Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

So, Ehrman doesn't mind referring to fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals as scholars if they actually are scholars

Of more relevance to the above discussion, though, is the fact he says a little after the bit about the textbooks that the majority of biblical scholars are not fundamentalists, which implies that within the category of "biblical scholars" he includes at least some people he considers fundamentalists. He also frequently talks of every scholar "except for fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals" agreeing with him, which implies that evangelicals who are not fundamentalists are also included. which kind of contradicts the claim that he defines "scholar" in a way that suits his agenda. It would be OR to include this in the article as a rebuttal of Chatraw, of course, but it works on the talk page as an argument not to cite Chatraw. Now, saying that he qualifies "scholars" with "except for fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals" rather than saying he defines the word "scholar" in a manner that fits his agenda is a matter of semantics, but the fact that Chatraw clearly misrepresented what Ehrman wrote (as discussed above, he engaged in excessive nitpicking of Ehrman's language when talking about the definition of "textual critic" to the point that his interpretation of what Ehrman wrote differs radically from what Ehrman almost certainly meant) and that Ehrman specifically clarified what he means most of the time means we should be more careful in how we mirror others' claims that he makes up his own definitions of words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
(Even though the above was made in the same edit as the opening of the thread immediately above, and depends partly on the above for its meaning, this is not aimed at MP or any user in particular. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC) )

Questions that (still) need to be answered

@StAnselm: Since you are the only one standing in the way of completely overhauling the "Reception" section and placing conservative evangelical opinions in a subsection marked as such, and you have repeatedly implied that in your view criticism should continue to outweigh praise because (supposedly) Ehrman is on the fringe of scholarship, I would like you to answer the following questions:

1. Do you acknowledge that Bart Ehrman's textbook is (or was at some point recently) the most widely-used introductory textbook for New Testament studies in universities in the United States? If not, can you offer evidence in support of your view?
2. Do you acknowledge that Dale Martin (Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale) uses Ehrman's book in his classes? If not, can you offer evidence in support of your view?
3. Do you acknowledge that Elaine Pagels (Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton) has criticized Ehrman's view of the Gospel of Thomas for being too conservative in its dating of the gospel significantly later than the four canonical gospels and its characterization of the gospel as a "gnostic" text? If not, can you offer evidence in support of your view?
4. Do you acknowledge that Bart Ehrman was the first scholar (before Craig Evans) whom National Geographic contacted about the newly-discovered Gospel of Judas? If not, can you offer evidence in support of your view?
5. Can you cite a professor of New Testament studies in a university (not a theological seminary) who has agreed with the statement that "It is only by defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship"? If so, please give full bibliographical details so the rest of us can verify.
6. Can you cite a teacher in any institution (university or theological seminary) who has made a statement to this effect in a peer-reviewed, fact-checked, scholarly source (not a blog, video lecture, interview or book from a Christian publisher)? If so, please give full bibliographical details so the rest of us can verify.
7. Do you acknowledge that Dale Martin stated several times in his lecture series (viewable on YouTube) that the "majority of scholars" would agree with what Ehrman says in the textbook with regard to, for instance, the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet? If not, can you offer evidence in support of your view?
8. Do you acknowledge that Ehrman has criticized John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar's liberal views regarding the historical Jesus, and Crossan's liberal dating of the Gospel of Thomas? If not, can you offer evidence in support of your view?
9. Do you acknowledge that Ehrman's dating for non-canonical texts such as Thomas and those discussed in Ehrman and Plese's Apocryphal Gospels generally agrees with the majority of conservative scholars, as opposed to Crossan, Pagels, etc.?
10. Can you cite a specific historical view expressed by Ehrman where the majority of scholars who hold teaching positions in universities would disagree with him? By "historical", I mean that this does not include Ehrman's personal religious beliefs like "there is no benevolent god controlling the world" or "Jesus did not rise from the dead" ("historians cannot verify the claim that Jesus rose from the dead because historians cannot prove miracles" would be acceptable, though).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. No - and you ought not ask me to prove a negative. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. 5. I'll get back to you. 6. I'll get back to you. Yes, Josh Chatraw, as cited in the article. He is Associate Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. StAnselm (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I added two more at the same time as you were answering. I moved them to the bottom so as not to screw up the numbering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

As for proving you wrong on 1, I'm still working on it. But until we can prove or disprove your argument on 1, 2 probably deserves mention in the article. The source should not be the lectures themselves (which would be a mild form of OR) but the introduction Martin gave Ehrman (linked earlier) that explicitly praised him for his work in producing books that can be used as textbooks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you agree to 3, then how does that square with your earlier statement that I'd love to see evidence that "within biblical scholarship, Ehrman is considered to be a relatively conservative force" -- in your view, is Pagels just "even more" of a looney liberal than Ehrman, but there are other professors in other universities who hold significantly more conservative views than both of them? You should take back your earlier comment, until you can provide an answer to 5. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of fairness, I must clarify that StAnselm's above response was posted before I added the above questions 7 through 10. He did not dodge these questions, as they hadn't been asked of him yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re 6: You only answered half the question. You need to give full bibliographical details. If you mean to cite the piece already included in the article, that is not adequate, as Chatraw only refers to Ehrman as representative of "a segment of biblical scholarship which he often implies is the only legitimate brand of scholarship", but does not state how large a segment it is or why Ehrman implies it is the only legitimate brand of scholarship. What we would appear to have here is a scholar on the fringe who, when writing for non-fact-checked, non-peer-reviewed publications, makes false claims about how Ehrman creates his own definition of scholarship, but when writing for peer-reviewed publications is more careful in his wording and avoids saying one way or the other whether Ehrman invented his own definition of scholarship. If you agree to remove the first sentence of the second paragraph and only include the quotation currently marked "elsewhere", then I guess we can agree to disagree on whether Chatraw should be cited in the article at all, but if you think we should contextualize his careful, not-false statement with a broader one he published in a book that was probably not fact-checked, then I would request that you find someone else who agrees with him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That seems an excessive grasping at straws. Chatraw says "Furthermore, it is only by defining “historical critic” in his own terms and thereby a priori excluding other scholars that he can imply that he is supported by all other scholarship." StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm assuming I was right in guessing that you were referring to the paper already cited in the article, but that passage is not quoted in the article at the moment. I have not read the paper in question, nor do I (think I) have access to the journal at present, so I had no way of knowing until now that Chatraw said what you are now attributing to him, but I guess you have now answered this question in full. This means that Chatraw has a different definition of "historical critic" to Ehrman, and his indicating this was printed in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Woopdeedoo. Ehrman's claims (in books published by Oxford University Press) that the majority of scholars agree with him are just as worth pointing out in the article. Unfortunately, I think it would be SYNTH to go around hunting down all the other sources (no doubt the vast majority from academic publishers, most of which have nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible mind you) that define "historical critic" and "scholar" the same way Ehrman does, so I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's linked in the article. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see that. Sorry, I was writing on iPad earlier and was assuming it was behind a paywall and so not worth clicking on. But that's beside the point -- it is still only one guy's opinion, and it turns out to be wrong; Ehrman has, elsewhere, devoted a whole lot more than one chapter to the discrepancies in the bible, and many others have as well. Chatraw's opinion that some historical critics, if one uses a broader definition Chatraw would apparently prefer, would not be able to devote a book to discrepancies in the bible is ... well, it's obviously true. Many historical critics don't have any clue about the bible -- where I live in Japan, most historical critics are devoted to study of the Kojiki, the Man'yōshū and the Tale of Genji. Ehrman obviously wasn't talking about those historical critics, so the fact that historical critics for whom his comment does not apply exist is obvious; it was just a bit of hyperbole in a book not meant for a scholarly audience. This kind of nitpicking of Ehrman's words doesn't seem like it would be worth noting in this article -- are you really suggesting we should? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Liberty University is a university in name only. It requires "compatibility with a young-earth creationist philosophy" for staff they recruit to their biology department. That does not mean that everything every member of the university does is bogus, but it does mean that their opinions have to be taken with a pillar of salt, and that a-priori, their weight in the academic debate is marginal at best. I can find a total of two publications for Chatraw on Google Scholar, none of which has been cited even once. He lists a few more publications on his web page, but they are all in explicitly evangelical walled garden journals. It's not a significant contribution to mainstream academic opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's true that Liberty is not a "mainstream" university, but still let it be known that AFAIK Liberty is a fully accredited university, regardless of their views, besides also being a very large and influential university (especially among Christians). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

7. Yes. 8. Yes. 9. Yes. 10. I don't know about "majority of scholars who hold teaching positions in universities" (or why that's relevant) but "the majority of English speaking commentators and specialists on documents such as 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians think these documents also should be attributed to Paul". StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant because anyone with enough time and money can go to graduate school and get a PhD, and anyone with enough time can write a book and submit it to an academic publisher. People with tenured positions in universities tend to be the best scholars in their fields, they're the ones who train future scholars, and (most importantly for Wikipedia purposes!) scholars tend to talk about people who teach in universities when discussing how widely an idea is accepted -- Ehrman points out all the time how people who teach in mainstream universities and seminaries almost all agree with him on the historical Jesus, the textual tradition of the New Testament, the historical reliability of the gospels, etc. (see for example his debates with White and Craig). Heck, Ehrman uses this criterion when addressing "mythicists": two of the "scholars" he criticized there have PhDs in a relevant field to the historical Jesus (and one more has a PhD in Hebrew Bible), but they don't teach in universities. Anyway, I am happy to know that "Guest Contributor" (of the Portland Contributors, I assume) to the patheos.org blog thinks that, but he (or she? I am sorry, I have heard of both men and women with the first name "Guest") is at least as unreliable a source on the scholarly consensus as Ehrman. His claim immediately below the sentence you quote to be more authoritative than Ehrman because he has written "commentaries" on these books but Ehrman has not is questionable at best: What qualifies as a "commentary"? Do Ehrman's chapters on these books in his undergraduate textbook not count? Is it a requirement that an author have read all the English-language (why?) "commentaries" before what one writes qualifies as a "commentary"? I have been working under the assumption that Dale Martin is one of the most respected recent commentators on the Corinthian letters, and he rejects the Pauline authorship of all three of the letters Mr. Contributor names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

To clarify, I'm not disputing that Guest Contributor wrote a commentary on each of the three named letters, or that a lot commentaries on these books affirm their Pauline authorship. I am disputing the definition of "commentary" that seems to be assumed by Guest Contributor (and by extension that he/she has read all of the English-language commentaries on these books), and that we should interpret "scholar of X" to mean "person who has written a commentary on X" (or "person who has written a commentary on X in English"!). I prefer the broader definition Martin uses here (between "2 Thessalonians is one of these letters" and "they'll say they still think Paul did write 2 Thessalonians"). The three letters are disputed. There are seven that virtually all scholars attribute to Paul. There are three (the pastorals) whose Pauline attribution is rejected by the majority of scholars. And there are three that are disputed. I think if we have reliable sources saying this, then we shouldn't take anonymous bloggers who claim that the majority of specialists affirm the Pauline authorship of the three disputed epistles as refuting these sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the post was written by Ben Witherington. StAnselm (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not at all clear. "Witherington" is only mentioned on the page three times, in a link to "About Ben Witherington", another link to "Dr. Witherington's New eBook", and another link to "Books by Dr. Witherington", but these are all in the "frame" of the page outside the actual article. I did not notice them at all when I Ctrl+Fed the quote you provided and checked over it briefly to see if I could find who wrote it, and even now that you have pointed it out I still can't see how anyone unfamiliar with Patheos (myself included) would not draw the conclusion that Ben Witherington is the owner of the website as opposed to the Guest Contributor. (The fact that the "frame" links don't appear on the home page indicate that this assumption would probably be wrong and you are probably right, but still.) Anyway, this is beside the point: Witherington is not a historian, and his definition of "commentary" is still unclear, and it is not at all clear to me why you would think writing an English-language commentary on a text is a necessary prerequisite for commenting on whether the text is a pseudepigraphon, or why such works need to be given more weight than the work of historians who teach in universities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the blog series was mentioned by CNN here. StAnselm (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's clear. It's a series and Witherington is listed as author at the start of the series. Cloudjpk (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the only place he is listed as the author of this separate page, which is apparently the first in the series, is the same place as the page StAnselm linked credits "Guest Contributor" -- it is not at all obvious. Anyway, why on earth are you two continuing to ignore everything I actually write and instead honing in on some minor peripheral point (on which you are also wrong)? The fact is that the passage quoted contains a logical fallacy (Ehrman is wrong to say that worldwide biblical scholarship in 2011 agrees with him and I will demonstrate this by striking out the vast majority of biblical scholarship except for a tiny and apparently arbitrary subset thereof, and saying that none of those scholars agree with him). And what on earth does CNN have to do with it? Both the CNN article and the Witherington piece it mentions are blogs, and both contain errors (Ehrman doesn't like talking about percentages like "Half of New Testament" -- the books he calls forgeries comprise significantly less than half the New Testament in terms of word count, none of the four gospels, not Revelation nor most of the Pauline epistles, nor Hebrews; not having read Forged I can't tell you why he appears to consider Acts to be a forgery but Luke not, when they appear to be quite open about their being written by the same guy). You seem unwilling to accept self-published blogs unless they are critical of Ehrman. This is hypocrisy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The CNN piece may be a blog, but it certainly isn't self-published. Anyway, it comes under WP:NEWSBLOG: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Anyway, it reports on Witheringtons's blog series, but then also interviews him. StAnselm (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Its misunderstanding of Ehrman's book is so deep that it extends to the title of the blog. Whether it is technically self-published (in the sense of "pay-to-print") is irrelevant, because it apparently didn't go through a critical editing process. An interview with Witherington is a primary source, even if not de jure self-published. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Witherington's words are a primary source. CNN reporting on Witherington's words constitute a secondary source. We can report Witherington's criticism of Ehrman because it was published there. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The heuristic is "blogs are not reliable sources." This is a heuristic because there are plenty of exceptions, which can usually be expressed as "Unless the writer of the blog is a reliable source." I'm not going to quibble about wiki rules wrt this except to say, in no uncertain terms: If the blog gets facts wrong, it is absolutely not a usable source. The fact that the writer does not accurately report certain facts utterly undermines their reliability for this use. So unless you are disputing Hijiri's claim that the blog gets several facts wrong, then we clearly cannot use it, be it a primary, secondary or tertiary source.

If, on the other hand, you are disputing the claim that this blog gets several facts wrong, then if you (and thus the blog) are correct we can use it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the only "problem" was in the title: "Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says". This is specified/clarified in the article: "At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries." I assume the "Half" was derived with rounding. That is certainly not "half" in terms of text, although Ehrman also has a category called "false attribution" which does include the four gospels. (The numbers in the Forged (book) article seem to be incorrect, by the way.) StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The PR announcement from Ehrman's publisher about his book says that we know for sure who wrote eight books of the New Testament (namely seven letters of Paul and the Revelation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

PR source: [1]. His own book: Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). "A World of Deceptions and Forgeries. The Terms of the Debate.". Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (First Edition. EPub ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Or Bart D. Ehrman (22 March 2011). Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The CNN blog also quotes, uncritically, Witherington's opinion that Even if Paul didn’t write the second book of Timothy, he would have dictated it to a scribe for posterity, he says. This is a relatively new, revisionist view that is still not accepted among the majority of scholars (see here), though it does appear to be hyped up by some fundamentalists to support the (wrong) claims that critical scholars are on their side. Other scholars, such as Crossan, see Romans as Paul's (unknowing) last will and testament. The simple fact is that most scholars reject the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, despite some Wikipedians' attempts to keep this fact from appearing anywhere the letter is mentioned on English Wikipedia and simply attribute it to Paul. I am 100% certain that either John Blake was unaware of these facts because he is a blogger on faith-related issues for the CNN website rather than a scholar, or he was aware of these facts and deliberately left them out. He also leaves out the evidence Ehrman cites in favour of the (widely accepted) theory that 2 Timothy was not written by Paul. Basically, he seems to get his information partly or completely from Witherington's misleading blog. I don't even see any evidence that he read Ehrman's book -- is there something in there that is not in Witherington's blog but is accurate to what Ehrman wrote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a news blog. The objection that he quotes Witherington "uncritically" is just silly - that's what he's supposed to do. You could just as well object that he quotes Ehrman uncritically. StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No, my point is that he doesn't appear to have done the research. He quotes Witherington's (generally not widely accepted) rebuttals of Ehrman's pints, without actually quotin Ehrman's points, implying that the impetus for writing the blg was what Witherington wrote, not what Ehrman wrote, and perhaps even that he had not even read what Ehrman wrote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: As much as it pains me to say this, the blog appears to have it roughly right on the number of books Ehrman claims are forgeries. The "eight" figure you cite refers to books that are accurately attributed to a named author. Ehrman says eleven books (six pseudo-Pauline epistles, Jude, 1 and 2 Peter, Acts, and probably one other that escapes me at the moment) were forgeries (i.e., they were written by people who claimed to be someone else). The rest (including all four gospels) are anonymous. I haven't read Forged, which is why my numbering is kind of sloppy (I also don't know how Ehrman feels about John 21:24, or how Luke-Acts, which Ehrman has elsewhere called a single two-volume work, could constitute one anonymous work and one forgery), but this does not appear to be a contradiction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That said, Ehrman explicitly states that the four gospels are not forgeries, and his "false attribution" category would include all of the New Testament books that Ehrman believes were not written by Paul. Revelation was probably included in the canon because some people believed it was written by the beloved disciple, Hebrews was almost certainly included in the canon because some people believed it was written by Paul... there was nothing included in the canon that someone somewhere didn't claim was the work of an apostle, because that was the primary criterion used in antiquity. It seems highly unlikely that the author of the CNN blog understood this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The eleventh one is James. It took me a while to figure out where Acts fits in - Ehrman's point is that the "we" passages mean that the author is pretending to be Paul's companion, and so it fits in the "forgery" category. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I figured as much. I'm just curious if he addresses the elephant in the room that Luke-Acts is a two-volume work and so if Acts is a forgery then that would make Luke a forgery as well. Perhaps when Ehrman is writing or a lay audidence he doesn't address such issues, but that is hardly a critique of his scholarly credibility. (It's completely peripheral, but Martin addresses the "we" passages as I believe he may have used some kind of written document that was--that used the term "we" or sometimes an ancient text, I think sometimes a person would just insert themselves into the narrative to give it a more directness.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not gratuitous name-dropping

@StAnselm: Re this. I mentioned Ehrman's view because I'm not comfortable citing Pagels as saying that Ehrman's view is too narrow without acknowledging that Ehrman himself recognizes that Pagels's view is valid (I have not heard him mention Pagels specifically, mind you). But the source I was citing was Martin citing Ehrman and stating that the two were in basic agreement on the issue, so it seemed more appropriate to name my source inline. If you think it's too much detail on what in your view is a minor issue ... well, it's a scholarly position Ehrman has propounded and other well-regarded scholars have criticized him for, rather than simply a consensus viewpoint Ehrman summarized for a lay audience and some conservative evangelicals attacked him for (which is basically everything you have been arguing should be included).

Would you also be averse to me "name-dropping" Martin by citing his introduction to Ehrman's Shaffer Lecture where he says that Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture has changed how textual criticism has been taught and how several of his books (Historical Introduction, but also the historical Jesus book) are used as textbooks?

Even I don't particularly want to cite Martin's (likely tongue-in-cheek) comment that he has repeatedly won his arguments with Ehrman as Ehrman has moved gradually away from his fundamentalist roots, mind you. It's just another place where a well-regarded scholar teaching at a prestigious university is clearly to the "left" of Ehrman and has been for a long time...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK - just add Martin to the list of references with the textbooks sentence, but add the "changed how textual criticism has been taught" bit as a separate sentence somewhere. StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Ehrman has been the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America’s leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known". Wallace argues, however, that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." For example, Wallace asserts that Ehrman himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, but his popular writing and speaking sometimes makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem for getting to the original New Testament text.

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities. The textbook holds to a traditional interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas in the context of second-century Christian gnosticism, and has been criticized by Elaine Pagels for this reason.

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus, saying: "It is only by defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship." Michael R. Licona, notes, however, that "his thinking is hardly original, as his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship".

Gary Kamiya states in Salon that "Ehrman’s scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by “Misquoting Jesus.” Angered by what they took to be the book’s subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone. No less than three books were published in response to Ehrman’s tome". In 2014, Zondervan published How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature: A Response to Bart D. Ehrman as a companion volume to Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. According to the authors - including Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, and Simon Gathercole - Ehrman is "prone to profound confusion, botched readings and scholarly fictions."

Speaking to CNN, Rev. Guy Williams, a blogger and a Methodist minister in Houston said of Ehrman ""His take on the scriptures is a gift to the church because of his ability to articulate questions and challenges. It gives us an opportunity to wrestle with the [Bible's] claims and questions." Michael F. Bird observes, however, that "for conservative Christians, Ehrman is a bit of a bogeyman, the Prof. Moriarty of biblical studies, constantly pressing an attack on their long-held beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Bible". He notes, however, that "For secularists, the emerging generation of “nones” (who claim no religion, even if they are not committed to atheism or agnosticism) Ehrman is a godsend."

References

References

Comments

1. Thank you to MjolnirPants for putting this draft together. 2. I think the major part of Ehrman's reception should be the book-length responses. Something like this:

A number of books have been written by evangelicals directly in response to Ehrman. According to a review in Novum Testamentum, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" by Timothy Paul Jones (InterVarsity Press, 2007) was written "to reassure Christians disturbed by Bart Ehrman's text-critical conclusions".[1] How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature: A Response to Bart D. Ehrman (Zondervan, 2014) was published as a companion volume to Ehrman's How Jesus Became God.[2] According to the authors - including Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, and Simon Gathercole - Ehrman is "prone to profound confusion, botched readings and scholarly fictions." Ehrman responded on his blog by noting that the scholars criticized his book for theological reasons, but offered no alternative historical explanation.[2]

3. I understand people want to include non-evangelical criticism, but some of it seems rather nit-picky - the normal give-and-take of scholarly disagreement, rather than the broad criticism of approach and methodology that we have from the evangelicals. 4. We really shouldn't include Coogan, since it's just a book blurb. 5. Here is a reference (from CNN) that many of Ehrman's books have generated backlash.[3] StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. I didn't put the draft together. I just added to it. 2. I don't. That would paint an inaccurate picture of his reception by the public. There is a source right there in the draft showing that he's received an extremely favorable reception from atheists, which your focus on book-length criticism only would completely ignore. This really strikes me as a straightforward attempt at POV pushing, because there's no precedent nor good reason to only focus on book-length criticism unless you're trying to block out praise. Finally , I'm not done adding to it. All of Ehrman's awards properly belong in the reception section, not in the bio. I'll be adding those shortly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the source that says he's received an extremely favorable reception from atheists? StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Conner book. He says (in the ellipses in the quote I provided) "Ehrman has become a sort of bishop to the modern Atheist movement." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

6. These are very non-notable awards, and make the article a puff-piece. 7. I have created an article on Dale Martin. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think since the teaching awards are not national or international in scope, but institutional, they are probably not notable enough to include (notwithstanding, it's a great accomplishment still). FactChecker8506 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. He's usually introduced as the winner of those awards in debates and talks. Check out his youtube channel and try to find one where the host doesn't cite those awards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not bent on arguing to take it out if people think it's included.FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

8. The quote provided from Crossley does not say that Ehrman provides the consensus view, only that he has a stated desire to do so. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

True. He neither agrees or disagrees with Ehrman's statement to discuss consensus.FactChecker8506 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with expanding the positive reception. The teaching awards are not international but seem relevant. I see no reason to exclude them.

Likewise I see no reason to exclude Blomberg. His statements agree with Wallace but are hardly entirely duplicative. And his response is book-length.

It's inaccurate to attribute merely to "some evangelical scholars" Eherman's depiction of scholarly consensus. The simple fact is "the vast majority of textual critics are closer to Metzger than Ehrman" [4]. The related fact is Ehrman commonly suggests otherwise. Now: it's probably the case that evangelicals are pointing this out most often and most loudly :) But these are the facts. An accurate attribution would be "scholars". Cloudjpk (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source from a textual critic (preferably more than one) that says that (re: Metzger v. Ehrman). What does "closer" mean? FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect to "some evangelical scholars" - do you have an example of a non-evangelical scholar taking issue on whether he accurately represents general "scholarly consensus" in his popular books?FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been provided. Boyd could hardly be characterized as a radical fundamentalist :) The facts are: Ehrman repeatedly cites "the modern scholarly consensus" as agreeing with him. We have no sources that substantiate that. We have multiple sources that say otherwise. Can we move forward here? Cloudjpk (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What sources do you want to substantiate it? Ehrman's claims were published by OUP and other reputable academic publishers, and Dale Martin (who agrees with Ehrman on probably most of the important issues) repeatedly said in the YaleCourses lecture series I have referred to a bunch of times that these views are standard among scholars. Ehrman's textbook is the most widely used in North American universities, which should be evidence enough that his views are accepted within the scholarly community. You can say all you want that this is just two guys' opinions, but the same could be said of the conservative evangelical sources you keep namedropping (and even the textual critics you misattribute quotations to, who in reality agree with Ehrman). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I cited another blog which says that Ehrman is criticized as a representative for what most mainstream historical and textual critics to in all major US universities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to re-post; I'm not finding it. Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

See https://robertcargill.com/2011/02/18/i-stand-with-bart-ehrman/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.That's not quite what Cargill is saying. He excludes anyone teaching at a "Christian university, seminary, or school with the word 'Evangelical in the title"; those views don't count. That narrows it somewhat :) Of course, that's not the scholarly consensus; you don't get to redefine it that way. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So, when the Ehrman Project says "Ehrman", it often means "mainstream Bible scholarship". Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed the Blomberg quote above. He seems to be criticizing Ehrman for something Ehrman didn't say. In fact, in the Conner source, Ehrman says "Yes, I don't think there was ever any systematic attempt that was made from the upper echelon down to try and standardize the text, so it's not that bishops were saying that you need to change what this text says; it was individual scribes who for one reason or another changed the text." Furthermore, in Lost Christianities, on page 231, Ehrman writes "The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation." So there are quotes from Ehrman which directly contradicts the claim that he believes changes were made due to political concerns. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Blomberg is cited accurately. That is his characterization of Ehrman's position. I'm not sure it's up to us as editors to decide whether our sources were mistaken in their criticism. We check whether they're credentialed, accurately cited, etc.

And: we do find Ehrman saying things that sound like Blomberg's summary: "the books that [orthodox Christianity] accepted as Scripture proved the point, for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell the story as the proto-orthodox had grown accustomed to hearing it." (Christianity Turned on Its Head: The Alternative Vision of the Gospel of Judas). And "scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day." (Misquoting Jesus). It is true that Ehrman in the Conner source gives a milder view :) It is not true that Ehrman has never said things that can be summarized as Blomberg does. Cloudjpk (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk: Re the vast majority of textual critics are closer to Metzger than Ehrman Could you explain how Metzger's position is different to Ehrman's? Could you also explain the relationship between textual criticism (which is clearly what this quote is referring to) and canon formation (which is what the text you are trying to restore was about)? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we may be confusing two things here: excluding Blomberg, and accurate attribution of Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus. For the former, Blomberg is the only source I see providing criticism of Ehrman's claims on canon. If there is a better source I'd love to see it. For the latter, the question is whether it's merely "some evangelical scholars" who say Ehrman is not backed by "the scholarly consensus". From the same source (Metzger): "Consider that Bart is looking at the same evidence every other textual critic looks at. He’s “discovered” nothing new. Yet, HARDLY ANYONE goes to the extreme Bart goes to in his conclusions" (emphasis mine). In short, it is inaccurate to imply either that most scholars agree with him, or that only a few evangelical scholars have noted this fact. And accurate attribution would be "scholars". Cloudjpk (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, the comparisons between Metzger and Ehrman are widespread.[5] StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Although I find most of 'em facile. When we veer into Star Wars, something has been lost :) To be fair, it isn't easy to cover these things. Cloudjpk (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk: You haven't answered my questions. Please read and answer my questions, rather than just posting general comments loosely related to the topic we are discussing. Also, please refrain from attributing quotations to people who obviously aren't their authors, as you did with "From the same source (Metzger):". I will ask again: what is the relationship between textual criticism and canon formation, and what is the difference between the views of Metzger and Ehrman? Are you unable to answer these questions? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Now, I can understand why StAnselm would want to avoid the topic of canon formation entirely given that last time we discussed it he incorrectly (and no doubt embarrassingly) claimed that the list of NT documents was not decided centuries after the books themselves were produced and that this was a mistake "of Da Vinci Code proportions". That incident might explain why StAnselm immediately assented to my removing the text (before I had even proposed removing it, in fact). But why are you so reluctant to directly address the topic under discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hold your fire - if you're going to quote me from another page, at least do it properly: it was not the "list of NT documents" that I denied was "decided centuries later" but the distinction between canonical and non-canonical. StAnselm (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The list of what books are in the canon and (implicitly) what books are not is the distinction between canonical and non-canonical. You clearly confused what I was saying (the view of both Ehrman and Martin) with a view propounded in The Da Vinci Code that the four gospels were decided on at Nicea over a large number of equally ancient and still extant gospels. There were people at the end of the second century listing the four authoritative gospels as the ones in the present canon; the precise list of 27 books was apparently devised no earlier than the fourth century, not widely accepted for some centuries after that, and not universally accepted even today (see the Revelation of John and the Assyrian Church). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the page you link contains statements that are at odds with Ehrman's own autobiographical statements. Ehrman wasn't "raised in" fundamentalism (his family were episcopalian and he became born again in high school) and he hadn't developed a chip on his shoulder by the time he went to Princeton (it was after submitting a term paper at Princeton that the first chink in the armour developed). This is doubtless because either (a) the author misremembered, (b) the author is lying, or (c) the author is such a radical fundamentalist that even the Ehrman he met at Princeton was "edgy" in his view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Greg Boyd has ever been called a "radical fundamentalist" before... StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think he'd be vastly amused :) Cloudjpk (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As regards biography yes, it was in high school, Ehrman was not raised fundamentalist, I'd say Boyd has simply made a mistake here. But perhaps an example of one that's not critical. Boyd thinks Ehrman's early fundamentalism and how and why it changed is relevant, others have made similar inferences, and that's Boyd's point. That seems accurate. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure he would be amused ... until he realized no one called him a radical fundamentalist. I said this would be one possible explanation (though clearly meant as the least likely of the three I listed) of how someone could come to such a conclusion. Anyway, could the two start citing sources whose authors' names appear on the pages? Or at least stop condescendingly attacking me for not somehow intuiting the names of the authors? Nowhere on that page is its text attributed to Greg Boyd. I am sure there is some connection between the ReKnew website and Boyd that made it obvious to StAnselm that Boyd was probably the author of the linked text, but the fact that Cloudjpk named the author of the page as Metzger makes me doubt the obviousness of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another pertinent quote, this time from Salon:

But Ehrman’s scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by “Misquoting Jesus.” Angered by what they took to be the book’s subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone. No less than three books were published in response to Ehrman’s tome. While learned evangelical critics matched Ehrman Greek exegesis for Greek exegesis, the less erudite complained that he was an intellectual snob whose pedantic historical excurses had nothing to do with their living faith.

So the book responses certainly are significant. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's at least a third-party source. Perhaps we should seek similar sources, but of higher quality. Since the parties in this dispute will never agree upon whether evangelical criticism of Ehrman is fair. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether we think it's "fair" is actually irrelevant. Whether we think it belongs in the article, and how it should be included, and how much of it should be included, is more germane. I suspect we are actually all in agreement as to whether evangelical criticism is to a large extent general criticism aimed at modern critical scholarship, with Ehrman being a famous name frequently mentioned in association with the same. I think this is "unfair" because I think a lot of these objects of criticism are not things of which Ehrman himself has engaged in extensive research, but that's not really why I don't want it included in the article; I think it should not be included in the article because we would then either have to include every random piece of criticism Ehrman gets from evangelicals or arbitrarily pick and choose. We have a bunch of sources (from both Ehrman and others) that say fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals criticize Ehrman because his views conflict with their religious faith, and I think that should be enough.

That said, StAnselm and Cloudjpk's very obscure discussion style is making it difficult to assess what they actually think, so I may be misinterpreting them when I say "we are actually all in agreement".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have to arbitrarily pick and choose - we can be guided by what is stated and described in third-party sources: Misquoting Truth is reviewed in two top-level academic journals, How God Became Jesus is described in HuffPost, Witherington's criticisms are reported in CNN. etc. And no - the scholarly evangelical criticism is not aimed at critical scholarship in general, but at Ehrman in particular. For example, with textual criticism (and here is the difference between Ehrman and Metzger) it is not in the evidence that Ehrman offers, but in his conclusion - that he is essentially more skeptical than other scholars that the NT text we can deduce is substantially the same as what was originally written. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you present some evidence from Metzger himself that he differed from Ehrman in his conclusions? Ehrman seems pretty convinced that Metzger agreed with him. Ehrman probably knew more about Metzger's position on the issue than his critics, because he co-authored the book The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration with Metzger. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need an explicit disagreement from Metzger himself, if we have reliable sources comparing both their writings. Here, for example, is a suitable quote: "Unlike Metzger, who remained confident of our ability to reconstruct the earliest and most reliable form of the text, Ehrman presents a pessimistic picture of a hopelessly corrupt text." StAnselm (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been lots of interesting discussion and debates here. Where are we at? What are the major concerns still in comparison to the reception draft above? FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still unbalanced - perhaps more so than the text currently in the article. It does not reflect what third-party sources (Salon, HuffPost, CNN) say about how Ehrman's writings have been received. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the Salon article in the draft. FactChecker8506 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Also CNN FactChecker8506 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cloudjpk: @StAnselm: What are your thoughts on the draft now? Each paragraph seems to have both praise and critique from notable sources now. FactChecker8506 (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an improvement, obviously. I approve of quoting Witherington, but I thought that particular quote was a bit vague (and seems to be from the blog rather than the interview). Perhaps "A book liked ‘Forged’ can unsettle people who have no third or fourth opinions to draw upon" would be better. As I said above, I don't think the teaching awards belong - they are merely institutional, and in any case are "recognition" rather than "reception". Also, the Pagels criticism should be removed, as being normal scholarly critique of a single point, rather than broad criticism of approach. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have the same position regarding the teaching awards. Regarding Ben's quote, it's less powerful critique I think because he says "can" rather than "does" FactChecker8506 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, why do we have McGrath's book review? It seems only reason we've singled it out from all the other reviews of Forged is that it's positive. (Why not, for example, quote from Kruger's review, which was actually published in a journal?) In any case we are misquoting him: (a) he's not praising Ehrman for "introducing lay audiences to certain views that are widely held among NT scholars", and (b) he says "For the most part, the book presents mainstream scholarship's consensus on questions of authorship", which is a weaker claim than what people are suggesting here. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Another question: Is Crossley actually criticizing Ehrman for "constructing a neoliberal center in historical Jesus scholarship"? StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears Crossley could be praising him..."there is no better example than...' But I'm not familiar with his book to know for sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker8506 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The same could be asked of Licona's quote (which I put in): by saying his thinking is not original in his popular books, that is something Ehrman states as well...it's describing his work, not talking about how it's been received FactChecker8506 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman's textbooks (plural)

@MjolnirPants: Still working on re-locating the place where he called it the most widely used in North American (or possibly just US) universities. He says something close to it here (12:18~12:45), but of more concern here is the fact that Ehrman has published at least three textbooks that might be what Pagels was talking about (I'm pretty sure Ehrman's written at least one textbook on just the Old Testament as well), so I don't know if we should name the specific book unless we can find another source where Pagels specifically identifies it. Even checking all of Ehrman's textbooks to check that A Historical Introduction is the only one that says what Pagels says it says would be a weak form of OR. Including it in the same paragraph but saying something like "One of Ehrman's several textbooks, A Historical Introduction, is widely used. Elaine Pagels has criticized one of his textbooks." would be better under the circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, I didn't double-check the page history, but I'm pretty sure I saw earlier that you, MjolnirPants, were the one who put the name of the textbook in the Pagels sentence, which is why I pinged you. Sorry if this was in error. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC) )

I'm not sure if that was me or not. Either way, I've no objections to anything you said here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

In the video she says his NT introduction textbook says... which would be The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. His other NT textbook (A Brief Introduction to the New Testament) is the concise version of his main NT textbook. The final textbook he wrote so far is The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, which we can rule out from Pagels speech because it's not a NT intro.FactChecker8506 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Using the draft text

At this point, the draft text above has been edited extensively, and by everyone participating here. It has not, however, been edited in two days, despite continued discussion. Can we all agree that the current version of that draft makes us all unhappy, and so conclude it is the best sort of compromise? I can live with it, though I have my quarrels. If your initial response is "No", let me ask you to please give it a good re-reading, and some consideration. I would really like to be done with this. We've spent over a week arguing about this, and I'd love for all this arguing to finally produce some improvement in the article. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better than what's in the current article. FactChecker8506 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we're still waiting for FactChecker8506 to report back what's in the university library. We need to work out whether to include Crossley, and make sure the sentence is accurate. For my part, I'm happy to concede that Chatraw in JETS and the CNN blog will be omitted. But I think we still need to clear up disagreements about:

1. University awards
2. Report on book-length responses (perhaps a sentence or two after the Kamiya quote How God Became Jesus book
3. Pagels' criticism

We've debated these a bit - perhaps we resolve it by means of a straw poll. StAnselm (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to gather the review articles. Most academic articles I've read in the past include both positive and negative comments. Are they of necessity at this point, with what we included already? As for university awards, I would omit. For book length responses, I added two. Crossley's book is hard to follow at some points. I'm not sure who included the quote, perhaps they can shed some light. FactChecker8506 (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - I've done some more editing, and added a sentence about How God Became Jesus. So that's now the edit to decide upon here. StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The gist of the criticism is that Ehrman is "too center". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

But that certainly won't be obvious to the casual reader. StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It can be explained: too center, too establishment, too much consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

My vote is (1) exclude, (2) include, (3) exclude. StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) exclude; (2) yes to HGBJ; (3) I'm not up to debate on the Thomas debate to comment on this...FactChecker8506...I'll go with consensus on these matters though if more disagree than agree (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I started to look up information about Miguel Connor (to see if I could write a WP article about him) and he doesn't look at all notable - nor, in fact, does Bardic Press. Why should we include him in the section? StAnselm (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• (1) Include, (2) include, (3) include. I think the draft is far better than what's in there now, and I think if it has any problem it's that it is too short. I would also be interested to hear why StAnselm thinks repeated criticisms from a Princeton professor should be excluded -- does he think that Ehrman is too extreme in his "liberal" views and any criticism from the "left" of Ehrman is therefore fringe? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd made that clear - who said anything about "liberal" views? The statement says nothing about Ehrman is supposed to be "liberal" or "conservative". StAnselm (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman's dating of the Gospel of Thomas and classification of Thomas as a gnostic text are stances traditionally favoured by conservative scholars. The latter position is controversial enough among contemporary scholars that Ehrman, Martin and others who hold to it generally note that others disagree, and while Ehrman appears to be in the clear majority on the former issue, other notable scholars clearly disagree (and Ehrman considers their view worth noting). Unlike the majority of the material discussed in the redraft (and all of the material discussed in the current live version), this is an area of dispute among scholars, in which Ehrman himself holds to a particular position which is often associated specifically with him, one that he has argued for, and one that other well-regarded scholars who disagree with it specifically associate with him. (Well, Pagels at least has done so, as has Martin who agrees with it. I don't know if Crossan has done similarly -- if you can find a Crossan source where he does, then maybe we could replace Pagels with Crossan.) If you have stated why you think Pagels's view should not be included, I either missed that or have forgotten. If so, I apologize -- would you mind repeating yourself, or telling me when you stated your reason? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I don't think I've linked it already on this page, this is the Pagels lecture where she associates Ehrman's position that the text is a late (second century and/or post-Johannine), "gnostic" text with conservative old fuddy-duddies who were teaching in universities and seminaries when the text was discovered and who decided arbitrarily that it must be later than the canonical gospels just because it can't predate them, and it must be gnostic despite a complete lack of the trappings traditionally associated with "gnosticism" this just showed you how sneaky heretics are. She is very careful in this lecture not to explicitly name Ehrman, but elsewhere she clarified that Ehrman is the "professor in a state near here" she was very obviously alluding to. She rejects the gnostic classification, and while she doesn't say specifically that Thomas is early (she explicitly rejects Crossan's pre-Markan view) she does strongly imply that she thinks John is replying to either the Gospel of Thomas or some kind of Thomas-like Christianity. I'm sure one or more of her books have made it clear whether she dates the Gospel of Thomas before or after the Gospel of John. Elaine Pagels would almost certainly be considered a reliable source for the claim that Thomas's late date and gnostic classification are conservative positions, but since I am not arguing to put that in the article she doesn't even need to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

But the whole significance of the Pagels quote is that Ehrman's is the conservative position - that what makes it so interesting and significant. The thing is - it is not reasonable to expect the average reader to know that, and there is no indication in the proposed text that this is the case. What about:

Elaine Pagels criticized Ehrman for adopting a conservative position in The New Testament by interpreting the Gospel of Thomas in light of second-century Christian gnosticism.

I have not listened to the lecture - youtube is blocked at my institution - so someone would need to confirm that this is a fair summary of the Prince Lecture. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is I've watched that video a few times. Also, try googling "gnosticism today" or "modern gnosticism" and not finding Miguel Conner on the first page. I'm not sure he meets GNG, but he's still a prominent figure whose interviews with biblical scholars are used as references elsewhere on WP, and who has a big impact on gnosticism in popular culture today. He's also a (pretty crappy but decent selling, from what I hear) fantasy author. Remember that GNG doesn't apply to choosing sources; only to choosing subjects of articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that words like "conservative", "liberal", "left" and "right" are fine for the talk page where we can safely assume that we all understand what is meant, but because of the religious nature of the texts under discussion, words like "conservative" have a connotation of the religious right, when in this context all it is is a scholarly position that is more associated with the traditional establishment view. While the majority of scholars who are themselves politically conservative probably do hold to the same position as Ehrman, I think we should steer clear of words that might mislead our readers (most of whom are not reading what we write as carefully as we ourselves are). I don't know or particularly care about the political or even religious views of Pagels or Crossan (I think they are both Roman Catholics, for all that means), but Ehrman's outspoken contempt for the Tea Party movement and his statements about how he felt after the 2004 election incline me to think he is politically left-leaning, which makes me reluctant to actually include the word "conservative" in relation to a scholarly position he holds in the article itself.

On that note, I think a section on Ehrman's personal life and views on non-scholarly topics would also be worth adding, but I don't think that's likely to cause problems with WEIGHT like the reception section does, so we can deal with that once this is resolved.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I take your point, but the whole thing about including the Pagels criticism was that it suggested (rightly or wrongly) that Ehrman was more conservative than one might think. If we're not going to explain that to the reader, there seems little point in including her. StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the text a little.[6] How about this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. StAnselm (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Conner: he's not an expert ("prominent figure" is not the same thing), and the publisher is dubious. Note WP:RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It looks like neither, here. Which puts it on the same level as, for example, Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. As far as his interviews with biblical scholars being used as references elsewhere on WP, maybe that needs to be addressed. (I just removed the reference at Barbelo here. It was a weird non-reference marked "to be continued". In fact, there wasn't anything wrong in citing the Conner book there, since it was a contribution from an established expert that was (supposed to be) quoted.) StAnselm (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If I've followed the dicussion correctly it seems like the outstanding debate over the draft reception is the teaching awards. How do we resolve this one? FactChecker8506 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem so. I note the teaching awards are in the article already (in a different spot) - so they would stay there if we don't have them in the reception section. In light of that, I'm happy to concede their inclusion, and close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It's good to go for me also. FactChecker8506 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:With regards to Conner: he's not an expert ("prominent figure" is not the same thing), and the publisher is dubious. Ahh, so you're saying that Miguel Conner's book is not a reliable source for what Miguell Conner said in his book? Because that's what it's being used to source, here. We're not using it to source a claim in Wikivoice about Ehrman's biography, views or the merits of his work. We're using it to source Conner's opinion of Ehrman. Once again, I'm given the impression of a POV push (an inadvertent one, I think, but nonetheless): You're fine with using the criticism of non-historians who make unqualified statements about the views of historians (statements which are directly contradicted by a well-respected historian) to criticize Ehrman, but you're not okay with a prominent podcaster and author saying something nice about him? This section is sourcing a bunch of opinions, attributing each to it's source, and putting them all clearly in source voice. Sourcing for this (even if it is a BLP article, this is not BLP content) doesn't need to meet the same standards we would use to, for example, refer to Ehrman as a "discredited" historian, or to claim his work is "groundbreaking". If you want to get rid of questionable sources, then I'm afraid we'll have to eliminate all the theologians, and cite only historians. Which means Pagels, Dale Martin and... That's it. Maybe FactChecker can provide a few more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think theologians are questionable sources by definition, then you have a serious POV problem. Anyway - Conner is not an expert, so his opinion/evaluation of Ehrman is not significant enough to include in the article. If we compare him to Chatraw writing in JETS, Chatraw wasn't an expert either, but JETS is a reputable publication. (Yet we decided in the end not to include Chatraw!) So whether the evaluation is positive or negative doesn't have much to do with it. StAnselm (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Theologians are not experts on history, nor on what the consensus of historians is. Especially theologians who have sworn to uphold a position that is in direct contradiction not only to the historical consensus, but with disdain for the historical method as well. You can call that POV all you want, it's still not only policy, but accurate. If you want to include opinions of non-historians because they move in the same circles as Ehrman, then we include opinions of non-historians who move in the same circles as Ehrman, even when you don't agree with them. The section is called "Reception", not "Ehrman's credibility according to those who study the New Testament professionally for whatever reason and also have some sort of degree in a subject related to the study of the New Testament". Conner's quote directly addresses the question of Ehrman's reception in a way that few other quotes in that passage do. Of course, if you can find a source stating the opposite of what Conner said, then we can compare sources and choose the better one. If you can find a variety of sources stating the opposite of what Conner said, we can just drop Conner. Comparing Conner to Chatraw is a bit bizarre, as well. Not only does Chatrow still appear in the draft (contrary to what you just said), but the reason for excluding him that Hijiri88 gave and to which you conceded was that Chatraw stated in unambiguous terms things which we (and he, as he has stated the opposite elsewhere) know to be false, and used that as the basis of his criticism. He's an unreliable source even for his own views because he's contradicted himself. Conner hasn't contradicted himself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how I could have been any more clear and explicit - I said "Chatraw writing in JETS". That reference no longer appears in the draft. StAnselm (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, as an additional point - Conner said Ehrman is a "august and respected scholar of comparative religion." Quite apart from the adjectives, I can't find any other sources calling Ehrman a "scholar of comparative religion". That simply isn't his field. StAnselm (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It is true that Ehrman does not write on and does not research comparative religion. That is a whole different field different that is very different than New Testament studies/Early Christianity/Christian origins. FactChecker8506 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but did not think much of it. I attributed it to Conner using what he felt was a generic term (even though it isn't). His expertise on the subject isn't my concern, as we're not trying to attribute any statements about Ehrman's work (or NT Studies in general) to it. FactChecker8506, do you feel that Conner's inaccurate depiction of Ehrman's profession is enough to discount the entire quote?

StAnselm I've already pointed out a specific problem with just Chatraw writing in JETS, in that he contradicts himself and makes claims we have every reason to believe he knows are false. Whether he's used elsewhere doesn't really change that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me the Wallace quote about being a leading scholar in textual criticism that is already in the draft has more weight and is sufficient in place of Conner. Or it would be better to find a scholar say what Conner is saying for more weight (nothing against Conner, but he does not have much weight to me because he's not a scholar, but that's just my opinion...I could be wrong about what others think) FactChecker8506 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I posted that Conner also said "Ehrman has become a sort of bishop to the modern Atheist movement." (In the same book, indeed, in the ellipses in the quote I had added to the draft.) This is accurate (I could list his appearances on Atheist podcasts, blog entries about him in Atheist blogs and articles about him in Atheist periodicals, but that would take forever) and is not represented elsewhere in the section. It's also a big part of his reception by the general public. Would you object to including that quote? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because he's not a reliable source. (He's certainly reliable as to his own opinion, but neither the author nor the publisher would lead us to think that his opinion is significant enough for inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I wasn't asking you. I honestly don't care what you have to say to the question because you've already made your opinion clear, and because I don't believe your participation here is without an anti-Ehrman bias. So I asked FactChecker what they thought, and will proceed based on that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And to this we were so close to achieving consensus and closing the discussion. Looks like this will be heading for WP:DR. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on you, really. If FactChecker doesn't think we should use Conner for the last quote I provided("Ehrman has become a sort of bishop to the modern Atheist movement."), I'll live with that and go looking for another source. But if he does think that's okay, and you can't accept that, then yeah. We'll need to get some outside help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How about we add Michael Bird's comments in How Jesus Became God instead: "For secularists, the emerging generation of “nones” (who claim no religion, even if they are not committed to atheism or agnosticism) Ehrman is a godsend." FactChecker8506 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Or if we have too much of Bird already, we can pull something from here maybe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAhw2cVRVsA FactChecker8506 (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FactChecker8506, I adjusted your indentation for clarity, note the outdent template at the beginning of my last comment.

I'm good with the Bird quote. So long as the section says something about his appeal to secularists/Atheists. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:, @MjolnirPants:, @Hijiri88: Is the draft good to go now? If so, somebody post it :) FactChecker8506 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, all good. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)