6 Comment(s)

1. Wow, that was awesome! I’d like to put Colbert up against John Dominic Crossan.

   goodwyne | Jun 23, 2009 | Reply

2. Well, I’m not positive that Colbert is even serious, much less that he would handle himself well in front of an actual challenge. I think Ehrman just happens to be something of a ding-dong throwing out out-of-date platitudes as if they are some sort of new discovery.

   His argument that Jesus’ words on the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” evidence that he didn’t understand what was happening to him or why is patently absurd. Clearly a reference to the Psalm. But he continually misses the point, as Colbert so succinctly points out when he says, “isn’t it just possible that you’re missing the point…”

   I LOVE when Colbert says “Oh you know the early Jews better than the early Jews.” Nail on the head!

   jdgoodwyne | Jun 23, 2009 | Reply

3. Ehrman is a biblical scholar, not any sort of theologian. He isn’t looking at the Bible the same way you would (or would want him to for that matter).

   While I think his attempts at writing accessible books on Biblical scholarship have been far too watered down to be useful, his work elsewhere in the field has been extremely important. I think the uselessness of the watered down approach is evidenced in this video, where his commitment to accessibility leads to overly simple arguments.

   To take anything on the Colbert Report this seriously is really to miss the point. Ehrman went on there to promote his book, and here we are talking about it so the appearance must have done its job. No more, no less.

   Stephen | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

4. Well since discussing the merits of Ehrman’s various positions is to “miss the point,” but talking about his book is the reason he was on the show, should we relegate our discussion of his appearance simply to the fact that he was on the show? Seems like a patently uninteresting conversation…

   Your point that he is a Biblical scholar, not a theologian is well-taken, though. I mistyped.

   jdgoodwyne | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

5. I am not denying that it is an interesting discussion, perhaps I should have embellished a bit further. Keep in mind that I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of what Ehrman says, but I’ve read a lot of his scholarly work and from a Biblical critical perspective it is quite good (the books he is promoting here are not scholarly).

   What I meant by my last comment was that Ehrman’s interview should be taken with a grain of salt as much as Colbert’s commentary. From what I know of Ehrman, he is a distinguished scholar who is attempting to write books that are accessible. As a result, interviews about the books must be accessible. Given that most scholars are out of touch with the rest of the world I have to give him some props for that, even if I think his efforts are misguided.

   Now, one could argue all day about whether his idea of trying to make Biblical criticism accessible is a good idea, or if these interviews are an awful idea. In my estimation, he hasn’t quite learned how to make his arguments in a way that would be accessible to the average individual. I think it leaves him looking like a grumpy agnostic making bad arguments, when that really isn’t a great representation of his overrall contributions to the field.

   Its similar to a strong theologian trying to go on a talk show and explaining the innerworkings of the Trinity in a 5 minute interview with a particularly verbose interviewer. I am somehow doubting that would go so well.

   As for Colbert, my understanding is that he is a liberal Roman Catholic. Thus it is really hard to tell how serious he is.

   I would have to agree that Ehrman comes off as a ding dong in this interview (the other one was much better on his end), I guess my overrall point is that his accomplishments whether you agree with his perspective or not are quite un-ding dong esque. And that is a great word.

   “un-ding dong esque”

   Stephen | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

6. Going on 3 months since last post.

   Pops | Sep 14, 2009 | Reply

Post a Comment