Talk:Bart D. Ehrman/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Ehrman's textbook is "the most widely used textbook in the country"

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)

We normally require third-party sources for claims like this, no matter how much of an expert the subject may be in his field. StAnselm (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we need a third-party source to say that he made the claim. If "we need a third-party source" was always your concern, why did you wait for me to find the exact source? I said up-front that it was Ehrman making the claim himself.[1][2] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I completely forgot -- I was never even saying that we should include the claim in the article! I just made the claim on the talk page, and you asked for my source. I don't need a third-party source for my own opinion that I state in a talk page discussion. Normally I wouldn't even need any source. You have not cited any sources for your own opinions, like that Ehrman's isn't the most widely used textbook. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd also point out that it's extremely disruptive to demand properly formatted inline citations for a statement made on a talk page in defense of an edit to the article that didn't require any inline citation (as all I did was remove an UNDUE claim), and then when such a source is presented to start nitpicking about how third-party sources would be preferable for inclusion in the article as though anyone was proposing this. I combed through about twenty hours of video to find the above quotation (I did it mostly on my phone and iPod while going for walks, mind you) because you asked for it, and I was upfront that I knew it was a response to a listener's question at a lecture and so would probably be insufficient to add the claim that his textbook is the most widely used to the articld in Wikipedia's voice. Are you just trying to waste my time at this point? My understanding of the issue, which has informed my article edits and talk page comments, is that Ehrman wrote he most widely used NT undergraduate textbook in the United States. This understanding is based on a claim Ehrman himself made in a radio interview, but as far as I know it has not been disputed anywhere. Only two mainstream university professors have been cited in this dispute, onw of whom certainly uses Ehrman's textbook and agrees with just about everything in it, and the other of whom either uses it despite problems she perceives with it, or doesn't use it because it is too conservative in its views of certain issues regarding non-canonical texts' dating and classification. Your view appears to be that Ehrman's is not the most widely used NT undergraduate textbook in the United States; this view appearsto be nothing more than your opinion, as in two weeks you have not cited any sources, third-party or otherwise, to support it. If you have a source that contradicts my one, and is somehow more reliable than a radio interview with the subject himself (i.e., it went through any kind of fact-checking, peer review or editorial process whatsoever), then I would be glad to reconsider my view on the matter in light of whatever evidence you can present, but at this point it seems unlikely that you have read such a source or will be able to find one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The draft currently says, "Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities". Are you suggesting that this statement doesn't go far enough and should be changed? StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course not. That is the opposite of what I am saying. If you are not going to read my comments, then I would ask that you stop pretending you have. I would also appreciate it if you would stop going out of your way to make the rest of us waste our time in order to appease your every whim, like when you asked me to locate a source for an opinion I stated on the talk page. If you are not going to cite sources for your opinions, then I do not need to cite sources for mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus reached

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. StAnselm (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad we all produced something better by consensus! FactChecker8506 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Categorization as Christian fundamentalist

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)

Pinging possibly interested editors: 86.45.226.161 — Dimadick — MjolnirPants:  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WP:CATEGRS doesn't give any help. Category:Former Christians has only national subcats, not denominational ones. I notes, however, that he is in Category:American former Protestants. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Posted at WP:BLPN. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The group ping didn't work, at least not for me.
Look, people change. The ultimate, normally-unachievable goal of WP is to produce articles which are definitive and stable. But with BLP's, that's impossible even in theory. But there is one goal of WP that we can uphold with these: Verifiability. Any reader who comes along and looks at that category is not going to be able to check a few (or even all of the) references and find anything similar to "Bart Ehrman is a Christian Fundamentalist." The only thing they will find is Fundamentalists criticizing him for his lack of faith and secular findings, Ehrman criticizing them as lacking humor, overly judgemental and unintelligent ("Fundamentalist: No fun, too much damn, and not enough mental."), and Erhman explaining why he's no longer one.
I can understand the argument. Categories of people, who are nebulous by definition, shouldn't be expected to change on a whim. We're not going to remove the category of "scientists" from a scientist when he retires. But this is a bleedingly obvious exception to that heuristic. Bart Ehrman is a "Happy agnostic." To categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist is downright deceptive. We're not going to deceive our readers to satisfy our desire to follow what seems to be the rules, but as pointed out above, aren't actually. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:34, 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)

(edit conflict)

Yes, I have terrible luck with notifications.
But, MjolnirPants, your response does not address the crux of the issue here. You do not acknowledge that, in the body of the article, Ehrman is identified as having once been a Christian fundamentalist. That's why the issue of the former membership in a category remains an issue. Nobody is saying that he currently is a Christian fundamentalist. If there were such a category as Category:Former Christian fundamentalists, would you object to that category being placed on this article?
I think it's Dimadick who made the comment: 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.
For my part, I would say it's unnecessary to apply Category:Christian fundamentalists to Ehrman's page and propose that we may be able to form a consensus around that.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
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?
If there were a Category:former Christian fundamentalists, that would be accurate. I would have no objection. But that is not the category being proposed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Regarding "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
  • Here from BLPN - categories (when applied to living people) which have a clear scope like this can only be applied to people who are currently members of that category. Categories should also not be used to label living people whose situation is too complicated for a simple label. Is Ehrman a christian fundie? The answer is a clear no so he cannot be categorised as one. There *should* be a category applicable to him and Christian Fundamentalism, because of his extensive writings/research in the area. (Category:Christian fundamentalism?) But that may be more applicable to a wikiproject. (Is there a fundie WP?) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Yup, his trade books are anti-fundamentalist by design. But that does not mean that his academic original research for the six people in the world who care would be like that. And you should mind that for fundamentalists higher criticism is from Satan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

religion (denomination) in Wikidata - defining statement missing

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)

Criticism

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)

Neutrality, independent sources and such

Seen the tagging of the article:

  • his own academic credentials are not in doubt, so who wrote about these is irrelevant;
  • his deconversion from fundamentalist to atheist is relevant and should be kept;
  • his books get described by one or two-liners: it is a fact that he wrote those books and that those books are widely used in universities or very popular; I don't know how we could have an article about him without mentioning his books;
  • his appearances on Colbert Report and such are facts; I'm not completely sure if these have to be mentioned, so I say look to good articles about other academics in order to find out if this is established practice inside Wikipedia;
  • the reception part is definitely sourced to others, mostly his critics.

So, I don't see the reasons for tag bombing the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither do I.Smeat75 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not sure what the tags apply to. Ad Orientem, can you explain what these tags apply to specifically? Your statement in the previous section is fairly vague. We kinda need more actionable concerns to justify all those tags. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I removed the contested tags. —PaleoNeonate – 04:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Support, as there seems to be a general feeling that way and as they are indeed vague.Achar Sva (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the tags.Smeat75 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Dodging ban

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)

Lecture courses

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)

Belated reply: Wikipedia articles are not CVs. We don't list everything he did. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
tgeorgescu Somebody had added this to the article anyways (I guess way before your comment), so I've removed it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Evangelical response to Ehrman

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bart_D._Ehrman/Archive_4&oldid=1172279364"