Talk:Bart D. Ehrman

What Changes

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

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

Major Themes

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

Questionable Passage

Is this needed? See quote:

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

Also, this seems pretty loaded:

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

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

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

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

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

--brichert; 12:45, 9 March 2008

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

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

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

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

Change to Colbert Report Piece

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

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

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

Biography

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

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

.

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

Additional information is available...

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

Lead

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

---

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

Criticisms?

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

tooMuchData

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

tooMuchData

22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

•     *    *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview transcript

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

Notable ideas

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

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

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

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

Ehrman concludes (as many scholars have in the past) that the text originally ended at verse 16:9 and that none of the endings were original.

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

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

observation and question

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

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

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

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

POV edits, expanded lede

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

Ehrman partisans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appearances and Interviews

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

Major themes of his works and useful terminology

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

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

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

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

Denomination

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

Argument from Evil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish?

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

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

damning citation?

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

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

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

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

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

Bart Ehrman defines himself as a historian

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

Unusual Text Critical Method

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

Citation Needed

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

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