What's Veeky Forums opinion on Bart Ehrman?

What's Veeky Forums opinion on Bart Ehrman?

Other urls found in this thread:

bible.org/article/time-jesus-death-and-inerrancy-harmonization-plausible
gotquestions.org/Day-of-Preparation.html
defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Mark_14.12ff.php
ehrmanblog.org/the-ancient-genre-of-the-gospels/
youtube.com/watch?v=5K-AOfj1Axg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

dishonest new-atheist cuck

/thread

Cuck

He wasn't always right, but he offers a deep perpsepctive, that is worth to be considered.

>FORGED!!
>APOCOLYPTIC PROPHET FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM!!!

He's a sensationalist hack with nothing to add to the converation but variations on Jewess Paula Fredrickson's polemical works.

He cherry picks and when he gets cornered he just cries because John and Matthew have small differences on the narrative to say its all made up.

He's the bill Nye and NDT of history.

/thread

He doesn't understand modern historical methodologies and has explicitly acknowledged he evaluates the veracity of claims by first seeing if they stem from someone teaching at a university.

Dude is an okay biblical scholar posing as an historically literate person.

Probably one of the few Athiests to understand hebrew and the Koine Greek of the Bible. He does some decent work however he also does exaggerated and cut down versions of it to make money. Ie he will make a decent book and then do a pleb version of that book which is cut down on content with a provoactive title.

>He's the bill Nye and NDT of history.
You are slipping to far in the other direction, its not like hes sees literally no value in any study but his own like those figures/

> Ie he will make a decent book

Most of his recent books his students did most of the research and writing for. There is a clear difference in quality because of this. It has lead to some very embarrassing historical blunders in his name.

He won't debate Richard Carrier, I think there's something wrong with that

Why dishonest? On debates and radio interviews he concedes that even though we don't have the original gospel manuscripts they must have been pretty much the same thing that came down to us, and not completely rewritten and manipulated like some atheist and muslim scholars claim. I though that was pretty honest.

He's not remotely new-atheist, most of his friends and family are Christian and he never criticises religion per se, he just criticises extreme fundamentalists.

>he just cries because John and Matthew have small differences

>john and mathew
>small difference

Have you read John?

Yeah because one guy said Jesus died on Saterday and one on Friday doesn't really mean the guy didn't die at all yet Ehrman acts like mixing up the day of the week of an event that happened 12 years earlier means both are wrong. Its silly argumetns that normeis and reddit eat up.

his hates him but most of what he says is in the mainstream of scholarship. The worst that can be said is that he is a "sell out" for publishing books for popular audiences, but I suspect many professors would do the same if they thought it would be successful

>his hates him
no, the extremely outspoken christians of Veeky Forums do, Veeky Forums overall is indifferent

You're being really reductive with your reasoning, Ehrman isn't using that to disprove that Jesus didn't die but that you can't take the accounts to be historically justifiable

The difference between being killed on Passover or the day before is a huge discrepancy. It's like if we had only two accounts of the Easter Rising, one saying it happened on Easter week and the other just flat out saying it didn't. Both would be questionable historically because they don't collaborate, how do we assess which is a historical account if they don't agree on a hugely signifiant detail?

>what he says is in the mainstream of scholarship.
Pretty much this. In the world of New Testament scholars, he's basically one of the major figures, and is generally regarded as a top scholar. It's almost impossible to take university classes related to New Testament or early church history without having to read at least one or two of his textbooks, or collections of documents. Yes, he writes popular books as well, but he's a legit, respected scholar in his field, and his books reflect academic consensus.

He gets a lot of criticism from the Christian shitposters of Veeky Forums, and other people who don't know much about the field of academic New Testament study, but the guy knows what he's talking about and is one of very few scholars in that field who actually makes an effort to make his work available to the wider public.

This board has gone to shit

Fuck of then.

He buttblasts the part of Veeky Forums that I don't like and that's good enough or me.

It certainly discredits the idea that it's some sort of contradiction-free work of divine inspiration.

This thread is literally nothing but a few assblasted Christcucks samefagging.

Ehrman is a reputable scholar, and what he espouses is well within the academic consensus. The only ones who claim to hate him are triggered Christcucks who feel their already incoherent and shaky narrative is under danger from reputable scholarship.

Nonsense. It's been shitty for a very, very long time.

There are three ways to reconcile the apparent discrepancies between Mark and John:

>John 19:14 Had an Original Reading of the Third Hour which was Confused for the Sixth.

>John is Using a Roman Civil Reckoning that Started the Day at Midnight

>Mark’s Reference to Crucifixion is a General Statement that Included Some Event(s) that Led Up to the Lifting of Jesus on the Cross

bible.org/article/time-jesus-death-and-inerrancy-harmonization-plausible

There would be no reason for a divine inspired and guided work to have any discrepancy. This is basically just mental gymnastics. Which is fine, it's a matter of faith, but I'm not buying it.

New to the discussion, but none of those work. The discrepancy between Mark and John isn't one of a few hours, but one of whether or not it was even the Jewish Passover. Mark, very clearly, states that during the Last Supper, they were bringing their paschal lambs, which was to be done at the start of the festival, in the evening. (14:12).

John is equally clear that when Jesus is brought before Pilate, in both narratives the next morning after said supper, it is not yet time for the paschal lamb to be brought; the Priests were afraid of being contaminated by Pilate's house (although John doesn't bother to say why), and missing out on the offering. (18:28)

Quibbling over hours doesn't erase this.

The point is that they are not in fact discrepancies.

>One objection to the above chronology is based on John 18:28, which says, “The Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.” At first glance, it seems that, whereas Jesus had eaten the Passover the night before, the Jewish leaders had not yet eaten the Passover—they still “wanted to be able to eat” it after Jesus was arrested. To reconcile this verse with the Synoptic narratives, we must remember this: Passover was the first day of the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread.

>The Feast (or Festival) of Unleavened Bread (Chag HaMatzot) lasted for a full week, from Nissan 15 to Nissan 22. The first day of Unleavened Bread coincided with the day of Passover. Because of the close relation between Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the whole week was sometimes referred to as “Passover.” The two holidays were (and still are) considered a single celebration. This explains John 18:28. The Jewish leaders had already eaten the Passover proper, but there still remained other sacrifices to be made and meals to be eaten. They were unwilling to defile themselves (Pilate’s palace contained leaven) because it would disqualify them from participating in the remainder of the week’s ceremonies (see Leviticus 23:8).

gotquestions.org/Day-of-Preparation.html

>The point is that they are not in fact discrepancies.

That's the thing, they are at visual inspection discrepancies. There'd be no reason for such a work to require this sort of additional legwork, as it adds nothing to it besides ground something which critics can work their nails under and pry at. It can't even be called a test of faith because it seems to have been largely ignored until Biblical textual criticism came to be a thing.

In my opinion it is healthy for the church to have critics who can instigate intelligent and subtle debates about the scriptures; iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17).

I'm sorry, but that "explanation" is patently ridiculous. For starters, "The Passover" refers to the Korban Pesach, and not other, ancillary sacrificial offerings made during Passover; which are just extra burnt offerings. You offer "The Passover" once and only once, and what's more, you don't eat Oleh offerings, which John 18:28 alludes to.


>They were unwilling to defile themselves (Pilate’s palace contained leaven) because it would disqualify them from participating in the remainder of the week’s ceremonies

This is also a bundle of misstatement. While we can probable assume that Pilate's house contained leavened bread, that is irrelevant. Being in the house of a non-Jew, or in the presence of leavened bread, is neither sinful nor a cause of ritual impurity among Judaism. Eating leaven is sinful; owning it is as well.

But even if the High Priest got out a ham sandwich and ate it in front of Pilate, it wouldn't make him impure, although it would be both sinful and scandalous; the concept of טעמה is completely separate from sin and punishment; and often necessary commandments from God, such as burying the dead, make you contaminated.

While there's a long list of things that can put you in such a state, they're usually to do with either reproductive organs and fluids, blood, or dead animals/people. Entering a house with leaven on the passover does not apply.

>because it would disqualify them from participating in the remainder of the week’s ceremonies (see Leviticus 23:8).

Says nothing to support your point.

וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִקְרָא-קֹדֶשׁ, כָּל-מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ.

And you shall offer by fire to God, for seven days. On the seventh day it will be holy, and you shall do no work.

Nothing about disqualifying contingencies.

Well that's kind of where the faith part of it comes in. You have faith that this is a device to help the church, I think it's just proof that the Bible is not divinely inspired and instead just a product of history and human hands. I will however leave a more academic debate of this particular discrepancy to someone more equipped for it.

If you don't like that explanation then here is another one:

>There are two basic positions embraced by evangelical scholars on this point. Those who hold that Jesus ate the Passover lamb (and instituted the Lord’s Supper at the end of it) on the same day it was observed by the Jews, support their view as follows: (1) It was the day required by OT Law, and Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17–18). (2) It seems to be the meaning of Mark 14:12 which says it was “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb.” (3) When John 19:14 speaks of it being “the Preparation Day of the Passover” they take this to mean simply the preparation for the Sabbath which occurred in that paschal week.

>Other scholars contend that Jesus ate the Passover lamb on the day before the Jews did because: (1) He had to eat it a day early (Thursday) in order that He might offer Himself the next day (Good Friday) as the Passover Lamb (cf. John 1:29) to the Jews, in fulfillment of OT type on the very day they were eating the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). (2) The plain reading of John 19:14 is that it was “the Preparation Day of the Passover” [not the Sabbath], or in other words, the day before the Passover was eaten by the Jews. (3) Likewise, John 18:28 affirms that the Jews did not want to be defiled on the day Jesus was crucified “that they might eat the Passover.”

defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Mark_14.12ff.php

All of this shit is myth anyway, seriously

Why are they arguing about it?

...

I really don't care about your memes, bro, honestly

They don't make me wanna retract my statement

...

Because there is actual history present in the Bible, and the process of textual criticism is important to figure out what can be taken from it into the historical record.

That's actually pretty funny

Myth written in a historical context is still myth and unlikely to have happened

The Gospels are written as historical biographies not myths.

You may choose to reject their authenticity but in terms of the evangelists' authorial intent they were meant to record actual events.

You can still glean historical details from it, and it's pretty commonly accepted that there was a preacher named Yeshua at the time who likely got baptized by another preacher and probably crucified. Textual criticism can help verify which details surrounding him can be considered historical.

Kinda like how we can glean some details about ancient Greece and some of its historical figures from the Illiad and the Odyssey.

Myth was often also written in historiographical nature with false sources and all. The way the Gospels are written entails myth not actual history, and I'm not talking about the miracles, I'm talking about their callback structure to where they have the same events happen in the beginning and end of certain chapters with a meetup in the middle. Their content of remaking OT stories putting Jesus in the place of OT characters.
"The Christians were embarrassed by this therefore they can't have made it up" is not textual criticism, it's wishful thinking and false. People made up embarrassing things all the time in antiquity.

The question is not whether you can glean anything about historical figures in the NT, the question is whether Jesus was one of those historical figures

>"The Christians were embarrassed by this therefore they can't have made it up" is not textual criticism, it's wishful thinking and false. People made up embarrassing things all the time in antiquity.

I don't dispute that. You were asking why someone is debating this particular subject, I was explaining why textual criticism of the Bible (and other ancient texts) has academic merit.

It's pretty much standard consensus in academia that someone who matches the description did exist.

You are entitled to classify them as myths but know that is not the academic consensus.

Even skeptics like Erhman categorize them as biographies:

>The Gospels, I argue, are written as Greco-Roman biographies.

ehrmanblog.org/the-ancient-genre-of-the-gospels/

>The consensus can't be wrong, they're infalliable and the evidence isn't questionable, if you question it you're a fedora even if it's questionable
>Even though there was a whole dark period in which the origin of Christianity can be put into question as well
>Even idiots whose job it is to keep the proposal of a historical Jesus not open for debate, categorizes them as biographies
Even if he does, that doesn't make it true. Even if it could be true, that doesn't make everything in it real, they're propaganda pieces

I'm not saying you can't put it into question, that's part of the process of studying history. I'm just saying that it's standard consensus that he did exist, and you acting as though it's conclusively myth is silly. The only person here who is suggesting you shouldn't question something is yourself.

It's not like there's a bar in academia on claiming Jesus didn't exist.

You've made your personal opinion very clear, I was merely pointing out that your position is not widely held.

>It's not like there's a bar in academia on claiming Jesus didn't exist
Is that why most scholars, even Atheists ones have to sign a statement of faith? How great.

Fine, it's more likely myth than it is history

Also, is that why even hinting that something in the Bible may have been allegory lost someone their job?

I doubt saying Jesus didn't exist would go over well too

>Is that why most scholars, even Atheists ones have to sign a statement of faith?

What?

Also you can challenge the consensus in any field, but the thing about academic consensus is that they have with stood several challenges with only minor alterations. What new do you bring to the table to suggest that the consensus is wrong?

Read On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, the consensus has been successfully challenged. Ball's in their court now

Define successfully. I am going out on a limb here and going to guess you dont have a education in the historical method but maybe you have one in the sciences.

There are peer reviewed papers supporting steady state theory over big bang, that does not mean the big bang as been successfully challenged, it means someone wrote a paper formatted well enough to get into a peer review journal.

I said challenged, not refuted. Have you even read the books?

No I have not read his book but I have listened to him speak, and read about him. In some instances he casts doubt and has a few interesting thoughts but it really isnt enough, in my opinion to over turn the consensus.

He strikes me in the same way many Christian scholars do, that is someone who has dedicated himself to a cause, in this case atheism and as a professional he puts that first.

The Atheism doesn't even play a large part into the fucking equation of the book, it's just briefly mentioned in the beginning as to say what he was asked to do.

>I have listened to him speak and read about him
Not the same thing as reading his book

Your right, but the burden here is not to read his book, its on you to make the case in this little debate. Its not like Carrier is in the mainstream here. He his arguing a position rejected even by atheists, like myself

I can't make the arguments as well as he does because there's no elevator pitch to this shit

Alright though, I'll try to make my case as best I can. The case is that Jesus from Paul's letters started as a celestial being subordinate to god that came to Paul and his contemporaries in visions as the only source for knowing Jesus Paul said was scripture and visions, you can surmise that Jesus was a celestial being from that fact since a historical person wouldn't be known through scripture especially if Paul knew contemporaries of Jesus. Most arguments for the historical Jesus pertain to the Jews not expecting a dying messiah except for the fact that Paul said Jesus died 'according to the scriptures' so you can tell he was looking for things in the scriptures to make sense of his visions. They also expected a rising messiah because Paul says that also happened according to the scriptures, he mentions no other prophecies being fulfilled by Jesus so you can't import the Gospels into it because the Gospels you can say supposedly knows about more 'prophecies' fulfilled. Not to mention the fact that the 'historical references' of Jesus' mother and his descendants doesn't make sense on historicity in the Greek. I can't speak Greek so I can't tell you the specifics, this is why I said read the book because he's more qualified than I am to do this.

The problem with that is it rests on the idea that Paul invented Jesus. Its pretty clear that while Paul dominated the later discussion of Jesus there were groups not affiliated with Paul, and indeed it took some time for his version of Jesus to replace the Jesus of messianic Judaism

He's debate(if one calls it that) with James R White become awkwardly silent, and somewhat disconnected, in the later half of it. youtube.com/watch?v=5K-AOfj1Axg
I never saw Ehrman quite the same respect afterwards.

>I never saw Ehrman quite the same respect afterwards.
In what way?

No one literally said this, the other epistles make reference to a celestial Jesus too, like Hebrews. That means there may have been other Christians who believed in the celestial Jesus as well. Also, Paul mentions Cephas and the three pillars who may have been the first ones to have visions of the celestial Jesus as he makes no distinction to them being handpicked disciples of Jesus who studied at his feet. So it doesn't rest on the idea that Paul invented Jesus, just that he adopted an already blossoming religion of a celestial savior/messiah. Another objection is that Paul knew the disciples of Jesus, except he never uses that word to differentiate them, never says they were handpicked and we never come across any historicist argument for the already pre-existent being Jesus he was touting.

Sorry, Cephas is ONE of the three pillars

>It certainly discredits the idea that it's some sort of contradiction-free work of divine inspiration.

Only severely mentally challenged people believe the book is *literally* the word of God.

That's the sort of thing Muslims do with the Qur'an, and you can see how well that is working out for them.

It's not that I don't like the explanation, it's that the explanation is bullshit, as is this next one.

> When John 19:14 speaks of it being “the Preparation Day of the Passover” they take this to mean simply the preparation for the Sabbath which occurred in that paschal week.

At which point, what "Passover" are the priests risking on missing out on in John 18:28?

>Other scholars contend that Jesus ate the Passover lamb on the day before the Jews did because:

Then HOW did he do it? The "Passover" is a sacrifice that has to be done at the Temple at a specific date and time. If Jesus shows up a day early, why are the priests helping him commit sacrilege? And why do the Gospels not mention him going to the Temple at all on that day? He just shows up at some guy's house and invites himself to dinner. Who offered this Passover on the wrong time?

Not even Luther said the bible was infallible. He just said it had everything one needed to obtain faith.

The infallible thing is just a normie misunderstanding that's popular in the US and easy target for nu-atheists.

But why should be by into that theory? how is that more likely than the idea of a historical Jesus? Why do we have mentions of Jesus's brother? and cousins?

Ehrman isn't a "nu-atheist" though. He's an agnostic former Christian who's happily married to a Christian. He frequently says his academic work shouldn't challenge anyone's faith and that he stopped being a Christian for different reasons.

The only thing he does use his academic work to criticise is the fundamentalist belief that the Bible is infallible, which as you just pointed out is a popular notion in the US.

There is no mention of Jesus' cousins in Paul. The 'James the Brother of the Lord' is just another way to say a baptized Christian, in the Greek it actually reads "I saw no other Apostles and James is not an Apostle but he's the Brother of the Lord"

It's more likely than an illiterate 'rabbi' starting a religion with a bunch of illiterate fisherman. How is it not?

He stopped being a Christian for the most cuck fucking reason, because he's a fucking cuck