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.
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 »

Baarda was another guy like that. I befriended him. Arabic Greek Latin to write a monograph on the Martyrium Marci. Different league. Like a different species of human being.
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 »

Chris Hansen wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:34 pm
Ehrman's book is just simply a case of an established scholar, who has become so accustomed to his status that he no longer feels the need to credibly write, cite, or read on his own field. He treats his status as automatic authority, so he only has to cite secondary scholarship a handful of times, rarely carefully, and almost exclusively in the English language. And it is the kind of authority that comes only with him being an old, well-established, white, cis-male scholar (as numerous colleagues of his in the field of NT studies have lately been noting).

Hence why I do not recommend any of his books. I find them more misleading of the current developments in the field.
Amen. Touché. Ehrman's Jesus Before the Gospels is purported to be a study of Jesus through "memory", presumably thinking it was his contribution to the current interest among Jesus scholars in "memory theory" -- about which much has been published. Ehrman's treatment of "memory" did not engage with any scholarship on memory theory from my recollection, and one would not even be aware of how "memory theory" is applied by his peers to Jesus. If a layman wrote it, it would be relegated to the remainders or never be accepted by any serious academic publisher.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 am Has Neil ever published anything?
What does that have to do with anything? (And why not ask me? I'm right here, you know.) What is your point?
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amIt's one thing to broadcast 'ideas' because 'ideas' are never wrong. The footnotes in a peer reviewed article! The formatting!
And as I pointed out in my original post, it is one thing to make technical errors like a mis-citation notice (wrong number, wrong date, issue, etc) but it is quite another to attribute an idea to a person who one might even say argues the opposite, and more than that, to misattribute the name of one Ehrman should know as having some major significance in the scholarship on 1 Clement.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amThe truth is I am eternally grateful to all my reviewers who rejected the dozen or so papers I've tried to publish over the year. I admit it. They were right. I was wrong. In everyone of those papers were mistakes.
Agreed, and that's exactly what the peer reviewers should have done with Ehrman's book -- pointed out to him the error of a name that is well-known in 1 Clement studies before it got published.

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amThank god I am not Ehrman whom (I would assume) editors assume 'knows what he is talking about.'
Which was the point of my post: never trust a citation in any work, always check it for yourself. Ehrman is not the only scholar who has become lazy and below average over time.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amBut it is amazing how inaccurate our memories become as we get older. I assume things which aren't true or were remembered incorrectly. Just the facts of life. Has no bearing on our worth as thinkers. At least I hope so. Maybe that assumption is a product of cognitive decline too.
If Ehrman is suffering from the onset of early dementia then that's all the more reason reviewers to check his work competently before it is published. If I made a mistake like the one Ehrman made -- and it is only one example I cited to demonstrate Ehrman's problem is not confined to the mythicist discussion -- I would expect to be severely censured by my peers and obliged to publish an apology and correction.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:30 am And is Ehrman being 'unfair' arguing on behalf of Jesus's existence? Seems to me it's a reasonable position. It's not 'unreasonable.' He didn't 'arrive' at that position by 'manipulating the evidence.' He might have made a 'mistake' here or there. Not sure that you need to manipulate the evidence to the degree that mountainman does on a daily basis to arrive at his conclusions. Jesus exists is the position we all started with. It's like chocolate. Growing up we all thought chocolate was better than vanilla. We used to think vanilla was 'plain' = no flavor. Now the kids prefer vanilla over chocolate it seems. I had to adjust my inherited presupposition that chocolate was 'universally recognized' to be better than vanilla. One of many.
SA, this is not about mythicism. Ehrman's error had nothing to do with mythicism. Please get over your hangup about mythicism. I posted it as one more example of a reason we should never trust citations of a scholar no matter how distinguished he is but always check for ourselves. I posted another instance just above re his attempt to jump on the "memory theory" bandwagon currently popular in some HJ circles.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:13 pm This isn't to attack Neil. But I grew up knowing like the best professors. They'd have almost nervous breakdowns at the completion of papers so detailed and exacting was the process. Like this guy Boid, I. R. M., Principles of Samaritan Halachah (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol 38), Brill Academic. He really only published one thing. But I remember talking with Schiffman. He was like "I remember that book. It began with thanks to his ex wife." But how was the scholarship? "Top notch." Writing monographs are exhausting and financially unrewarding.
"This isn't about Neil But!" ?

What did you make of Ehrman's attempt to dismiss mythicist authors on the grounds, according to Ehrman's mind-reading, were only doing it to make money selling books? After that, look at Ehrman's webpage and try to tell anyone Ehrman is running a bookselling enterprise to make money.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 am Has Neil ever published anything?
What does that have to do with anything? (And why not ask me? I'm right here, you know.) What is your point?
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amIt's one thing to broadcast 'ideas' because 'ideas' are never wrong. The footnotes in a peer reviewed article! The formatting!
And as I pointed out in my second post, it is one thing to make technical errors like a mis-citation notice (wrong number, wrong date, issue, etc) but it is quite another to attribute an idea to a person who one might even say argues the opposite, and more than that, to misattribute the name of one Ehrman should know as having some major significance in the scholarship on 1 Clement.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amThe truth is I am eternally grateful to all my reviewers who rejected the dozen or so papers I've tried to publish over the year. I admit it. They were right. I was wrong. In everyone of those papers were mistakes.
Agreed, and that's exactly what the peer reviewers should have done with Ehrman's book -- pointed out to him the error of a name that is well-known in 1 Clement studies before it got published.

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amThank god I am not Ehrman whom (I would assume) editors assume 'knows what he is talking about.'
Which was the point of my post: never trust a citation in any work, always check it for yourself. Ehrman is not the only scholar who has become lazy and below average over time.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 9:35 amBut it is amazing how inaccurate our memories become as we get older. I assume things which aren't true or were remembered incorrectly. Just the facts of life. Has no bearing on our worth as thinkers. At least I hope so. Maybe that assumption is a product of cognitive decline too.
If Ehrman is suffering from the onset of early dementia then that's all the more reason reviewers to check his work competently before it is published. If I made a mistake like the one Ehrman made -- and it is only one example I cited to demonstrate Ehrman's problem is not confined to the mythicist discussion -- I would expect to be severely censured by my peers and obliged to publish an apology and correction.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:13 pm This isn't to attack Neil. But I grew up knowing like the best professors. They'd have almost nervous breakdowns at the completion of papers so detailed and exacting was the process. Like this guy Boid, I. R. M., Principles of Samaritan Halachah (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol 38), Brill Academic. He really only published one thing. But I remember talking with Schiffman. He was like "I remember that book. It began with thanks to his ex wife." But how was the scholarship? "Top notch." Writing monographs are exhausting and financially unrewarding.
Okay... I don't see how this is relevant to Neil's critiques though. Neil's critiques still stand, regardless of whether or not Neil has gone through the process. And I think these points are even less relevant... given that none of Ehrman's popular books have gone through this process. They are pop books, published with a pop publisher, with editors who are not experts in the field. He can basically say what he wants, and he isn't beholden to any particular standards... so, everything you are talking about just seems like some wild tangent.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:24 am mountainman has had his 4th century conspiracy theory FLAT OUT disproved by a fragment of the Diatessaron at Dura Europos. There's nothing more to say on the idea that Christianity was wholly invented by the circle of Constantine in the fourth century. But he's still here acting promoting an idea that can't be right.
Yes, to your mind mountainman's theory has been thoroughly debunked by primary evidence. Okay --- leave it, don't get hung up about it- - you only make this a more miserable place by lobbing your insults and spleen over it. To other people's minds what is rock solid to you is questionable to them. Creationism is a looney idea, too, even promoted by some quacks. But when I go into a bookshop I can see books by scientists explaining and rebutting in a scholarly and calm way why Creationism has been debunked by the evidence. They don't carry on with insults and outrage that the idea is still out there. If I were a Creationist beginning to have questions, I would highly respect those calm and scholarly arguments; but I would turn off if I encounter the arguments laced with rage and insult.

The reason your insults and hostile tone sometimes provokes me to respond is because I believe insults and hostile tones are a form of bullying. Online bullying. There's a rule against it on this forum so I really wish you would stop it.

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:24 amSo too with those who promote Eisenmann's theory. Or those who act as if the Church Fathers have no bearing or 'any input' into what Christianity might have looked like in the second and third centuries. And then there are those who were former evangelists for Jesus who now 'evangelize' for a radical form of atheism that just wants to harm their former religion. Not everyone here is just 'trying out' ideas
If you have spleen to throw at those ideas and you wish to respond, cool it and try something more cerebral.

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:24 am . The fact that Ehrman who has proven his abilities in his early works happens to believe that Jesus was a historical person makes him a marked man at this forum. I don't see it that way. The idea that Jesus was a historical person is never going to be a stupid idea because it has such a long established history. I don't happen to agree with that POV. But I have to recognize that it is never stupid or at least not as stupid as those who promote ANY MYTHICIST THEORY which helps destroy Christianity as if destroying Christianity was 'in itself' a good thing.
I have the highest regard for a good number of scholars who "believe in" a historical Jesus and have had cordial and respectful exchanges with a good number of "historicist" Jesus scholars. I would do the same with Ehrman if he bothered and did not ask me to pay to do so.

But when I see scholars make dishonest or lazy or non-rational arguments I do, if I think it appropriate, point out those errors, especially if the scholar in question has a high reputation and people are likely to come away more ignorant than they were before after having read some of their works.
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: Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:07 am
If you want others to think of you as scholarly in efforts then you can stop your tired repetitive ridicule of ideas you find out of left field
No there is stupid. The forum has lots of stupid ideas. If stupid ideas were profitable this forum would be trading on the New York stock exchange. The fact that Ehrman made some mental slips doesn't put him on the same level as the mountainman ... as much as you would like to make that true.
SA, stop twisting my words. Read again my first post and the followup. You are surely bordering on dishonesty when you accuse me of "much liking to make" Ehrman's blatant and culpable error "on the same level as mountainman". Mountainman has a different perspective on the sources as a result of giving more weight to some points than I would give them. But as far as I know he has not cited a scholar to support his case when that cited scholar in no way at all supported his case but even contradicted his case.

Further, what do you mean, exactly, by "not ... on the same level"? Some of your posts seem to suggest you even worship scholars:
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:20 pm This is a different species of human being
You accuse me of "not caring about the truth" and of being "an ally of evil". Is this all because I tried to open up with you a discussion about the importance of textual/comparative analysis of the church fathers before we start mining them for historical data?

Just cut your cyber-bullying, will ya. Maybe it would be good for you and others on this forum if you tried to befriend those scholars who do not resort to the bullying insults that you do. You seem to think that reacting to "fringe ideas" the same way as a McGrath or an Ehrman is cool.
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 »

Ok you win. Jesus is proven never to have existed because Ehrman misattributed a scholar's dating of 1 Clement. Yay!! Next you will prove up is down because of "cyber bullying." Go on mad cyber-paladin of godless relativity. Go on champion of empty victories. Your work is never done.
Post Reply