Thread 24626499

Ehrman:
>active college professor in the american south
>has written books for popular audiences, serious scholarly work meant for academics, as well as college textbooks
>discusses materials from his books in interviews
>despite being an atheist in a christian domianted field, he is personal friends with many christian writers, doesn't shy away from his views but maintains respect and admiration for christianity
>clearly denotes what is scholarly consensus and what is his personal opinion, both in writing and in interviews
>is able to maintain sizable following from both chrisitans, atheists and others who just happen to be insterested in his field of study
>only people that dislike him are religious fundamentalists that hate his field and "science" in general (for a psychiatrist this would be the equivalent of being hated by scientologists)
Peterson
>honestly no clue what he does when not writing or appearing in interviews
>has only published books for popular audiences
>refuses to discuss what's in his books in interviews other than vaguely hinting at it being lifesaving wisdom in hopes people buy them to find out
>despite his field being almost entirely removed from religion, feels the need to go to comical lenghts to dodge any questions regarding his faith or lack thereof, seemingly out of fear of losing clout or offending his fans?
>states everything as thought it's absolute truth, regardless if it's a hot take or consensus
>disliked by basically everyone in his field and a sizable portion of the general population, "love him or hate him" basically

I could go on and on drawing parallels between these two, like how their family lives are also complete opposites, but my question is, why does Peterson feel the need to bend over backwards to hide his faith (or lack of it?) when Ehrman is willing to appear in public debates criticising christianity but by being respectful and polite, he's able to teach an entire class of southerner evangelicans on a daily basis and have very good standing with his mostly christian colleagues, as well as his books being seen as the go-to introduction to biblical scholarship for general audiences AMONG CHRISTIANS, partially because he clearly denotes what is and isn't his personal opinion... shouldn't Ehrman be the one that's hiding his religious beliefs for clout? I mean if he wanted to make more money, keeping your opinions to a minimum and just focusing on repackaging scholarship for general audiences seems like the way to go, and that way he would have more sway over fundamentalists and not risk offending anybody, surely.

Meanwhile, Peterson is already controversial among anyone who isn't a fan of his, doesn't study religion... I just don't understand what drives him to go to comical lengths to hide his beliefs other than someone going "well why haven't you said that from the start" at this point?

Thoughts?

One is a serious scholar and man.

The other is a grifter on the take who is merely trying to maintain a balancing act in order to keep his revenue streams open.

>>24626499 (OP)
Ehrman has a wife that's employed, lives a somewhat modest lifestyle and was very fortunate to stumble upon the golden cashcalf of 30 or so years of scholarship that existed in academia but has been withheld from the public (all this to say he wrote a lot of books and they sold well)
Peterson feels the need to project an "alpha male" "celebrity" lifestyle with fancy clothes and what have you, has a deadbeat daughter and most importantly a crippling addiction to perscription medication (and probably several people on his payroll dedicated to hiding that addiction from his public image, think lawyers and publicists).
Ehrman doesn't NEED to bend over backwards to scrounge for every dollar he can, the man donates everything he makes from his blog to charity, even in the absolute worst case scenario where he gets fired from his university and trump bans his books or whatever, reducing his income to $0, he can still just lean on his wife until he gets his shit together and finds a job in an office or something. Meanwhile if peterson's income dips below 6 figures for even 1 month he might start sucking dick by the side of the road for pills, his daugher might even pimp him out.

You're correct in identifying that Ehrman stands to gain way more by hiding his personal opinion than Peterson, it's probably something like a 100:1 ratio, it's simply that Ehrman doesn't NEED the money.

>>24626499 (OP)
Peterson is a charlatan, pretty much the essential definition of one, that is the difference.

>>24626779
>>24626512
Source? Every time I see someone saying this it's just a case of trump derangement syndrome.

>>24626499 (OP)
tried doing this
went on their respecitve subreddits to see how they look, shit's honestly hilarious, it's a night and day difference

>>24626808
genuinely what the fuck am i looking at

>>24626499 (OP)
Ehrman is Aryan Peterstein is Jewish simple as

>>24626499 (OP)
>Ehrman when 1st century Gospel: umm we should akschually be skeptical
>Ehrman when 3rd century Gnostic text: SO TRUE

>>24627014
>>Ehrman when 3rd century Gnostic text: SO TRUE
name one time this actually happened
i've only seen him mention the gospel of thomas in detail and he said some people think there might be authentic sayings of jesus in there but he doesn't think so, so idk what you mean. Oh, and I also remember him saying the secret gospel of mark probably a forgery.

So... do you have any examples of him actually saying this, or are you just trying to stir controversy?

>>24627014
You don't want to do that kind of thing in this discussion since a lot of jews do actually have the last name Ehrman.

Anyway, this made me think, it's funny how ehrman can openly talk about judaism while Peterson has to change the subject every time the religion is brought up.

compare https://ehrmanblog.org/are-the-gospels-anti-jewish/
to https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog/jordan-peterson-my-message-to-the-jews/

>>24627257
meant for >>24627011

>>24626499 (OP)
>has only published books for popular audiences
Maps of Meaning wasn't written for a popular audience.
>disliked by basically everyone in his field
His h-score prior to becoming internationally famous disproves this.
>and a sizable portion of the general population, "love him or hate him" basically
The retards who constantly seethe about him are vocal and project their obsession onto anyone who says even a mildly positive thing about him (it's a similar phenomena to TDS).

>clinical psychologist who spent decades personally helping hundreds of people severely afflicted by mental illness
>academic who published dozens of widely cited papers ranging in subjects varying from practical counseling, historical/philosophical roots of psychology, research paradigms in neurology...
>research scientist working on the operationalization of personality constructs as well as the neurobiological basis of addiction
>university professor who mentored dozens of grad students into academic, research, and counseling careers
>assisted in the development of software that increases the likelihood of at-risk students reaching graduation as a side project
>accidentally became internationally famous and ended up publishing !3! best selling books (so far) as well as organizing lectures in various countries throughout the world
inb4
>he's a drug addict tho!
>his office was messy once!
>er...you don't have a dad!
>er...wash your dick!
>his daughter is a slut!
>y-you're Jordan
>he likes the Jews!
>he's controlled opposition!
Still triggering trannies who don't like the truth, libtards who propagandize, racists he won't associate with, and pseuds who can't tell the difference between a media personality and real life

>>24626986
lonely men looking for attention p much

>>24627246
To add to what you're saying, Ehrman is pretty clear on the differences between the Greek version of Thomas, which seems more similar to the Canonical Gospels in certain ways, and the Coptic version, which is more obviously Gnosticizing in a later developed way.

>>24628412
>Ehrman is pretty clear on the differences between the Greek version of Thomas,
???
Am I arguing with a bot? There is no greek version of Thomas?

>>24628594
Meant for >>24628426

>>24628426
ChatGPT post

>>24626499 (OP)
peterson is/was operating at the liminal intersection of clashing socio-political-cultural forces. His potency doesn't stem from naked appeal.

>>24628837
I legitemately don't understand what you're saying and I don't think that's a me issue.

>>24628843
>Peterson was and is part of a cultural and political divide. His appeal isn't entirely due to the quality of his work but relies on that fact.
I might also be retarded thoughbeit

>>24628843
there is a space between science/religion he bridges alongside psychology/culture/politics

>>24628856
>there is a space between science/religion he bridges
??? How? Where? The man changes the subject instantly when religion is brought up?

>>24627014
>Ehrman when 3rd century Gnostic text: SO TRUE
Name 1 example

>>24626499 (OP)
One of them has blasphemed the holy spirit and is irrevocably damned. The other is a retard and also hellbound but isn’t necessarily irrevocably so.

>>24628921
Which one is which and when did they do whatever you accuse them of?
I thought blaspheming the holy spirit means you were there and saw miracles but lied about it out of malice? I don't think either is 2000+ years old

>does not sound like a castrato
>sounds like a castrato
how he got this far in the age internet videos will never fail to amaze me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P63tK5yqFI4

>>24628941
Origen, one of the most influential early Church fathers, literally castrated himself on account of Matthew 19:12.

>For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

>>24628375
Petersons books are unreadable to anyone with a brain that has some minimum requirements of coherence and structure. The typical "compliments" his fans pay them are of the sort "it's so deep I didn't get it, I'll have to read it 3 more times..."; it's somewhat like associative writing by a person with a big thesaurus. He actually talks the same way, and on stage there is a hypnotic pull to someone rambling on and on about "profound" themes, and that's what has made him so attractive. That and the fact he is passionately confident that he has discovered the Truth of the World, up to breaking into tears at his own profundity.

If you ever encountered patients of a psychiatric ward, some of them display incredibly creative logorrhea. If they only were more business-savvy and had a good manager, they'd be filling stadiums just like JP.

>>24626499 (OP)
Both of them are atheists

>>24628988
>Petersons books are unreadable
Filtered.

>>24629002
How is JP atheist?

>>24629073
unreadable in the same way shit is inedible. It's not like I'd be too stupid to put a pile of shit in my mouth, I just really wouldn't feel like doing it if someone served it up to me on a plate, maybe inscribed with "We Who Wrestle With God" or something.

>>24628378
was wondering where you've been.

>>24629102
Yeah, what's more likely, hundreds of millions of people found meaning in books that are shit, or you're just not capable of understanding nuance?
If everyone around you is the problem, you're the actual problem

>>24626499 (OP)
>I could go on and on drawing parallels between these two
but you haven't drawn any parallels

>>24626499 (OP)
Ehrman is expert in lower criticism. He serves a milquetoast factoid soup to the "I love science" crowd of video essay junkies. His work is the "safe horny" of biblical criticism.

>>24626499 (OP)
>clearly denotes what is scholarly consensus and what is his personal opinion, both in writing and in interviews

This is patently false. I've heard more than one interview with him where he claims, as a matter of fact, to have successfully psychoanalyzed the author of Revelation to determine that he "made Jesus God," because he was essentially butthurt about the Roman emperors' claims to deity.

He also claims that we have no authentic writings of the Apostles but then claims to have successfully psychoanalyzed the Gospels to determine what the Apostles really thought of Christ when he was alive, and that they didn't believe he was God.

He is extremely disingenuous. In his lectures and interviews he presents the lack of a Canon, and the diversity of heretical sects in the early Church as some sort of covered up secret, as if the Church Fathers aren't heavily recommended reading for Catholics and Orthodox. He presents these as some sort of deep cut, when in fact they are studied by almost all theologians except for the slice of Protestants who want to claim to be rediscovering an authentic first century Christianity.

He also often uses appeals to "scholarly consensus" without being honest about how incredibly speculative it often is, and that it changes with fads over time based on the same underlying evidence.

He also decided what is "consensus" by excluding some camps as not being properly scholarly because they aren't secular humanists.

I have nothing against humanist approaches to the Bible. I love Leon Kass' stuff, and Robert Alter is my go to translator when I'm not reading the Septuagint.

Erhman has a clear bone to pick. He is angry about being mislead by his own fundy sect, and his work is basically a sly attack on Christianity, or, more charitably, a sly attempt to sell books rather than giving the honest answer of "we don't know."

>>24629568
This is a perfect description. It's kind of crazy how he has built up so a large business. I guess there is a pretty large demographic of liberals who want this sort of thing. I think it's mostly a way to be able to second guess anything in Scripture or the Fathers so that you can rewrite Christianity to align with modern progressive liberalism.

In my exposure to this stuff, it seems to make people extremely confident about their own knowledge of Christianity, because it presents everything as "but what they don't know...!" and actually leaves them at the top of the Dunning-Kreuger Mount Stupid.

It reminds me of YouTube conspiracy vids in a certain way. "Did you know there was this guy Origen..." No. You don't say...

>>24628962
That's almost certainly a later smear against him. His commentary on Matthew 5 says it would be retarded to literally tear your own eye out.

>>24629568
>>24629645
If you read 1 or 2 books of his, you ARE more knowledgable about christianity than 90% of the christian population. This doesn't make you some genius or anything, you've just taken intrest in something most people don't care about, but if someone claims to be a christian you are almost guaranteed to know more than they do unless they're a priest or something like that.

>>24629596
>I've heard more than one interview with him where he claims, as a matter of fact, to have successfully psychoanalyzed the author of Revelation to determine that he "made Jesus God,"
name 1 example of this happening. I don't believe you.
>He also claims that we have no authentic writings of the Apostles
patently false, he recognises some of Paul's letters as genuine, off the top of my head
if you mean followers of jesus... we don't? I mean unless you consider the letter of james to be authentic, though we're stretching the definition there also.
No, Luke and Acts don't count. Luke would have to be like 130 as of writing them.
>He is extremely disingenuous. In his lectures and interviews he presents the lack of a Canon, and the diversity of heretical sects in the early Church as some sort of covered up secret,
The fact that the proto-orthodox position wasn't always dominant is unknown to most christians and IS covered up by the catholic church with their LARP as descending from Peter so yeah, that's considered a "deep cut" to a layman who just heard about it.
>as if the Church Fathers aren't heavily recommended reading for Catholics and Orthodox.
Yeah the approved ones lol, they don't actually want you to learn about Valentinian christianity or anything like that because you might actually agree.

>>24630282
>No, Luke and Acts don't count.
let me guess,. your citation is https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-thinking-that-luke-wrote-luke-and-acts/ you fucking redditor?

>>24629596
>He also decided what is "consensus" by excluding some camps as not being properly scholarly because they aren't secular humanists.
That is the great modern schism, the false prophets of confusion, vs. the sleepy scriptures.

>>24630282
>One example
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one

>During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

An incredibly bold and unsupportable claim made with certainty and a false appeal to "scholarly consensus."

>Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.

>>24630282
>patently false, he recognises some of Paul's letters as genuine, off the top of my head

The post is clearly speaking to those who were with Christ during his ministry. And he makes this claim in no uncertain terms, for example here: >>24630626

BTW, he was badly BTFO on this point vis-á-vis Synoptic Gospels and stuttered through "yeah, I guess you have a pretty good point," PRIOR to this. That is, he got corrected, and then just decided to double down on it anyway? Why? Because he has his own MO and it's what is audience wants, which is to think that they have "special knowledge" that "deboonks" Christianity.

>If you read 1 or 2 books of his, you ARE more knowledgable about christianity than 90% of the christian population

just lol

>>24628907
That's his and cosmic skeptic's dayjob?

>>24629596
>He also decided what is "consensus" by excluding some camps as not being properly scholarly because they aren't secular humanists.
seruous question, do you think he should include Muslims in the discussion as well?

>>24629172
>people found meaning in books that are shit
this is much more likely, yes.

>Educated Greeks reading the NT in their native language within living memory of people taught by the Apostles or their immediate successors: "Jesus is God. Paul and Peter are both apostles."
>American ex-fundy with an agenda in the 21st century: "Well, acktually, the Apostolic Fathers are wrong, it's Paul versus Jesus. Buy my book. When Paul says he fought with Peter he is trustworthy, but when he says they got along he and Luke are lying. All of Peter's letters are fake but I 100% know what he thought about Jesus for real."

>>24631341
If they're doing good research. Erhman decides "scholarly" based on whether or not it let's him claim his ideas are "consensus." It has nothing to do with methodology.

>>24630505
Holy Shit

>>24631623
>Greeks who know nothing about what a Messiah is supposed to be
Jesus was divine just like heckin Heracles!!
>Jews who actually read the scriptures
-_-

>>24631623
One of the weird things about the arguments made about the veracity of New Testament texts based on issues of language and composition is the underlying implication that the ancients who were educated in Koine Greek and used it daily wouldn't have noticed anything.

>>24632400
>>24631623
>calls noted scholar a pseud for missing something obvious
>misses something incredibly obvious
dumbasses, there was no unfied "bible" within living memory of jesus... the earliest possible date for something resembling the modern canon being assembled is late 4th century.

>>24632400
Same thing with Jesus "obviously having biological brothers." Diarmaid MacCulloch treats this as obvious fact despite the fact that the Greek Fathers saw nothing particularly suggestive here, and certainly nothing decisive. And considering some seem to have memorized the NT, it's hardly that today we have "deeper readers." Indeed, as Alter often notes, the traditional commentators of the Mishnah, Talmud, or Patristics often seem to outstrip modern "deep readers" in picking out notable parallels, etc. precisely because they are hyper focused on the text.

Damn >>24629645
>and actually leaves them at the top of the Dunning-Kreuger Mount Stupid.

You were right, see: >>24632408

No shit there isn't a single Bible, the early Fathers discuss the canon at length. There were still recognized Hebrew Scriptures, the Gospels, Saint Paul's letters, the Catholic Epistles, the Apostolic Fathers' texts, etc. that they were intimately familiar with.

>>24626499 (OP)
>states everything as thought it's absolute truth
Memerson doesn't even have the guts to be a zealot. He, by his own admission, basically believes that "truth" is whatever helps humans (and apes and lobsters) succeed in life. I have no problem with that, but it's just a philosophical dumbed down version of pragmatism, JP himself is practically a Downs syndrome version of William James