Thoughts on this guy? It seems like half the people that know who he is hate him, or at least call him a liar, but I've yet to see any actual falsehood that he's ever published. I have next to no frame of reference when it comes to scholarship so I can't tell without external works... Is there actual controversies surrounding this man, or are all his "critics" just the people he criticises unable to give real answers? I've tried to find books that try to answer his, and from the sinopsis and the way they're talked about, they're all seemingly focused on the theological implications as opposed to calling him a liar... but then turn around and call him a liar, despite never pointing out lies. I don't get it. Give me a straight answer, is he saying the truth or not? Are his books reliable sources of information?
>>24681190>is he saying the truth or not?No, not in the petersonian sense.
I have heard biblical scholars complain that his books written for laypeople sometimes oversimplify specific points for the purposes of presenting a cohesive narrative, but these points of contention may be too esoteric for most readers to comprehend anyways. I have also heard complaints that, while he represents the consensus of NT scholarship, the consensus he represents is slightly conservative and not up-to-date with modern developments. All of this may be due to said scholars seething that he is bringing critical analysis of the Bible to the public's eye, which apparently is something that many people do not like for whatever reason.Obviously evangelicals and born again 4christians will bitch because he, along with every biblical scholar in the last 300 years, says that the events in the NT did not take place word-for-word, but the man has a doctorate in theology and has taught at UNC for decades, so you can decide for yourself whether he's legit or not.Now the real question is, who's the Ehrman of the OT?
Good books, all those who say otherwise are butthurt christcucks who can't refute him
He presents academic consensuses in a sensationalist way to sell books
>>24681190This is your second Ehrman thread fag. Why do you feign ignorance to shit the board up with christfag threads?>sinopsisFreudian slip for you pal.
>>24681324>All of this may be due to said scholars seething that he is bringing critical analysis of the Bible to the public's eye, which apparently is something that many people do not like for whatever reason.Why are scholars like this? Surely the whole point of their job is to bring more education to the public.
>>24681190He’s made a living by popularizing the mainline theories of Biblical criticism. Almost everything he says about the Bible’s text and its origins is just flatly true, and there’s no real way around it. Some people think this is theologically unsound, some people think you can ponder it away. Maybe you can, idk. I’m not up on theology.>>24681324No shit, I went to one of his classes at UNC. It was his final lecture of that semester, and the classes are open to the public. I lived in Chapel Hill for a few years after college. On the class’s request he discussed why he isn’t a Christian anymore. Gave us the whole deal on his theological journey, etc. He said he couldn’t get over the problem of evil and it finally broke his faith.
>>24681324Basically to get published in a lay press and appear in Borders or Barns and Noble you have to be edgy and anti-Christian. Now it’s ok to be a historian and come up with un orthodox views about Jesus the historical figure don’t felt me wrong but this guy made his primary career pandering to the left wing atheist crowd that started as rebellious anti-Reagan youths that hated the old people of the 80s and into the 00s with the new atheist types.The main issue with Ehrman is he is more interetddd in the edgey thesis being argued than presenting the truth. The case in point is Jesus Apocolyptic prophet of the new millennium. The title is exactly what you expect a publisher to want around 1999. The thesis is partly 30 years out of date and partly 10 years out of date but he presented it anyway bc it shifts units to normies. And he then did more and more of these types of edgy thesis despite KNOWING BETTER about where current scholarship was and what was honest to his reader.White and Fredrickson being much better and more honest presentations of NT scholarship. Ehrman is also pretty entertaining as a speaker and did do a good text book of the field. He’s just not an honest guy when he’s not writing for an academic journal. He’s chasing a bag
>>24681668What's edgy about understanding Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher? That's been the de facto perspective in academia for a long time now as far as I'm aware. It's hardly a controversial title, either. Does the edginess come into play because he's the first to present these ideas clearly to normies? Are you a butthurt academic who looks at Ehrman's books like we look at Rothko paintings, thinking "I could've done that and made all that money?"
>>24681688You got filtered and you’re probably a retard
>>24681688see >>24681520
>Ehrman presents academic consensus to the general public>this is somehow a bad thing>this is somehow an unreliable thing
He gets owned and criticised for being dishonest very regularly.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iaQ_b20wns
>>24683042>god actually doesn't want for people to know what his commandments are okay????
>>24681668>. The case in point is Jesus Apocolyptic prophet of the new millennium. The title is exactly what you expect a publisher to want around 1999. The thesis is partly 30 years out of date and partly 10 years out of dateWhat's out of date about it? Genuinely asking, but that was my understanding as well. (haven't read the book, going by the title alone)I mean Jesus was definitely an apocalypticist if we go by the gospels, one of the first things he says is that the time has been fulfilled and all that... Jesus claiming to be a porphet is also not controversial... new millenium because we date the millenium after him... I don't get it. What's out of date here?
>>24683552Thr whole notion of Jesus being an "apocalyptic" prophet is misguided at best. We have his words, precisely. We know what he meant. It was a metaphor.
>half the people that know who he is hate him, or at least call him a liarOnly seething assmad christians do desu
>>24681190I looked up criticism of this guy and came across thishttps://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/a-conversation-with-chatgpt-about-bart-ehrman,1738.htm
>>24685884>a-conversation-with-chatgpt-about-bart-ehrman,1738.htm
>>24681957be nice, tao
>>24683552Jesus the Catholic/protestant/orthodox version was certainly a guy with apocolyptic messages in his ministry but was also doing a lot of other things and the Messiah bit was the important one. The NW scholasticism is attempting to use the Bible and figure out what Jesus was if you only use evidence that is ‘credible’. Ie, a priori the miracles are thrown out. They also use 3 criterion to determine if biblical claims are likely true or false. Very basically:1. Is it embarrassing for Christians (like the women being first to the empty tomb, since women are stupid gossips it’s damaging to the credibility that the people who saw it empty are women. 2. Does it make sense given the era it was written. for example, in an extreme sense, Jesus talking about an iPhone isn’t credible. This applies to things to regarding Jewish thought and tradition of the era. If Jesus was ranting about speaking truth to power and respecting pronouns we’d know it’s fake because it wasn’t an idea a 1st century Amorite would have. 3.multiple attestation: how many people said it from differnt sources. The thesis of APotNM is that Jesus was a crazy homeless guy ranting about the imminent end of the world, which can be extracted from the Bible but BART sort of waves away the exorcisms and the teachings that were pretty radically against current Jewish teaching, such as love your neighbor. And don’t stone people over minor infractions of the law etc. he also has to explain why Rome would crucify a homeless looney etc etc. The field has long since left this behind and focused on Jesus as an exorcist/healer. Jesus as a Jewish irredentist. To put it lightly the Apocolyotic prophet just requires to much cherry picking and waving away and broad interpretation to make work and was more interesting as one of the first critical attempts to find a ‘real’ Jesus that lead to more credible explanations of Jesus teaching.
>>24686518>the teachings that were pretty radically against current Jewish teaching, such as love your neighborLoving your neighbor is/was a fundamental teaching of the Torah. Israelites were supposed to treat anyone in their land as one of their own, and refrain from doing unto them what they would not want done unto themselves. This is attested to throughout the OT, in the Mosaic laws and in the teachings of the prophets. In fact, I've heard it argued that this is one of the key beliefs that set Israelites apart from other societies of the time. Now, did people follow this rule during the time of Jesus? No, hence His teaching to do as the Pharisees say, but not as they do. Jesus' teachings got to the heart of the Mosaic laws and uncovered their underlying morals, thus interpreting them in a more universal sense, but in general, none of Jesus' teachings were radically against the morals of Hebrew society at the time.
>>24686518>BART sort of waves away... ...the teachings that were pretty radically against current Jewish teaching, such as love your neighborMore recently Bart has written a book (not yet available to buy) arguing that Jesus may have more or less invented/popularized altruism in the west, at least in the sense of a truly universalised (among humans) self-sacrificing effort to care for others.https://ehrmanblog.org/the-origins-of-altruism-my-next-book-as-it-stands-now/I'm not sure how he squares that thesis with the story of the non-Jewish woman who is called a dog and expected to beg for crumbs though.
>>24686604 (cont.)It's actually funny that Christians would think of him as anti-Christian when, imo, for a well-studied non-believer, he's about as sympathetic as they could hope for.
>>24686630>>24686557>>24686518I don't see why he couldn't be both?Guy who says the world will end soon but also does some exorcisms in the meantime?
>>24686630>for a well-studied non-believerhe's an apostate, which is way different from merely being ignorant
>>24686630He’s not sympathetic. The problem of evil is old meme and doesn’t do anything to historical analysisz he’s also knowingly spreading bad info
>>24686604Well you see he really is allowed to cherry pick facts that defend his latest thesis and ignore ones that work against it . It’s his critical method I think is bad/dishonest. The APofNM is just an example
>>24688767>The problem of evil is old memethis is like saying the earth being round is an old concept and therefore invalid
>>24688774not him but I still don't get how anything said ITT is an argument agaisnt jesus being an apocalyptic prophet.at best you can say that there was more to him than that, but even modern christians from the catholic propaganda department (i mean this in a kind way) outrght say christianity isn't concerned about making things better because what's the point if it'll all end soon, and that's in modern times, when it serves them to downplay this as much as possible because "2025+ years ago a guy said the world will end any minute now" isn't a great selling pointhttps://youtu.be/oQwsla0ljrY?feature=shared&t=363 (6:03)
>>24688767name 1 book where he mentions the problem of evil anywhere else than the prefice where he just gives some background on himself
>>24681190>daily Ehrman thread>same pretense of just asking questionsWhat’s your game christfag? How can you be this assblasted by the most lukewarm textual criticism there is? Why are you deathly afraid of what any good seminary teaches?
Here's a video of him getting ownedhttps://yewtu.be/watch?v=053M39xjK68and here's a video where his jewish masters does as his masters tell him to and promote islamhttps://yewtu.be/watch?v=4pbyhxdiMOU
