Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:34 pm And if he made a mistake? What? He's human? His study of Didymus is great. I'm ok with small mistakes.
Did you ever think that the two scholars (Larry Welborn and Clare Rothschild) who pointed out and discussed Ehrman's "small mistake" in a published journal were, along with the peer reviewers and editors, being petty and making an ado about nothing but a mere "typo"? Did you think they were putting Ehrman on the same level as a von Daniken or whoever? Do you think Welborn and Rothschild and their editor and peer reviewers should have stayed quiet because it was an inconsequential typo that scholars presumably make all the time?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by neilgodfrey »

And one more little detail, SA -- did you notice how those two (Welborn and Rothschild) actually went about discussing Ehrman's quite serious blunder in their eyes -- critical but maintaining a level of personal respect. That's another little detail you might want to add to your thread listing a set of proposed rules for discussion.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

Did you ever think that the two scholars (Larry Welborn and Clare Rothschild) who pointed out and discussed Ehrman's "small mistake" in a published journal were, along with the peer reviewers and editors, being petty and making an ado about nothing but a mere "typo"?
But what are you trying to get 'out' of attacking Ehrman? That's the part I am wondering about. Why the attack on him in particular? My guess is that it has something to do with his case against 'mythicism' - right? If that's the case what does carelessness show 'prove' or 'suggest' about Ehrman's attitude toward mythicism? That he hasn't studied it very carefully? Probably true. That Jesus never existed because Ehrman didn't double check his research? Probably not.

I have the same issue with Ehrman's attitude toward the question of whether Morton Smith forged the Letter to Theodore. I know from personal contact with people who have engaged with him on this issue that he's really not sure either way but 'decided' to tacitly accept the possibility it was forged. Do I agree with him? No. Do I think he should be tarred and feathered and driven out of academia because he doesn't agree with me. No. Why? Because I wasn't raised as a fucking mentally retarded fundamentalist. I can live with people not agreeing with me on marginalia like mythicism and the Letter to Theodore.

Do I think that religious scholarship is 'important'? No. Do I think that making 'mistakes' or 'being sloppy' jeopardizes the stability of the universe? Of course not. It's a kind of useless field that doesn't have real relevance for society at large unless - and I am sure we will disagree on this - the question of social order comes up. I can see how believing in a 'good God' fearing a 'punishing God' can help a society run smoothly and effectively so I am not hostile to religion. My attitude here is whatever works. If belief in love and fear in punishment helps prevent social collapse I am all for it.

I don't think mythicism is an important question in the study of Christianity. I am sure that Ehrman shared my sentiments when he wrote his poorly researched and sloppily fact checked book. Obviously we disagree about the importance of mythicism.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:40 am But what are you trying to get 'out' of attacking Ehrman? That's the part I am wondering about. Why the attack on him in particular? My guess is that it has something to do with his case against 'mythicism' - right? If that's the case what does carelessness show 'prove' or 'suggest' about Ehrman's attitude toward mythicism? That he hasn't studied it very carefully? Probably true. That Jesus never existed because Ehrman didn't double check his research? Probably not.
I think, and Neil please correct me if I'm wrong, it is because Ehrman is one of the most publicly recognizable scholar, and so his screw ups, bad research, etc. are much more visible and create bad standards for other people just entering the academy or getting a view of scholarship to follow. It is not to do with whether or not Jesus existed, but to do with the fact that Ehrman, as one of the most accessed figures to the public, and therefore his carelessness impacts how people perceive academia, and also impacts the integrity of the field. When people dissect his poor research... they also lose faith with the field.
Because I wasn't raised as a fucking mentally retarded fundamentalist. I can live with people not agreeing with me on marginalia like mythicism and the Letter to Theodore.
Yeah, your ableist rhetoric, constant bullying, and antagonistic demeaner isn't giving anyone the impression that you can "live with people not agreeing" with you.
Do I think that religious scholarship is 'important'? No.
Not sure what you mean, but if you think the study of religion isn't important... well... I'm sure all the actual scholars currently working for social organizations, or even being hired by organizations like the CIA, FBI, and more to help them study and understand religious groups they want to investigate... like the study of religion has had a huge impact on helping the public to foster understanding of their fellow humans, and has impacted more than just that. For instance, James George Frazer's Golden Bough has influenced incalculably the way that literary and popular perception of religion and death functions in European nations. It heavily impacted for instance the films Excalibur by John Boorman, Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola, the writings of Lovecraft, one of the most famous poems of all time The Wasteland by T. S. Elliot... and then it was heavily influential on Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces... which... you know... became the theoretical framework for some of the most impactful fiction and societal products of all time, like Star Wars. Its impact alone makes it important. This statement:
It's a kind of useless field that doesn't have real relevance for society at large unless - and I am sure we will disagree on this - the question of social order comes up.
Is just wrong. It is relevant to practically every part of society. To art, literature, film, social order, social and individual psychology, philosophy, to science (as it often informs how we think and conceptualize what is or is not scientific to begin with), politics, international relations, community, etc. And historically, the study of religion has had an impact on every single one of those things and more. I'd argue it is possibly one of the most practically useful and important fields of study in the world, on par with hard sciences. So yes, you are write, I will certainly disagree with you on this.
I can see how believing in a 'good God' fearing a 'punishing God' can help a society run smoothly and effectively so I am not hostile to religion.
Yeah... because that has been going super smoothly as of late. The "good God" and "punishing God" thinking definitely did help Christians smoothly colonize the world and destroy other cultures in the process. And all those places definitely run very smoothly and effectively to this day... we definitely didn't nearly end up in Civil War on January Sixth in no small part because of people who endorse this thinking.
I don't think mythicism is an important question in the study of Christianity. I am sure that Ehrman shared my sentiments when he wrote his poorly researched and sloppily fact checked book.
I mean I actually agree on the former part... but no one writes a whole book on an issue they don't find important... he obviously found it important and pressing enough to write the book.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

When people dissect his poor research... they also lose faith with the field.
But these are minor points and in a non-academic publication. Why does this lead people to 'lose faith in the field'? There aren't many people who have faith in the study of the Bible. If you're religious you mostly want it to 'prove' the Bible is infallible. If you're irreligious there is a tendency to prove that religion is stupid or dismissible.
Yeah, your ableist rhetoric, constant bullying, and antagonistic demeaner isn't giving anyone the impression that you can "live with people not agreeing" with you.
Sure. Run to your safe space. A disagreement. Sound the alarm.
Do I think that religious scholarship is 'important'? No.
I am not allowed to say that I THINK that religious scholarship isn't important. Ok just let me know what I can say and not say.
I can see how believing in a 'good God' fearing a 'punishing God' can help a society run smoothly and effectively so I am not hostile to religion.
So I am not allowed to say that I THINK religion did a pretty good job of establishing social order? Or that social order was its primary function when encouraged and enable by the state. It's like I have to check in with fringe characters like you to make sure I am able to have or not have beliefs.
I don't think mythicism is an important question in the study of Christianity. I am sure that Ehrman shared my sentiments when he wrote his poorly researched and sloppily fact checked book.
I am not understanding. This was a book written for a popular audience about a contemporary 'social phenomenon' that was primarily promulgated among marginal researchers aiming at non-academics. Why, if Ehrman thought it was nonsense would he devoted great energies to combat mythicism? I am just saying it would be tactical mistake on his part. The mythicists would be shouting victory if that happened.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

They aren't minor. If they were minor points, Rothschild and Welborn wouldn't be upset about it. And neither would mythicists being misrepresented, or other scholars who have routinely criticized Ehrman for these kinds of blunders and general poor scholarship.

And, even if your (reductive) take on those interested in religious studies was true, Ehrman making these blunders only gives fuel to both sides. The infallible camp get proof that scholarship is useless against the Bible, which is not true, and the irreligious get fodder to dunk on those they think aren't critical enough of religion.

And for those who are not in either camp, but are just generally interested in biblical studies, they get the impression that this shoddy pop book is what passes for academics.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

As I am friends with Rothchild on Facebook I will ask her how much sleep she lost over this. Get back to you soon.
Rothschild and Welborn wouldn't be upset about it
"Upset" this is what academia has devolved into or what rabble rousers want everything to degenerate into. It's why accused Neil of wanting to foster anarchy. We're supposed to be maintaining a level of objectivity. Our feelings aren't supposed to get 'hurt' in any of this. To use the language of yesterday it is supposed to be unmanly to speak in emotional terms while engaging in an abstract discussion. This sissy-ish appeal to emotive terminology. Chris whatever you are. Can you stop with the crybaby language? This is a fucking totally unimportant discussion about the non-existence of a 'figure' presumed to be historical until about until 5 minutes ago. This should not and in any sane world COULD NOT be something that evokes emotions FROM ACADEMICS. I get religious people's anger. But really isn't this just a parlor game, a conversation you have in bar? Does anyone really believe that the non-existence of Jesus is every going to be PROVED? I mean you might get scholars in the future to agree that he might not have existed. But this should hardly be something that elicits pathos out of atheists. Have we devolved into apes and bears? It must be my lack of intellect but I don't see how we're going to ACTUALLY PROVE that Jesus didn't exist.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Objectivity is a myth, is unachievable, and what even counts as "objective" is dependent on the observer. You think objectivity excludes emotional reaction. Others would disagree. Objectivity is not tangible or real, and is malleable both in concept and application. Scientists, historians, and Biblical scholars often used "objectivity" as an excuse to sideline and ignore Feminist, Queer, Post-colonial, and other critical approaches to their own field and render them unimportant. Sara Parks comments on this in her article "The Brooten Phenomenon" which is freely available to read online. When you can prove objectivity is feasibly possible to achieve, let me know. Because it certainly hasn't been used in any meaningful way in any fields that I'm aware of. Let's just ask biologists about the history of their field and just how "objective" it has been... because it hasn't been.

If it is unmanly to use emotional terms while engaging in abstract discussion, then maybe what is "manly" is too emotionally fragile to have abstract discussions. Your statements don't exactly make objectivity look good... just conceited and fragile and oddly male-centric. It is "unmanly" to not be "objective" and appeals outside of this are "sissy-ish" and "crybaby language."

Also reading through this entire discussion... it was never about the non-existence of Jesus at the start. Neil started this to discuss Ehrman's academic practices. It was about Ehrman being bad at his job. And no one was emotional about it until you got on here and started getting clearly and visibly upset that we were criticizing Ehrman for not doing his job as an "objective" scholar. You have been actively trying to make it about this in a desperate attempt to make the discussion unimportant and therefore get Ehrman off the hook. This discussion was about how his academic practices are bad. You are the one who made it an emotional diatribe, not us. And now you are claiming we are the problem which is... just hilarious.

Rothschild and Welborn are not unobjective to be upset about this. Righteous upset can still be objective, and no one here has been unobjective in noting that Ehrman is sloppy. So far, the only unobjective person is you... the one who seems so desperate to make this inconsequential and a "non-problem" that you are trying to red herring Ehrman out of criticism by making this about mythicism... when this discussion was always about his academic practices. And doing so by increasingly belligerent and bullying language... which shouldn't be coming from an "objective" individual to begin with.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

Objectivity is a myth, is unachievable,
This is why I am here. This is why I waste my time engaging with people who don't believe in objectivity. If there is no such thing as objectivity this is just the worst and most pathetic kind of power grab. I believe that objectivity is possible. I think it's possible when I discuss things with people in my personal life and I believe it here. Whether it be whether or not we can prove that Christianity existed before the fourth century (we can) or whether or not certain ideas are stupid and unworkable (there are both stupid and unworkable ideas) I think that there is value in continuing to remind people or in fact learn first hand myself, how much objective learning is possible.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Bart Ehrman -- another instance of not reading what he cites

Post by Secret Alias »

Scientists, historians, and Biblical scholars often used "objectivity" as an excuse to sideline and ignore Feminist, Queer, Post-colonial, and other critical approaches to their own field and render them unimportant.
OK I've been trying to avoid this issue because it's a no win for a straight guy. But I for one HAVE investigated topics like homosexuality in antiquity among other things. The fact that you are someone who (a) doesn't believe in rational objectivity or (b) the importance of at least pretending that it might be possible, it makes having a discussion about homosexuality or any of the other things you mention more difficult than it should be. While I am not homosexual I can at least in theory understand 'sexuality' and then OBJECTIVELY 'apply' general rules of thumb about sexuality to what it must be to be homosexual or having homosexual longing(s). I don't know if we can prove that being homosexual makes more authoritative than a person who has studied and researched homosexuality achieving a doctorate in homosexual studies or whatever the modern terminology is. Sure there are certain visceral experiences which are priceless. But the idea that every one in gay bar knows more about 'queer history' than a straight guy who graduated with a PhD in queer studies is incredible. I am Jewish but know absolutely nothing about the study of Jews in Poland beyond a few isolated 'factoids.' I know what it's like to 'be Jewish.' I've experienced Jewish experiences. But I don't consider myself an authority on modern Judaism. I don't know that 'being black' necessarily makes one an expert on the American black experience to the point that you can correct someone with a PhD. I don't like this sort of logic at all. It's almost anti-intellectual.
Post Reply