stands that the first two sentences repeat themselves. Anyone want to try rearranging some of it? 24.192.101.162 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

" Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks." - not a logical statement. The more books you write the more you become a leading scholar? It's obviously not about numbers, but the sentence says it is - 'having' here means 'because'. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How's this? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Writing college textbooks does make one a leading scholar. Universities with which he has no direct association like Yale still use his textbooks to train their undergraduate students. What's illogical about that? 182.249.240.10 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Very true, publishing is often a very important part of being a scholar since scholarship is directly related to original research, and original research is tied to publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.217.34 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Entire "Works" section in WP:OR

Per No original research, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This entire section is such analysis, interpretation, synthesis and evaluation by WP editors. It cites sources only for his works being best sellers. There must be published reviews, analyses and commentaries, those are the only appropriate sources for this kind of content. I have placed the tag rather than cutting the material to allow interested editors a chance to change this section. I will shortly cut the massive unsourced OR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. See also Talk:Richard C. Hoagland. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of fixing that.Smeat75 (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article Smeat75. I know sourcing and paraphrasing takes some work. The section is much better now. BTW, I think the article still has issues related to WP:DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Philanthropy self-sourcing

I think this section should be removed, unless there are 3rd party sources. We're stating things as fact, based on what the subject says about themselves, when the claims are make the subject look good. I don't doubt the claim, but we should independently verify before having it.. --Rob (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

One example I could find is the Bart Ehrman Foundation is listed as a $10,000+ donor is on page 9 of http://umdurham.org/assets/files/UMD%20NL-AR%20Oct%20'12%20WEB.pdf (2012) Also, there is another example at http://www.umdurham.org/assets/files/UMD_2012-13AnnualReport_Digital.pdf (2013). Is this a sufficient 3rd party source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.217.34 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Atheist

Bart Ehrman March 9, 2013 Yes, I’m an agnostic-atheist, as I explain in today’s post.

Quoted from http://ehrmanblog.org/biblical-views-of-suffering/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the criticism in the Criticism section relevant?

Is the criticism section itself necessary, and if so, does the current criticism section adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which includes the following:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."

Currently, the points of criticism in the section is not specific and general. Press4truth (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ehrman is criticized for theological reasons: his historical findings cut against the grain of Biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism. This critique is notable and has to be reflected. Ehrman himself admits he is being criticized for theological reasons. This does not mean that there has to be a criticism section (or that there cannot be a criticism section). As noted by the intervening IP, meanwhile self-reverted, this criticism isn't Ehrman-specific, since it applies to the whole endeavour of historical criticism. A Christian fundamentalist once wrote: "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." This also has to be noted, since Ehrman sought to reflect the consensus in Biblical criticism in his popularized science books. So, in a way, through attacking Ehrman, fundamentalists attack the whole research field. Basically, fundamentalists cannot accept that mainstream history begs to differ from fundamentalist orthodoxy upon the history of Christianity, much the same way they refuse to accept the scientific consensus in biology, geology and astronomy (since it goes against their dogmas). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to the article are what WP is all about, and everyone is welcome to contribute. It is not an improvement to imply that all scholars agree with Ehrman, or that only tiny minorities disagree, or that there are no substantive criticisms of his work. It is an improvement to summarize the criticisms accurately and fairly. Cloudjpk (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As seen in the archived talk section of this page, the debate over a criticism section has been going on for at least 7 years. It always ends up getting deleted because the criticism included in the past has been typically unbalanced, one-sided, and focused trying to argue against a widely-used methodology of textual criticism that Ehrman also uses. Criticism for Ehrman should be Ehraman-specific, rather than trying to argue against a widely-used scholarly method of textual criticism (those types of debates can be presented on the textual criticism wikipedia page instead). Also, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy both criticism and praise should be included: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, useful history and context. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We may try different ways of doing it, but the gist is that Ehrman is attacked by fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, and the article has to reflect that. This is however not the same as presenting unfair criticism in Wikipedia's voice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The substance of criticism should be summarized briefly and accurately. Disagree does not necessarily mean attack; the sources I've seen could not be accurately represented as the latter, indeed most could be characterized as respectful. I think it's accurate to say most public disagreement has been from evangelical scholars, but silence from others cannot be inferred as agreement. If there is a source that says most NT scholars agree with Ehrman, I'm not aware of it. WP guidelines must be followed throughout. Quoting the source is a useful way of avoiding putting criticism in WP's voice. Cloudjpk (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More detailed wide-spread criticism of one of his books, or of a particular idea in one of his books, can be possiblity outlined in the Wikipedia page of his books instead of the criticism section of his main page, as most of his books have their own Wikipedia page. For example, many mythicists are VERY vocal critics of Ehrman. Sooner or later, a mythicist is likely going to add ALOT of content to the criticism section with fine details and minute debates. But, there is a "Christ myth theory" Wikipedia page and a page for Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" book, where details can go if seen fit. Same with the whole textual critsisim debate, that could possiblilty go under his "Misquoting Jesus" Wikipedia page or under the textual criticism page. In terms of most NT scholars agreeing with Bart's basic ideas, that is generally true, in my own experience graduating with a Master's in NT. It's almost common knowledge. But since I don't have a published source for that, I won't add that to the article or debate it here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems reasonable to leave detailed criticism to the page on the specific book. Keep the section here short and sweet! I wouldn't make it any longer than it is. As to agreement of NT scholars, I suspect most would agree with Scholarly Bart but not with Popular Bart, in Craig's terms. However without a source for either, of course it has no place in the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

About the Scholarly Bart, he said he writes for the six people in the world who care about that. At least in his first best-sellers, the Popular Bart explicitly sought to render what is consensual among Bible scholars in a manner intelligible for a broad audience (i.e., without getting too technical). As you may see for yourself, his initial best-sellers are filled with references to introductory texts written by other well established Bible scholars. Only later did Ehrman engage in original research for his best-sellers (like the claim that Jesus has rotten on the cross, eaten by scavengers). Of course, people read his books with their own expectations in mind and conflate their expectations with Ehrman's presentation of his own (i.e. subjective) reasons for his own de-conversion and conflate all these with the well established facts from the initial best-sellers. He even has an YouTube debate wherein he makes clear that he does not conflate his subjective faith experiences with the scholarly results aimed at an objective examination of the Bible, i.e. that he stated in the introduction what his personal experiences were, while the rest of the book is dedicated to rendering scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV inside this section

It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to express only criticism and no praise. An IP suggested that snark would be involved, but we are not allowed to express the snark of only one side to the debate: neutral reporting means that both sides should be covered, to the extent scholars who live by publish or perish have expressed their views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Excluding praise also violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

The view has to be rendered that Ehrman has been criticized for voicing opinions adhered to by the vast majority of Bible scholars employed by major US universities. Failing to do so would violate WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman is controversial for his debates with fundamentalists. He isn't controversial among scholars, pretty much the same way the theory of evolution is controversial for the public, but not for scientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

He became controversial because the he shared the stock knowledge of his peers with the public. This has to be reported. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Scholars disagree on many things, but for the most part the basic ideas Bart presents in his popular books are widely accepted. Many do not know this and assume Bart is radical. Therefore, Robert R. Cargill observation is appropriate. It is not snark, as claimed by an IP who removed it. It's an accurate observation that anyone familiar with New Testament and early Christian scholarship will know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

I see no source that says Ehrman is criticized merely for expressing views shared by the majority of scholars. I see several sources that criticize Ehrman for making problems that scholars know about and understand to be small, seem large to the general public. We have to respect the sources. I agree we cannot exclude praise. That too falls under respecting the sources. My general view is the page has done a good job of summarizing the situation, scholarly and popular, fans and critics, religious and secular. Cloudjpk (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

James White (theologian) makes the following points about Bart Ehrman upon http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+white+ehrman :

• it is very hard to catch Ehrman stating an untrue fact about the Bible or history of Christianity;
• at every major US university students will be confronted by viewpoints similar to Ehrman's;
• under the guise of doing history, Ehrman does theology (presumably liberal theology, which offends White);
• not stated explicitly, but White criticizes Ehrman's pedagogy: Ehrman does not distort the facts, but simply teaches against biblical literalism through his way of presenting the facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"In addition, Wallace claims that some of Ehrman's history is incorrect,[27] that he quotes selectively and omits key facts,[27] and that some of his grammatical analysis is incorrect." - This criticism currently in the article is too general to be meaningful. It's like saying "Ehrman is sometimes wrong." Tnaveler 21:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)