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.

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!

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.

Originally posted by CodewordConduit

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

Originally posted by CodewordConduit

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.

I just hope that you do a better job against him than I'm expecting Licona to do next month.

Originally posted by The Curtmudgeon

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?

Originally posted by CodewordConduit

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.)

Originally posted by CodewordConduit

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.

Originally posted 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.

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.

Originally posted by MikeWright

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

"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

Originally posted 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?

Originally posted by MikeWright

But then hes one of atheisms top scholars and so you must rubbish him.

Please tell me your joking....

Originally posted 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.