I don't know what they wrote, Wil.
I'm not saying anything revolutionary, Wil. Bart Ehrman has made his position quite clear, and it's a minority one as far as scholars go.
I listened to this:
Two points stood out:
One was Wright's view that echoed my own, that Ehrman has gone from one extreme to the other. From all to nothing. (2.35 in)
The second (4.25) is that Wright said debating was difficult because you make a point, and he slips away from answering that by coming back with another point ... I find that a familiar experience here ...
I found this online and thought it interesting:
... But then Wright's comments took a turn that was seemingly unexpected for Ehrman... his (Wright's) understanding of resurrection is somewhat different from what has come to be viewed as traditional... Ehrman, however, continued to make his case against the church's traditional and, for Ehrman, insufficient or contradictory explanations of suffering. It seemed as if he could not hear Wright's disassociation from penal-substitution as the only way to tell the story of God at work in the world... (my emphasis)
There is a quite subtle form of intellectual dishonesty that dismisses others concerns and insists on making parallel presentations that are not open to conversational refinement.
That is, ignoring the point and changing the subject.
I did not get the sense that this was what Ehrman was doing. Rather Ehrman seemed so used to hearing the language Wright uses aligned in such a way as to bracket out any possibilities except the party line, that he did not appear to recognise that it was not happening quite that way this time.
This is telling.
Last edited:
