Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dubious criticism

It has been added the criticism "the vast majority of textual variants are minor", well, that is what Ehrman himself gladly admits in his public debates and in his books. So, I guess that things like that indicate that the stated criticism is not very honest. Ehrman himself tells that in his popularized science books he is stating what scholars know for the past 300 years.

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the “inerrancy” of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

Ehrman simply proves that the above is the case. See also http://robertcargill.com/2011/02/18/i-stand-with-bart-ehrman/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

About the intentions of the scribes, he says they are no longer alive, so they cannot be asked what their intentions were, so he just states that some changes of the manuscripts appear to be intentional changes. So he describes changes which appear to be intentional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the source's point was that while Ehrman acknowledges the vast majority are minor, in his popular writing and speaking he makes the number itself sound major. I will rewrite to better reflect that. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The criticism section I removed today was poorly written. One has to support their specific criticism, rather than simply quote someone else who thinks, for example,"he quotes selectively and omits key facts." This critisism is not substantiated, just asserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.151.164 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced material. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken about how Wikipedia works. We cite what people say. We do not have to support anything -- in fact, editors should not be making arguments at all. -- Jibal (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the poorly sourced criticism, according to WP:BLPSPS. As long as self-published sources are used to make that point, they're not allowed in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. Of course, there's plenty of well-sourced criticism that could be used. I have added the Köstenberger/Bock book. StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have addded back the Markos. It's sourced to First_Things, hardly self published. I found with the addition of Köstenberger/Bock, it now fit better on its own, with a summary.

Should I add Blomberg? I find Markos's summary more succinct. But would a citation and summary of Blomberg improve the article? Cloudjpk (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Markos is not a trained textual critic, historian of early Christianity, or NT scholar. Craig Blomberg would is a NT scholar so something from him is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

I deleted this. I vaguely recall that there's a policy against criticism sections, but more experienced editors can correct me on that. But the essential point is, criticism sections are inherently unbalanced - they're criticism. No Praise section to balance it out. So better not to have them at all.PiCo (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no policy against criticism sections, and they appear throughout WP; e.g. Henry_David_Thoreau#Criticism Karl_Popper#Criticism etc. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism page states "In most cases a separate section devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Amount_of_criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.151.164 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The criticism section I removed today was poorly written. One has to support their specific criticism, rather than quote someone who disagrees. Simply saying, for example "he quotes selectively and omits key facts," without providing examples is not worthy of being in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.151.164 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve it! That's what WP is all about. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken about how Wikipedia works. We cite what people say. We do not have to support anything -- in fact, editors should not be making arguments at all. And you have no business removing sourced material. -- Jibal (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Criticism is not a policy. As stated on the page "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Cloudjpk (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the quotes in the criticism section are defending Christianity more than criticizing Bart. Example, it includes a quote: He has not identified "significant textual variants that alter core DOCTRINES of the New Testament";" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A point at issue between Ehrman and his critics is whether the textual variants are major, and whether Ehrman has represented their importance as greater than is really the case. Major for what, would indeed be their relevance to the movement for which they're sacred texts: Christianity. If the text were an auto repair manual, what would count as major would be different :) Cloudjpk (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My issue with the "significant textual variants that alter core DOCTRINES of the New Testament" criticism is Bart never once claims the variants alter core Christian doctrines. It's putting words in his mouth or misinterpreting his words. He actually explicitly and publicly states the opposite. Given this, should this criticism not be considered valid for a wikipedia article?

Bart Ehrman June 19, 2014

The first thing to say is the first thing that I almost always say, even though my conservative evangelical critics among the scholars refuse to notice that I have said it (repeatedly!) and pretend that I never have said it, which is this: the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of differences are immaterial, insignificant, and trivial.

[...]

None of the variants that we have ultimately would make any Christian in the history of the universe come to think something opposite of what they already think about whatever doctrines are usually considered “major.”(Some of the variants may indeed support a theological view that Christians largely reject, but that would not affect anyone’s doctrines because doctrines are almost NEVER based on a single verse, but on lots of passages interpreted in particular ways that usually are not affected that much by the specific wording of one passage or another).

Quoted from http://ehrmanblog.org/who-cares-do-the-variants-in-the-manuscripts-matter-for-anything/ Press4truth (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wallace2006 addresses that point: "The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording, a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces." The article would probably be improved by adding this point. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Craig makes the same point in slightly different language "Scholarly Bart knows that the text of the New Testament has been established in 99 percent accuracy. Popular Bart misrepresents this to unsuspecting laymen through innuendo and implication to make them think that the text of the New Testament is highly uncertain" [Craig 2011] Cloudjpk (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a cited author, take it up with them. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to debate issues, or even to express their opinions. -- Jibal (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tektonics website

Tektonics.org is self-published source. Also, its author is not a scholar, nor is he a notable theologian, as required for rendering his own opinion with attribution. Therefore, it isn't a reliable source and I have removed it from the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

Raphael Lataster has, in his most recent book, directly criticized Ehrman for, essentially, relying upon fictitious sources. I added that criticism, and saw it removed with this edit complaining that Lataster is not an NT scholar. What? A criticism in a reliable source is a criticism in a reliable source, no matter the area of its author, and in this case Lataster is a theologian ho has written primarily on Christianity, so even that challenge rings hollow. Please restore the criticism, lest it appear that motivation for its removal is simply the whitewashing of the page. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And, especially, WP:BLPSPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The content may be related to other Wikipedia pages but not Bart's page--such as the myth of jesus, historical Jesus, or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman) pages. The critique isn't Ehrman specific since it is a standard practice of scholarship with very few exceptions. --70.24.168.70 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Debate between Ehrman and Michael Licona, including February 2016 Interview with Ehrman

Ehrman and Michael Licona are debating "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament" at TheBestSchools.org. That page also lists a link to a February 2016 interview with Ehrman, which I believe would enhance this entry. As I have a connection to The Best Schools, I wanted to share it off the main page. If an editor would like to note it, I think it would benefit the Ehrman entry and the Wikipedia community.

Dedelen (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Dan Edelen

If you're sure it ain't a copyright violation, go ahead. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bart D. Ehrman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Christian Schools need to be identified as SUCH

Moody's

OUR BELIEFS

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Everything at Moody falls under the authority of the Bible, which declares timeless truth that is relevant today. The Word is the foundation for both our understanding of God and our awareness of what He has called us to be in His world. Vision

Across the globe, cultures and generations, Moody will equip people with the truth of God's Word using new technology in an agile and innovative community. Values

   The authority of the Word of God
   The centrality of the Church
   The worth and dignity of the individual
   The priority of servanthood
   The practice of integrity
   The responsibility of stewardship  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 

And so what? Erhman has himself been very clear that Moody is a fundamentalist school and that his current views are directly opposite the views of the school. What does that has to done with anything? Read WP:NOTAFORUM and stop edit-warring. Jeppiz (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Jeppiz Cloudjpk (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The he needs to go back to college then because ALL the school he has been to have been fundementalist school, and he has NO OTHER education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82 I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. This page is subject to that pages policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Information about the schools can be found on the wikipedia pages on the schools. This is an article about Ehrman, not the schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The is irrelevant. It is the desire of individuals here to cover up the nature of his "education" so that he can be paraded around as a renoun "expert" on Jesus in other area. The facts are that his education has been nothing but fundementalist, and he has no expertise on the subject of religioun outside of his theology. He has no valid education and he is not an expert. Not explaining exactly the nature of the schools he has attended is a farce. The man has no valid creditials on any religious topic outside of theological questions, and frankly, you are better off talking to your local and better educated Preist of Iman.

Cover up? Bart talks about it in his books. It is mentioned where he went on his Wikipedia page. Again, look at wikipedias policy on biographies. Your personal opinion (or mine) is not of importance for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Princeton Theological Seminary, where he did two of his three degrees--his Master's and PhD, is not fundamentalist. So, you are false to say that "his education is nothing but fundamentalist." Yes, it's Christian, but if it's your view that a degree from a (liberal) Christian institution is not real education, that's your opinion and not for Wikipedia. You may want to go blog about it instead. Second, he is widely considered an expert in NT and Early Christianity by scholars in the field. Also, he is a full professor at a secular state university and has published original research with the top scholarly presses. Disagree with his opinions as you may, but he is still an expert regardless of doing a diploma at Moody Bible Institute and a BA at Wheaton. Third, Bart talks about in his book about being a former fundamentalist in his teenage years. He goes into detail about that and his transition from it. It's no secret. Links are provided to the schools respective wikipeda pages also. It is also mentioned on this page under the career section. --Tnaveler 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

Your acting like the exposure of the nature of the schools that Erhman attended and his lack of scholarstic background should be kept a sectret and violation of Wikipedia policy. To the contrary, this is what wikipedea is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman stated in an interview or debate that reading Lacan and Derrida is not what deconverts people from fundamentalism. So, apparently, Ehrman has read more stuff besides Christian literature. You are severely mistaken to think that the Princeton Seminary is an institution of brainwashing. E.g., Ehrman mentions a professor who was a liberal radical, but he said that professor wasn't the one who deconverted him from biblical inerrancy. You might consider that now Erhman is an agnostic atheist, so it seems that fundamentalist brainwashing is not that powerful. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what he stated, Princeton Semenary is a Christian fundementalist institution and teaches as one. It is of the Evangelical Denomination, if I recall correctly, but you can look it up since it says so right on their website. And this guy is no aethist, if that was the point, which it ISN'T. The point is that he has NO SCHOLARSHIP outside of fundementalist christian teachings and denying the nature of his education is lieing to the reader. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82, Princeton Seminary is a liberal seminary. Far from fundementalist. So most of Bart's education is not fundementalist. Princeton Seminary is not even close to evangelical. It is liberal.

It is not Princeton Seminary, BTW but Princeton THEOLOGICAL Seminary... http://www.ptsem.edu/ "Princeton Theological Seminary prepares women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.

A professional and graduate school of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Seminary stands within the Reformed tradition, affirming the sovereignty of the triune God over all creation, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s saving word for all people, the renewing power of the word and Spirit in all of life, and the unity of Christ’s servant church throughout the world. This tradition shapes the instruction, research, practical training, and continuing education provided by the Seminary, as well as the theological scholarship it promotes."

Fess up, your removing the facts of his education because you have an agenda? A mightly Christian one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very misinformed about PTS. They define those statements much differently than evangelicals and fundies and have changed since their founding. They are now apart of the liberal Christian theological tradition. Also, Bart identifies an an atheist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxz4eyR9U5w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits of 96.57.23.82 are heavy on the anti-Christian education POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And that is good thing since Christian education is not grounded in scholarship. But I am not the subjet here, and Bart's Christian fundementalist education being presented as object scholarship IS the subject here. Do you deny that every one of the schools he aquired "degrees" from are evanalizing Christian institutions? Where is that said within the article?

Pointing out that Moody BIBLE Institute and Princeton THEOLOGICAL Seminary are Christian is a bit redundant, don't you think? --press4truth 20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

96.57.23.82 stated in an edit that "His work is not considered scholarship outside of the Evanelistic and Christian communities" These communities often really dislike him because he's a former Christian now atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think becuase without the emphaisis you come away believing he has an education and a PhD like he attended Yale, Harvard or even Penn State when what he has is Theological acknoldgements what wouldn't past the mustard for real education even from the City of San Fransico Community College.

If it doesn't matter, why are you afraid of leaving it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If his education and scholarship is useless as you say it is, how did he become full distinguished professor at a secular state university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if your a mythicists that is simply pissed off at Ehrman because he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" --press4truth 21:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

While it appears that User 96.57.23.82 is lumping all Christian schools together, it should be noted that there are a large number of scholars, in a variety of fields, who obtained degrees from Christian institutions. A better indication of whether their views should be cited in Wikipedia is whether or not they are published in peer reviewed journals. Just because someone expresses personal religious sentiment, does not mean they are incapable of solid scholarship. There are some very solid graduate schools which can be described as Liberal or Evangelical Christian schools; and I would argue there is an important distinction between most Evangelical and Fundamentalist grad schools as well.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian Schools need to be identified as SUCH

Moody's

OUR BELIEFS

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Everything at Moody falls under the authority of the Bible, which declares timeless truth that is relevant today. The Word is the foundation for both our understanding of God and our awareness of what He has called us to be in His world. Vision

Across the globe, cultures and generations, Moody will equip people with the truth of God's Word using new technology in an agile and innovative community. Values

   The authority of the Word of God
   The centrality of the Church
   The worth and dignity of the individual
   The priority of servanthood
   The practice of integrity
   The responsibility of stewardship  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 

And so what? Erhman has himself been very clear that Moody is a fundamentalist school and that his current views are directly opposite the views of the school. What does that has to done with anything? Read WP:NOTAFORUM and stop edit-warring. Jeppiz (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Jeppiz Cloudjpk (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The he needs to go back to college then because ALL the school he has been to have been fundementalist school, and he has NO OTHER education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82 I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. This page is subject to that pages policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Information about the schools can be found on the wikipedia pages on the schools. This is an article about Ehrman, not the schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The is irrelevant. It is the desire of individuals here to cover up the nature of his "education" so that he can be paraded around as a renoun "expert" on Jesus in other area. The facts are that his education has been nothing but fundementalist, and he has no expertise on the subject of religioun outside of his theology. He has no valid education and he is not an expert. Not explaining exactly the nature of the schools he has attended is a farce. The man has no valid creditials on any religious topic outside of theological questions, and frankly, you are better off talking to your local and better educated Preist of Iman.

Cover up? Bart talks about it in his books. It is mentioned where he went on his Wikipedia page. Again, look at wikipedias policy on biographies. Your personal opinion (or mine) is not of importance for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Princeton Theological Seminary, where he did two of his three degrees--his Master's and PhD, is not fundamentalist. So, you are false to say that "his education is nothing but fundamentalist." Yes, it's Christian, but if it's your view that a degree from a (liberal) Christian institution is not real education, that's your opinion and not for Wikipedia. You may want to go blog about it instead. Second, he is widely considered an expert in NT and Early Christianity by scholars in the field. Also, he is a full professor at a secular state university and has published original research with the top scholarly presses. Disagree with his opinions as you may, but he is still an expert regardless of doing a diploma at Moody Bible Institute and a BA at Wheaton. Third, Bart talks about in his book about being a former fundamentalist in his teenage years. He goes into detail about that and his transition from it. It's no secret. Links are provided to the schools respective wikipeda pages also. It is also mentioned on this page under the career section. --Tnaveler 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

Your acting like the exposure of the nature of the schools that Erhman attended and his lack of scholarstic background should be kept a sectret and violation of Wikipedia policy. To the contrary, this is what wikipedea is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman stated in an interview or debate that reading Lacan and Derrida is not what deconverts people from fundamentalism. So, apparently, Ehrman has read more stuff besides Christian literature. You are severely mistaken to think that the Princeton Seminary is an institution of brainwashing. E.g., Ehrman mentions a professor who was a liberal radical, but he said that professor wasn't the one who deconverted him from biblical inerrancy. You might consider that now Erhman is an agnostic atheist, so it seems that fundamentalist brainwashing is not that powerful. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what he stated, Princeton Semenary is a Christian fundementalist institution and teaches as one. It is of the Evangelical Denomination, if I recall correctly, but you can look it up since it says so right on their website. And this guy is no aethist, if that was the point, which it ISN'T. The point is that he has NO SCHOLARSHIP outside of fundementalist christian teachings and denying the nature of his education is lieing to the reader. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82, Princeton Seminary is a liberal seminary. Far from fundementalist. So most of Bart's education is not fundementalist. Princeton Seminary is not even close to evangelical. It is liberal.

It is not Princeton Seminary, BTW but Princeton THEOLOGICAL Seminary... http://www.ptsem.edu/ "Princeton Theological Seminary prepares women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.

A professional and graduate school of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Seminary stands within the Reformed tradition, affirming the sovereignty of the triune God over all creation, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s saving word for all people, the renewing power of the word and Spirit in all of life, and the unity of Christ’s servant church throughout the world. This tradition shapes the instruction, research, practical training, and continuing education provided by the Seminary, as well as the theological scholarship it promotes."

Fess up, your removing the facts of his education because you have an agenda? A mightly Christian one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very misinformed about PTS. They define those statements much differently than evangelicals and fundies and have changed since their founding. They are now apart of the liberal Christian theological tradition. Also, Bart identifies an an atheist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxz4eyR9U5w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits of 96.57.23.82 are heavy on the anti-Christian education POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And that is good thing since Christian education is not grounded in scholarship. But I am not the subjet here, and Bart's Christian fundementalist education being presented as object scholarship IS the subject here. Do you deny that every one of the schools he aquired "degrees" from are evanalizing Christian institutions? Where is that said within the article?

Pointing out that Moody BIBLE Institute and Princeton THEOLOGICAL Seminary are Christian is a bit redundant, don't you think? --press4truth 20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

96.57.23.82 stated in an edit that "His work is not considered scholarship outside of the Evanelistic and Christian communities" These communities often really dislike him because he's a former Christian now atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think becuase without the emphaisis you come away believing he has an education and a PhD like he attended Yale, Harvard or even Penn State when what he has is Theological acknoldgements what wouldn't past the mustard for real education even from the City of San Fransico Community College.

If it doesn't matter, why are you afraid of leaving it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If his education and scholarship is useless as you say it is, how did he become full distinguished professor at a secular state university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if your a mythicists that is simply pissed off at Ehrman because he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" --press4truth 21:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

While it appears that User 96.57.23.82 is lumping all Christian schools together, it should be noted that there are a large number of scholars, in a variety of fields, who obtained degrees from Christian institutions. A better indication of whether their views should be cited in Wikipedia is whether or not they are published in peer reviewed journals. Just because someone expresses personal religious sentiment, does not mean they are incapable of solid scholarship. There are some very solid graduate schools which can be described as Liberal or Evangelical Christian schools; and I would argue there is an important distinction between most Evangelical and Fundamentalist grad schools as well.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian Schools need to be identified as SUCH

Moody's

OUR BELIEFS

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Everything at Moody falls under the authority of the Bible, which declares timeless truth that is relevant today. The Word is the foundation for both our understanding of God and our awareness of what He has called us to be in His world. Vision

Across the globe, cultures and generations, Moody will equip people with the truth of God's Word using new technology in an agile and innovative community. Values

   The authority of the Word of God
   The centrality of the Church
   The worth and dignity of the individual
   The priority of servanthood
   The practice of integrity
   The responsibility of stewardship  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 

And so what? Erhman has himself been very clear that Moody is a fundamentalist school and that his current views are directly opposite the views of the school. What does that has to done with anything? Read WP:NOTAFORUM and stop edit-warring. Jeppiz (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Jeppiz Cloudjpk (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The he needs to go back to college then because ALL the school he has been to have been fundementalist school, and he has NO OTHER education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82 I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. This page is subject to that pages policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Information about the schools can be found on the wikipedia pages on the schools. This is an article about Ehrman, not the schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The is irrelevant. It is the desire of individuals here to cover up the nature of his "education" so that he can be paraded around as a renoun "expert" on Jesus in other area. The facts are that his education has been nothing but fundementalist, and he has no expertise on the subject of religioun outside of his theology. He has no valid education and he is not an expert. Not explaining exactly the nature of the schools he has attended is a farce. The man has no valid creditials on any religious topic outside of theological questions, and frankly, you are better off talking to your local and better educated Preist of Iman.

Cover up? Bart talks about it in his books. It is mentioned where he went on his Wikipedia page. Again, look at wikipedias policy on biographies. Your personal opinion (or mine) is not of importance for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Princeton Theological Seminary, where he did two of his three degrees--his Master's and PhD, is not fundamentalist. So, you are false to say that "his education is nothing but fundamentalist." Yes, it's Christian, but if it's your view that a degree from a (liberal) Christian institution is not real education, that's your opinion and not for Wikipedia. You may want to go blog about it instead. Second, he is widely considered an expert in NT and Early Christianity by scholars in the field. Also, he is a full professor at a secular state university and has published original research with the top scholarly presses. Disagree with his opinions as you may, but he is still an expert regardless of doing a diploma at Moody Bible Institute and a BA at Wheaton. Third, Bart talks about in his book about being a former fundamentalist in his teenage years. He goes into detail about that and his transition from it. It's no secret. Links are provided to the schools respective wikipeda pages also. It is also mentioned on this page under the career section. --Tnaveler 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

Your acting like the exposure of the nature of the schools that Erhman attended and his lack of scholarstic background should be kept a sectret and violation of Wikipedia policy. To the contrary, this is what wikipedea is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman stated in an interview or debate that reading Lacan and Derrida is not what deconverts people from fundamentalism. So, apparently, Ehrman has read more stuff besides Christian literature. You are severely mistaken to think that the Princeton Seminary is an institution of brainwashing. E.g., Ehrman mentions a professor who was a liberal radical, but he said that professor wasn't the one who deconverted him from biblical inerrancy. You might consider that now Erhman is an agnostic atheist, so it seems that fundamentalist brainwashing is not that powerful. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what he stated, Princeton Semenary is a Christian fundementalist institution and teaches as one. It is of the Evangelical Denomination, if I recall correctly, but you can look it up since it says so right on their website. And this guy is no aethist, if that was the point, which it ISN'T. The point is that he has NO SCHOLARSHIP outside of fundementalist christian teachings and denying the nature of his education is lieing to the reader. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

96.57.23.82, Princeton Seminary is a liberal seminary. Far from fundementalist. So most of Bart's education is not fundementalist. Princeton Seminary is not even close to evangelical. It is liberal.

It is not Princeton Seminary, BTW but Princeton THEOLOGICAL Seminary... http://www.ptsem.edu/ "Princeton Theological Seminary prepares women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.

A professional and graduate school of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Seminary stands within the Reformed tradition, affirming the sovereignty of the triune God over all creation, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s saving word for all people, the renewing power of the word and Spirit in all of life, and the unity of Christ’s servant church throughout the world. This tradition shapes the instruction, research, practical training, and continuing education provided by the Seminary, as well as the theological scholarship it promotes."

Fess up, your removing the facts of his education because you have an agenda? A mightly Christian one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very misinformed about PTS. They define those statements much differently than evangelicals and fundies and have changed since their founding. They are now apart of the liberal Christian theological tradition. Also, Bart identifies an an atheist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxz4eyR9U5w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits of 96.57.23.82 are heavy on the anti-Christian education POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

And that is good thing since Christian education is not grounded in scholarship. But I am not the subjet here, and Bart's Christian fundementalist education being presented as object scholarship IS the subject here. Do you deny that every one of the schools he aquired "degrees" from are evanalizing Christian institutions? Where is that said within the article?

Pointing out that Moody BIBLE Institute and Princeton THEOLOGICAL Seminary are Christian is a bit redundant, don't you think? --press4truth 20:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

96.57.23.82 stated in an edit that "His work is not considered scholarship outside of the Evanelistic and Christian communities" These communities often really dislike him because he's a former Christian now atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think becuase without the emphaisis you come away believing he has an education and a PhD like he attended Yale, Harvard or even Penn State when what he has is Theological acknoldgements what wouldn't past the mustard for real education even from the City of San Fransico Community College.

If it doesn't matter, why are you afraid of leaving it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If his education and scholarship is useless as you say it is, how did he become full distinguished professor at a secular state university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if your a mythicists that is simply pissed off at Ehrman because he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?" --press4truth 21:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Press4truth (talk • contribs)

While it appears that User 96.57.23.82 is lumping all Christian schools together, it should be noted that there are a large number of scholars, in a variety of fields, who obtained degrees from Christian institutions. A better indication of whether their views should be cited in Wikipedia is whether or not they are published in peer reviewed journals. Just because someone expresses personal religious sentiment, does not mean they are incapable of solid scholarship. There are some very solid graduate schools which can be described as Liberal or Evangelical Christian schools; and I would argue there is an important distinction between most Evangelical and Fundamentalist grad schools as well.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

New "reception" section (draft)

Let's start a draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker8506 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For the most part, the book presents mainstream scholarship's consensus on questions of authorship. Some cases, such as 2 Peter, are clear cut. They were not written by their purported author. If this is news to you, then Ehrman's new book provides a provocative and readable introduction to this important area of New Testament scholarship.

— James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature, Butler University, Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, LAS Faculty Book Reviews

Quoted from [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Attacked (kind of) for precisely rendering the mainstream consensus view in Crossley, James G. (20 October 2014). Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism: Quests, Scholarship and Ideology. Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-317-54612-2. Ehrman is open in his desire to provide the public with work on Jesus and Christian origins which reflects broad consensus views in scholarship:. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I think what User:Factchecker8506 intends is for us each to work on drafting text to add to the article. Posting suggestions and signing them is kind of messy. Let's post talk comments here and add or subtract from the draft in the subsection below. I'm starting it with my pet topic, but I welcome opinions on what 8've written and don't want to imply that I think what I've written is exactly what needs to be added to the article, or that the section should begin or end with what I have written. I just think something like this belongs somewhere in the section. Whether Martin meets GNG (and so merits a red-link) is a debate for another day. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think we should steer clear of lengthy quotations of reviews of particular books, at least in the article body, as they belong in the independent articles on the books. Saying that "McGrath praised Forged for its readability and for introducing lay audiences to certain views that are widely held among NT scholars.", and perhaps including your quote in a footnote, should be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I changed "attacked" to "criticized" as it seems less aggressive, and "Bible scholarship" to "historical Jesus scholarship" (he is not talking about Bible scholarship in general), but I'm not entirely sure about the wording. It seems like he is talking about Ehrman's placing the "center" of scholarship to the left of where Crossley would estimate it to be, but this kind of quasi-political alignment is questionable, and difficult for us to summarize adequately. I had a brief off-wiki exchange with User:MjolnirPants about this exact problem, and honestly I think John Meier would if asked place himself to the left of Ehrman, because -- their religious and political views aside -- Ehrman's writings on the historical Jesus have been (slightly!) more in line with a traditional Christian view of Jesus than Meier, who emphasizes the "Jewishness" of Jesus and the futility of trying to make Jesus "relevant" to modern Christianity (Ehrman would agree, but doesn't emphasize it as much). Your wording honestly confused me at first, as I thought Ehrman had constructed a building of some kind (The Neoliberal Center for Bible Scholarship), but I can't think of any way to make it clearer without going into a bit too much detail. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I imported some of the commentary from the article page, including part of the second paragraph. I added two new sources (a CNN news piece quoting a Methodist minister and blogger, and a book of interview transcripts with various well-known scholars on the subject of Gnosticism). One thing I've noticed (though it's synth to add it to the article) is that there are a few more scholars other than Ehrman who feel the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic in some way, so we should probably take a close look at the Pagels criticism to see if she's critiquing Ehrman directly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft text

Sorry, but the scholarly consensus is what it is; it is not what a few ultra-conservative evangelical scholars want it to be

@Ryn78: Please explain this. It is not one of Wikipedia's cardinal rules that the right side and the wrong side both need to be represented. A lot of ultra-conservatives would I am sure like to believe that Bart Ehrman is wrong when he says the majority of scholars agree with the scholarly consensus that he summarizes in his popular books, but that doesn't make it true. The simple fact is that, within biblical scholarship, Ehrman is considered to be a relatively conservative force; it is only in popular evangelicism that Ehrman is considered a radical leftist and his views considered fringe. Also pinging User:MjolnirPants and User:Mangoe, who participated in the FTN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an explanation as to how one complimentary remark (made about an individual who holds a distinguished teaching position, is a bestselling author, literally wrote the textbook for Yale's course on his specialty, serves on the board of numerous highly reputable publications, has a well known blog, is sought after for debates and talks by groups ranging from fundamentalists to secularists and is frequently cited as one of the most influential scholars working in his field) is somehow balanced out by two paragraphs of criticism from people ideologically opposed to his views, and who may lose their jobs for agreeing with him. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

MP, I don't even think "balance" is the main problem. The fact is that these fundamentalists are constantly attributing the views of the scholarly community that Ehrman summarizes for a lay audience to Ehrman himself and either directly claiming or indirectly implying that they are the idiosyncratic views of one guy in Chapel Hill, but the views are not even specifically associated with Ehrman by other professional scholars, so citing these kind of false attributions in the article on Ehrman is ... well, it's clearly untrue, and a borderline BLP-violation. Balance is, of course, also a concern: I am uncomfortable including the obviously more legitimate point that Ehrman's conservative stance on the Gospel of Thomas has been repeatedly criticized by Elaine Pagels as long as the article already contains this nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no good reason to remove the criticism, which is published in peer-reviewed sources. Calling the critics "ultra-conservative" and "fundamentalist" is misplaced - they represent mainstream evangelicalism. Hijiri 88, you've made a lot of claims here: I'd love to see evidence that "within biblical scholarship, Ehrman is considered to be a relatively conservative force". StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Only one of the two criticisms added is published in a peer-reviewed source. The other is made in a popular (as in "intended for a lay audience", not as in "sold a lot of copies", though it may be the latter as well) book. The first was published in an out-and-out evangelical journal. I just want to reiterate the last part: The only actual peer-reviewed criticism in there was published in a journal which is "...devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ." Now, I usually don't care much about a scholar's theological views. Even in this subject, the majority of the wide variety of theological views held by scholars are either entirely or functionally immaterial. They don't prevent scholars from doing good work. But this particular theological view; the unqualified statement that the bible is inerrant and inspired by God absolutely interferes with that scholar's judgement, abilities and authority on the matter. This is a scholar who belongs to a group that has literally and openly stated their preferred conclusion, and then works to find evidence for it. Degrees and work position notwithstanding, I hesitate to call such a person a scholar. It would be far more accurate to say they are a doctoral-level apologist.

This section is titled "reception" and it does not, in any way, accurately depict the reception Ehrman has received in the scholarly nor the lay community. At the very least, it should be changed to a criticism section and paired with a praise or accolades section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Haven't read MjolnirPants's comment yet. Sorry if he has already covered the same ground.) @StAnselm: Did you even read the content that was removed? It is not criticism of Ehrman and his views -- it is the demonstrably false claim that when Ehrman says "scholarly consensus" he means "Ehrman and people of similar theological persuasions to him". This is a view that has been widely refuted by Ehrman himself -- the fact that his textbook is the most widely-used in North American universities is evidence enough that his views are not as fringe as Bock et al want their readers to believe. The fact that the first page of the Truth GBooks preview (the back cover?) calls Ehrman a "critic of Christianity" indicates that it is a fundamentalist work that considers the word "Christian" to be a more polite synonym for "fundamentalist"; Ehrman himself has repeatedly rejected the notion that he is a critic of Christianity. I do not know what "peer-reviewed" means in this context; the book's authors are all very conservative Christians, the publisher is a Christian non-profit, the book was published in the buckle of the Bible Belt ... why do you think it isn't ultra-conservative? As per my (peripheral and unrelated) comments about how other mainstream scholars view Ehrman, please see my user page, anything Elaine Pagels has written that mentions Ehrman, anything Ehrman has written that mentions John Dominic Crossan, or even my above comment. Indeed, look at anything Ehrman has written for an academic audience. The positions that Ehrman himself espouses and has argued for in scholarly literature (i.e., not his popular books) are generally center or right-of-center, like the dating of the Gospel of Thomas and its placement on the "gnostic" spectrum. The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations gives summaries of the scholarly views of the dating, authorship and so on of various non-canonical texts related to early Christianity, and the authors of the book (Ehrman and his UNC colleague Zlatko Pleše) almost always fall on the side of the traditional view of these matters. Heck, according to his friend Dale Martin, within living memory Ehrman was claiming the pastoral epistles were written by Paul! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MjolnirPants for your (as usual) excellent (unnecessarily so, in my view) analysis of the issue. But I feel the need to point out that retitling the section "Criticism" would draw the ire of the wider community who have pretty much unanimously rejected those sections (even Donald and Hillary don't have sections titled "Criticism"), and that would result in more eyes on the article, and that would result in the section being balanced out to reflect the overall reception of Ehrman and his works ... this is apparently not something those who keep adding the text back in want. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, StAnselm, you misunderstand: there already was consensus to remove it on FTN (a much more widely-monitored forum than this talk page). On top of that, consensus normally is not required to remove material that is unsourced or poorly sourced (something MjolnirPants and I contend) -- WP:BURDEN (and WP:BLP, for that matter) explains that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: That's why I said "...at the very least..." The best case scenario I see here is to accurately sum up the reception his talks, writings and debates have had, and that is a far cry from the "He's a great scholar, but he's wrong about everything he says," impression that the section currently gives. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I don't think your opinion on evangelical scholarship is reflected in WP policy, nor is it the position of bodies like the Society of Biblical Literature (though some people, of course, think it should be). Anyway, once again, there have been some claims implied here that (duly referenced of course), should also appear in the article: (a) that many other scholars believe Ehrman is correct in his assessment of the scholarly consensus, and (b) that Ehrman is widely regarded as an authority. Anyway, we certainly have a genuine, well-sourced criticism, so it is hard to see that there is a BLP issue. As for the FTN discussion, it was not as focused as this one, and I don't think the two of you were the main voices in favour of removal, anyway. StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

An academic explains the attacks on Ehrman upon [2]. I introduced a quote from it in the article, but it was removed claiming WP:BLPSPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

And rightly so. Have you ever seen similar sentiments expressed in quality sources? StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The gist of the blog post is that Ehrman is attacked for spilling the beans about facts that are consensual in the scholarly community (meaning scholars from top US universities). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but has anyone ever said that in a reliable source? StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost certainly. I'm pretty sure I've heard Ehrman say it in a debate or an interview somewhere, which would be covered under WP:BLPSELFPUB. We should be looking for it. But anyway, I thought you were interested in "non-self-published" sources, not reliable sources. Lots of sources are not technically self-published, but still would not be considered reliable for anything other than the author's opinions; this is almost certainly the case for the conservative evangelical books by conservative evangelical authors published by conservative evangelical publishers currently cited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking around at stuff about Ehrman, the article really ought to mention Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" by Timothy Paul Jones. Regardless of what we think about the book (and I haven't read it), the fact that a major reputable publisher (InterVarsity Press) published a book long response to Ehrman, is significant, and worthy of inclusion in this article. In fact, the book received attention from the major NT journals: "The whole turns out to be a helpful antidote to Ehrman and may be used judiciously in any ongoing debate about some of the text-critical cruces Ehrman, among others, has raised..." (Novum Testamentum) and "this is a good starter for lay people, which sets out the issues clearly from one side of the argument" (JSNT). StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@StAnselm: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. That is policy. When dealing with a subject where a large chunk of scholars are expected to pledge undying devotion to one particular theory within it, trying to rely on policies which work very well in more neutrally populated subjects is a recipe for disaster. Are you honestly arguing that staking one's personal reputation, career and very sense of self on one particular theory is not going to affect ones work? Imagine if physicists were required to pledge utter devotion to Loop quantum gravity in order to get a job. Would String theory (the more powerful theory by far) then get its fair treatment? Applying the usual policies in the usual way to any subject dealing with the historicity of the bible is wrong. This is exactly the type of situation WP:IAR was written to address. Hell, much of the criticism available out there of Ehrman is that he makes out like he's passing on novel or secret knowledge, when he's really just reiterating things historians have known for decades.

Also, self-published sources are usually considered acceptable when the writer is an acknowledged, published expert on the subject. And citing more evangelical criticism isn't really helping here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I really don't think we can appeal to IAR here. And SPSs are not acceptable on BLPs, regardless of the level of expertise the writer has. So - how about you come up with some good sources that disagree with the critique? StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I really don't think we can appeal to IAR here. Why? Because you say so? I've given a very clear, very rational reason for relying on critical thought rather than typical policy with respect to this article. You have every right to disagree, but if you expect any of us to go along with you, you need to explain why in a way that either overcomes or invalidates my reason. I'm always open to being wrong, but not because someone on the internet says so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, because the policies are not preventing us from improving the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Restating the same thing is not an argument. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically, it is NPOV to state that fundamentalists bash Ehrman, because they do it. Of course, this would be done better by citing a neutral third-party source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that fundamentalists bash Ehrman, but as was pointed out both here and at FTN; Ehrman is a highly influential, highly respected academic whose positions on most subjects he deals with are very much lined up with the scholarly consensus. The reception section does not reflect that. So either we need to IAR the rules and allow typically RS sources to be used (such as the blog post you linked) for this BLP, or we need to IAR the rules and remove some of the current criticisms. The section as it stands makes it appear as if Ehrman is some fringe figure positing an untenable theory. It should make Ehrman appear to be a highly regarded academic who gets an inordinate amount of criticism from fundamentalists and evangelicals. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You think we should IAR to do a BLP violation? Good luck on getting the BLPN on board with that. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Wait, what!? What BLP violation? Are you talking about our comments on this talk page about Ehrman's detractors? If I have falsely characterized any LP as an "evangelical", a "conservative evangelical", an "ultra-conservative evangelical" or a "fundamentalist", I will bite my tongue, but you have not demonstrated such. Or are you referring to a BLP violation against Ehrman? How can not including the current negative criticism be a BLP violation? MjolnirPants and I contend that it is poorly sourced (to people outside the relevant field with a theological axe to grind), so if anything keeping it in is a BLP-violation. Or are you implying that expanding the article to include positive coverage like the fact that Dale Martin (Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University) uses his books as textbooks or the fact he is frequently called on by all sorts of organizations to give talks on early Christianity would be a BLP violation? Would this provide "undue weight" in implying that Ehrman is something other than the fringe author we currently imply him to be? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The BLP violation in question is to include this blog post, contra WP:BLPSPS. StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously in favour of that. MjolnirPants and I have been quite clear in our desire to either expand the article to cover Ehrman's reception among the mainstream media and other mainstream scholars rather than just conservative evangelicals or cut the disproportionate coverage of conservative evangelicals. Adding other sources to properly contextualize the claims of the conservative evangelicals would be good, but I am sure everyone agrees that a blog is not a decent source for that in the long run. We all know that what the blog says is accurate, but what we should do is find reliable scholarly sources that say the same thing, before adding it to the article. Saying "this claim appears in a self-published source, so we can't add it even if it also appears in reliable sources" is contrary to the spirit of BLPSPS (as, I might add, is "self-published sources can never be used, but we cannot remove material, even contentious material, attributed to sources that aren't technically self-published but also would not be considered reliable sources for anything other than their authors' opinions"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that, per WP:RS, Ehrman himself is a reliable source for the scholarly consensus. The individuals presented as disputing this are not, themselves involved in historical work, but theological work. If a widely respected historian who has written the textbooks used by history professors says "this is the consensus, as described by Prof. X and Dr. Y. and disputed nowhere in the academic literature that I'm aware of." and a theologian who has pledged to always believe something which is not the scholarly consensus, and who may be fired if they agree with the consensus says "Nuh uh!" then including the theologian's criticisms is WP:UNDUE. The fact that the theologian got published saying so, and Prof. X and Dr. Y haven't bothered to respond should not be used as an excuse to say that it's a legitimate criticism. Academics rarely respond formally to illegitimate criticisms, and there is a notable lack of academics responding formally to criticisms of Ehrman. Though, curiously enough, they respond informally in blogs and when they (and others) do criticize him, it's for not departing enough from the scholarly consensus. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the fact that this claim to a consensus has been disputed in reliable sources means it should be attributed to Ehrman. The history/NT divide is a red herring here; Ehrman himself is firmly within NT studies. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 & MjolnirPants: Even if these criticisms of Ehrman are "fringe views" as you guys claim (and you've really presented little evidence other than your use of labels like "ultra-conservative"), Wikipedia's rules do not permit the complete purging of all quotations from non-mainstream authors. Rather, the rules only require that such views are not given undue prominence and are not stated as established facts. Right now, the article only makes a brief mention of some quotes from a few of Ehrman's critics and it clearly presents them as opinions rather than established facts. That's the proper way to do it, rather than turning this into a puff piece without any viewpoints that might not be flattering to Bart Erhman. It should be added that widespread usage of Ehrman's textbooks is not proof that criticism of his books is "fringe", nor does it prove the claim that the vast majority of "real scholars" support him: after all, one of the most widely used textbooks on medieval history is "A World Lit Only By Fire", which has been roundly condemned as patent nonsense by historians who are dismayed and disgusted by its widespread usage in college classes. "The Witch-Cult In Western Europe" was used as a standard textbook for decades despite having been dismissed by historians as "vapid balderdash". I would also point out that characterizing Ehrman's opponents as "fundamentalists" while ignoring Ehrman's own stated agnostic viewpoint and rejection of Christianity is a rather transparent case of focusing on one side's ideological biases while ignoring the other side's ideological biases. If you really want to base this discussion on labeling, then at least label both sides accurately. Ehrman is hardly neutral, and neither are his academic supporters. In fact, Ehrman's publications show a rather single-minded focus on trying to debunk one book that he personally dislikes, whereas most scholars frequently write about topics that have no ideological overtones. Finally, on the idea that Ehrman himself is a reliable source for claiming himself to be accepted by most mainstream scholars because his acceptance by mainstream scholars makes him an accepted expert on his own acceptance: that creates a blatantly circular way of defining the matter. Ryn78 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, see WP:RS/AC. About "debunking Christianity", see [3]. Briefly, Ehrman does not do that, unless we conflate fundamentalism with Christianity. The academic consensus is that biblical literalism/inerrancy are untenable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ryn78: you've really presented little evidence other than your use of labels like "ultra-conservative" Please actually read our comments both here and elsewhere. The fact that Ehrman's NT textbook is the most widely used in North American universities is evidence enough that he is a respected academic whose views are widely accepted. This means that scholars who write for conservative evangelical publications (which the sources I removed are, by their own admission) who claim that Ehrman is lying when he talks about the scholarly consensus, and that Ehrman is a fringe author whose views are far-removed from the actual consensus, are themselves fringe. What more evidence do you need? Are you even reading this discussion before responding to it? Your first involvement was reverting my edit which was based on a previous FTN discussion in which you had not taken part... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, claims like "The fact that Ehrman's NT textbook is the most widely used in North American universities" should be included in the article if you can find a reliable source. If you can't find a reliable source, don't bother making the claim, even on the talk page. Personally, I am happy to concede the section in unbalanced. My first preference is adding "positive" statements about Ehrman; my second preference is to remove some the other criticism (in the first paragraph). But the criticism in the second paragraph is more significant, since it deals with the whole tenor of Ehrman's approach, rather than just one idea. StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:@Hijiri88: Regarding sources stating Bart's NT textbook is widely used, to take only two examples: Michael Licona notes this on page 137 of the book "Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics (eds. Paul Copan and William Lane Craig) (https://books.google.ca/books?id=DT-5AwAAQBAJ&dq). And Robert W. Yarbrough states this also (https://books.google.ca/books?id=CPjUBQAAQBAJ). FactChecker8506. If you go to https://books.google.com and search "widely used new testament introduction bart ehrman" you will find this repeated in reliable sources over and over again (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, thank you - though I think the second link might not be the right one. But I can see the Licona quote on Amazon: "His book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is a widely used textbook." Interestingly, Licona goes on to say, "his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship." StAnselm (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Licona is correct. He would know as a NT scholar himself. Alot of Ehrman's popular books represents the mainstream, which he describes as skeptical FactChecker8506 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Or - is it that there is a "skeptical mainstream" like there is an "evangelical mainstream", and the "whole mainstream" is bigger than both? StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Bart's popular books represents a substantial number of secular and believing scholars in American universities, not in evangelical and conservative seminarians and schools Evangelicals like Licona often describe this group as skeptical. It's similar to the whole creationism debate. While there are many creationists, they are surely not in the mainstream in US universities!FactChecker8506 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience (mostly limited to the Master's Seminary video curriculum) they prefer to contrast the word "evangelical" to "liberal" rather than "skeptical". Don't ask why. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman said it in either an interview or a Q&A session following a lecture. I'll find the exact link for you in my own time, but search "Bart Ehrman" on YouTube and you can find it yourself. I think the question was about how we can locate sources that are reliable and how we can trust that a scholar knows what they are talking about. It's kind of self-serving in that context, but if it was untrue one would think others would have called him out on it -- the authors of more widely-accepted NT introductory textbooks, if there are such things? Again, the burden is on you to prove to me that Ehrman's is nit the most widely used textbook in North American universities if you want me to allow you to include a bunch of material not actually about Ehrman or his views in the "reception" section based on the (unsourced!) claim that he is not as widely respected as I say he is. Anyway, Ehrman's book is used as a textbook in Yale is in the above link, as well as several installments in the YaleCourses NT studies series. One that immediately jumps to mind is No. 13. Your understanding of which aspects of the negative criticism is ... not likely to get much traction in the broader Wikipedia community, if it comes to that. The second paragraph is nonsense criticism not of Ehrman and his views but of the broader consensus among critical scholars, summarized by Ehrman in a few of his popular books and not specifically associated with Ehrman in the academy or mainstream media, but falsely attributed to Ehrman like conservative evangelicals are wont to do (the existence of "The Ehrman Project", its name and its mission statement are evidence enough of this -- I would appreciate your refraining from insinuating that I don't cite sources). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

John Goldingay, focusing specifically on inerrancy, summarizes the concern this way: "A stress on [biblical] inerrancy cannot safeguard people from a slippery slope that carries them from abandoning inerrancy to an eventual reneging on all other Christian doctrines. Indeed, it more likely impels them toward such a slope. The claim that scripture is factually inerrant sets up misleading expectations regarding the precision of narratives and then requires such far-fetched defenses... that it presses people toward rejecting it." [163] I think the same dynamic applies not only to inerrancy specifically but to biblicism more generally.

In such cases, the difficulty is not necessarily the fact of antibiblicist critiques per se. The real problem is the particular biblicist theory about the Bible; it not only makes young believers vulnerable to being disabused of their naive acceptance of that theory but it also often has the additional consequence of putting their faith commitments at risk. Biblicism often paints smart, committed youth into a corner that is for real reasons impossible to occupy for many of those who actually confront its problems. When some of those youth give up on biblicism and simply walk across the wet paint, it is flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for those losses of faith.

Insofar as these biblicism-caused outcomes are undesirable and unnecessary, we have another good reason to seek better alternatives to biblicism. In this Peter Enns is correct: "We do not honor the Lord nor do we uphold the gospel by playing make-believe." [164]

Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms. It is in this sense literally impossible.

— Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of the criticism focuses more on criticisms of views many hold, rather than of a person. For example, I propose moving the following paragraph (which by the way is more of a criticism of a particular VIEW, which Bart happens to hold also) in the criticism section to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus: "Craig Blomberg has said Ehrman overstates the extent and importance of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts, and that Ehrman's claim that the biblical canon was assembled for political reasons is unfounded.[26] Cambridge professor Peter J. Williams has criticized Ehrman for attributing textual variants to deliberate changes when accidental change is more likely.[27]" Isn't this more of a debate within the field of textual criticism than criticism of a person? press4truth 23:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

James White (theologian) states in his YouTube videos against Ehrman that students attending major US universities will be confronted with more or less the same facts and views as those taught by Ehrman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that students will be confronted with more ore less the same in most US seminaries, except the evangelical US seminaries. Many evangelical were trained, live and work in evangelical circles so what they say appears to be the consensus to them. press4truth 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Well, this is a fine mess. It seems like it's 4-2 in favour of reforming the section in some way, with everyone but StAnselm and Ryn78 in agreement on this point, but I may be misreading this, and even if I am right I don't think the rest of us even agree on how to do so. My personal preference would be to drastically expand the section to fully summarize how Ehrman and his writings have been received in all segments of society (rather than just in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist literature), but failing that removing some of the non-noteworthy criticism from conservative evangelical scholars (the bits aimed not at Ehrman and his views but at the scholarly community in general and Ehrman's summary of their views in his popular writings) would be adequate. If everyone except StAnselm and Ryn78 is in agreement with me, then maybe we can start crafting the new section here before moving it into the article? If not, then this will probably need to be taken to WP:BLPN at some point, sooner rather than later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A good place to start would be to focus on criticism and praise of his original ideas, not of the ideas that are widely held and which Bart represents in his writings (whether by the "consensus" or not). Debates over the latter can be discussed on the applicable Wikipedia article. We need to remember this is an article about a PERSON, not a ideology, belief, method or position. It should not be a place where we defend our religious or non-religious views against Bart's. press4truth 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Press4truth: My thoughts exactly! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman is famous for spreading the academic consensus to the masses. This is in itself notable, as well as the criticism received from fundamentalists. So we shouldn't keep silent about these, but there are better ways of doing it. What is clear to me is that Ehrman is the opposite of a maverick. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

He's not a maverick, but he's done a lot of original research to advance scholarly knowledge. Maybe we should also work on a reception section for Daniel B. Wallace's, Andreas J. Köstenberger's, and Darrell L. Bock's Wikipedia page. press4truth 02:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Press4truth: The unfortunate fact is that a lot of our readers (or, rather, editors) aren't interested in Ehrman's textual studies research, or his work producing the latest critical edition of the Apostolic Fathers, or in compiling translations of non-canonical gospel texts, or in Didymus the Blind; they just want to hear whether the things about the New Testament and the historical Jesus Ehrman attributes in his popular books to the scholarly community are actually the views of the scholarly community or just Bart Ehrman. At present, the article cites the view of two outliers that the only way Ehrman can attribute these views to the scholarly community is to define "scholar" much more narrowly than most (presumably, someone with a PhD and a teaching position in an accredited university who engages in original research in the relevant field, or some combination of these). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I remember, he once said that his academic work is written "for the six people in the world who care" about his scholarship. And he warned that if he would write a scholarly response to the Christ myth theory, it wouldn't be an easy reading or a nice book. In essence I don't deny his scholarly contributions, but there is not a lot of press about those and Wikipedia only writes something if there are WP:SOURCES discussing it explicitly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is LOTS of sources that discuss his scholarly contributions and views--contributions and views that are not centered around or related to fundamentalist views. Most just do not know (or care) about them, because they're very technical and scholarly. It's common knowledge the Christian fundamentalists loudly disagree with him; Bart mentions it in his books, it's seen in his many public debates with them, and he also outlines his former fundamentalists beliefs. The criticism section right now is more about people defending their conservative Christian beliefs than on Bart.press4truth 02:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Academics commonly respond to or discuss about other academics. That is not unusual. The question which concerns us is: would Ehrman be notable if he would not have received broad press coverage? Since there are lots of full professors who do not fulfill WP:NACADEMIC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with both of you, but the fact is that the broad press coverage Ehrman has received is not generally all that relevant to a biographical article on him. He meets WP:GNG EASILY, and that is all mainstream media is generally good for. The rest of it is basically WP:PRIMARY sources, because the only useful biographical or scholarly information we can get from such sources is what Ehrman says about himself in interviews, or what his detractors say about him in interviews in conservative evangelical "mainstream" media. Ehrman is called upon by the mainstream media (and that includes National Geographic, an unreliable source ignorant of biblical scholarship by Ehrman's own admission) because he is respected among other academics (his NT textbook is the most widely used in North American universities) and his popular books are best-sellers. A proper encyclopedia article on a scholar, though, should discuss his scholarship as well as what popular sources (both positive and negative, primary and tertiary) have to say about him. I would like to start by citing Elaine Pagels's widely-attested view of Ehrman's (much more traditional and conservative) stance on the dating and theology of the Gospel of Thomas. Pagels is in the minority there, but she is a scholar almost as respected as Ehrman both by the academy and the mainstream media, and (unlike the conservative evangelicals Ehrman occasionally directly calls out) we have no reason to assume she is wrongly attributing a particular scholarly position to Ehrman when he is not actually arguing for it but rather summarizing what others have said. (Of course, we would also run the risk of mischaracterizing her as a "critic of Ehrman" when it's more likely she uses his textbook in her classes but is frustrated that it completely disagrees with her on one of her favourite topics.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Ryn78:Your statement that we've presented no evidence other than our say-so is both a red herring and false. It is a red herring because I've presented an argument why a number of the sources used to support an undue level of criticism in the reception section are inappropriate. It has multiple facets; they have pledged to oppose any view which is critical of the accuracy of the bible, they work in a different field (theology vs history) with the effect that they are not reliable sources for the scholarly consensus and the current balance of POV in the section is badly skewed. Furthermore, it is false, in part because neither of us referred to the views of fundamentalists as "fringe". Finally, it is false also in part because we absolutely have presented evidence, some of which you yourself commented on and summarily dismissed without explaining why. I have presented incontrovertible evidence that at least one of his critics have sworn oaths to oppose any criticism of the bible. In the FTN discussion (which is linked by Hijiri in his opening comment), I presented evidence that Ehrman literally wrote the textbook on New Testement history. Hijiri has presented evidence that Ehrman attracts a high level of ideological opposition due to his popularizing efforts, as well as evidence that the criticisms of him are firmly rooted in ideological and religious differences, not scholarly differences.

So far, nothing you said has addressed any aspect of our argument. Neither has anything said by StAnselm thus far. While I can't speak for Hijiri, I've stated already that I'm always open to changing my mind, so long as my concerns are addressed. So if you want to actually engage in this discussion, try doing one of the following:

1. Present a reasonable argument that a person who pledges unfailing devotion to a POV which explicitly rejects the scholarly consensus and does not permit any consideration of being wrong is a reliable source (in the literal sense as well as the Wikipedia sense) for any statements about the topic in question.
2. Present a reasonable argument that a theologian is qualified to make statements about the scholarly consensus of historians.
3. Present an evidential case that the public reception of Ehrman's work has been to acknowledge his abilities, yet dispute his every conclusion, as the section now portrays.

If you can do both of the first two, then we can leave in all the criticisms currently there, in their current form. If you can only do one of the first two, then we can leave some of the current criticism in, and possibly add new criticisms. If you cannot do the last, then we need to add praise and defenses of his work, even if we have to ignore the rules to do so, unless you can present a reasonable argument that inaccurately portraying his public reception improves the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There are others here that are much more knowledgeable than me on "reception" sections of living person, but does it have to be a place where the focus is on disagreement over scholarly views, particularly views that are widely held but represented by the living person being discussed? Perhaps more general statements would be better for a section like this, highlighting his books have been widely received (e.g. best sellers, his NT textbook in universities, etc.), he has been sought out by major media outlets, he has been widely criticized by conservative Christians (as seen in his debates and in their response books), etc. Do we really need to go into the nuts and bolts of these public debates? It's not that the others views should be hidden, but is a biography a place for getting into these debates? 67.71.43.210 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In my view, something similar to WP:ONEWAY should apply here: Ehrman and his views (and the views of others that he has simply repeated) have many detractors who are either outside his field or on the very fringe of it; the views of these detractors can receive proportional coverage in the articles on these detractors (assuming they meet GNG), but should be kept to a minimum on the main Bart Ehrman biographical article because they are not mainstream views of Ehrman and his work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. WP:BLPSPS states that "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." The current criticism is disproportionate to the evangelical/conservative viewpoint and it has not been established that the viewpoints mentioned in particular are widely held since very few have been referenced to establish that the criticism is widely held and represented in reliable sources. FactChecker8506 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The book reviews of Misquoting Truth that I cited above indicate that the evangelical/conservative response to Ehrman is widely held, and not "the views of tiny minority". See also this HuffPost article: "The two books are an unusual publishing experiment, in which HarperCollins arranged to have a team of evangelical scholars write a counterargument to its hot-selling superstar writer... To the quintet of evangelicals, Ehrman is prone to profound confusion, botched readings and scholarly fictions." StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman has replied to the book of the five scholars stating that they criticized his own book for theological reasons, but offered no alternative historical explanation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have posted an alert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

break

The "criticism" by Peter J. WIlliams is not criticism of Ehrman. It is a scholarly paper which argues with a position taken by a number of scholars, among whom Ehrman made the best case. I am removing it. From the source: "Since Ehrman has made the most elaborate case for the reading ὀργισθείς engagement with his arguments can represent engagement with a number of other scholars who have preferred the reading ὀργισθείς, but have not explained at any length their reasons for doing so. " MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. StAnselm (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a scholarly paper. However the issue it takes with Ehrman's interpretation ends up relevant to Ehrman's larger claims regarding deliberate changes substantially corrupting the text. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As the debate continues, I cleaned up the criticism section a bit. Before, there were more direct quotes of people other than Bart than Bart himself in the article. FactChecker8506 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I think with this sort of criticism it is best to have the direct quotes. StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you do not like my changes, What changes to you propose StAnslem? You've mentioned above that changes should be made FactChecker8506 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, my first preference is to expand the positive reception - widespread usage of textbooks, acceptance of ideas, etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But what about the current criticisms? Are you taking a hardline approach that no changes be made in the criticisms? If not, what changes to the criticism to you suggest? Currently, about 20% (if counting words) of the article is criticism and all the criticism is by evangelical/conservative Christian scholars FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, 20% sounds about right, actually. That's what we should be aiming for in due weight, especially for someone who has had people write book-length responses to him. Most of the criticism seems to come from evangelical/conservative Christian scholars, so that's not a worry either. But the solution is generally to expand, not delete. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

90% of the reception section is negative criticism. How is that due weight? Are you taking a hardline approach that no changes should be made to the current criticisms? FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Well, the more I research the reception, the more I see that it is generally negative. People who have made claims about positive reception have not been forthcoming with reliable sources. The two book-length responses to Ehrman (Misquoting Truth and How God Became Jesus) should definitely be included, especially the latter (see the HuffPo report cited above). But certainly - if he is as well respected and accepted as people claim, that should be in the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Coogan quote doesn't really belong - it's only from a book blurb. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You have not been able to find much evidence of positive reception?FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct. The best I can find is this from the Catholic World Report:

The greatest contemporary popular exponent of the dominant paradigm [radical discontinuity between Jesus and Christianity] today is Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, a former fundamentalist whose forays into textual criticism made him a liberal Christian for a time but ultimately an unbeliever. A friendly convivial fellow and a serious, sober scholar, neither an anti-Catholic nor anti-Semite, Ehrman has sold millions of books popularizing the paradigm of discontinuity in several books, in which he endeavors to show the Gospels are unreliable and that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet far different from the Jesus Christ the Church has worshipped as divine son of God.[4]

StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the dozens of scholarly reviews of his scholarly books in academic journals, which include many positive comments on his scholarship? FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, and I still can't find them. Can you give me some sort of list? StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I will soon, when I'm back at my university library, where I can access the articles. On another note, have you seen Hurtado's comments: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/a-clarification-and-an-apology-to-bart-ehrman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker8506 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This was on the very first page of a google search for "Bart Ehrman Elaine Pagels". It contains quotes from a preacher praising him, and a Methodist bishop both praising and criticizing him. I get the impression you aren't looking very hard. You're certainly not looking in the article, which already lists the awards he has won in his bio section. Another scholar's blog has been linked here already, though you dismissed it out of hand as not conforming to WP rules. (You still haven't given a reason why we should apply the normal rules to this unusual situation, by the way.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Another thing... You posted an alert at wikiproject Christianity. Why not post an alert at Wikiproject History, as well? Bart Ehrman's primary work is historical. He even refers to himself as a historian numerous times. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, feel free to post there as well, but I note that Wikiproject History is not listed at the top of this page. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Wait, are you actually blaming us for the fact that the article isn't perfect already!? When you are the one refusing to budge on any proposed improvement to the page? Give me a break... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Chatraw states in the SAME article that is used to critique Bart's so-called use/presentation of "scholarly consensus": "In Bart Ehrman’s most recent book, Jesus, Interrupted, the subtitle— Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)—could lead some readers to believe that Ehrman is going to uncover new (apparent) problems in the Bible that have been hidden from scholars and serious students of Scripture. 1 These readers will be surprised to and that none of the information or arguments in this book is actually new, and Ehrman admits as much. He repeatedly emphasizes that for years scholars have known of, written about, and lectured on the material he presents. And, of course, he is right. The last two centuries in biblical studies have been characterized by skepticism concerning the unity of the theology found in the Bible." FactChecker8506 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I highly doubt Ehrman was referring to himself and other scholars with the "We" in the parenthetical part of the subtitle, if indeed it was even Ehrman's own words. My understanding is actually that most of those titles are created by the marketers and Ehrman just signs off on them, hence the regional variant titles that I doubt Ehrman himself decided needed to exist to sell his books in different markets. And yes, I do think a lot of Ehrman's detractors have either accidentally or deliberately chosen to interpret his books' titles as being deliberate misrepresentations by Ehrman himself, referring to Ehrman himself in the first person. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my point is why is Chatraw used in the criticism section. His quote seems out of place. When Bart refers to scholarly consensus he's not arguing what he is saying is true because of the consensus but just noting what he is saying is widely held (as Chatraw acknowledges). Bart then proceeds to look at the evidence. http://ehrmanblog.org/on-scholarly-consensus/FactChecker8506 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman's claim (tag)

Ehrman's view (from his TTC courses) on the formation of the New Testament canon is that it was reached by consensus. However, he points out the political infighting among different Christians groups for defining what Christians should believe. Lost Christianities is a book wherein he makes that clear. So, he does not claim that the canon of the New Testament was assembled at the order of any political figure (certainly not Constantine the Great), but he claims that the proto-orthodox managed to win a dirty fight against all other competing Christian groups. So, was it a political decision? Kind of, it was the result of centuries-long quarrels and politics was involved, but it wasn't done by decree of the Emperor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the consensus view taught in Yale, and I think the burden is on anyone who wants to keep the text in to demonstrate how calling it "unfounded" does not put Blomberg on the WP:FRINGE. More likely, though, I think Blomberg interpreted something vague Ehrman said somewhere (as I did, and most of our readers likely will) as saying the same thing Dan Brown famously said, which is obviously untrue, and if our readers interpret it the way they will then it is probably a BLP-violation. Heck, it's borderline libelous. (Note that I am not related in any way to Ehrman personally. When I say "libelous" I mean "untrue and defamatory in that it creates a false and negative impression that the subject holds fringe views that they do not hold"; it is not in any way meant to be interpreted as a legal threat.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add the bit about politics and the canon is out of place. The whole paragraph is about textual criticism, not canon (which is a completely different topic). FactChecker8506 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify the above complicated comment: I think either that Blomberg thinks that the claim attributed to Ehrman above is unfounded, which makes Blomberg fringe, or that Blomberg was incorrectly attributing to Ehrman the Dan Brown claim that Constantine decided what books would be in the canon for his own political reasons, which makes it a criticism of Dan Brown and his fans that was misplaced on Ehrman. Either way, I think the sentence should be cut from the article. The only reason it should stay is that there is some third option that I have missed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite apart from this issue, I was thinking that if we had Wallace we don't need Blomberg as well, so I am happy to delete it. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Wallace has more weight because like Ehrman he's actually a leading textual critic. 67.71.43.210 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait, did neither of you read the comments above? The sentence in question has nothing to do with textual criticism or anything attributed to Wallace. Whether we should give it its own separate paragraph because it is on a different topic is unrelated to the question of whether we should delete it. Or does Wallace hold fringe views on the formation of the canon, so our lending legitimacy to him make our lending legitimacy to Blomberg redundant? (Note that I don't actually think the latter is the case.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I did a little bit (like 5 minutes) of research last night, and I found that literally every single person who criticizes Ehrman in this section is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, which requires its members to pledge to an unshakable belief in biblical inerrancy. Every single one has sworn to believe and argue that the bible is incapable of being wrong about anything, despite having received several years of lectures during their education about all the different things the bible is wrong about.

I've pointed out before that I don't refer to evangelical beliefs as fringe, even within NT studies. That is only due to the large role they play in NT studies here in the US. Their beliefs (and as a result, a good deal of their scholarship) are very much outside of anything that could even generously be referred to as mainstream history. The number of walls in their particular echo chamber does not, in any way excuse the fact that they have pledged to support a specific theory which has almost exactly zero support outside of their group. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I can well believe that all critics are members of ETS, but I don't see that as a problem. For a start, you have to affirm inerrancy to be a member, but you don't have to swear to argue it. In some members' writings, it would receive very little coverage. More to the point (as I've indicated above) the scholarly community has not take a stand against inerrancy. That might well be because the ETS is too big and powerful, but the fact remains that errantists and inerrantists happily coexist in American biblical studies. The fact that they get "exactly zero support outside of their group" is precisely because everyone who believes it is already in the group. Anyway, I appreciate that you haven't called evangelical beliefs fringe, but for some reason this made it to the Fringe Noticeboard. StAnselm (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• It is clear that criticism from academic scholars of religion and criticism from different religious perspectives are two entirely different beasts and should be treated as such in the article. I would suggest putting critiques from members of the ETS apart in a separate subsection or paragraph and have another paragraph containing critiques from academic scholars (e.g. from academic reviews of his books, I also know that Thomas L. Thompson has notably critiqued Ehrman).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I could get behind that. Ehrman has attracted the ire of many fundamentalists, and this should be covered by the article. I think some mention of the Ehrman Project would be appropriate. But none of that should be unblinkingly presented as the entirety of his reception. It should be made very clear from whence this criticism stems: his rejection of biblical inerrancy in the public sphere. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I like these proposals too, but I still think that, even blocked off from the rest of the reception section, we should keep criticism from conservative Evangelicals (who use Ehrman as a punching bag and blame him for a lot of what critical scholars have been saying since before he was born) to a minimum: devoting a section to the Evangelical response should not be used as an excuse to cite fallacious arguments like that Ehrman attacks Christianity (which implies that the majority of self-identified Christians worldwide whose views of biblical inerrancy don't differ from Ehrman's are not real Christians), etc.

I'm also totally behind discussion of the Ehrman Project, but how does everyone else feel about using Ehrman's response to them as our starting point? Second paragraph of chapter 5 of Did Jesus Exist?: it's ”a group of well-funded conservative Christians” including at least one ”former student who did not much like what [he] taught”, and their website includes ”short film clips of (very) conservative evangelical scholars responding to just about everything [he has] written about, thought about writing about, or, well, thought”.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I like quoting Ehrman on the Ehrman project. His reaction to it is extremely germane. I think a separate subsection underneath the reception section, and then keeping the specific criticisms there, and adding a sentence (or maybe two) about the Ehrman project is about the most minimal we can honestly get, though. I mean, these people seriously dislike Ehrman and have an audible voice. Giving them less of a voice than they currently have in the article strikes me as too POV. My main concern is the adding of more praise. I think we need to list his awards in the reception section, mention that his textbooks are used at Yale (and elsewhere if we can source it), and add praise from other academics and from skeptical/atheist groups (though we don't want to get too wordy about the latter). StAnselm opposes adding any more praise, but has yet to give a reason why the norms aren't hurting this article, so that's been my focus here; trying to hammer out whether we can WP:IAR here. So far, I have every reason to think we can, so I believe we should go looking for sources that normally would not quite make the BLP cut. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I support mentioning the Ehrman Project (probably in a separate subsection), and we certainly need to include Ehrman's response to it. (Hopefully we can find some other reliable sources that evaluate it as well.) MjolnirPants, you have totally misunderstood me - I do not oppose adding more praise, but I think it should be published in reliable sources - not blogs. I'd also be OK with a sentence like "Ehrman's New Testament is used as a textbook at Harvard[1], Yale[2], and UCLA[3]." But I wouldn't prefer it - imagine if we listed every textbook like that on every page in WP! Rather, what we want, is Professor Smith saying "Ehrman's books are used as textbooks at all the major American universities." StAnselm (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We've presented reliable sources for praise which you shot down based on rules. I've presented a compelling case as to why the rules should not apply (including citing a rule that says that the rules need not always be applied). You haven't refuted my argument for ignoring the rules in this case, though you have refuted my conclusion. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but if you can't argue that there's a good reason not to WP:IAR here, then simply asserting that we shouldn't just isn't good enough. There are three (possibly more) editors here for whom I feel confident stating that they believe that the blog post Tgeorgescu offered as an example of praise should be included. There are at least two editors here for whom I feel confident stating that they believe various atheist and skeptical sources which would not normally meet BLP standards should be used. IAR is policy for a reason. I know (and I agree wholeheartedly) that it should be the least used policy on WP, and that it is often abused. But I'm seeing some very compelling reasons to use it here, and no reason not to other than you don't want to, which (no offense) is not compelling in the slightest. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? Just yesterday User:Hijiri88 said "I don't think anyone is seriously in favour of that." If you want to IAR to do a BLP violation, I suggest you ask at BLPN first. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So Hijiri misunderstood me. That's no big deal, and all he has to do is read this comment or my previous one to correct that. Frankly, I'm still not seeing any reason why IAR doesn't apply here. If you're so against it, shouldn't you be able to voice a concrete reason why? If you're only against it because you don't like it, then that's the makings of a consensus, right there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not citing the self-published blog and leaving the article as is violates the spirit, if not the letter, of BLPSPS. Citing sources that are not technically self-published but are written by authors and published by groups with a vested interested in attacking our subject, and ignoring all the positive reception Ehrman has had, is a very blatant BLP violation and a complete violation of WEIGHT. I am still against using the blog; I think simply removing the entire section would be better than using a de jure self-published source (a blog, even one by a reputable authority on the subject) to balance out the de facto self-published sources (which had no serious peer review, fact-checking or editorial oversight, even if they were not produced by a "pay to print" process or the like). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any "de facto self-published sources" in the article. To suggest that the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society does not have "serious peer review, fact-checking or editorial oversight" is absurd. I think your anti-inerrancy view is colouring everything you think about these people. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I never said any such thing about the JETS, nor have I even ever suggest removing the claim attributed to it from the article. I'm talking about Kostenberger et al. Can you demonstrate that the factual inaccuracies were edited out of that book by the editors? Like that Ehrman's definition of scholarship is on "his own terms" (as opposed to the terms applied to by everyone outside a small group of conservative evangelicals)? And where did I ever say that I have an anti-inerrancy view or imply that this was colouring everything I think about "these people" (as opposed to their claims)? Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, or I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: No, I don't think they are entirely different beasts at all. A quick look at Evangelical Theological Society shows tat it contains a whole lot of people who are both "academic scholars of religion" and people who write from a religious perspective. Now - it has been a subject for debate, whether those two can coexist, but the consensus/compromise in the scholarly community is that they can. Whatever you think about ETS or JETS, Chatraw's review is an academic reviews of Ehrman's book. StAnselm (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Being an academic is not simply about having an appointment, it is about being a part of an academic community - being a part of a scholarly debate and a devotional debate is not the same at all, and if all the ETS scholars in the world each published piece critiqueing Ehrman that would have no relevance at all to Ehrman's standing relative to the academic mainstream. They are engage ind different conversations. No kind of doctrinal pre-commitment is compatible with participating in an actual academic discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but for whatever reason - the scholarly community as a whole does not share it. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

For example: "Organizations such as the Society of New Testament Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature therefore encourage collaboration among scholars of all stripes, neither privileging nor deprecating faith. Critical study coexists today with study explicitly aimed at fostering religious faith in the same educational institutions, and even in same individual scholars."[5] StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you read about either of those two organizations? They're very different from the ETS. From the SBL About page: "Founded in 1880, the Society of Biblical Literature is the oldest and largest learned society devoted to the critical investigation of the Bible from a variety of academic disciplines." There's nothing on that page about biblical inerrancy, or indeed, even any religious beliefs. The SNTS is similarly secular, with no mention of religious belief of any sort anywhere on their website. The requirements for membership are outlined here (warning, that's a word document) and say nothing about religious beliefs, as well. The ETS is not, in any way comparable to those groups. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you've totally missed the point here, which that SBL neither requires nor forbids belief in inerrancy. Many (most?) members of ETS are also members of SBL, and as such are part of the academic community. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, saying they are members of the academic community simply because they have a membership in a society (neither of which requires continuing engagement in the academic community) is like claiming to be a scientist because one is a member of the AAAS. It's a non sequitur, similar to claiming someone is a philosopher because they have a degree in philosophy. Nor does it do anything to address the obvious problem a belief in biblical inerrancy produces. Even if you can prove that each of those people cited actively contributes to the scholarly body of knowledge and engages in the scholarly community (they don't, at least not in the sense of contributing to history), you're still left with that problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think that belief in inerrancy is problematic, but there's no reason why we should accept that here on WP. Wallace, Blomberg, Köstenberger and Bock all certainly actively contribute to the scholarly body of knowledge, StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to accept that scholars who start from a conclusion, then work to find evidence to support it while refusing to accept any possibility that they are wrong aren't the best scholars? Seriously? We have EVERY REASON IN THE ENTIRETY OF ACADEMIA to suspect their scholarship isn't up to par in any area that touches upon the possibility of the bible being wrong. I'm not angry, just adding an appropriate level of emphasis. And again... Theologians, not historians. The title "New Testament Scholar" refers to a diverse group. The theologians are, pretty much by definition, all religious. But those who work on the history are a diverse bunch, with the vast majority being liberally religious or non-religious. Hence why the secular groups are accepting of all sorts. Hence, also, why the criticisms of Ehrman come entirely from members of the non-secular groups. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't try to enforce it here. As a side note, the issue of faith/philosophical commitments also comes up in feminist scholarship, and again - feminist scholars are accepted as part of the community. "Historical-critical" is now acknowledged to not be the only way to go. Anyway, theologians are certainly not all religious, and many NT scholars would identify with neither a "theological" approach nor a "historical" approach. (Some, for example, would describe their approach as "literary"). StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To put it another way, I think you're overemphasising the place of inerrancy in the scholarship of evangelicals. Especially with regards to literary and canonical approaches, the fact that the writer personally believes the text is inerrant might not have a big impact on what she writes: she may, for example, be talking about the original meaning of the text - something that evangelical and non-evangelical writers could easily agree on. (Though, of course, accessing "original meaning" is fraught with its own difficulties.) StAnselm (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So, it's okay for StAnselm to enforce an opinion here, but not everyone else? That seems fair. The simple fact is that evangelical scholars are the only ones who say the things currently cited in the "reception" section of the article: this is obviously because they believe in inerrancy, but we do not need to mention this in the article; we just need to not cite them because they are unreliable sources and they frequently misrepresent the scholarly consensus on the issues Ehrman addresses in his popular books. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Who says they are unreliable sources? Who, for that matter, says that these people criticize Ehrman because they believe in inerrancy? StAnselm (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Kindly focus on article content rather than nitpicking the wording I use on the talk page. I never said we need to add the claim that "these people criticize Ehrman because they believe in inerrancy" to the article, so I don't need to cite sources for this speculation. I just think that we should keep their obviously biased criticism to a minimum per NPOV and WEIGHT. The fact is that the majority of Christians throughout the world don't have a problem with what Ehrman writes, nor do the authorities of their churches -- if you do not think it is because of their belief in inerrancy, why else do you think only this small group of Christians attack Ehrman and call him a critic of Christianity? If you cannot answer this, then I would appreciate you not trying to silence me when I say otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I have posted this at WP:BLPN#Talk:Bart D. Ehrman. Perhaps later on we may also have to ask for help at WP:RSN. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to change the topic here, but why do we have Chatsaw as a source? (he does not have a New Testament doctoral degree). Do we have him as a source because we cannot find many NT scholars who agree with him? When evaluating sources it is important to look at whether the criticism is widespread, carefully argued, and whether the person is credible and recognized in their field. I'm not too concerned about their theological or philosophical positions...but I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies on this FactChecker8506 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally, if someone writes an article in a reputable journal about a particular scholar's approach or work - whether positive, negative, or neutral - that should be included in the WP article about that scholar. Of course, Ehrman has a notability far beyond this, but in most cases that would be a significant contribution to a scholar's notability. But in this particular instance, what makes you think he doesn't have a NT PhD? (He certainly has some sort of PhD now, though he was a student when he wrote the article - and I also see he is a member of SBL.[6] - but yes, he seems to write more in the field of homiletics.) StAnselm (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If we can't find more than 4 people saying what he's saying than he represents a "tiny minority." And if one in this tiny minority does not have a Phd in New Testament, one wonders the credibility of the claim, even if it's in a journal (lots of incorrect things are said in top-notch journals) FactChecker8506 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Would Josh D. Chatraw meet the notability requirement of creating a Wikipedia article for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker8506 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, he certainly would not. StAnselm (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's more than four - add to that the five scholars who wrote How God Became Jesus: Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, and Chris Tilling. StAnselm (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What Bart says in How Jesus Became God is not unique to him. It's old news held by many for quite sometime. It's only new to those who do not know the history of NT scholarship — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker8506 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In the blogosphere, of course, the criticism of Ehrman misrepresenting scholarly consensus is quite widespread - see Witherington on the authorship of the Pastoral epistles. Note that James McGrath challenges Witherington on this point, and that CNN reports on Witherington's blog series. StAnselm (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In blogs, his praise is widespread also. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say above blog posts cannot be included?FactChecker8506 (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just yesterday I deleted Witherington from Jesus, Interrupted. But if we open the floodgates to blogs, we are still going to have a preponderance of criticism over praise. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The same scholars you mentioned that criticize him praise him as well, so it will equal out. It's not "black and white." It all depends on the particular topic they're debating. That's what scholars do...debate and disagree with each other on many things. Many evangelicals, for example, praised his book "Did Jesus Exist" FactChecker8506 (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

we are still going to have a preponderance of criticism over praise If that is the case, the only reason is a tendency for ultra-conservative evangelicals to attack the messenger and refuse to admit that virtually everyone else agrees with said messenger. Dale Martin doesn't maintain a blog attacking conservative evangelicals for their (false) claims about Ehrman and the scholarly consensus, but the fact that he uses Ehrman's book as a textbook in his NT 101 course at Yale is evidence enough that Ehrman's views are mainstream and respected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Would Wallace and the others quoted say Bart is a terrible scholar or person? No, they have said he's top notch. Now, do they disagree over things? Yes, so what? That's what scholars do! We shouldn't focus on those scholarly debates in my view. Otherwise, where will these discussions of these debates end??FactChecker8506 (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@FactChecker8506: I think an FA (which is always what should be aimed for) on any scholar should summarize their scholarly opinions on various issues related to their field, as well as other scholars' responses if those responses were directed at the subject. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking for information on the reaction Ehrman has gotten for several days now, and there are a few things which have become obvious.

• There are no (or so few as to be too difficult to find) criticisms of Ehrman's representation of the scholarly consensus from non-evangelical/fundamentalist sources.
• There is only one criticism of Ehrman from non-evangelical/fundamentalist sources, and it is that Ehrman's books do not contribute to the body of work, but simply repeat what scholars have known for years. This criticism is never made by evangelicals or fundamentalists. Also, these criticisms are rather difficult to find.
• Almost every academic of any sort (as well as the majority of non-academics) who criticizes Ehrman also praises his abilities as a scholar.

Despite this, we have a reception section that contains virtually nothing but non-evidenced claims that he misrepresents a scholarly consensus from individuals whose reliability for this consensus is extremely questionable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What we have is a section that (last I checked) has been winnowed down to sourced statements by relevant and credentialed sources (e.g. NT scholars) that meet WP standards for BLP (e.g. not blog). One thing these sources say is Ehrman misrepresents the scholarly consensus in certain ways. And as StAnselm notes if we lowered standards to allow blogs, there would be even more sources saying that. What we have now is properly sourced statements by scholars; this seems reasonable to me and adds valuable material to the page. It would not improve the page to exclude it, any more than it would improve the page to exclude praise by scholars for Ehrman's scholarship. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)