The truth according to Bart D. Ehrman

[Cato]

In other words: one should do one's own fucking homework.

Great idea, but I doubt people that pass atonement for their sin onto an ancient dead jew will seriously consider doing their own homework.

[Aractus]

Ehrman discusses this very point in Forged. That you have created a thread to dispute Ehrman's points, without having read them, and completely oblivious to the fact that the argument you're presenting has been dealt with by Ehrman, simply paints you as the bottom-feeding, ignorant, stupid, moronic, disingenuous Christian apologist that you are.

He isn't as special as you think he is. There are thousands of Biblical Scholars - he is one with ideas and theories well outside general scholarly thought, and he uses sensationalism to sell his books. Just because he reaches one conclusion doesn't mean it's the only conclusion to be met, it doesn't even mean that it's the correct conclusion, all it means is that he made the conclusion.

Secondly, if you want to present his much-valued points then do so, don't hide behind the argument that I should read all his material myself - that isn't going to happen.

---

No, it is not reasonable. I suggested that Ehrman, a respected Biblical scholar, had plenty to say. No one should believe what I say about Ehrman or what Ehrman says - they need to read Ehrman.

Skepticism, facts, and evidence; not hearsay.

Chas, here's the thing my friend. He is a respected Biblical Scholar - I'll give you that - on certain topics within his area of expertise which is textual criticism. Outside of textual criticism most Biblical Scholars see him as heretical. An example of this would be his claim that certain books are forgeries - that isn't reached through textual criticism - that's a sweeping assumption that the authors had an original, hidden agenda of their own when they wrote the books for the first time. It's a conspiracy theory.

---

Anyone can claim any document is a forgery. Whether I tend to accept that claim depends on the qualifications of the person making the claim.

Totally incorrect. Think about Law. If you're the magistrate and the litigant walks in with his highly-qualified lawyer, and then the defendant walks in with his modestly-qualified lawyer, do you automatically decided the litigant wins? Their qualification should make zero difference to you, you are presented with the evidence and it's the evidence you make your decision on.

---

So it's reasonable for someone to make a thread critical of an author's work, having not read it, and ask someone else to summarize said author's arguments? When said author's bibiography consists of approximately two dozen lengthy, scholarly books?

I made a point on one specific argument of his that I'm aware of in the first post. If Ehrman has further evidence then what I presented, it would be up to Chas and the others familiar with his work to provide them. If I miscategorised his theory, they could have corrected it. They also have yet to inform me of Ehrman's evidence that they feel compels someone to conclude that the gospels are unreliable as God's inspired word. So far I'm disappointed since even I, a person not too familiar with his work, was able to present one of his arguments.

---

It is hardly reasonable to criticize written work one has not read, and is not familiar with, and it is particularly unreasonable to ask another to read and summarize it for one who is apparently disinterested enough to do so himself, and yet, somehow, has enough interest to criticize.

You are totally wrong here. I may not be familiar with his work, but I do know a bit about Biblical Scholarly and the history of the early Church, and certainly enough to defend simple hollow criticisms that rest of a "lack of evidence" as their evidence.

[Angrboda]

Ehrman discusses this very point in Forged. That you have created a thread to dispute Ehrman's points, without having read them, and completely oblivious to the fact that the argument you're presenting has been dealt with by Ehrman, simply paints you as the bottom-feeding, ignorant, stupid, moronic, disingenuous Christian apologist that you are.

He isn't as special as you think he is. There are thousands of Biblical Scholars - he is one with ideas and theories well outside general scholarly thought, and he uses sensationalism to sell his books. Just because he reaches one conclusion doesn't mean it's the only conclusion to be met, it doesn't even mean that it's the correct conclusion, all it means is that he made the conclusion.

And not having read him, and apparently not intending to do so, you will never know whether his conclusions are or are not merited. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance, Daniel.

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

— Intellectual Dishonesty

[The Grand Nudger]

You are totally wrong here. I may not be familiar with his work, but I do know a bit about Biblical Scholarly and the history of the early Church, and certainly enough to defend simple hollow criticisms that rest of a "lack of evidence" as their evidence.

If a claim lacks evidence, it isn't the criticism that's hollow, amigo..it's the claim. Granted, both things are simple.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You cannot merely use the apparent lack of evidence for one theory and then conclude that therefore your own theory is best one. Both theories have to deal with the lack of evidence, the question is, which theory best explains the evidence we do have?

[downbeatplumb]

At least I read the bible before I had a pop at it.

[Minimalist]

You're being ridiculous.

Says the man who wants to critique a book he has not read.

Right.

[Mister Agenda]

He isn't as special as you think he is. There are thousands of Biblical Scholars - he is one with ideas and theories well outside general scholarly thought, and he uses sensationalism to sell his books. Just because he reaches one conclusion doesn't mean it's the only conclusion to be met, it doesn't even mean that it's the correct conclusion, all it means is that he made the conclusion.

How is he outside the mainstream? Isn't he primarily a popularizer of knowledge not considered that controversial by most Biblical scholars? If you're going to invoke popularity, I'd like more evidence that his views are considered controversial by most (the majority, at least) of other Biblical scholars.

[Aractus]

How is he outside the mainstream? Isn't he primarily a popularizer of knowledge not considered that controversial by most Biblical scholars? If you're going to invoke popularity, I'd like more evidence that his views are considered controversial by most (the majority, at least) of other Biblical scholars.

It'd be like if I got all my information on cosmology from Halton Arp. He's one of the very few cosmologists who totally disbelieve the big bang. Yes he's a serious, and in many ways, well-respected cosmologist. But he also has wild theories that fall well outside of general theory in cosmology.

[downbeatplumb]

In the Ehrman book I am currently reading he backs all his claims with evidence and well reasoned research.

I am reading "the lost christianities" which explains how orthodox christianity came to be in its current form and not one of the other many many kinds of christianity that were around at the start.