More Bartisms -

Ehrman responds to Father Robert Barron:

If The Very Reverend Robert Barron does find my book threatening, it is either because he has not read it closely enough or because he holds to fundamentalist views that have somehow or other managed to work their way into the hearts and minds of the Catholic clergy.   Or both.

Typical Bart Erhman - anyone who disagrees with him must be a fundamentalist. From my review of "Did Jesus Exist?":

Bart Ehrman has two goals in "Did Jesus Exist?" The first is responding to and rebutting the claim of "mythicists" that a person named Jesus who was the basis of the Christian movement never existed, i.e., that "Jesus" was a fictional character invented out of bits and pieces of the world's folklore. The second goal is to respond to the mythicist argument while still maintaining his prior positions that the contemporary view of Jesus held by "very conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians" (p. 72) aka "fundamentalist Christians" (p. 74) aka "well funded conservative Christians" (p. 142)aka "fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals (p. 231) - I made a game of noting the various times Ehrman "poisoned the well" and "strawmanned" opponents who were not "critical scholars" by labeling them with some variant of "conservative" - has no basis in the history of the "real" Jesus.

Also, Ehrman has never strayed very far from his fundamentalist anti-Catholic roots.

Also, what is with the repetition of "The Very Reverend" title?

I've often thought that Ehrman waives his hand at fundamentalist stereotypes of Catholicism in order to "Catholic-bait."  I wrote this in my review:

On the whole, Ehrman's characterizations concerning the "Catholic" position on the perpetual virginity of Mary are intellectually disturbing. Ehrman ought to have a more informed position inasmuch as he has taught the sub-Apostolic Father, including the Proto-Evangelium of James, for the Teaching Company. It's hard to tell with Ehrman whether his claim is just "Catholic-baiting." He may be so used to teaching to "conservative evangelicals" for whom associating anything with Catholicism makes it by definition weird and suspect that his default mode for persuasion is to make such an association with positions he wants to undermine. Alternatively, it may be as I've said, his fundamentalist assumptions still working their ways through his thought.

There is a fundie in the discussion, but it's not Father Barron.