![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
So, yeah. I found the quote. I trawled through everything on YouTube, and it turns out where I heard it was in a bootleg upload of this radio interview. I won't post the link to the YouTube video, but it's out there for anyone who wants to check the following quotation (a little over 90 minutes into the video). Ehrman said in response to a question (from Andy in Los Angeles) about how wide is his acceptance among mainstream theologians and researchers:
Right, so my views are pretty much in line with mainstream scholarship. I think what puts me apart is that I communicate what mainstream scholars are saying to a popular audience, and most scholars don't communicate with normal human beings [laughs; host interjects, laughing, "Exactly! They don't know how!"] Right, they don't know how. But in terms of mainstream scholarship, I'm not a radical at all. I wrote a textbook on the New Testament for college level students, and it's the most widely used textbook in the country. So, you know, what I'm saying is fairly standard stuff; it's just that it's the sort of stuff that most people have never heard of.
Now, whether citing a radio interview that doesn't seem to be easily accessible through legal means would be a violation of WP:V is a question that might need discussing if another source cannot be located to verify this statement, but it might also be worth discussing whether it is even necessary to include this statement if V is a problem; the fact that the textbook is used in Yale is verifiable, as is the criticism of it from a Princeton scholar.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and replaced the "Reception" section with the consensus version agreed to on this page. It looks like everything has been resolved. St Anselm ( talk) 08:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement on whether Category:Christian fundamentalists applies here. It's easy to see where the disagreement stems from. Ehrman is not currently a member of this category but in an earlier part of his life, that category would clearly have been appropriate. I don't believe there's a blanket rule that can apply here. Some categories are time-independent while others, e.g. "living persons" depend on representing a temporary category membership that will have to go away when the person no longer belongs to the category. What's the consensus? —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, Ehrman should not be categorized as a Christian fundamentalist. He may have been one as a teenager and a very young man, long before he became notable. But his notability has little or nothing to do with his long abandoned fundamentalism. Categories should describe defining characteristics of a person's notability, not the beliefs of a non-notable young man of many years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We do not typically make distinctions between current and former members of any group.Given the existence of a great variety of "former" categories, I don't believe that statement necessarily holds. But in the absence of a "former" category, the question is unaddressed by WP:CATEGRS and, without an acknowledged consensus, remains unresolved, not a matter where you can simply declare it to be one way or the other.
But, MjolnirPants, your response does not address the crux of the issue here.I'm afraid you have that exactly backwards. IS Ehrman a Christian Fundamentalist? If the answer is "no" (and it clearly is), then categorizing him as a CF is deceptive to the reader. Not WAS. Jesus was alive, does that then mean that we should tag that article with Category:living people?
Yes, I have terrible luck with notifications.Is there something different about the way you sign your posts? The signature being parsed from four tildes into the saved text seems to be the trigger that sends the notification. I didn't get the most recent one, either. Meanwhile, I did get a notification from elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We do not typically make distinctions between current and former members of any group." : besides the treatment in Categories, see also the Comment here below, headed Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 4#religion (denomination) in Wikidata - defining statement missing. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 10:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC) who comes to this discussion via WP:BLP/Noticeboard
I would not so categorize Ehrman. However, while his actual work with texts, such as translation, are far more often than not highly regarded across the board, his commentary is equally as often regarded as colored by his fundamentalist past. N.T. Wright puts it quite well when describing Ehrman as someone coming from such a rigid theological background who has learned to see religion and the evidence for it in very rigid, black and white, structures. While he has cast off the faith, he has retained the structure. This is particularly apparent in Ehrman's insistence in employing a contrapositive of the usually fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy, that since the Christian scriptures have even one discrepancy proves it is not the work of a perfect god. But this is not logical as, for example, there is nothing which precludes a god who is capable of working with such imperfections. So, in a sense, he is an anti-fundamentalist, which is itself a sort of fundamentalism. Even so, to call him as such would be misleading. 73.222.230.37 ( talk) 09:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
for the six people in the world who carewould be like that. And you should mind that for fundamentalists higher criticism is from Satan. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The statements included in the Wikidata item for Bart D. Ehrman presently include nothing for religion (denomination). Note that this statement can have a qualifier: end time (end date) to "indicate the time...a statement stops being valid" - and that there's a field for citing the valid source from which this verifiable information is taken. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
About: [3]: Craig A. Evans is OK (he is faithful but also a bona fide scholar). The other two authors are apologists of biblical inerrancy, and they fail as explained at i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’. I'm am not saying they are not notable, but they are not appreciated by the mainstream academia. In general, apologetics cannot be considered WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Seen the tagging of the article:
So, I don't see the reasons for tag bombing the article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record, 142.116.183.214 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is banned User:GoogleMeNowPlease. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Prof. Ehrman is the author of the following lecture courses.
Historical Jesus - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
New Testament - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament canon - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
The Great Controversies of Early Christian History - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
How Jesus Became God - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
After the New Testament: The Wrirings of the Apostolic Fathers - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
could someone add a new section after the bibliography, containing this information. I don't know the required markup code Zfishwiki ( talk) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the true evangelical response to Ehrman, not from biased hacks who can't tell the truth:
Responding to Bible Critic Bart Ehrman by Steve Gregg on
YouTube. Gregg says that most of the points from Ehrman's early bestsellers were known and broadly accepted by scholars since before Ehrman was born. And were known to all evangelicals who did not cover their ears singing La, la, la, can't hear you.
Conclusion: for educated evangelicals therein is nothing particularly new or disturbing.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
00:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Gregg says that Ehrman's acerbic fight against fundamentalist biblical inerrantism does not concern evangelicals, since for many decades evangelicals no longer believe in fundamentalist biblical inerrantism. According to Gregg, Ehrman's house is built on sand, i.e. upon the superstition of biblical inerrantism.
Drawing the line: evangelicals don't think that Ehrman is their enemy; Ehrman is the enemy of fundies, not evangelicals. Apparently, evangelicals see the fundies as bigots and the fundies see evangelicals as apostates. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.
— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
So, yeah. I found the quote. I trawled through everything on YouTube, and it turns out where I heard it was in a bootleg upload of this radio interview. I won't post the link to the YouTube video, but it's out there for anyone who wants to check the following quotation (a little over 90 minutes into the video). Ehrman said in response to a question (from Andy in Los Angeles) about how wide is his acceptance among mainstream theologians and researchers:
Right, so my views are pretty much in line with mainstream scholarship. I think what puts me apart is that I communicate what mainstream scholars are saying to a popular audience, and most scholars don't communicate with normal human beings [laughs; host interjects, laughing, "Exactly! They don't know how!"] Right, they don't know how. But in terms of mainstream scholarship, I'm not a radical at all. I wrote a textbook on the New Testament for college level students, and it's the most widely used textbook in the country. So, you know, what I'm saying is fairly standard stuff; it's just that it's the sort of stuff that most people have never heard of.
Now, whether citing a radio interview that doesn't seem to be easily accessible through legal means would be a violation of WP:V is a question that might need discussing if another source cannot be located to verify this statement, but it might also be worth discussing whether it is even necessary to include this statement if V is a problem; the fact that the textbook is used in Yale is verifiable, as is the criticism of it from a Princeton scholar.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and replaced the "Reception" section with the consensus version agreed to on this page. It looks like everything has been resolved. St Anselm ( talk) 08:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement on whether Category:Christian fundamentalists applies here. It's easy to see where the disagreement stems from. Ehrman is not currently a member of this category but in an earlier part of his life, that category would clearly have been appropriate. I don't believe there's a blanket rule that can apply here. Some categories are time-independent while others, e.g. "living persons" depend on representing a temporary category membership that will have to go away when the person no longer belongs to the category. What's the consensus? —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, Ehrman should not be categorized as a Christian fundamentalist. He may have been one as a teenager and a very young man, long before he became notable. But his notability has little or nothing to do with his long abandoned fundamentalism. Categories should describe defining characteristics of a person's notability, not the beliefs of a non-notable young man of many years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We do not typically make distinctions between current and former members of any group.Given the existence of a great variety of "former" categories, I don't believe that statement necessarily holds. But in the absence of a "former" category, the question is unaddressed by WP:CATEGRS and, without an acknowledged consensus, remains unresolved, not a matter where you can simply declare it to be one way or the other.
But, MjolnirPants, your response does not address the crux of the issue here.I'm afraid you have that exactly backwards. IS Ehrman a Christian Fundamentalist? If the answer is "no" (and it clearly is), then categorizing him as a CF is deceptive to the reader. Not WAS. Jesus was alive, does that then mean that we should tag that article with Category:living people?
Yes, I have terrible luck with notifications.Is there something different about the way you sign your posts? The signature being parsed from four tildes into the saved text seems to be the trigger that sends the notification. I didn't get the most recent one, either. Meanwhile, I did get a notification from elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
We do not typically make distinctions between current and former members of any group." : besides the treatment in Categories, see also the Comment here below, headed Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 4#religion (denomination) in Wikidata - defining statement missing. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 10:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC) who comes to this discussion via WP:BLP/Noticeboard
I would not so categorize Ehrman. However, while his actual work with texts, such as translation, are far more often than not highly regarded across the board, his commentary is equally as often regarded as colored by his fundamentalist past. N.T. Wright puts it quite well when describing Ehrman as someone coming from such a rigid theological background who has learned to see religion and the evidence for it in very rigid, black and white, structures. While he has cast off the faith, he has retained the structure. This is particularly apparent in Ehrman's insistence in employing a contrapositive of the usually fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy, that since the Christian scriptures have even one discrepancy proves it is not the work of a perfect god. But this is not logical as, for example, there is nothing which precludes a god who is capable of working with such imperfections. So, in a sense, he is an anti-fundamentalist, which is itself a sort of fundamentalism. Even so, to call him as such would be misleading. 73.222.230.37 ( talk) 09:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
for the six people in the world who carewould be like that. And you should mind that for fundamentalists higher criticism is from Satan. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The statements included in the Wikidata item for Bart D. Ehrman presently include nothing for religion (denomination). Note that this statement can have a qualifier: end time (end date) to "indicate the time...a statement stops being valid" - and that there's a field for citing the valid source from which this verifiable information is taken. -- Deborahjay ( talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
About: [3]: Craig A. Evans is OK (he is faithful but also a bona fide scholar). The other two authors are apologists of biblical inerrancy, and they fail as explained at i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’. I'm am not saying they are not notable, but they are not appreciated by the mainstream academia. In general, apologetics cannot be considered WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Seen the tagging of the article:
So, I don't see the reasons for tag bombing the article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record, 142.116.183.214 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is banned User:GoogleMeNowPlease. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Prof. Ehrman is the author of the following lecture courses.
Historical Jesus - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
New Testament - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament canon - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
The Great Controversies of Early Christian History - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
How Jesus Became God - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
After the New Testament: The Wrirings of the Apostolic Fathers - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication - The Great Courses, The Teaching Company
could someone add a new section after the bibliography, containing this information. I don't know the required markup code Zfishwiki ( talk) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the true evangelical response to Ehrman, not from biased hacks who can't tell the truth:
Responding to Bible Critic Bart Ehrman by Steve Gregg on
YouTube. Gregg says that most of the points from Ehrman's early bestsellers were known and broadly accepted by scholars since before Ehrman was born. And were known to all evangelicals who did not cover their ears singing La, la, la, can't hear you.
Conclusion: for educated evangelicals therein is nothing particularly new or disturbing.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
00:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Gregg says that Ehrman's acerbic fight against fundamentalist biblical inerrantism does not concern evangelicals, since for many decades evangelicals no longer believe in fundamentalist biblical inerrantism. According to Gregg, Ehrman's house is built on sand, i.e. upon the superstition of biblical inerrantism.
Drawing the line: evangelicals don't think that Ehrman is their enemy; Ehrman is the enemy of fundies, not evangelicals. Apparently, evangelicals see the fundies as bigots and the fundies see evangelicals as apostates. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.
— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)