Refuting Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" - TheologyWeb Campus
TheologyWeb Campus TheologyWeb Campus


Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.




*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.

Reply

Refuting Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted"
View First Unread
jpholding is offline
jpholding Approaching #20
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Toonist  |  Yankovic Party  
Posts: 16,361
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1033 | Anti-Spam: 3535
Pearls: 1462
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 02:53 PM
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.tektonics.org/ezine/ijindex.html

I've just started this new project as an extension of the subscription E-Block. For convenience here's an account of why, from the above link:

**

Over the years, Bart Ehrman has produced several books; a couple have been relatively non-controversial, but most have not. In those that have provoked controversy, there has always been an underlying lack of forthrightness in the way Ehrman conducts his business.

In some cases Ehrman has abused his authority as a popular author to address topics on which he is not an expert. God's Problem is a classical full-text example of this; Ehrman is not a philosopher and has no business addressing the "problem of evil." In other texts, Ehrman has ranged outside his specialty field (textual criticism) to comment on matters on which he is (compared to other Biblical scholars) badly informed, such as theology and Biblical exegesis. And even when it does come to his specialty, he has repeatedly been dishonest to the extent that he fails to tell the "whole story." This is especially disgraceful inasmuch as a clear dichotomy can be found in how he presents the truth in his more academic works, versus how he presents only as much truth as he wants readers to see in his popular works.

With Jesus, Interrupted Ehrman has stepped far over the line of intellectual honesty and decency, using his platform as a popular author to disseminate much that he surely knows is incomplete and misleading information. The benefit of the doubt is now exhausted. Despite his pretense at scholarship, Bart Ehrman has proven himself, by this book, to be someone not in the least interested in truth, but only in using whatever means are necessary to deconvert as many Christians as possible.

For this reason, I have elected to present as a special edition of the E-Block a thorough refutation of Jesus, Interrupted. Yes, there is also the factor that as predicted, many Skeptics are practically wetting themselves over this one, though it contains nothing new and nothing that has not been refuted before, especially on this site. But primarily, it is Ehrman's lack of intellectual honesty that is the problem here. He is abusing his public trust, and so a response is warranted which publicly shames him for his despicable absues of that trust in Jesus, Interrupted.

***

Despite Ehrman's lack of forthrightness, I'll be keeping the usual academic tone I have in the E-Block so far. He doesn't deserve it, but he'll get it. In this book he has descended to the level of offering "Bible contradictions" of the sort Dennis McKinsey would use, and that's a disgrace. He also presents "problems" that he knows have been analyzed in great depth by scholars, and overwhelmingly ignores their analyses.

One of these days soon maybe I'll be able to do things like this in book form at lightning speed too.

 
  Letterman: gym debate particpant - Issue reason: eats atheists for breakfast Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: May 2006 Alumnus    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     

http://www.tektoonics.com

Due to rampant stupidity by Skeptics, and time issues, I'm only going to be on TWeb in my own (tektonics.org) section from now on. Deal with it.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pumbelo is offline
Pumbelo tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian (other)  |  Conservative  
Posts: 1,108
Join Date: November 20th, 2008
Spam: 3 | Anti-Spam: 87
Pearls: 204
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 03:54 PM
 
 
 
 
Ehrman should publicly debate this topic with someone who actually has credentials when it comes to things like this.
He tried it all the time and failed miserably.
Wallace and Swinburne showed that he has no clue what he is talking about. And so did WLC when he pointed out that scholars actually use probability theorems to determine the probability of events (who would have guessed?).

I say we should ask, let's say, N.T. Wright to humiliate Bart. Maybe he will learn.

By the way, I demand an Ehrman cartoon!

 
    tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
CodewordConduit is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
Female  |  AgnosticAtheist  |  Selfish  
Posts: 1,595
Join Date: February 8th, 2009
Spam: 352 | Anti-Spam: 314
Pearls: 387
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 04:03 PM
 
Last edited by CodewordConduit : March 17th 2009 at 04:05 PM .  
 
 
Reason: clarity
Just a quick one really.

If a person's argument is reasonably tight, logical, sourced adequately etc then surely it doesn't matter what qualifications they have?
(This is not in reference to Ehrman's work, it's just in general)

This isn't an attack, before everyone straps on their feisty boots, I mean it to apply to everyone regardless of belief.

 
  Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: October 2009 Alumnus    tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
The Curtmudgeon is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Conservative  
Posts: 6,823
Join Date: January 28th, 2003
Spam: 3928 | Anti-Spam: 1041
Pearls: 62
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 04:37 PM
 
 
 
 
Just a quick one really.

If a person's argument is reasonably tight, logical, sourced adequately etc then surely it doesn't matter what qualifications they have?
(This is not in reference to Ehrman's work, it's just in general)

This isn't an attack, before everyone straps on their feisty boots, I mean it to apply to everyone regardless of belief.
The problem is that for most people, once they step outside their area(s) of expertise, they don't know what a "reasonably tight, logical, sourced adequately etc" argument is. It's especially that last part -- sourced adequately -- that becomes most suspect for a person arguing above their pay-grade: They may have real trouble identifying which sources are adequate and which are blowing smoke themselves. The constant tendency is to rely on sources which agree with a position that the argue-er espouses, regardless of how poor or ill-informed the arguments in that source might be. And when the argue-er has a particular agenda to push, as Ehrman has repeatedly given evidence that he has, then it's unlikely in the extreme that he's going to spend much time researching contrary (to his beliefs) evidence.

No doubt, there are people who (when talking in an area that isn't their specialty) try to do fair and reasonable analysis of all the data, pro and con, before presenting their viewpoint. They're not all that common anymore.

The (after all, if there's no absolute standard of truth, then there are no absolute facts) Curtmudgeon

 
  Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: March 2008 Alumnus    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
The Reverend Earl Curtmudgeon the Sanguine of Frogging over Womble. (Peculiar Titles)

Let a man, an arrow, and an answer each go straight. Each is his own witness. God is judge. - Eastern proverb, as quoted in Hira Singh: When India Came to Fight in Flanders by Talbot Mundy

It was an idea that possessed every advantage except clarity, elegance, and a demonstrated connection to reality. - The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinkski

...If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. - What's Wrong with the World by G. K. Chesterton

"And we can take nothing out of the world. Is not that true?" "Is it not that we can take everything worth the taking?" - Zimiamvia: A Trilogy by E. R. Eddison

Thanx, JPH, for the avatar. Thanx, Muz, for the new tag-line. Thanx, Kelp, for the AotM nomination.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 

The following tWebber says Amen to The Curtmudgeon for this useful Post:
Pumbelo is offline
Pumbelo tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian (other)  |  Conservative  
Posts: 1,108
Join Date: November 20th, 2008
Spam: 3 | Anti-Spam: 87
Pearls: 204
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 04:46 PM
 
 
 
 
If a person's argument is reasonably tight, logical, sourced adequately etc then surely it doesn't matter what qualifications they have?
Correct. But Ehrman has no credentials in this field, no experience, no desire to be truthful, an obvious agende and, most important: he has no case.

JP might have a spoiled dog instead of a Ph.D. but that adds nothing to the table.

But if the argument is a joke and one pretends credentials (Why does a picture of Carrier hugging Rook Hawkins from the RRS come to my mind right now?), dishonesty and a delusion of grandeur become part of the picture, which is hardly desirable.

 
    tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Rayado is offline
Rayado preterist club charter member
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  San d'Oria  
Posts: 4,591
Join Date: May 20th, 2003
Spam: 7038 | Anti-Spam: 554
Pearls: 120
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 04:56 PM
 
 
 
 
I just hope that you do a better job against him than I'm expecting Licona to do next month.

 
  Letterman: gym debate particpant - Issue reason: debate warrior:  it is reasonable to believe that the Christian God exists. Department Head: is somewhat mighty! - Issue reason: Mild-mannered Fidei Defensor Chess Club: contest winner - Issue reason: contest winner, not a loser Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: October 2006 Alumnus    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
CodewordConduit is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
Female  |  AgnosticAtheist  |  Selfish  
Posts: 1,595
Join Date: February 8th, 2009
Spam: 352 | Anti-Spam: 314
Pearls: 387
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 05:15 PM
 
 
 
 
The problem is that for most people, once they step outside their area(s) of expertise, they don't know what a "reasonably tight, logical, sourced adequately etc" argument is. It's especially that last part -- sourced adequately -- that becomes most suspect for a person arguing above their pay-grade: They may have real trouble identifying which sources are adequate and which are blowing smoke themselves. The constant tendency is to rely on sources which agree with a position that the argue-er espouses, regardless of how poor or ill-informed the arguments in that source might be. And when the argue-er has a particular agenda to push, as Ehrman has repeatedly given evidence that he has, then it's unlikely in the extreme that he's going to spend much time researching contrary (to his beliefs) evidence.

No doubt, there are people who (when talking in an area that isn't their specialty) try to do fair and reasonable analysis of all the data, pro and con, before presenting their viewpoint. They're not all that common anymore.

The (after all, if there's no absolute standard of truth, then there are no absolute facts) Curtmudgeon
Yeah, except if a non-scholar can note that a scholar is composing an incorrect argument within a field he isn't qualified in... Doesn't that assume that the non-scholar making the claim knows enough about the subject being commented on to say that X isn't qualified to comment and that his argument is invalid?

 
  Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: October 2009 Alumnus    tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
jpholding is offline
jpholding Approaching #20
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Toonist  |  Yankovic Party  
Posts: 16,361
Join Date: January 27th, 2003
Spam: 1033 | Anti-Spam: 3535
Pearls: 1462
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 05:24 PM
 
 
 
 
Just a quick one really.

If a person's argument is reasonably tight, logical, sourced adequately etc then surely it doesn't matter what qualifications they have?
(This is not in reference to Ehrman's work, it's just in general)
I like to use the analogy of Mr. Spock here.

Mr. Spock has his logic, but he never makes a decision until he looks into his little viewfinder. All the logic in the world won't help him until he gathers his data.

Ehrman's arguments are not sound in the main because he does NOT source adequately or present/collect data.

Other arguments of his, though, are logical failures as well. He is especially good at the non sequitur so far in this book....

I make issue of his qualifications mainly because they ARE good and he SHOULD know better than to address topics outside his expertise -- where he knows very well that he doesn't have enough data. (Or worse -- maybe he does know, and doesn't care.)

 
  Letterman: gym debate particpant - Issue reason: eats atheists for breakfast Alumnus of the Month: AotM vote winner - Issue reason: May 2006 Alumnus    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     

http://www.tektoonics.com

Due to rampant stupidity by Skeptics, and time issues, I'm only going to be on TWeb in my own (tektonics.org) section from now on. Deal with it.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
sc_q_jayce is offline
sc_q_jayce I'm sorry, but. . .
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Conservative  
Posts: 2,054
Join Date: March 7th, 2006
Spam: 1804 | Anti-Spam: 241
Pearls: 455
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 05:29 PM
 
 
 
 
Yeah, except if a non-scholar can note that a scholar is composing an incorrect argument within a field he isn't qualified in... Doesn't that assume that the non-scholar making the claim knows enough about the subject being commented on to say that X isn't qualified to comment and that his argument is invalid?
No.

Suppose a famous WWII historian is on Jeopardy and the question is
"This year was the year Hitler died."
And the man says "What is 1944?"

You, being the arm-chair watcher, seethe at this information and exclaim "1945, you dolt!"

Now after getting the question wrong, Alex Trebek gives the answer as 1945 and you can watch the historian's cheeks grow super red as he realizes he just made a stupid error and knew better.

In this case, who is the greater authority on WWII?
In this case, does the armchair man "correcting" the scholar make him more authoritative?

To summarize: a non-scholar who notes that a scholar composes an incorrect argument may do so if it is clear that the scholar is using a logical fallacy or making a factual error without disputing the authority of the scholar over the non-scholar (assuming that the scholar can own up to the mistake). Both forms of corrections can cast doubt on a claim of a scholar without requiring any educational background on the non-scholar's behalf.

 
    Quiner Member tWebber  
     
Run, don't walk.

The Quest of Coming Together
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 

The following tWebber says Amen to sc_q_jayce for this useful Post:
MikeWright is offline
MikeWright tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  afairyist  |  Liberal  
Posts: 179
Join Date: May 1st, 2008
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 6
Pearls: 221
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 06:54 PM
 
In reply to this post by Pumbelo
 
 
 
Ehrman should publicly debate this topic with someone who actually has credentials when it comes to things like this.
He tried it all the time and failed miserably.
Wallace and Swinburne showed that he has no clue what he is talking about. And so did WLC when he pointed out that scholars actually use probability theorems to determine the probability of events (who would have guessed?).

I say we should ask, let's say, N.T. Wright to humiliate Bart. Maybe he will learn.

By the way, I demand an Ehrman cartoon!
Bart ehrman has debated nt wright Infact he spends a lot of time debating xians which is odd considering he is as dishonest as you lot claim. But then hes one of atheisms top scholars and so you must rubbish him. So will you be writing an equally scaving review of NOT Wrights latest book (which from what i can see without buying it is a clasic case of using the bible to prove the bible) No. Not because NT Wright doesnt lie or isnt dishonest (in fact moreso than bart ehrman) but because he supports your preconcieved ideas.

 
    tWebber  
     
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
seanD is offline
seanD the economic tsunami cometh
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Independent  
Posts: 4,089
Join Date: December 25th, 2008
Spam: 6 | Anti-Spam: 2777
Pearls: 282
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 09:27 PM
 
 
 
 
It's strange the route Ehrman has taken. I wonder how this will affect his debating skills? From what I hear, he would always deflect theological darts from his opponents with: "well, I'm an historian, that isn't my field." I bet Christian debaters are salivating now, in hopes to get a piece of Ehrman now that he's open himself up to a theological beat down with no defense.

 
    tWebber  
     
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
aikidoka is offline
aikidoka tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Conservative  
Posts: 276
Join Date: July 16th, 2006
Spam: 9 | Anti-Spam: 6
Pearls: 460
 
Old
  March 17th 2009 , 09:27 PM
 
 
 
 
Bart ehrman has debated nt wright Infact he spends a lot of time debating xians which is odd considering he is as dishonest as you lot claim. But then hes one of atheisms top scholars and so you must rubbish him. So will you be writing an equally scaving review of NOT Wrights latest book (which from what i can see without buying it is a clasic case of using the bible to prove the bible) No. Not because NT Wright doesnt lie or isnt dishonest (in fact moreso than bart ehrman) but because he supports your preconcieved ideas.
Well Lemming boy, it appears you didn't read the description of that book well or either review.

But thanks for informing me of another good book to add to my wish list

 
    Quiner Member tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
BronzeArcher is offline
BronzeArcher Have knife will cook
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Canadian  
Posts: 965
Join Date: January 7th, 2004
Spam: 1254 | Anti-Spam: 179
Pearls: 326
 
Old
  March 18th 2009 , 10:05 AM
 
 
 
 
"This is especially disgraceful inasmuch as a clear dichotomy can be found in how he presents the truth in his more academic works, versus how he presents only as much truth as he wants readers to see in his popular works."

Really? Academic Ehrman criticizes Popular Ehrman? o_O

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
"To put it simply, if you love God above all others, you will love others as yourself." - Covenant Heart
Psalm 38:15 "For I hope in Thee, O LORD; Thou wilt answer, O LORD my God."
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Pumbelo is offline
Pumbelo tWebber
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian (other)  |  Conservative  
Posts: 1,108
Join Date: November 20th, 2008
Spam: 3 | Anti-Spam: 87
Pearls: 204
 
Old
  March 18th 2009 , 10:26 AM
 
In reply to this post by Rayado
 
 
 
I just hope that you do a better job against him than I'm expecting Licona to do next month.
The resurrection-debate reloaded?

 
    tWebber  
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Andius is offline
Andius ¡¡¡ARRIBA ESPAÑA!!!
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Semi-Austrian  
Posts: 1,396
Join Date: December 15th, 2008
Spam: 290 | Anti-Spam: 130
Pearls: 270
 
Old
  March 18th 2009 , 10:29 PM
 
 
 
 
But then hes one of atheisms top scholars and so you must rubbish him.
Please tell me your joking....

 
    tWebber  
     
Lieutanant and High Servant of Mighty Lord
Manwë Súlimo. Bow down infidels! Submit to the greatness that is the Lord and Master!


Music buff, and JP's private singer for his parodies. http://www.youtube.com/user/ClipsdeAndius?feature=mhw4

" The beauty of the Internet is that distances between people don't matter at all. And the beauty of prayer is that distances mean even less. God sees you where you're at and He knows exactly what you need, when you need it, how you need it, and even before you know you need it. " - Manwë Súlimo
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 
Apologia Xristou is offline
Currently Unavailable
 
Male  |  Christian  |  Conservative  
Posts: 283
Join Date: January 26th, 2004
Spam: 0 | Anti-Spam: 253
Pearls: 505
 
Old
  March 19th 2009 , 01:38 AM
 
In reply to this post by Pumbelo
 
 
 
The resurrection-debate reloaded?
That is correct. Ehrman and Licona will be debating concerning the resurrection once again. This time they will be debating at Southern Evangelical Seminary located in Charlotte (more accurately, Matthews just outside of Charlotte), North Carolina.

 
    Charter Member Quiner Member tWebber  
     
"But when you have the truth, everything fits.”—E . R. Punshon, Information Received




“We don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”—G.K. Chesterton

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”—The Declaration of Independence


The Humanist Manifesto I states:

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.”

“For God’s sake let the children have their minds kept open—close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them. Make the distinction between theology and science. Let them have both. Let them both be taught.”—ACLU Attorney Mr. Dudley Field Malone at the Scopes Trial (1925)[1]

[1] Dudley Field Malone, quoted in William Hilleary and Oren W. Metzger, eds., The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (Cincinnati: National Book Company, 1925), 187.
 
 
  Reply With Quote
Click Here for Post Options
 

« Previous Thread   |   Post New Thread   |   Next Thread »


 
Forum Jump  

Page generated in 0.71924 seconds with 14 queries