Based on the education section of wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
and associated links, here is a list of the higher education institutions that Bart Ehrman has studied at:

Moody Bible Institute - a Christian institution of higher education

Wheaton College - noted for its "twin traditions of quality academics and deep faith"

Princeton Theological Seminary - the largest of ten seminaries associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Miraculously, despite studying at 3 different schools funded by Christians, Bart Ehrman has no bias regarding whether there was a historical Jesus or not. /end sarcasm.

Moody Bible Institute is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. The United States Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation recognize the Commission as the assigned regional accrediting organization for nineteen states.

Wheaton College in Illinois was ranked 56 out of more than 240 colleges on the U.S. News and World Report 2015 list. It has achieved similar rankings by other organizations. It is one of the country’s best institutions for undergraduate education, according to The Princeton Review's 2015 guide.

http://wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton/Profile

Princeton Theological seminary holds academic reciprocity with Princeton University. Students of the seminary are allowed to cross register with the Ivy League institution. It has the second largest theological library in the world, second only to the Vatican library, and trains ministers for many different denominations along with future academics and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Theological_Seminary

_______________________________________________

Yes, these are all seminaries and/or religiously affiliated institutions. If a scholar wants to engage in biblical scholarship he or she will likely need to go to those or similar schools. But they are respected institutions. It would be a mistake to assume that the study of biblical texts is not approached in a way that promotes critical thinking at those institutions.

Wow, criticizing Princeton. Lol

-the invisable green tomato

I am confused. Are you suggesting that Bart Ehrman is biased toward Christianity? If not, the I appoligize for the misinterpretation of your assertion. If you are suggesting the Ehrman is biased you should read his book "when Jesus Became God" that addresses this central tenant of most Christian denominations. His answer, which he backs up using rigorious historical reseash methods, is that historically Jesus became God in Christian theology sometime during the 4th century. Btw, the book referenced above is excellent in rigor and readability.

Bart Erhram's evolotion as a scholar has led him to become, after much research, a self-described agnostic. There is a book length counterpoint to "When Jesus Became God" that is written by a conservative Christian scholar (a believer - I forget the name at the moment). You also seem to imply that The Princeton Theological Seminary is biased. It is anything but. It is known as a seminary that is quite unbiased and many staunch Christians who go the leave 'soberded up' and quite a bit less staunch. This is roughly Bart Ehrman's own experience according to his book. There are very different 'flavors' of Theological Seminaries.

Rigorous historical research methods for studying events of that time period are designed to accomidate what is, in comparison to contemporary research methods, very imperfect evidence and likewise the appropriate use of second and third hand souces of data.

I will now cringe as I await the 'rfm assault' with after taking a stand on the matter based on my own reading of both sides of debate form well-respected scholars. This is that the man Jeasus did exist and he was an 'apocolyptic preacher'. As a professor and researcher myself, in another field but also trained in similar research methods, I find Bart Ehram's and other like scholars' arguments more compelling than the opposing camp of scholarship. But that is just my assessment based on the researsh design, presentation of historical data, and quality of the argumentation he presents. Others may interpret these items differently for reaons that also have merit.

As Bart Ehrman points out, we accept a lot of things as historical fact that make it into textbooks on far less evidence than there is for the historical Jesus.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 07:22AM by mannaz.

mannaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> -the invisable green tomato
>
> I am confused. Are you suggesting that Bart Ehrman
> is biased toward Christianity? If not, the I
> appoligize for the misinterpretation of your
> assertion. If you are suggesting the Ehrman is
> biased you should read his book "when Jesus Became
> God" that addresses this central tenant of most
> Christian denominations.

I am not talking about bias in the sense of "motivation". I am talking about bias in the sense of a tendency that was ingrained in him by the educational institutions that he attended. A Christian funded school that churned out atheists would be shut down very quickly. Christian schools have to be very careful to protect "testimonies" (obviously not called that in normal religions).

> Bart Erhram's evolotion as a scholar has led him
> to become, after much research, a self-described
> agnostic.

Don't forget that he trained as a minister. One can easily do a simple projection to see that eventually he would become an atheist. More importantly, he has gone from believing that Jesus did miracles to believing that Jesus was an itinerant preacher known for doing miracles. A simple linear projection further in time would see him coming to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist.

> You also seem to
> imply that The Princeton Theological Seminary is
> biased. It is anything but. It is known as a
> seminary that is quite unbiased and many staunch
> Christians who go the leave 'soberded up' and
> quite a bit less staunch. This is roughly Bart
> Ehrman's own experience according to his book.
> There are very different 'flavors' of Theological
> Seminaries.

The point is that Ehrman has not seen the inside of a secular university. I am sure the university meets rigorous standards of accreditation for secular learning. Theological learning would not be part of that accreditation. As a Christian seminary one can assume that the existence of Jesus is never questioned.

> Rigorous historical research methods for studying
> events of that time period are designed to
> accomidate what is, in comparison to contemporary
> research methods, very imperfect evidence and
> likewise the appropriate use of second and third
> hand souces of data.

The truth is that it all comes down to the judgement of the historian. That is why Ehrman can not point to a particular ancient text and say "see, that was written about the historical Jesus". It is the combination of everything that Ehrman has learned that points to a historical Jesus. The data from which Ehrman draws his conclusions includes his theological training.

> I will now cringe as I await the 'rfm assault'
> with after taking a stand on the matter based on
> my own reading of both sides of debate form
> well-respected scholars. This is that the man
> Jeasus did exist and he was an 'apocolyptic
> preacher'. As a professor and researcher myself,
> in another field but also trained in similar
> research methods, I find Bart Ehram's and other
> like scholars' arguments more compelling than the
> opposing camp of scholarship. But that is just my
> assessment based on the researsh design,
> presentation of historical data, and quality of
> the argumentation he presents. Others may
> interpret these items differently for reaons that
> also have merit.

Personally, I have no issue with your opinion. I have read Ehrman and I have read Carrier, and as someone who understands statistics and probabilities I side with Carrier. I think everyone should be able to read both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions without being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

> As Bart Ehrman points out, we accept a lot of
> things as historical fact that make it into
> textbooks on far less evidence than there is for
> the historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman should be called the master of false analogies. We have all heard the comparison to Julias Caeser. Besides, I trust archaeological findings over "historical facts". No matter how certain the textual historical evidence, if archaeology disagrees with the texts then archaeology wins. The truth is that historical research is not 100% accurate, not even "almost certainly" accurate (the terminology that Ehrman uses).


Ehrman's experience on "on the state champion debate team in 1973" shows through in his work. In "How Jesus Became God", Ehrman spends a chapter or so talking about how Roman Emperors became deified. He sneakily doesn't call it an analogy, or a categorization. Then he switches to talking about how no contemporary records would be expected for an itinerant preacher from Galillee. Once again, not calling it an analogy or a categorization. So what was Jesus? A Roman Emperor or an itinerant preacher? Jesus can't simultaneously be categorized as both.

Ehrman's Christian bias (not to be confused with motivation) shows through when Ehrman states that historians can not determine whether Jesus' flesh was divine or not. He can conclude that Jesus never claimed to be divine, nobody in his lifetime thought he was divine, that for decades after his death people believed he only became divine after his crucifixion, and yet somehow we will never know whether he was in fact god or the son of god. That Ehrman could hold such a view shows a lack of scholarship and extreme bias. Why would the divinity of Jesus be so protected? Looking at Ehrman's education provides the answer.

so, this is NOT an ad hominem attack?

Aren't you saying that he's obviously biased about there being a historical jesus because of the schools he has attended?

Isn't that kind of ad hominem?

This is a ridiculous argument. You are upset because someone who agrees with you that there was not a savior but disagrees with you about whether there was, in history, an iterant preacher named jesus? Get a hobby man.

The Invisible Green Potato Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is that Ehrman has not seen the inside of a secular university.

Given that he is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he sees the inside of a secular university just about every working day. He has also taught at Duke and Rutgers, two other secular universities. He has been invited as a speaker to more than 45 secular universities, including many state flagship universities.

http://www.bartdehrman.com/curriculum.htm

mannaz makes many useful and relevant points.

"I see that Bart Ehrman's thoroughly refuted and libelous book "Did Jesus Exist?" is still selling well and therefore exposing too many people to his lies and defamation. What a disgrace!
Ehrman's rubbishy book should have been pulped and a class-action defamation lawsuit filed against him, but we are all too poor and powerless, apparently.
The best we can do, therefore, is our rebuttal book, which doesn't enjoy the same level of publicity as his mendacious garbage. The fact that such trash dominates the field is a sad reflection of the poor state of human intellect and religious scholarship."

~ DM Murdock

@the invisible green tomato,

The problem with applying statistical reasoning to Erhman's work is that the philosophy of science that underpin's statistics just does not work with historical data for a host of reasons.

Academics disagree all the time when presenting their research. Us in academia often refer to it as a 'blood sport' of which I am proud to be a part. There are always strong well-defended positions and consensus as to who has it 'right' in the social sciences is quite hard to achieve - all kinds of limitations in the data, etc. Archeology has many of the same issues with the data it is able to 'dig up'.

Ehrman and Carrier are both operating with differing reseach approaches and the associated tools and data, and likewise their limitations. Who has it right? Hell if I know. They both make pretty arguments.

As for your ad hominem attack on Ehrman that is just unfair. The man's credentials as a scholar and full professor at a top tier 'arguably secular' research institution are quite impressive (UNC Chapel Hill). While Carrier's educational credentials are impressive, he does not appear to live under the scrutiny that academia imposes. That is not to say that his work is not good. Just that he has, by choice or not, been on a different path.

Please note that I am not taking sides as to the schorship of either author. Just stating the publically available objective facts that anyone can verify. Definitely not the whole story on them.

From Ehrman's CV:

TEACHING EXPERIENCE


University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Religious Studies.


• James A. Gray Distinguished Professor, 2003 -
• Department Chair, 2000 - 2006
• Professor, 1999 - 2003
• Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor, 1998-2001
• Director of Graduate Studies, 1996-99
• Associate Professor, 1994-99
• Assistant Professor, 1988-94


Adjunct Appointments


Duke University, Department of Religion
• Adjunct Professor, 2000 -
• Visiting Assistant Professor, 1991
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department. of Classics, 2005 -


Rutgers University, Department of Religion
• Lecturer at the Rank of Assistant Professor, 1985-88
• Lecturer at the Rank of Instructor, 1984-85


Princeton Theological Seminary
• Instructor in New Testament Greek and Exegesis, 1985

Oh,yeah, the lady whose alma mater has never heard of her. Real credible source.

Everybody has biases. Surely Ehrman does.
But as others have pointed out, declaring his arguments wrong *because* he's biased is an ad-hominem fallacy.
His arguments should be considered by whether or not evidence shows them correct or not. Despite his "bias," some of his arguments stand up according to evidence. Others don't. For yet others, evidence isn't sufficient to say one way or another.

Once an argument of his can be shown incorrect by evidence, *then* you can discuss why he made the error -- and bias could be a part of it. But simply declaring arguments wrong because the person making them is biased is a fallacy.

Finally, biases can be overcome. I myself was raised a mormon, and until age 21 was heavily biased towards supporting the mormon church. I worked hard to overcome that bias, and feel that I have. Ehrman could have had the most orthodox religious upbringing and education in the world, and then overcome that bias later on.

Arguments are valid or not according to evidence. Not according to the personality of the person making them.

Good points.

Like all of us. He certainly filled & blasted totally dishonest apologetic, Bible_thumping niche by by educating ignorant masses (I included). What Bible is about and it's glaring discrepancies of Gospels and Books of Genesis.

And...anybody who still believes in that Jesus & God pair waste your life on your own peril.

I am then also terribly biased in favor of religion.

My education included:
BA with high honors from Brigham Young University

JD with honors from the University of San Francisco (a Jesuit university with crucifixes on the wall of every classroom)

Bart Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Christian who now considers himself a agnost who leans toward atheism. hHe is a professor at Chapel Hill which is a well known and respected university.He is no longer a Christian or even a theist. The universities he attended are respected even if they are Christian. What a concept! Once again the green potato shows his prejudice and ignorance of higher education. Besides he has the same position as almost all scholars other than Carrier and a couple of others. They didnt all attend Moody



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 02:52PM by bona dea.

I have several of Ehrman's books and I don't see any attempt to backdoor sell Christianity. His "Did Jesus Exist? sets forth the reasons that he accepts the fact that a Jewish person named Jesus lived at his claimed time and place in history.

Hell, Joseph Smith also lived at his claimed time and place, but that don't mean that what has been reported about him is true. Ehrman appears to feel the same way toward Jesus.

The fact that Jesus may have lived when he did doesn't make Christianity true or even acceptable. It's still a crock!

Pehaps green potato.should follow your example and actually read the books.

Quoting Ehrman: " If the historical Jesus really did spend his ministry revealing his divine identity to his disciples, as he does in John, isn't it a little strange that Matthew, Mark, and Luke never got around to saying so? Did they think it unimportant? Or did they just forget that part?" 'Did Jesus Exist?' page 183.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 03:36PM by Templar.

Excellent quote to refute the assumption of the potato. Frankly, I am a little tired of criticism by people who havent bothered to read the book



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 03:39PM by bona dea.

...and, of course, that was one of many, many others in a similar vein.

Templar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quoting Ehrman: " If the historical Jesus really
> did spend his ministry revealing his divine
> identity to his disciples, as he does in John,
> isn't it a little strange that Matthew, Mark, and
> Luke never got around to saying so? Did they think
> it unimportant? Or did they just forget that
> part?" 'Did Jesus Exist?' page 183.


One of the problems with this quote is Mathew, Mark, John, and Luke are ALL anonymous authors. The "Mark" author was the first book scholars accept as being written and we can only guess what his source was for the Jesus story. It it was through oral tradition then it is at least 20 years of telephone game before the story was committed to paper.

I forget but I think Luke and Mathew are based on Mark's book as a reference in addition to other writings. Then came anonymous John and his writings.

So, yeah, there isn't goint to be much uniformity with the narriatives because all of them were never there to know the "truth" of the claims they state in these anonymous author writings.

One of them has 38 students.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-smallest-colleges.php

The Invisible Green Potato Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Miraculously, despite studying at 3 different
> schools funded by Christians, Bart Ehrman has no
> bias regarding whether there was a historical
> Jesus or not. /end sarcasm.

Well, you still need to supply actual examples of bias in order to avoid a simple ad hominem attack. He may well have a bias based upon his schooling, but you err in claiming he's biased without offering any actual evidence to support it.

Considering that he is now an agnostic atheist, I would say he has overcome his bias. BTW, Price,one of three mythicist scholars, also attended a Bible college,but I guess that is a different matter. Lol. Double standard?

So what would happen to his Job if he decided there were no historical Jesus?

Go on you know tell us.

whatiswanted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what would happen to his Job if he decided
> there were no historical Jesus?
>
> Go on you know tell us.


You think there's a lack of opportunity for professors who deny the historical Jesus? Umm, visited virtually any state university campus lately?

He would probably sell more books since everyone loves a conspiracy theory. If he had a coherant argument,he probably wouldnt have a problem with his job. It is about scholarahip,not religion and scholars including Ehrman espouse many ideas about Jesus that religious people dont like. They still have jobs

Absolutely nothing. He's got tenure at UNC. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It means that he can state unpopular ideas as long as he can support them with accepted research practices. He is a very respected scholar in his field.

If he ever left UNC, there would be many, many schools that would be glad to have him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2015 04:56PM by summer.

The statement Bart makes "He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence." shows his bias. That is the evidence that has been discussed on other threads, but the tomato didn't include it in this one.

For more info see http://nobeliefs.com/Ehrman2.htm

Excuse.me,but maybe you need to prove that statement isnt true.

The statement "shows his bias" to truthful history (as he states elsewhere), and not to Christianity. After careful consideration and much research, Ehrman has come to the conclusion that Jesus is, in fact, a historical person. Beyond that, he has many, many problems with the Christian/Biblical version of his life.

A person can certainly accept that someone exists (or existed) and, at the same time, totally reject everything they ever said or stood for.

In the introduction to 'Misquoting Jesus' Ehrman goes into detail about how he went from being an believing Christian at Moody Bible Institute to his present agnostic leaning. It's a good read. I recommend it.

Ehrman states that he was first bothered by the fact that none of the gospels are first hand accounts. He says that his fellow classmates did not consider it "significant or interesting", but for him it "was a compelling problem". When I first read this, I thought of my own experience with uncaring TBMs and my deep concerns about mormon history and doctrine.