Aristotle Smith wrote:Thanks for the heads up. I haven't listened to Mormon Stories in years and this won't be the time to restart.
Dehlin has never been a good interviewer, especially when interviewing people on facts, doctrine, or history. Dehlin has always been more interested in social issues and interviews on those subjects tend to be a bit better.
Dehlin is proof that practice doesn't always make perfect. I was really looking forward to the interview with Lex De Azevedo and listened to it with my wife on a car trip, and this was her first exposure to Dehlin's style and even she commented on how terrible the interview was. De Azevedo was full of fascinating stories about his life, but Dehlin's comments and questions continually veered from surprise about things he should have known about to non sequiturs that continually tried to corner Lex on basic LDS beliefs.
Maybe interviewing is much harder than it looks (I've certainly never done a podcast interview), but I would have hoped for some improvement after all these years.
Aristotle Smith wrote:Also, Ehrman needs to go back to scholarly work; his popularizing well has run completely dry.
I like it when someone brings information to the masses. Doesn't matter to me whether Neil deGrasse Tyson is presenting his own research, I appreciate it just the same.
Sometimes I listen to Mormon stories and have an enjoyable experience (I don't pretend snobbiness about the interviewer). Sometimes I go and it's about as bad as it gets. Over the years I've dropped in and out of interest in the whole enterprise due to this lack of consistency.
I've liked Erhman's works and have read nearly all the books they mention (Lost Christianities was the first of his books I read) so I was interested what he might add in a Mormon context. But it was a horrible interview. John didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And I agree with another, why in the world did John end with some question about the Book of Abraham? There was a lot that could have been brought up. There were a lot of ways to go. It just wasn't very interesting, particularly if you are even vaguely familiar with Ehrman, which it appears John is not. Its like someone set up the interview and John showed up without any preparation. He should probably consider a different host, a guest host or something, when it's outside his wheelhouse. That seems obvious.
Alright, I mean, it is just Mormonstories. he's the talent that built it, I guess.
Aristotle Smith wrote:Also, Ehrman needs to go back to scholarly work; his popularizing well has run completely dry.
I like it when someone brings information to the masses. Doesn't matter to me whether Neil deGrasse Tyson is presenting his own research, I appreciate it just the same.
The thing is, the information is there quite readily for the masses, and some by very decent popularizers that even Ehrman would recommend (Harold Greenlee's book on New Testament textual criticism, for instance). I don't know anything about Tyson, but Ehrman is more of a sensationalist than a popularizer. He certainly knows what people would prefer to read.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
Stem wrote:Sometimes I listen to Mormon stories and have an enjoyable experience (I don't pretend snobbiness about the interviewer). Sometimes I go and it's about as bad as it gets. Over the years I've dropped in and out of interest in the whole enterprise due to this lack of consistency.
I've liked Erhman's works and have read nearly all the books they mention (Lost Christianities was the first of his books I read) so I was interested what he might add in a Mormon context. But it was a horrible interview. John didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And I agree with another, why in the world did John end with some question about the Book of Abraham? There was a lot that could have been brought up. There were a lot of ways to go. It just wasn't very interesting, particularly if you are even vaguely familiar with Ehrman, which it appears John is not. Its like someone set up the interview and John showed up without any preparation. He should probably consider a different host, a guest host or something, when it's outside his wheelhouse. That seems obvious.
all right, I mean, it is just Mormonstories. he's the talent that built it, I guess.
The most recent one I listened to was with Tara Westover. I found it interesting to hear him talk to someone who was a bigger celebrity than him.
Aristotle Smith wrote:I think he should get back to what he was trained in, textual criticism. Now would actually be a good time to do this because of the new text critical methods called CBGM coming out of Germany. As far as I know, Ehrman has not touched or addressed that. His "Text of the New Testament", co-written with Metzger, is still the standard work in English. I'm guessing he could write a few more books on that topic. As it stands only one of his popular books, Misquoting Jesus, actually deals with the topic he is expert on.
I was talking with a student of his at Chapel Hill and they intimated to me that Ehrman's was far more interested in the topic of Pseudepigrapha than textual criticism proper, so I doubt we'll see anything new from him in that area.
Whatever the case, Dehlin is trying. Apparently he has a second interview up with Dr. Coe--responding to Dr Sorenson. As I recall there was some interesting parts in the first interview, so I suppose I"ll listen. If I come back here complaining about the stupid host again...well...suffer it to be so. I can't help but try.