Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman

Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie have not approved the message of this book – and nor, I’m guessing, will your evangelical friends. And yet Bart Ehrman has hit a nerve – as author of the most-used New Testament introductory textbook in America, the Chapel Hill bible scholar seeks to make the fruits of historical-critical biblical scholarship accessible to the average reader in a series of books including the New York Times best-selling Misquoting Jesus, the book that set the blogosphere a-buzz and actually incited three major-release books in response.

Now, in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), Ehrman goes even further, suggesting not only that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many of Christianity’s fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages-they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts. The Scriptures did not come down to us through the ages in one, harmonious, unbroken version. The story of Jesus was, in fact, interrupted.

Based on years of scholarship, and just in time for your Easter blogging, TheOOZE offers you Ehrman’s most important work-to-date. Jesus, Interrupted argues:

• Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
• The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus. As an example, the crucifixion story varies greatly between the gospels of Mark and Luke. Mark’s account depicts a suffering Jesus crying out “My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?” as he dies. Luke, however, portrays a calm Jesus who simply says “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”
• The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
• The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the Bible.
• Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.

Sure to influence conversations about the Bible among faithful, skeptics, and emergent types alike, Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted is sure to be talked about this Lenten season. Like every book we offer, we’re neither endorsing it nor expecting you to – we only ask for your honest and sustained feedback.

1. MMM

   Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus, Interrupted” is on its way, and I am waiting patiently. I am excited. I actually get to tell someone what the heck I think. Woo Hoo!

   Apr 7th, 2009

2. josiah316

   I was asked to be a part of the Ooze Viral Blogger network which reviews different books from time to time having to deal with life, faith, culture, etc. This month I will be reviewing the book, Jesus Interrupted, by the ever popular Bart Ehrman. Look for the upcoming review in the next few weeks! In the meantime, check out these links to hear more on this particular book…

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qADxEspNE-Q

   http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780061173936&WT.mc_id=PBAN_OOZE_JSINT_021309

   Peace!

   Apr 7th, 2009

3. chuckwarnock

   Please watch this 2-minute video — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qADxEspNE-Q — produced by HarperOne to promote Bart Ehrman’s new book, Jesus, Interrupted. Erhman is the author of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, and God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer.

   Here’s what Wikipedia says about Ehrman:

   Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written about how the original New Testament texts were frequently altered by scribes for a variety of reasons, and argues that these alterations affect the interpretation of the texts.

   I’m going to review Ehrman’s book, Jesus, Interrupted soon. Just wanted you to get ready because Ehrman’s books have caused others to rush to the defense of God, the Bible, and now probably Jesus. None of whom need a defense, but I think we need to know what the arguments are for those on the other side of the prevailing view of scripture.

   And, when you watch the video you may be surprised that Ehrman does not have horns. A tail, maybe, because we can’t see that on the video. Just kidding, of course, and I do look forward to the book. Should make for interesting conversation.

   Apr 7th, 2009

4. camelbo

   Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, has written several books that often cause a lot of conversation (and sometimes controversy) over the years. My first experience with him was reading Lost Scriptures (and its companion Lost Christianites) in my New Testament class. He deals with the books and manuscripts left behind in the canonization process of the NT. This book was an eye-opener for me because it made me (and through me, my class) ask the question, who gets to choose which version of Christianity “makes it” into the bible. There are many other traditions in our early Christian history that have all but been silenced though the canonization. One big question that this book made us wrestle with was, “did in fact the ‘winners’ get to choose our Christian beliefs, and what did we lose when we lost the views of the ‘losers’?” Now many people will argue (and have argued…a lot!) that the process (which was messy and happened over a long period of time) brought forth the “true” scriptures and the heretical scriptures were weeded out. After reading many of those “weeded out” texts one begins to wonder what exactly we have lost in declaring them the “losers”? In essence, at that period in our history all of these groups and writings were struggling with the same questions: “Who was Jesus?”, “Who are we as followers of Christ?” and “What exactly does it mean to be ‘the Church’?”. The answers may vary, but the questions are some of the same questions we struggle with today!

   Among Ehrman’s other publications, his most talked about have been Misquoting Jesus, where he explores the translation and preservation (copying) process and how that has impacted the Bibles we hold today. He sheds light on how messy and inexact the process is, and how what we read may not have been in the original texts.

   His last book, God’s Problem, dealt with the questions of pain, suffering and evil and how it is or isn’t present in the Bible. Both of these books have brought equal amounts of praise and scorn from their readers. However, What I admire most about Ehrman, is that he brings these issues, which are commonly talked about in the world of Christian academia, and delivers them to the pews. Many people who read these publications (which are highly accessible to the average reader) are forced to ask, “is this true?” and, “Why have I never heard this talked about in church before?”. Ehrman peels off the outer layers of the surface religion that is so common in American Christianity, and forces the reader to encounter, question (I would argue in a good way), and converse with the deeper parts of their own faith, assumptions, and beliefs. While I myself may not always agree with his conclusions, I highly respect and encourage his works and the dialog opportunities that they offer!

   His newest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), is on its way!!!

   There is media and info links provided and trust me, it is worth your time. If you haven’t picked up this book or any of Dr. Ehrman’s books, I encourage you to dive into a Biblical world you may never have known existed! Why not read Jesus, Interrupted along with us?

   Apr 7th, 2009

5. camelbo

   Ehrman on Colbert:
   http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224128/april-09-2009/bart-ehrman

   Apr 11th, 2009

6. ahub101

   Bart Ehrman is an interesting fellow. In preparations for my interview, I have taken some time to research Ehrman and to digest some of his material. Ehman grew up in a Christian home. The Christian communities that he interacted with throughout his early years (1-22? or so) all said that the Bible is inerrant, meaning (in the sense given to Ehrman by his Christian community) that there is absolutely no error, whatsoever, in the Bible…The Bible was basically given word-for-word from God through certain people. Then Ehrman discovered something called textual criticism. Basically, textual criticism involves dating a text, figuring out if editors have tampered with a text, and basically trying to follow the history of a text (of any kind really…but Ehrman is heavily involved with textual criticism regarding the Bible).
   Little do many know, but the journey that the New Testament has taken to get to our homes has been long, bumpy, and rather strange. Ehrman, using techniques of textual criticism, learned in his Princeton years, that the Bible cannot be inerrant as he had been taught earlier. His thought seemed to pivot from “the Bible is without error because God gave it…it is fully divine in the sense that the Quran is considered fully divine by Muslims…it was dictated, word-for-word, by God” to “there are errors in the N.T., and I am sure that the N.T. we have is completely different from the original documents of the first century, and so the Bible is completely human…and cannot be divine. (“I think that there is no doubt that the Bible is filled with human error. Both the copies that we have which are changed by scribes, there is nobody who can doubt this. All you need to do is take two manuscripts and compare them with one another and they’re different: hundreds, maybe thousands of places.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman])

   I disagree with Ehrman’s final position, by the way, though I must agree with the truth that the development of the NT is quite complex.

   I have recently listened to Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, which was quite interesting (though the reader was a bit dry). In the book, Ehrman reveals much of his early life and discusses his discoveries in regards to NT textual criticism since his Princeton years. I am looking forward to reading Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted soon (though I have not received it in the mail…hopefully I have enough time to read it before the interview). I am very much looking forward to interview Ehrman via phone.

   Apr 14th, 2009

7. Jeff Rhodes

   I must admit I am excited to be a part of a network of “viral” bloggers who get a free book to review on a regular basis. You can find more information on this network and join at: http://viralbloggers.com/.

   So, my first book is on the way…

   “Jesus, Interupted” by Bart Ehrman is going to be…um…well, interesting to say the least. This is basically what the book is about:

   Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
   The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
   The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
   The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
   Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
   The commonly told story of Jesus — his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.
   So, yeah, I guess that pretty much sums up what I’ve gotten myself into!! I am actually looking forward to reading the book and posting some comments here, so be sure to check back in a couple of weeks…

   Btw, here are some links you should check out about the book:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qADxEspNE-Q

   http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780061173936&WT.mc_id=PBAN_OOZE_JSINT_021309

   http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/is-our-pain-gods-problem/

   Please note, I don’t post this because I agree, I am confident that I will not agree. I am reading this book to learn.

   Apr 27th, 2009

8. ahub101

   Looking Into Ehrman’s Future With His Own Glasses

   After reading Jesus, Interrupted, I had the pleasure of interviewing its author, Bart Ehrman. After listening to the audio book of Misquoting Jesus (another of Ehrman’s books), reading an online debate between Ehrman and N.T. Wright, and watching a debate between Bill Craig and Ehrman on the historicity of the resurrection, I really wanted to learn what Ehrman’s presuppositions are. It is always important to find out what kind of glasses a person wears; meaning, how does a person view the world based on their ideas and assumptions.
   Ehrman was once an evangelical Christian who believed in the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but now he can be best described as an Enlightenment skeptic (he called himself a “strong agnostic” in the interview). Like many Enlightenment thinkers, Ehrman answered “yes” when I asked him if he denies the existence of supersensible and immaterial realities external to the human imagination and intellect. Also, Ehrman answered “yes” when I asked him if he thought that religion could only be in the bounds of reason alone. In my third question to see if Ehrman wears Enlightenment glasses, he again answered “yes” when I asked him if he agreed with Enlightenment thinkers that revelation is impossible if we mean by revelation access to truths that could not be discovered independent of revelation.
   In regards to the makeup of the universe, Ehrman is certain that there is no good God, because he thinks that there is no good answer to the problem of evil in the world. Therefore, he said that we live in an “indifferent universe” where “good is not an objective idea’ and that good for one person is not the same as good for another. Surprised by Ehrman’s answer and how far he had moved from being an evangelical Christian, I wanted clarification, so I asked Ehrman a question: Goodness for Osama bin Laden was flying airplanes into buildings, whereas I believe that that was an evil act. Would you still say that bin Laden is doing good, subjective to his interests and that each opinion is valid? Ehrman answered, “yes.”
   Following up on the problem of evil, I asked if he thought he had traded a just and good universe for a cruel universe and therefore had adopted a nihilistic outlook. Ehrman said that he is not nihilistic, and that “there is a point to existence.”
   What then, would Ehrman answer to the following question: If there is only subjective good in the universe and that good for some is killing people and that good for others involves helping others, would you agree that both views are valid and there seams to be no common goal between the two different people, other than their pursuit for happiness? Would you then agree that the universe is essentially tragic in that all supposed knowledge of good and evil are constructions? I did not ask Ehrman the questions in this paragraph, but I wonder how consistent his thinking is on this subject.
   I believe that to be consistent, Ehrman will have to move from an existence with a purpose to a tragic and cruel view of the universe because of his lack of belief in objective goodness. Based on this logic (and Ehrman’s own autobiographical chapters), below is a rough time-line of Ehrman’s life (including the unwritten future):

   1. Being born again and adopting the beliefs of fundamental evangelicals. The Bible is fully divine and cannot be ruined by human thoughts or hands. The composition of the Bible and the transmission of the Bible are divinely and perfectly guided, leaving nothing to humans and their propensity to ruin things.
   2. Learning about the humanness of the Bible and the Christian religion. The Bible cannot be inerrant. There have been changes to the New Testament texts over the years, and so God has not perfectly preserved his revelations. Therefore, there can no longer be any authentic revelations. This means that the humanness of the Bible has tainted any of the divinity of the Bible. The Bible must now be considered a fully human text, reduced to myths that inspire us to greater deeds.
   3. Since there is no historical reality to the NT myths, Christian doctrines such as the resurrection of Jesus are not real events and therefore, the central doctrines of the Trinity and the resurrection must be tossed out the window, though the example of Jesus’ selflessness is a good example and inspiration for all. At this point one cannot be considered a Christian at all, because they no longer hold to central Christian beliefs, or even the divinity of Christ. (Note: In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman says that it was the problem of evil that lead him to be an agnostic and to not be a Christian. However, in our interview, Ehrman defined a Christian in lose terms as a person that in some sense believes that Jesus reveals God… This would include a mythic understanding of the Gospels. This would also mean that Gandhi could be put in the same category as Jesus…which Christians [who, as I define them, believe that Jesus is God] should deny.) I believe, although Ehrman does not, that he is in essence an agnostic at this stage.
   4. Ehrman then looks at the world and sees so much evil and no solution. Because of the loss of basic Christian doctrines, there is no longer heaven or hell (who could conceive of a good God who punishes people for all eternity?!)…places for the meting out of justice after death. Indeed, the afterlife has now become a symbol for living a good life in an Enlightenment thinker’s mind. The problem of evil in the world and theodicy make it impossible to believe in a good God. (Ehrman says he became an agnostic at this point.)
   5. If there is no God, and no immaterial realties such as objective truth, this means that the universe is indifferent. Therefore, each must pursue their own happiness and find their own path and goals in life. (This is where Ehrman seems to be in his thinking at the moment.)
   6. (From here on is my forecast for Ehrman’s intellectual and spiritual future, if he wants to remain consistent.) People have competing goal for happiness. One person is happy to kill others will others are happy to just live decent lives. As soon as the killer meets the person who simply wants to live a good life, there are two competing goals and views on happiness. This brings about a tragic view of the universe and Ehrman will see more clearly that, in the end, evil (though, of course, it cannot be called objective evil, just as there is no objective good) and cruelty rule the universe. The outlook at this point must be Nietzschean.

   All forecasting and interviewing aside, I enjoyed reading Jesus, Interrupted. The book challenged me with some new ideas (though much of what was written was not news to me). While I found myself agreeing with much of Ehrman’s data on the history of the Bible and of the development of Christian doctrine, I found myself disagreeing with his “therefore”s. Perhaps this is what I enjoyed most about the book: the dialogue that was going on between Ehrman’s words and my thoughts.
   I would like to write a more complete and polished article sometime in the future. Look for that on http://www.xanga.com/ahub.

   Apr 30th, 2009

9. knowtown

   I spent the day reading Bart Ehrman’s newest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)

   I have to admit at the outset that I like Ehrman’s work. While I don’t arrive at the same conclusions I am impressed by his writing style and his ability to write about important theological issues in ways that are clear and easy to read, even for those who are not familiar with theological, academic language. Ehrman is a teacher, and it comes through very well in his writing.

   In my opinion, this is one of his best books. Maybe even his best. I found his tone in this book to be much more generous than some of his earlier books and he is very careful–almost to a fault–to speak kindly to and about Christians who don’t arrive at his agnostic views.

   If you have read Misquoting Jesus, or Lost Christianities, there is not a lot of new content here, but it is presented in a different way and with a different emphasis. As Ehrman points out several times in the book, the textual issues he is shining his light on are not new. To the contrary, most biblical scholars have been aware of these “hidden” contradictions for a very long time. So there will be no surprises in this book to anyone who has had any college level classes in Biblical studies.

   The really strong (but subtly understated) critique can be summed up in the parenthetical portion of the subtitle. Namely, why is it that most church attenders are unaware of these “hidden contradictions” when the academic world has known about them for two hundred years or more? Most pastors learn about the history of the sacred texts in Bible college, Seminary, or divinity schools so why do they not some how communicate this history once they enter the world of pastoral ministry?

   A quick excerpt will illustrate: “Yet such views of the Bible are virtually unknown among the population at large. In no small measure this is because those of us who spend our professional lives studying the Bible have not done a good job communicating this knowledge to the general public and because many pastors who learned this material in seminary have, for a variety of reasons, not shared it with their parishioners once they take up positions in the church. (Churches, of course, are the most obvious place where the Bible is–or, rather, ought to be–taught and discussed.) As a result, not only are most Americans (increasingly) ignorant of the contents of the Bible, but they are also almost completely in the dark about what scholars have been saying about the Bible for the past two centuries. This book is meant to help redress that problem. It could be seen as my attempt to let the cat out of the bag.”

   I think this is a great observation and an intriguing question that should be wrestled with but it is not new. (Edward Farley asks a similar question in his critique of Christian theological education. You can find that question here: http://www.ecclesialdreamer.com/?p=402) It is curious that many pastors are reluctant to bring attention to the multiple challenges our sacred text present to our theological convictions. In the closing chapters of the book, Ehrman extends his argument beyond the problems he sees in the sacred texts of Christianity and shifts his focus on some of the central theological claims of “orthodox” Christian faith. Again, anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work will not be surprised to find that he has serious issues with the doctrines of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and miracles, just to name a few.

   And here is where I find that Ehrman’s great teaching ability seems to break down. While I have no doubt that he holds his agnostic views with well informed confidence, he presents his theological criticism against a group of narrow, conservative, evangelical opponents. And while I would share many of the same critiques of those traditions, I would find it more helpful if Ehrman interacted with theologians who are outside the narrow scope of his critique. How would Ehrman’s convictions respond to Richard Bauckham’s view of Christology? (Bauckham has published a book on Christology that offers an alternative understanding to the development of that Christian theology and its relationship to Jewish monotheism. A brief overview of Bauckham’s view can be found here: http://www.ecclesialdreamer.com/?p=72) Or Vincent Donovan’s missiology? (Donovan’s outstanding book, The Church in the Midst of Creation offers an alternative understanding of the development of the missiology of the early church.) I have no doubt that Ehrman is well aware of these other theologians and that his own study of the history and languages of the early church would make it a much more interesting discussion.

   But I suspect that such a book would not sell nearly as well as the “conspiracy theory” tomes that he is becoming so well know for. In the end, maybe the reason so many pastors don’t expose their congregations to these “hidden” contradictions and “misquotes” of Jesus is the same reason Ehrman does not interact with Donovan, Bauckham, or Eisenbaum. They want to keep more people in the pews as much as he wants to sell more books. Which makes me wonder if our convictions are shaped more by economy than theology.

   In any case, Ehrman has produced another great book that is worth reading and discussing. In my own opinion this is his best book to date and makes me think that there is even better stuff to come from this gifted communicator/teacher.

   The original review posted: http://www.ecclesialdreamer.com/?p=1116

   May 1st, 2009

10. timothy_mathis

    Relatively Faithful up to date book review: Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman
    This is the first book review I’m writing for TheOoze Viral Bloggers network, which is meant to make you want to read this book, or not, I’m not sure. I hadn’t heard of Bart D. Ehrman before TheOoze sent me the book, but he’s a well-known former Evangelical-turned-agnostic Scholar who’s been writing lately about the Bible, suffering, losing faith, etc. Ehrman is ambitious in this one – he wrote a clear and accessible outline of the basics of scholarly consensus on what the Bible actually is, with the hope that Christians (conservative and liberal) will read it and take it seriously. I for one hope he’s right.

    As someone with six years of formal biblical studies and theological education, I’m not really his target audience (the average ‘(wo)man in the pew’), and folks with a similar background might get a little bit bored with the book. However, for the average aspiring Honest Christian I think this will be really helpful. There’s a growing impulse, I think, towards spiritual and theological honesty in the face of criticism being leveled at Christianity by historians, scientists, talk-show hosts and so forth, and Ehrman’s book is an ideal introduction to the criticisms put forward by those who study the Bible in a scholarly (rather than devotional) manner. Most of his friends, students and colleagues are committed Christians, and he’s obviously not trying to destroy anyone’s faith – he just wants folks to understand what most respected scholars are saying about the Bible. As he notes, that message somehow hasn’t effectively filtered down from Seminary professors to church leaders to their congregations (Pastors are too (patronizingly) scared that their parishioners can’t handle the truth?), so somebody has to speak up. Ehrman’s work might shock Biblicists, but for those of us willing to step back, take a deep breath and face the facts, it offers an accessible and sympathetically communicated introduction to the questions and contradictions that the Bible presents us with.

    Original review posted at: http://relativelyfaithful.blogspot.com/2009/05/relatively-faithful-up-to-date-book.html

    May 4th, 2009

11. camelbo

    I am one of those people who likes all of Ehrman’s popular writings and this entry into his library is no exception. One reason that I like his popular writings is that he can take complex ideas and translate them so that it is accessible to the masses. If you were to put this book together with Misquoting Jesus and you basically have a crash-course of a New Testament Intro/Survey Class.

    And this is Bart’s purpose for writing. He wants to bridge the gap between Biblical academia and the pews. In his purpose he succeeds on a level that I think is unmatched by any other scholar. Is his scholarship debatable? Yes! He even lists critics (including website addresses) of the most respected critics of his previous book. I agree that there is a huge gap between the academic world and the Church world. I also think it is important that people step in to bridge that gap. Ehrman has a way of engaging the reader with sometimes complicated material and helps them to grasp onto these (many times for the audience) new thoughts and ideas. This is not a book that many Sunday School classes would use, so it raises many questions for the average reader about the Bible and perhaps the “faith” they are being sold in their churches.

    This brings me to Ehrman’s overarching purpose (why he writes what he does), which shows up beautifully in this book. Ehrman not only wants to engage the masses with Biblical scholarship, he has always enjoyed challenging the “inherited faith” of his students and many Christians in general. He believes (and I happen to agree), that a faith that has not been challenged and avoids the intellectual complications and enlightenment that can come from being exposed to Biblical academia, is not an “owned faith”. So, on this, Bart succeeds in his book as well! So well in fact, that he gives you tons of information about things that are at odds with each other (or itself) in the Bible, and then leaves you to figure out what to do with it. He gets a lot of heat for doing this (deconstruction with no reconstruction), But I have to respect that he considers his audience to be intelligent people. For Ehrman, the fact that they do not know these things about the Bible has more to do with the teachers and leaders than it does the laity.

    Most people know that Ehrman is a self-proclaimed agnostic. This is one reason he receives the amount of criticism he does. However, he does admit that reviewing the discrepancies (most of which he considers inconsequential, but are rarely pointed out anyway) is NOT why he is agnostic. In fact he goes as far as to say that 2 possible reactions that someone could have after initial exposure to these discrepancies is to 1) reject their faith, or 2) climb back into a hole and ignore their existence. He cautions against both of these outcomes and considers them an unhealthy reaction. This helps keep the framework of Bart’s purpose intact. You can disagree with his scholarly view, but the challenge from there is to then continue to search and form your own opinions. He never comes across as arrogant in his writings, and in fact gives the reader access to other scholarly views in the notes. I think that these are huge reasons that his books succeed in the mass media.

    So I believe that Jesus Interrupted is a successful book in the Ehrman library, but does it have any negatives. I would have to say that my views are more wishes than negatives. I wish there were more references to other scholars to back up his claims. He uses the phrase “many scholars” and “most scholars”, but never truly names them, even in the notes. Although he names a few alternate sources for alternate views, most of the notes reference a previous work of his own.

    The second wish is that, while I agree that there needs to be a bridge built from the world of academics to the pews, I think that there also needs to be a little more “spirituality” in the academic circles. It is way too easy to take the human/sacred element out of Christianity. However, I can’t claim this as a negative since 1) that is not in Bart’s purpose, and 2) I would think Bart would consider himself unqualified in this department. Being an agnostic, I think that he would claim that there are others far better at adding back in the spiritual element after breaking down the New Testament.

    So what does one do with Jesus Interrupted? I think that one must use it as a primer for further research into the Bible and what else is out there. Just like a NT Survey class, you don’t get everything that is out there from one teacher and one sitting. However, this book is meant to open up a whole new world simply by looking at something that the majority of his readers will be very familiar with. Just like most entry level Div./Seminary students who are taught these same views, there will be a lot of “How did I not know that?” and “Why have I never seen this?”. This book is best used as a springboard to launch one into seeking out more about what the academic world has to say about the Bible and, through those people, work towards bridging the gab between the classrooms and the pews.

    Original post: http//:camelbo.blogspot.com

    May 7th, 2009

12. perenner

    I just recently finished reading Bart Ehrman’s latest book, Jesus, Interrupted – Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them), and I must say that although the information contained is so wide-ranging that I will need quite a while to ponder it, it is a fascinating read.

    To begin my review on the right note, I will say that I have not decided to become an agnostic after reading it, although Ehrman, now a Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, is quite adamant throughout the book that he himself is now indeed agnostic. To be fair, he also points out quite clearly that his agnostic position is not as a result of the material he covers in this book (although he might have made the point one too many times – leaving me with a slight feeling that he “doth protest too much,” but I digress).

    As I mentioned before, the book is fairly wide-ranging in subject matter, as evidenced from the table of contents:
    A Historical Assault on Faith
    A World of Contradictions
    A Mass of Variant Views
    Who Wrote the Bible?
    Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus
    How We Got the Bible
    Who Invented Christianity?
    Is Faith Possible
    Each of the chapters contains material that covers a very basic understanding of the sort of things that beginning seminary students might expect to learn at all but the most conservative of schools, focusing most heavily on direct contradictions between books in the New Testament, and the authorship of said books. One point that Ehrman tries to drive home repeatedly is the idea that most of what he says in this book is basic and common knowledge among scholars. Here is a quote from the last chapter of the book, to give you a feel for the overall theme:
    “I have been trying, instead, to make serious scholarship on the Bible and earliest Christianity accessible to people who may be interested in the New Testament but who, for one reason or another, have never heard what scholars have long known and thought about it.” (pg. 271)

    It’s also clear from repeated allusions that Ehrman himself has come under considerable criticism for his views since the publication of Misquoting Jesus in 2005, primarily from conservative evangelicals (which he isn’t ashamed to say he once was, having received degrees from Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. He answers those critics multiple times in Jesus, Interrupted, as in this example:

    “Some readers will find it surprising that I do not see the material in the preceding chapters as an attack on Christianity or an agnostic’s attempt to show that faith, even Christian faith, is meaningless and absurd. That is not what I think, and it is not what I have been trying to accomplish” (p. 271)

    I think Ehrman best sums up the reason that he has been vilified by conservatives in the following statement, again near the end of the book:

    “Or perhaps pastors are afraid that if the person in the pew learns what scholars have said about the Bible, it will lead to a crisis of faith, or even the loss of faith. My personal view is that a historical-critical approach to the Bible does not neccesarily lead to agnosticism or atheism.” (p. 272)

    Ehrman’s writing style is indeed accessible to the lay person, and it is clear that he has had enough experience with first year seminary students to learn how to “soften the blow” of full-on NT textual criticism well enough to keep his readers engaged until he has made his case. Still, I know that many of my readers will be frightened of the subject matter or at least very cautious when approaching this book. To those folks, I would recommend that you take the time to find the book at a bookstore or library and read the last chapter, as it will give you a good idea of what you are in for, should you decide to take the material on.

    I have read about as much theological literature as a hobbyist can, but I have no formal theological training, so dry, clinical, or academic texts usually turn me off. I can say to my delight however, that Ehrman’s book went right to the edge of that cliff without stepping over it, and I really enjoyed the read, to the author’s credit. Footnotes in this book are fewer and father between than one might expect, and if I had a criticism for the editor, I would say that placing the footnotes on the page where they are referenced would be of great value to a hobbyist reader such as myself. I know I can look them up in the back of the book, but to me it disrupts the flow of the material too much at times to have to dig around like that. A minor point, I know, but this is a book review, after all.

    As for criticisms of Ehrman himself, I have only one. He is certainly entitled to his agnosticism, which seems hard won indeed, but I feel that on multiple occasions in the book he has to make some leaps or “gut feel” types of calls on what he thinks about original authorship questions and other things. It’s hard to put my finger on anything in particular, but it seemed to me that each time those leaps were required, his presuppositions lead him and his gut away from faith, perhaps subconsciously, rather than offering the benefit of the doubt and accepting orthodox thought.

    Still, for the majority of the book, Ehrman’s facts seem to be in line with conventional scholarship, and his conclusions logically plausible, if not obvious.

    Should you read it? As with every book of this nature, that totally depends on you, and I can’t pretend I know enough about you to make the call, but consider the following paraphrased statements from the book:
    Only eight of the books of the New Testament are thought to be written by their supposed authors
    Jesus probably never said he was divine, nor did the authors of Matthew, Mark, or Luke
    Jesus might not have meant that he was coming again, but that the Son of Man (a different person) was
    The concepts of Heaven, Hell, and eternal punishment or reward of people, and the Trinity are all inventions of early Christian leaders, and only evident in what we read today because they were added later by scribes and the like
    No historian knows if Jesus performed miracles, and the very purpose of miracles are at odds with each other in Matthew and John
    The gospels at times differed greatly on many points, from the theologically significant (including “the suffering servant” narrative and substitutional atonement) to the trivial (like when Jesus was born and when he was crucified).
    If the kinds of things listed above give you pause or even cold chills, you may not want to approach this material. If on the other hand, you feel strong enough to engage the text regardless of your personal beliefs, you may very well enjoy having your mind stretched. If all of those statements sound basic and familiar to you, this book might not have much extra to offer. Ehrman’s goal (if I understand his multiple repetitions of it throughout the book) is to simply present the scholarship to a lay audience, and not necessarily to convince his readers to join him in his retreat from the Christian faith.

    Link to post: http://renman.typepad.com/ps/2009/05/book-review-jesus-interrupted.html

    May 8th, 2009

13. unorthodoxology

    My mom once told me she thought there was an unspoken rule among many seminary graduates not to share all the things they learned about the history of the Bible and of Christianity once they entered the ministry.

    I remember talking with her after she began taking a class at an area college and was surprised that the complex history of the Bible was not part of every-day teaching of even liberal churches. I think she might have felt a little swindled in the faith, and rightfully so.

    There is a lot of interesting ideas and arguments that don’t make it into Sunday school lessons and homilies. The idea that the each of the gospels represents a different kind of Christianity and that the Epistles could be read as theological arguments contradicting other authors and letters in the New Testament.

    Scholar of New Testament Christianity Bart Ehrman, too, found himself disappointed in this seemingly intentional blindspot in the teachings of churches. And he has written a book as a corrective.

    Unfortunately, the bloated tome, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) often comes across as an arrogant romp through introductory history and theology passed off as a groundbreaking, insightful book. It’s the kind of book people write when they’ve run out of things to write. Indeed, most of the book is lifted from Ehrman’s previous books, so Interrupted reads more like a “best of” than a coherent work.

    I disagree with nothing that Ehrman writes, in content. It is a great resource for people who speak with stridently inerrantist Christians, as it lays out myriad arguments to rebut such views. But his presentation often comes across as condescending and arrogant as he details inconsistencies within the Bible and historical problems with New Testament authorship.

    I think what Ehrman misses, in blasting pastors for failing to level with congregants about the nature of the Bible, is the difference between devotional reading and scholarly or critical reading. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but often are in Christian’s lives. Pastors, when faced with an array of needs in the congregation — and an array of beliefs — must balance challenging theology and historical criticism with the devotional needs of a congregation.

    When foreclosures force families onto the streets, when loved ones tragically and unexpectedly die, when sorrow like sea billows roll, congregants sometimes need a devotional message. In these circumstances, concerns about the inconsistencies in the gospels seem rather minor to the reminder of the message of God’s love gleaned from them.

    In many ways, Ehrman’s book is an inside-baseball book, for those who want to take a deeper look at Christianity. My concern is that for the people who desire such a critical look, Ehrman’s book is elementary with little outside references to direct people to more in-depth analyses of the issues Ehrman barely touches.

    Finally, there are moments in the book in which Ehrman seems contemptuous of Christians who have not or are unwilling to take this kind of historical critical look at the Bible. I simply think this is as unfair, arrogant and narrow-minded as the literalist faith he seems to be chafing against in his work. There is a way to present this material without such condescending arrogance, but Ehrman seems more concerned as coming across an authority on the subject who must be obeyed than as a teacher who must gently guide.

    Link: http://unorthodoxology.blogspot.com/2009/05/ehrmans-jesus-interrupted.html

    May 9th, 2009

14. ahswan

    I was recently provided a review copy of Bart Ehrman’s latest book, Jesus, Interrupted. I still don’t really understand how the title relates to the book, aside from Ehrman’s claim that the Gospel as we know it was not the gospel that Jesus preached. His main point, however, seems to be that most pastors know that the Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions, but they continue to preach from it as if it were actually true. This apparently makes Ehrman frustrated, so he’s taken it upon himself to reveal this scandal to the uninformed public.

    Overall, Jesus, Interrupted is possibly the poorest example of scholarship I’ve read in years, if you could even use the word “scholarship” with regard to this book. Hardly a page went by without my thinking, “Is he really that stupid?” or “Does he really think we’re that stupid?” Once I even found myself saying out loud, “What an idiot.” Time and time again Ehrman fails to see the plain meaning of Scriptural passages and repeatedly jumps to conclusion after conclusion, often without the need to make the jump. It is also clear that if given the option of jumping in more than one direction, he will always jump left instead of right, even if left is an impossible jump.

    I will say, however, that I do agree with Ehrman on a few points:

    * I do not believe that “inerrant” is a word that properly describes the Bible. I know this will get me excluded from certain groups, but so be it. I do believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, if you hold the Bible to a literal, inerrant standard, you run into problems.
    * A Christian’s faith should not be in the Bible. We are to have faith in Jesus. Putting one’s faith in something other than Jesus is not only idolatry, it leads to unnecessary faith crises.
    * The authors of the various books existed in a specific time and culture, and what they wrote needs to be understood in the author’s context.
    * Each Bible author must be allowed to have their say.
    * Historical criticism does not necessarily lead to a loss of faith.

    Ehrman’s favorite fallacies

    Rather than being a scholarly work, Jesus, Interrupted is mostly empty rhetoric, making use of various fallacious arguments. One of his favorite fallacies is the appeal to false authority. Besides setting himself up as the expert, I can’t count how many times he refers to “most scholars,” “many scholars,” and makes statements like, “well known among scholars,” and my favorite, “Scholars have known this for well over a century.” (p. 113) He also makes reference to friends of his (which he does not name) who agree with him. He also obviously holds himself out as an authority, as he makes many outlandish statements like, “In the early church, baptism was not performed on infants” (p. 127).

    Another favorite fallacy of Ehrman’s is the argument from silence. If an author doesn’t specifically say that Jesus was God, he must not have believed it. Again, Ehrman would probably qualify for the Olympic conclusion-jumping team.

    While one of Ehrman’s points is that “each author must be allowed to have their say” and they must be understood in context, he never really does either. Instead, he suspects many of the authors of inventing or changing information in order to support their own agendas. Those he charges with deception include Matthew, Luke and John, none of whom Ehrman believes were really who they say they were.

    I also found the book frustrating in that either Ehrman is really quite obtuse, or he is being purposefully obfuscatory. He seems to have problems understanding very basic points, and at times he goes well out of his way to take passages literally where there is no reason to do so. For example, he states, “Matthew thinks that the followers of Jeus need to keep the law” (p. 89), and that Matthew believed that “salvation also requires keeping God’s laws.” Anyone who has studied the Bible at all should be able to understand what Jesus was saying with regard to the law; but that wouldn’t have served Ehrman’s purpose. He also has real difficulty interpreting the Old Testament, especially concerning prophecies relating to Jesus. And here again, he accuses the NT writers of making up facts to fit the OT prophecies.

    His logic is generally circular, and sometimes so convoluted it’s hard to follow. When nothing else works, he resorts to his claims that the documents were forgeries, or that the authors made up facts for their own, twisted agendas.

    It is not my intent to refute in detail all of Ehrman’s claims; for that, I would have to write a whole book. For a very good series of posts dealing with many of Ehrman’s claims, I would recommend Ben Witherington, or perhaps Ehrman’s interview with Stephen Colbert.

    Obtusities

    I just had to mention a couple of issues where Ehrman seems particularly obtuse. He acts as though none of the 1st Century Christians ever spoke to each other. For example, he suggests that much of the birth story in Luke is made up, as no one was there. He fails to mention that Mary was, of course, present, and that she was no stranger to the disciples. You don’t think Mary ever told anyone any stories of the old days? In fact, I have no problem believing that the song of Mary as recorded by Luke was probably a song Mary wrote, and perhaps sang from time to time. Again, these people did not exist in a vacuum.

    Also, with regard to his theories about John not writing the Gospel of John, etc. Here, he fails to mention that Polycarp was a student of John’s, who in turn taught Irenaeus, who wrote a number of commentaries on the Gospels as well as on Paul’s letters. Don’t you think these people would have a bit of information about who wrote John’s Gospel? (But of course, Ehrman would accuse them of lying as well.)

    My Ehrman-style conclusions

    Using Ehrman’s style of reading intent into the Biblical authors, here’s what I think is really going on with Jesus, Interrupted: Ehrman tells us that he starting doubting much of the Bible long before he became agnostic. However, his bizarre logic and general lack of understanding would indicate that this is not merely an intellectual issue. In fact, I think Ehrman is being intellectually dishonest. It seems that Ehrman has chosen his beliefs, and is interpreting the Bible in such a way that supports his moral decision to disbelieve. It is very common for those who turn away from Christianity to have a moral issue at the bottom of that decision. I don’t know what Ehrman’s issue is, but he does hint to it in the book (p. 273) with respect to the issue of suffering.

    By the way, if you’re thinking, “he’s making this up… he doesn’t know anything about Ehrman’s life or his motives,” then I’ve made my point.

    Recommendations

    If someone really wants to understand more about the Bible and the issue Ehrman discusses, here are a few recommendations:

    The Last Word, NT Wright

    Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Baukham

    The Meaning of Jesus, NT Wright and Marcus Borg

    May 12th, 2009

15. Ewright523

    I rarely read a book without finding something of value in it. Even in viewpoints with which I disagree I can usually find some redeeming points or insights. Jesus, Interrupted, however, was a waste of my time. While being easy on the readability scale, it is filled with half-truths and poor scholarship almost to the point of unreadability.

    In this post I will give a few points where I agree with Ehrman (indicating areas where I diverge) and then point out a few other problems with the book.

    At the end of this post I will give the links to Ben Witherington III’s blog posts concerning this book. He is a brillilant New Testament scholar with more expertise in this area than I. His series is nothing short of brilliant. It is lengthy, but worth the time it takes. You don’t even need to have read Ehrman’s book to understand and learn from Witherington’s posts.

    Let me say that there are a few points where I agree with him. While I agree with him it does not mean they are new, insightful, or all that useful.

    Points of Agreement with a little explanation:
    Every first year seminarian learns New Testament criticism, and it does challenge some. During my first year of seminary I was challenged by the issues presented by New Testament Criticism…until they offered all the views. I was able to evaluate them and found there are very plausible explanations which Ehrman either doesn’t discuss or completely disregards without a full explanation.

    Erhman does a great job of only presenting one (his) explanation as the only plausible one and giving just enough information about other views to make them seem ridiculous. It is easy to disregard some of the arguments because Ehrman himself starts with faulty assumptions. New Testament Criticism is a complex field and the scholars (despite Ehrman’s “most scholars agree” comment) do not agree with his explanations.

    Very few pastors bring this stuff up. I don’t want to misrepresent Ehrman or attempt to speak for him, but his writing leaves me with a bad impression. That impression is that Ehrman believes pastors are keeping this information from the people because they just don’t want to deal with it, think their people won’t be able to handle it either spiritually or intellectually, or they are purposely deceiving people.

    Most of this is practical. Sharing the insights of New Testament Criticism would overwhelm many. It is a difficult subject that requires more than a Sunday morning sermon can provide. Many pastors do not fully understand the ins and outs of NT Criticism.

    The Historical-Critical method is a widely used and very reliable method of getting at the meaning of a Biblical passage and understanding. Ehrman is correct that to properly understand the Biblical message and interpret it properly we need to understand the time, place, situation, etc of the original writers and readers.

    Unfortunately, Ehrman only abides by this principle when it is convenient.

    In the section explaining Biblical contradictions…Ehrman fails to take into account Biblical genres (His understanding of Genesis and his explanation of the Psalms are just one example). He fails to understand why John would place the Temple Cleansing at the beginning of his book while other place it later…then says that it cannot be reconciled. If Ehrman understood the purpose of a Gospel genre he wouldn’t have so much difficulty.

    There are variant views, textual differences, and the writers were usually anonymous (and not necessarily who’s name was listed on the document). Again a simple understanding of the process would help. Ehrman just misses it. There are textual variations, the Biblical writers had slightly varying theologies (though, despite Ehrman’s inferences, they all held to the same main principles), and there are some anonymous letters (but not forgeries or misrepresentations).

    I have as much problem with the fundamentalist view of inerrancy as Ehrman. I believe God spoke through human beings and allowed their personal writing styles, personalities, and idiosyncrasies to show through. The Scriptures were written by real human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit; not automatons. Variations occur, but this does not remove the presence of the Holy Spirit working and keeping the essential message of God’s Word for us.
    A Couple of Additional Problems:
    The underlying assumption that nothing supernatural is occuring in the Scripture.
    Buried within Ehrman’s writing is the assumption that nothing supernatural is going on with the Bible. Obviously this is a difference of opinion as he would say that my faulty assumption is that I believe there is something supernatural going on. Once you start with a purely humanistic origin of the Bible and view its development as being separate from all Divine intervention…then I can see how some things seem illogical. However, I also think that God’s working to bring us the Bible plays a big role in the discussion.

    Lack of scholarly insight and study. Bibliography for additional study? None! Footnotes to reference bold claims and “widespread acceptance” of his ideas? None! (Unless you count footnote references to his own work!) Interaction with alternative views as anything other than straw men? None! Plus there is nothing new about the ideas that are presented…some of which have been proven wrong and abandoned by liberal scholarship anyway.
    Ehrman’s writing is easy to read making it accessible to a popular audience. By this I don’t mean stupid, but rather people who are unable or unwilling to wade through the theological tomes available on NT Criticism. Because of this Ehrman is able to present a very biased and unscholarly work and pass it off as everyday stuff that pastors and scholars have been hiding from us for years!

    Ben Witherington III does a great job of presenting the individual insights and argument in response to Ehrman’s work. The posts are VERY lengthy, but well worth the read. Check them out here, here, here, here, and here.

    Check out Bart Ehrman and Stephen Colbert here. You can also see the overall introduction post for this review here.

    Eric Wright
    I blog at The Merge Blog.

    May 14th, 2009

16. pomotheo

    As part of our commitment with theOoze viral bloggers here is out take on the latest book by Bart Ehrman. The promo materials have this to say:

    …in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), Bart Ehrman goes even further, suggesting not only that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many of Christianity’s fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages-they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts. The Scriptures did not come down to us through the ages in one, harmonious, unbroken version. The story of Jesus was, in fact, interrupted.

    Although the man will be crucified by the religious right his story his perhaps more interesting than his book. This review will do more to engage briefly with the major topics–the historicity of the NT–and less to do with a blow by blow account.

    Ehrman recounts his personal journey:

    In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty years—a God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained God’s word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection. And the more I studied the Christian tradition, first as a graduate student in seminary and then as a young scholar teaching biblical studies at universities, the more sophisticated I became in my theological views and in my understanding of the world and our place in it.

    Consistently in the book he repeats a similar journey. This is his experience, the way he journeyed to the place he is now (or at least the rational explanation since his rationality was not the only contributor to his loss of faith). The post-modern voice would say his experience is valid, and let’s face it, interesting as well. However, the problem we’ll encounter, especially for modernist agnostics or atheists, is when we treat his journey/process as normalized expectation.

    Although I can’t speak for Ehrman, the way he consistently refers back to his process of reaching a ‘higher level’ of truth (my words not his) presupposes that within the academy today one can get closer to a subjective truth by consuming more and more knowledge. The more you know, the better you can reason, the more you can prove, the less you require ‘mystical faith or truth’ and the more you can rely on your own individualistic expectations and discoveries as foundational truths.

    Whether this is what he thinks or not I don’t know, but the assumptions still remain: the more we know the closer we get to some form of utopian bliss, a purer form of objectivity, a more refined and defined understanding of how ‘things’ work.

    This type of approach is applied to his theories and conclusions. Not to say they are outlandish and downright wrong, but I hesitate to call them the final authority on all issues Jesus….

    It is that same modern rational system of never ending knowledge that provides us with the problems that contributed to Ehrman’s eventual exit from the Christian faith–the continued development of evil in a world that has the propensity for so much good. (Another post for another time, I’ll drag NT Wright into the dialogue….)

    This world keeps getting worse although we have systems in the academy that we can continually evolve our knowledge (reason) to capture better understandings of how things work.

    Obviously, Ehrmans is smarter than this and by reading more of his materials elsewhere he is aware that rationality alone cannot solve the world’s problems, but it certainly lead him down major paths to conclude, at least in rhetoric, some of his major propositions about God (or the lack thereof).

    With this in mind, his theories, conclusions, and suggestions were not paradigm blowing alternatives. I had to skip forward through a number of pages because he was repeatedly saying the same things: either recounting his journey from protestant conservative to liberal atheist via the pursuit of knowledge and rationality, or repeatedly outlining the distrust for historicity of biblical events (most all from the NT).

    Having said that, it should be noted that the book IS about challenging the claims of the Bible being a trustworthy source of history so having numerous examples of where it may not be is the purpose. I just found the repetition boring after a few examples.

    Nonetheless, I think the book will do some good for those who have placed the bible on a pedestal over and above the Christ. Take that thought for what it’s worth.

    There are, however, two issues I want to briefly mention specifically about his arguments. Firstly, when we look at the infallibility of documents (that is the complete trustworthiness of them), I believe the Bible stands alone at the top. There are a few reasons why:

    1. We have a massive influx of writings within a short period of time from events to writings. Given the reliability of oral testimony (you can’t compare the telephone game today with kids who have terrible memories with an ancient culture that relied so heavily upon it,) we can put quiet a bit of credence to the fact writings arrived so soon after their events. This increases the Bible trustworthiness.

    2. Along with being trustworthy we have to factor in the community. I don’t mind saying we don’t know who wrote the writings exactly. But how they came to be trusted is another. To suggest a committee decided by vote on the books of the bible as if it was a democratic process is only part of the story (this is not a topic in his book).

    The canonization merely confirmed what the Christian community had believed. Now, there wasn’t uniformity across the board, but there was unity with key dogmas such as incarnation and resurrection. Heresy was easily routed because the community as a whole did not accept certain teachings.

    3. The book obviously deals with the NT exclusively, however, Ehrman spends time around pages 175 talking about the importance of following the evidence of history. More evidence helps us confirm events of find out what actually happened. The story he paints for the NT is not great, he cites the generation in between writings and events as too long, and thus untrusted.

    I would be curious to know how Ehrman approaches the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Until the discover in the 20th century the earliest manuscripts we had of the OT were around 1000 years old. Along came the DSS discovery and we have manuscripts dating back around the intertestamental period. From my understanding the agreement between the two manuscripts separated by over 1000 years was incredible (incredibly good).

    Does this ‘evidence’ now lend additional credence to the Hebrew Bible (OT)? Rather than a generation we’re talking 1000 years, yet the agreement between texts was exceptional.

    I think we have to revisit the inerrancy of scripture, it gets us into trouble, but I don’t think we need to assume that more scholarship on the issue necessary means we arrived closer to an unbiased truth of what is really historical (assuming historicity in NT documents).

    As I’ve noted, this was perhaps the biggest issue I had with Ehrman (and obviously others). Maybe it’s just the post-modern in me, but because you read more books doesn’t necessarily draw you closer to a final conclusion. It may make you an authority in a field and open your eyes to new ideas or perspectives. But honestly we do not approach history with any level of neutrality. In fact, all we have for history is perspectives built on perspectives. (The anti-foundationalist would even conclude that all of history cannot be trusted since it’s merely the perspective of the writer.)

    As such we shouldn’t be so hasty to dismiss the entirety of important themes in, in this case, the NT such as resurrection (how it was reported varies, the important factor I believe is that all four gospel have the event). Conversely, we should not suspect we can read anything we want into the texts because they are the inerrant ‘word of God’.

    In the least, Ehrman made me get the rest of his books, but he also turned me on to NT Wright which I would highly recommend instead

    Ro
    Pomotheo.com

    May 15th, 2009

17. MMM

    Okay, as I promised, I’m back to say what I think. After page 60 of the book, I might add.

    This book, first of all, is well written, and is for the scholarly types. I’ve enjoyed my reading so far, because it’s written clearly and concisely regarding what the author feels are discrepancies in the Bible. Most people I know would faint at the very idea of pointing out that something in a book purported to be written by God doesn’t quite hash.

    I ain’t got that problem, and here’s why. I am not here as a believing Christian to worship a book. ANY book. The Bible, when I open it, is a door to the journey to learn of God. You can learn much from its pages, but you will be left with questions. And these questions, sorry Pastors of the flock, won’t be answered by “further study”. What they ARE answered by:

    GO. ASK. GOD.

    It’s true, as Ehrman writes, that there are stories told differently. There are letters to people and churches, stories of wars and kings, good and bad, and in its pages shows God’s brief visit to Earth in the form of a Man named Jesus. You think that’s the end of the story? Then stop reading what I’m writing right now.

    Ehrman’s pick-apart of the Bible is well written and sound. It proves one point: the Bible’s not seamless or perfect. But the One it speaks of, is.

    Ehrman also states at the beginning of the book that it may make you challenge your faith. Bring it on, I say. Faith is nothing without challenges to it. My faith has not been shaken by reading this book. It can’t be shaken. But it CAN be questioned, and I’m prepared to answer for it, maybe not better prepared after reading this book, or maybe so. I won’t know until that challenge comes.

    So: Jesus, Interrupted. Only if you quit listening for Him.

    Verdict: I dare you to read.

    May 17th, 2009

18. ericalm

    Having been educated in one of the seminaries of a mainline denomination, I was neither shocked, surprised, nor disturbed by anything in Ehrman’s book. Rather, to me it read like an entertaining and quick version of my first year of divinity training. I found it a delightful refresher of ideas and information that have been central to my pastoral training. Ehrman’s ability to convey the basics of the exegetical way of thinking to the average layperson in a way that is accessible and non-threatening is unsurpassed in my opinion.

    What caught me, however, was his questioning at various points throughout the book, why the insights and approach of the historical-critical method have not made it into the pews. Why, he asks, if the information gained through this method have been taught consistently and universally throughout institutions of higher learning for the past 50+ years, have pastors not shared them with their parishioners? Are pastors afraid their flock can’t take bold ideas? Is Scriptural study a wolf waiting at the door, ready to devour the faithful?

    I believe there is a great conspiracy afoot in many of the mainline churches. Similar to the Great Compromise of the Industrial Revolution, in which workers traded their autonomy and freedom for steady pay, parishioners trade their paychecks (or a portion of them) for the opportunity for someone else to do their faith for them.

    In essence, what happens is that parishioners, uneducated in Scriptural study, place their devotion and faith, even their own prayer lives, in the hands of the educated professional. For a steady paycheck, pastors are paid to believe and witness to their belief to the congregation and the community so that the congregations’ members do not have to.

    I think the reason many pastors shy away from raising too many difficult questions about Scripture with their parishioners because to do so would suggest in the parishioners’ minds that the pastor isn’t making good on this unspoken contract. That is why pastors do not share this information with their flock. It would be like saying that this contract is null and void; that it is now time for the flock to lead themselves because the shepherd is not going to.

    What Ehrman challenges all of us to do, whether clergy or lay, is to think for ourselves. To examine the textual evidence and ask ourselves, “what did this person think, and do I agree?” To do so is to combine our use of reason with our trust in God. That should lead to a deeper encounter with the Author and Giver of Life.

    Yet our secular society, grounded in Enlightenment rationalism, has not learned how to engage with its religious underpinnings. Modern America is caught in the midst of a developmental crisis, and the church is at its foreground. We haven’t come to terms with our identity as a religious nation—I cite the 2008 Presidential Campaign season as an example of that—and thus don’t know what to do with ideas and approaches that seem at first blush to go against the core of that identity. In classic developmentalist thinking, what isn’t resolved is carried forward as baggage, and so we find it difficult to engage the historical-critical method because, in short, it threatens who we think we are.

    Pastors today find themselves in the midst of this war between the rationalist and individualistic secular society in which we all live, and the frustration of their parishioners with the inability of that society to offer any kind of transcendent meaning or purpose to their lives. People come to church looking precisely for that sense of ultimate direction and meaning for their lives. And well should they. The church, more than any other institution, is the place to explore and develop precisely those things.

    But to use a term from family systems theory, pastors often experience their position on this battlefield as triangulation. People bring their unanswered questions, issues, and struggles to the pastor with the hope that the pastor will fix them for them, by means of a Scriptural verse, a powerful sermon, or a strongly-worded prayer.

    There is a tremendous disconnect between these rather hum-drum needs of the average parishioner and the academic study of Scripture. How is that disconnect to be bridged? How does the pastor detriangulate from the parishioners’ needs without abnegating their pastoral responsibility and duty to provide pastoral care for those needs? How does a pastor use his or her authority, education, and calling responsibly while challenging the people they serve to do the same?

    Those are unanswered questions in my mind, but Ehrman’s book seems to be one small step towards addressing some of them. One solution is to better educate the laity, to provide entry-level instruction in how to read the Bible exegetically. If this solution could be likened to a great feast, Jesus, Interrupted is a wonderful appetizer.

    May 17th, 2009

19. TgotK

    ****FOUR STARS

    * Toss
    ** Skim
    *** Good but nothing new
    **** Challenging
    ***** Life Altering

    Summary: Erhman’s introduction to Biblical criticism has its faults, but its something that Christians needs to hear and think through.

    I had a conversation with a friend not too long ago about the inerrancy of the Bible. While we were talking about the concept of genre, he remarked that if he were ever to find out that the Biblical book of Job was written only as a play and did not actually happen he would have a crisis of faith. “If I knew that part of the Bible wasn’t true, how could I possibly believe that the rest of was true?” The “watermelon patch” example was brought up. Haven’t heard of it? It goes something like this—

    Suppose that you owned a watermelon patch. You have dozens of watermelons growing. However, each day you see that one is missing. It seems that you have a thief stealing your watermelons. So, in your genius, you construct a sign that reads “ONE OF THESE WATERMELONS HAS BEEN POISIONED. PICK AT YOUR OWN RISK.” The next day, you proudly see that none of your watermelons have gone missing. Though only one of the melons is now deadly, the whole patch has been rendered useless to the thief.

    This argument has been used on the side of Biblical plenary inerrancy for quite a while. According to this camp, the Bible must be inerrant. It must not have even one thing wrong with it because if it did, then it may have thousands of things wrong with it and therefore it could not possibly be trusted.

    Ideologies such as these prompt writings such as Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted (subtitled “Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible [and Why We Don’t Know About Them”]), a 283 page skimming of modern, liberal Biblical scholarship. Ehrman’s title is a bit deceiving. First, the book wants to interrupt more than just Jesus, but rather the entire New Testament and the entire Bible. Secondly, according to Ehrman’s tome, these contradictions are not hidden at all, but are blatantly in the Biblical text.

    Now Ehrman’s impetus for this book is noble, I suppose. He constantly asks why it is that seminary-trained pastors neglect to tell their congregations the truths about the Bible they learn at Princeton, Yale, etc. This is indeed a great question. Basic hermeneutics are never even mentioned in churches that I have attended. Understanding context, Biblical criticism, original languages, Biblical genres, etc. was a scholar’s task, not a layman’s, not a day-to-day Christian’s. This is a shame and I think Erhman has a point.

    On the other hand, however, I believe Ehrman has setup a bit of a false disjunction between “modern Biblical scholarship” and everyone else. Ehrman’s book fights people who would lose faith if they found out Job “wasn’t true” (by which they mean “didn’t actually happen”) but never mentions those who have grappled with “modern Biblical scholarship” and have come out even more assured of a current Kingdom of God ushered in by a literally resurrected Jesus.

    Intriguingly, while stressing the importance of context and genre, Ehrman’s scholarship shows respect for neither. He cites that the “Temple Cleansings” stories of John (beginning of Jesus’ ministry) and Mark (end of Jesus’ ministry) are irreconcilable due to their differing chronological order. Someone who paid attention to genre would realize that chronology was never the point of hardly any biographer of antiquity. Ehrman cites examples of the phrase “son of God” used hundreds of years before its use in the New Testament. A literary critique should realize that the way a phrase is used hundreds of years before rarely can shine light on its use hundreds of years later.

    But again, Ehrman’s bating at his straw man sheds occasional light that might make some pause and consider. If the Bible is inerrant word-for-word in its original manuscripts, then how do reconcile Matthew’s misquoting of Zechariah 11:3. Matthew says it was Jeremiah (Mt. 27:9). But the text Matthew cites is found only in Zechariah. How do we decide which story to believe on how Jesus entered Jerusalem for passion week? Was it a donkey and a colt (Mt. 21:7) or just a colt (Mk. 11:7)? Was Jairus’s daughter already dead (Mk. 5:21-43) or almost dead (Mk. 9:18-26)?
    Erhman brings up questions that need to be answered. And Ehrman’s finger-pointing at pastors for not dealing with these issues is perhaps well-deserved. But Erhman has his own faults to deal with. Most glaringly obvious is his constant use of an argument from silence. Because of the gospel writers’ neglect to state that Jesus is God and because of John’s late-written status, it would seem that Jesus’ divinity was a conviction made up years after Jesus’ death. Because Matthew, Mark, or Luke never state “Jesus is God,” Jesus must not be God. This is slightly preposterous. Because Bart Erhman never told the reader that he wears glasses and is balding, he must not wear glasses and be balding. I assume that Ehrman never uses the bathroom either since that it is not in his text either.

    Secondly, though I understand that this book is meant as a merely primer for modern liberal Biblical scholarship, it leaves the reader with nowhere else to turn. The endnotes are pitiful if looking for helpful resources. Ehrman constantly states that he is in agreement with “the majority of scholars” but never mentions a single one in the actual text. Nor does he bother with arguing against thought-out alternatives to his view. It seems that you either agree with him or are simply blindly ignoring what he says and are following the Bible out of ignorance.

    Overall, I think Jesus, Interrupted should actually be required reading for most evangelical Christians, believe it or not. But obviously a book like this should be read with guidance. Contrary to what Erhman may want you to believe, he is not the end-all, be-all opinion on all things Bible. Erhman’s book, however, does open the door to asking some interesting if not crucial questions about the book we call Scripture. Though Erhman may be misguided in some of his answers, questions lead to searching, and searching leads to truth. Even if Job didn’t actually happen, it still is true.

    ****FOUR STARS

    * Toss
    ** Skim
    *** Good but nothing new
    **** Challenging
    ***** Life Altering

    May 20th, 2009

20. adam.waco

    [A review by Adam Moore for the Ooze Viral Bloggers Network]
    I recently read Jesus, Interrupted by New Testament scholar and best-selling author Bart Ehrman. Over the years I had heard a lot about Ehrman’s scandalous books, but this is the first one I’ve ever read. For a little background, Ehrman went to college as a very conservative Christian, went on to study New Testament scholarship, earning a PhD, but eventually became an Agnostic. Ehrman still teaches and writes about the New Testament, but no longer from a place of faith.
    Before reading the book I listened to an excellent interview of Ehrman by Tony Jones for the Homebrewed Christianity podcast. I highly recommend checking out this interview – it’s well worth listening to. Tony does a great job of asking questions beyond simple matters related to Ehrman’s books. In fact, I was surprised how much I liked Ehrman in this interview (surprised because I had heard how evil he is! – out to wreck the Christian faith, etc). It turns out, Ehrman doesn’t desire to destroy the Christian faith. But more on that later.
    So basically this book is an introduction to the historical-critical approach to the Bible and early Christian development. Ehrman wants Christians (particularly conservative ones) to have a better grasp of how scholars understand the Bible when they read it like any other book. Ehrman is a good writer and he makes the material very readable and interesting. However, I have a difficult time believing that any strict conservative Christian would make it past the second chapter of the book. I do not think Ehrman takes an adversarial position against Christianity in the book, but a very conservative Christian just isn’t going to swallow what Ehrman is offering. If Ehrman wants to reach this audience, I think he needs to go about it in a different way. The final chapter of the book tries to convince the reader that the point of the book was not to destroy faith, but I don’t think conservative readers will make it that far. And so in that regard, I think the book might be a failure of sorts, even though I thought it was a very good, and fairly impartial, introduction to the material. I say impartial, but very conservative Christians would not see it as impartial. If Ehrman wants to reach this audience he needs to speak their language more effectively by directly addressing the way very conservative scholars respond to Ehrman’s approach to reading the Bible.
    The most significant point Ehrman makes in the book, in my opinion, is that this kind of scholarship somehow needs to be discussed in the church. Most pastors are aware of everything in Ehrman’s book, but they never approach the subject matter within the church. I agree that this is a very significant problem.
    In short, I recommend this book if you are somewhat familiar and already open to the historical-critical approach to New Testament studies. But otherwise, I imagine this book is not for you. But either way, I highly recommend listening to the podcast interview at Homebrewed Christianity – Ehrman is quite an interesting figure and a highly regarded scholar in his field.
    (originally posted at http://adammoore.us)

    May 21st, 2009

21. fbccuth

    As a strong evangelical Christian who holds strongly to belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, Jesus Interrupted was a difficult read. Not because it was poorly written but because it strongly goes against everything I have been taught and believe.

    Bart Ehrman presents his finding of contradictions in the bible based on his study of the scriptures using the historical method. Early on in the book, he mentions how opponents to his view often dismiss the contradictions with techniques such as wild explanations of the supernatural and differing audiences. He states that Christians explain away the contradictions because they do not want to believe that God messed up. His detection of the believed contradictions seems to be authentic as they are there upon reading the text alone. My feeling is that he puts a similar but opposite twist on his theory. The contradictions are there because he does not want to believe that God is Sovereign, reveals his perfect self to us through the Bible and actually used sinful man to reveal his Word to us.

    With the proliferation of attacks on Christian belief in our culture today, I would recommend grappling with Ehrman in this book, so to prepare yourself for the common arguments against Christianity that are out there today.

    “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 1 Peter 3:15 ESV

    May 22nd, 2009

22. expastor

    Finished Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted last week. I’ll skip the longest subtitle I’ve ever seen on something besides an article in a peer reviewed science journal and just tell you it has to do with contradictions in the Bible. That’s a nitpicky criticism, but the title is my primary befuddlement about the book. I find it hard to believe the title wasn’t developed in some sort of marketing meeting. The best possible title would have been something like Higher Criticism for Novices or Reading the Bible Without Worshiping the Bible. Something like that. This book has almost nothing to do with Jesus, except the development of doctrinal positions, so anyone coming to the book thinking it’s about the historic Jesus or the non-historic Jesus or the cosmic Christ or the Aquarian Messiah or any other Jesusy nomenclature will be very disappointed. The title was designed to sell books, even at the risk of being misleading.

    That’s enough nitpicking. Ehrman is a fantastically lucid writer. He simplifies complex issues without oversimplifying. He chooses excellent examples of the “hidden contradictions” (and some aren’t that hidden). He builds an excellent case, only making exaggerated or specious claims a couple times—those are to be expected in a book about hermeneutics. Some of his best work in the book is deconstructing C.S. Lewis’s sad, silly trilemmic claim: Liar, Lunatic or Lord. His assessment of the development of doctrine, especially Nicene Christianity, is excellent. In short, this is a great refresher for those of us who already had this in grad school, and it’s a shocking introduction for evangelicals and fundamentalists who have never heard this before.

    My chief complaint about the book is twofold: Ehrman misunderstands who will read his book, and he apparently has never been a pastor. Point one first. Liberals, agnostics, and atheists will read this book. They will get something out of it. Moderates will get less out of it, assuming they read it, and I hope they do. Conservatives will do what they have always done: bury their heads in hermeneutical double speak—and lest you think I’m being unfair, this is the group who constructed and embraced the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. “Um, of course the original autographs are inerrant, but we just don’t have them to show you that so you’ll need to take it on faith.” Ehrman says he wants conservatives to read his book and learn something about the Bible. If they do, they simply won’t believe what he writes. If they do believe, they won’t be conservative for long, and I’ve yet to meet someone who stops being a conservative evangelical because of proof. Proofs are proofs based on a prior intellectual commitment or assumption; proofs do not create intellectual commitments. I would think Ehrman understands that, but he is a classic liberal in the rationalist sense, so it’s possible he still has that oddly misplaced optimism about rationality.

    Point two. Any pastor who has attempted to preach the Bible the way Ehrman presents it will tell you one of two things. If she is a liberal, she will say her people are bored with the critical approach. If he is a conservative, he will say his job depends on keeping his mouth shut about such things, assuming he believes what Ehrman writes. No pastor survives who undermines the faith of his congregation. Yes, they have a responsibility to tell their people the truth, but don’t believe for a second that there aren’t enough other truths to talk about that won’t raise the spectre of a disciplinary hearing. For those who do believe what Ehrman writes, they will choose to preach the devotional meaning of Scripture because it ensures the evangelical zealot who really believes the Chicago Statement won’t make a fuss with his small group, the deacons, or the denominational headquarters. No pastor who needs to pay his bills needs an ignorant crusader who knows nothing about the Bible (although he may know every word in it) making his job more difficult.

    Read the book. It’s excellent. I enjoyed the refresher, and Ehrman’s style is very readable. I even learned a few things I didn’t know before, despite my two degrees in Bible and Theology. There is much to love about this book, but I’m afraid it won’t do nearly what Ehrman hoped it would. That is a tragedy, but he can’t seriously believe evangelicals will read this with an open mind. They aren’t practiced at that skill and have very little experience with critical thinking, let alone critical method.

    (originally published at the parish)

    May 23rd, 2009

23. themattscott

    I’ve been a fan of Ehrman since I read “Misquoting Jesus” a year back, and I’m glad to report that “Jesus, Interrupted” follows the same vein started in “Misquoting” but in my opinion Ehrman makes a few crucial changes to his approach, that make “Jesus, Interrupted” even better than “Misquoting Jesus.”

    In “Jesus, Interrupted” Ehrman lends himself to show a bit more compassion towards Christianity than it appeared in “Misquoting,” while I liked the message in both books, I’m well please with this (perhaps only perceived) change between the two. Ehrman talks of how open many Christians are to hearing the message of the book, and their willingness to accept/wrestle with what is often viewed as “dangerous” to the faith. Instead of spending time attacking Christianity and Christians, Ehrman encourages Christian leaders and ministers (who have had seminary training in the topic of Textual Criticism) to no longer hide behind the guise of “Biblical Inerrancy” but instead be open with their laity about the subject.

    I believe that this topic is one that the Church must be willing to enter, and books like “Jesus, Interrupted” must continue to be pushed to the forefront. Each book of the Bible is important to our spiritual formation, and understanding the background, authorship, and issues with book should become more of a priority than it currently is. If we hope to attain a “Generous Orthodoxy” then our understanding of the reason, authorship, and audience of cannon must be explored. “Jesus, Interrupted” is a step in that (the right) direction.

    (Originally Published: themattscott)

    May 24th, 2009

24. BLePort

    I must admit that I did not find Jesus, Interrupted to be a very engaging read. It is marketed as a book with information that has been made known to the scholarly community for sometime, but kept away from the average person. This idea, in and of itself, ignores the fact that Christian authors have been writing books on the contradictory/contrasting elements of Scripture for some time now. Where would the writing careers of people like Josh McDowell, Norm Geisler, and others be if it were not for the fact that Christians have noticed these problems and they have sought to address them.

    In addition, Ehrman’s book is one of the least creative attempts at addressing the nature of Scripture I have ever read. This may be because he no longer considers himself a Christian, but there are others who read the Bible from a liberal standpoint, such as Marcus Borg and Karen Armstrong, who write very engaging books on Scripture.

    Also, there have been authors who are not, by any means, hyper-conservative evangelicals when it comes to the inspiration of Scripture–such as N.T. Wright in his book, The Last Word, or Peter Enns in his book, Inspiration and Incarnation–who address Scripture from a perspective that is well aware of some of the problems found within the canon, that nevertheless show how the Bible is still the Word of God. I know that Ehrman’s goal is to show that it is not, but these people look at the same data and they still notice that the Bible is elevated above all other books.

    While Ehrman, at times, makes points that every evangelical reader of Scripture must take into serious consideration, at other times he builds straw men that make you wonder how much he has thought through what he has written, and whether or not he has actually engaged with any scholarship of these particular passages that he cites as contradictions.

    One passage that should be given a second look is Matthew 27:9-10 where the author quotes words from Zechariah 11:12-13 while attributing them to the prophet Jeremiah. This does seem to be a problem, though some have noted that while part of Zechariah is quoted, Jeremiah 19:1-13 is alluded to, and this is why the author mentions Jeremiah. Of course, Ehrman does not engage such thought and simply dismisses these types of answers as being the least straightforward reading of the text. (p. 51)

    At other points you wonder why Ehrman wasted paper making such a terrible argument. This is especially evident when he argues that John and Mark have contradictory tellings of when Jesus cleansed the temple (p. 7) and whether or not he gave signs that he was the Messiah (p. 71-73). He ignores the literary structure of the Fourth Gospel and he reads it as if it were an attempt to write a piece for the New York Times. It is not. Mark may have cared a bit about chronology, but John cared about his argument that Jesus was Messiah. John places stories where he will for the sake of making a point, not recounting a play-by-play of the life of Jesus. Mark has a particular reason for quoting Jesus’ rebuke of those seeking a sign and John has a particular reason for emphasizing the signs that Jesus did give. Ehrman either ignores this or is ignorant of it.

    I will admit that the one chapter that I did enjoy, in part, was “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord: Finding the Historical Jesus”. He does a fine job of flat out murdering C.S. Lewis’ classic argument. If we can guarantee that Jesus made the claims found in the gospels, then yes, Lewis’ argument stands. But Ehrman notes in this chapter that there may be a fourth option–Jesus never said those things, the evangelist did. While I do not believe this, I agree that Lewis’ argument no longer stands.

    I find it a shame that when Ehrman writes about how the gospels were written by second or third generation Christians he never once, at all, attempts to address scholars like N.T. Wright or Richard Bauckham. And when he addresses whether or not Jesus is God in the synoptics, he ignores both Bauckham and others like Simon Gathercole. Ehrman writes for a general audience, and many will buy into what he has to say, and this is just something we will have to face–he doesn’t address opposite opinions.

    If all you have ever read is Josh McDowell, Norm Geisler, or other apologists, this book may rattle you a bit, or it may be the response you have been looking for because you find the apologist have not given very good answers and you too do not find the Scriptures to be inspired. But if you want to look at the complexities of Scripture actually read the Scriptures, read what scholars have written about them (liberal and conservative), and then decide. As with the apologist the agenda of Ehrman allows him to ignore the fact that some of his objects already have very simple answers. Others have more complex answers, but someone, somewhere, has thought through these issues that Ehrman has raised, and he will never note that. In fact, if you read this book you may never know that there are plenty of scholars who disagree with Ehrman’s assessments.

    This post was originally posted at:http://nearemmaus.blogspot.com/2009/05/book-review-bart-d-ehrman-jesus.html

    May 24th, 2009

25. EnglewoodReview

    This review originally appeared in The Englewood Review of Books http://englewoodreview.org/

    A Brief Review of
    Jesus, Interrupted:
    Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible.
    Bart Ehrman.
    Hardcover: HarperOne, 2009.

    Reviewed by Chris Smith.

    Bart Ehrman’s most recent book JESUS, INTERRUPTED is one of the most popular books today on Scripture and theology. Ehrman, who by his own admission grew up conservative, and eventually as a result of his scholarly work was led away from the Christian faith and into agnosticism. In this book, Ehrman details the “hidden” contradictions in the Bible that have been uncovered by historical-critical scholarship. Although Ehrman’s tone overall is not overly combative (he repeatedly insists that one scriptural scholarship does not necessarily dictate a rejection of the Christian faith), one of his primary objectives is to debunk naive misconceptions about the Bible and its origins. Indeed, JESUS, INTERRUPTED could be taken as a popular survey of the present state of scriptural studies. There are, as Ehrman emphasizes, significant challenges to the idea of biblical inerrancy and the popular modernist notion that scripture is true according to Western scientific/philosophical standards of consistency, etc.

    However, Ehrman makes a grave error in basing his arguments on the false dichotomy between “devotional” readings of scripture (rooted in individual practice) and “scholarly” readings (rooted in the academy). A hermeneutic practice that is rooted in the discernment of the church community and draws at times upon both devotional and scholarly readings is apparently unknown to Ehrman. Such a practice of reading scripture together was common among the early Anabaptists (see Essays on Biblical Interpretation: Anabaptist-Mennonite Perspectives, W. Swartley, editor) and is likewise relevant in our postmodern age when modern squabbles about texts, their origins and meaning have taken a back seat to a holistic view of scripture as the broad historical story about the One who is the Truth (see Fowl and Jones READING IN COMMUNION or Scot McKnight’s THE BLUE PARAKEET).

    JESUS, INTERRUPTED is a fine book expositing as it does the challenges that historical-criticism poses to some modernist – and dare I say, idolatrous – views of scripture. However, in the end, its value to the Church is limited because despite the broad cultural relevance that the Bible has found in modern, Western culture, it is primarily a book for the Church, the people of God. Indeed, the Church is the stumbling block which topples Ehrman. No wonder he has found frustration and ultimately rejection of the Christian faith, for it is only in the obedient, covenanted relationship to the church community – a relationship that is lacking in both the devotional and scholarly readings of scripture – that the Holy Spirit begins to reveal the meaning of scripture.

    May 25th, 2009

26. holy heteroclite

    kk

    May 25th, 2009

27. mikeleaptrott

    Review by Mike Leaptrott

    Bart Ehrman’s latest book, “Jesus, Interrupted”, may be his best. Ehrman has written several controversial books over the years, but this book does more than sport a controversial title. It dives deeper into the author’s own experience and provides a behind the scenes glimpse into the world of literary criticism. By sharing his own journey, he opened up the world of literary criticism to a wider audience, and he dispelled several of the myths surrounding the discipline. Like his earlier best seller, “Misquoting Jesus”, this latest book includes the healthy doses of biblical criticism that we’ve come to expect from Ehrman. However, this time he went beyond his usual examples of discrepancies between the thousands of early manuscripts. This book continues by investigating the impact of this historical critical method on the big picture. Keeping the talk about discrepancies and errors to one chapter, he had space to dive deeper into topics about early Christianity, the authorship of the New Testament books, the canonization process, and the impact of biblical criticism on theology. One question provides the underlying theme of the book, “why has this information been common knowledge in seminaries around the world for two centuries, yet, so many mainstream Christians today are completely unaware?”

    read the full review at:

    http://www.faithprogression.com/2009/05/jesus-interrupted.html

    May 26th, 2009

28. Jeff Rhodes

    Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them) sent me through riveting emotions. At times, I could feel anger and hostility rise in an effort to defend. In other moments, I felt a deep compassion for Mr. Ehrman. Then, there were the occasions I found myself nodding in agreement. I have always made it a point to read books that challenge my thinking, and this book certainly did. I learned nothing new, but I did gain some interesting insights for my journey.

    I think the book can be summed up with the opening and closing pages from which Ehrman sets forth the fact that he is an Evangelical-Christian-turned-Agnostic. He argues several times that his conclusions regarding historical, textual criticism have nothing to do with his agnostic beliefs, but his views on Scripture certainly give him the framework to believe whatever is convenient. So, it is not so much a book of data interpretation as it is a philosophical diatribe specifically directed at conservative, evangelical Christianity.

    It seems to me that while Ehrman presents his data clearly and with a significant degree of literary prowess, his conclusions often just don’t make much sense. For example:

    He builds his critical argument that both the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke were forgeries penned years after the Gospel according to Mark. The reason they must be forgeries, of course, is that both Matthew and Mark would have been too illiterate to write such sophisticated prose. Further, the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark to copy some of their stories. A serious problem naturally arises when we find several stories in both Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark. How could this be? From where did these stories come? Scholars simply ”invent” an unknown text by an unknown author at an unknown time. Why does this need to be done? Because, Matthew and Luke were forgeries, and the deceptive authors used Mark as their basis; yet they have different stories, so there must be another source. Does this seem somewhat circular? But that’s not it! On page 158, Ehrman actually quotes from this never-before-seen text known as “Q”! The passage he quotes is found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, so it MUST be from Q, therefore by the authority of sheer speculation, a text is created right out of a scholar’s imagination. Fascinating!

    I could go on and on describing the house of cards that Ehrman builds. In one chapter he refers to his conclusions as “possible,” “probable,” or “likely” while restating the same idea in the next chapter as fact in order to build yet another “possible” conclusion. To be honest, and fair, it seems as though Ehrman has more faith than most Christians!

    With all this being said, I must state my final evaluation. In the opening pages of the book, Ehrman describes his relationship with Evangelical Christianity as a mental assent to propositional ideas. He was very devoted to memorizing and learning facts. However, he never talks about a personal relationship with the person of Jesus. That may be due to his current agnostic position, but it is, nonetheless, missing from his story line. I believe this is the most telling truth in all the book. And like Ehrman’s own background, many, many “Christians” in the West have a vibrant relationship with a set of doctrines, creeds, traditions, and ideologies, yet never enter into the fullness of what it means to be in Christ. This, in my opinion, is why many students enter classes much like that of Mr. Ehrman in their respective colleges, and exit with total indifference to the Bible and Christianity. We must understand, Christianity is by far the least likely idea to be true in all of historical, textual, critical research and study. That is what makes faith all the more important. A “Christian” set of facts, figures, data, and propositions, while important, are not what is necessary for Christianity to be real. It is our personal relationship with Jesus.

    Thanx!

    May 26th, 2009

29. revsongbird

    Sometime last year I got an email from Michael Morrell of TheOOZE, asking if I would like to review books. I’ve never said “no” to a free book, and I agreed to read and blog about it, though the numbers of books that came quickly outstripped my interest in the particular topics that emergent or post-evangelicals might be reading more avidly. TheOOZE now has a new system in place, in which reviewers request books, with a promise to review them within 30 days of receiving them. This was my first title under the new system; I’ll be reposting this review to TheOOZE Viral Bloggers.

    I guess I do fit, to some extent, into the category of post-evangelical, or perhaps just post-Southern Baptist. I don’t remember being hammered with rationalizations that allowed for a literal reading of the Bible, but I do remember questioning why people thought stories couldn’t be just that: stories. Isn’t there truth that transcends facts? Still, I remember withdrawing from “Christian Origins” in my sophomore year at the College of Knowledge, upset by the tone of the first lecture of the semester. I liked raising my own questions, but I didn’t like the idea of scholars beating up on the Bible.

    Flash forward thirty years and you have many of Bart Ehrman’s students, young people raised in a more politicized religious environment, one in which the truth vs. facts tensions have only been magnified.

    Other reviewers at TheOOZE are disturbed by or dismissive of Ehrman’s point of view. They deride his scholarly credentials. It is, in fact, a very self-referential book. If I hadn’t been to seminary (where I learned all the things he talks about, as he indicates seminarians would), I might wonder about the thread of some of his points. I might wonder why he mostly quotes himself! But to be completely clear, there is nothing Ehrman writes about history and texts that is not in line with what I learned at Andover Newton Theological School.

    It’s a very personal book, almost oddly so. It’s very important to Ehrman to show us what’s “wrong” with the Bible, and then to explain that these flaws or discontinuities are not the reason he no longer believes in God. (His reason: theodicy, which is a perfectly fine reason to take issue with the Creator. We do it at our house, regularly.)

    I think it’s a great refresher for those of us who aren’t studying anymore, and an interesting starting point for the interested layperson. Ehrman lays down a challenge to pastors to reveal the historical-critical method to parishioners. I believe someone must have done so for me, since sometime between being a Southern Baptist teenager and a 33-year-old seminary entrant, I did get the message. I wonder if he lives in a milieu where this is less common? You wouldn’t think so, as he resides in an academic community.

    The title itself has nothing to do with the text, just seems to be a potentially provocative play on words. As a writer, I found that disappointing. If I wrote a book with such an engaging title, I would make sure the reader knew why! What exactly has been interrupted by the choosing of the canon of scripture? You or I or even Bart Ehrman might well have a case to make that something was, but he does not make it. That perturbs me.

    I have already recommended the book to several people; it’s a good survey of the historical-critical method of reading scripture and of the early history of our religious institutions. But it leaves me at least as interested in the author’s personal psychology as in his topic, and I’m not sure that’s what he intended.

    http://revsongbird.typepad.com/

    May 26th, 2009

30. revsongbird

    Sometime last year I got an email from Michael Morrell of TheOOZE, asking if I would like to review books. I’ve never said “no” to a free book, and I agreed to read and blog about it, though the numbers of books that came quickly outstripped my interest in the particular topics that emergent or post-evangelicals might be reading more avidly. TheOOZE now has a new system in place, in which reviewers request books, with a promise to review them within 30 days of receiving them. This was my first title under the new system; I’ll be reposting this review to TheOOZE Viral Bloggers.

    I guess I do fit, to some extent, into the category of post-evangelical, or perhaps just post-Southern Baptist. I don’t remember being hammered with rationalizations that allowed for a literal reading of the Bible, but I do remember questioning why people thought stories couldn’t be just that: stories. Isn’t there truth that transcends facts? Still, I remember withdrawing from “Christian Origins” in my sophomore year at the College of Knowledge, upset by the tone of the first lecture of the semester. I liked raising my own questions, but I didn’t like the idea of scholars beating up on the Bible.

    Flash forward thirty years and you have many of Bart Ehrman’s students, young people raised in a more politicized religious environment, one in which the truth vs. facts tensions have only been magnified.

    Other reviewers at TheOOZE are disturbed by and dismissive of Ehrman’s point of view. They deride his scholarly credentials. It is, in fact, a very self-referential book. If I hadn’t been to seminary (where I learned all the things he talks about, as he indicates seminarians would), I might wonder about the thread of some of his points. I might wonder why he mostly quotes himself! But to be completely clear, there is nothing Ehrman writes about history and texts that is not in line with what I learned at Andover Newton Theological School.

    It’s a very personal book, almost oddly so. It’s very important to Ehrman to show us what’s “wrong” with the Bible, and then to explain that these flaws or discontinuities are not the reason he no longer believes in God. (His reason: theodicy, which is a perfectly fine reason to take issue with the Creator. We do it at our house, regularly.)

    I think it’s a great refresher for those of us who aren’t studying anymore, and an interesting starting point for the interested layperson. Ehrman lays down a challenge to pastors to reveal the historical-critical method to parishioners. I believe someone must have done so for me, since sometime between being a Southern Baptist teenager and a 33-year-old seminary entrant, I did get the message. I wonder if he lives in a milieu where this is less common? You wouldn’t think so, as he resides in an academic community.

    The title itself has nothing to do with the text, just seems to be a potentially provocative play on words. As a writer, I found that disappointing. If I wrote a book with such an engaging title, I would make sure the reader knew why! What exactly has been interrupted by the choosing of the canon of scripture? You or I or even Bart Ehrman might well have a case to make that something was, but he does not make it. That perturbs me.

    I have already recommended the book to several people; it’s a good survey of the historical-critical method of reading scripture and of the early history of our religious institutions. But it leaves me at least as interested in the author’s personal psychology as in his topic, and I’m not sure that’s what he intended.

    May 26th, 2009

31. holy heteroclite

    I loved Bart Ehrman’s (fake) cameo on Jesus’ facebook feed for holy week.

    I was less impressed with the real Ehrman’s appearance on the (real fake)Colbert Report.
    I think Colbert won the
    debate(:

    I hate apologetics debates.

    But, as you can tell from my previous post, I was actually looking forward to reading my review copy of Ehrman’s “Jesus Interrupted.”

    Sure, I knew there would be much I would disagree with;
    but I also knew he was asking the right questions.

    Much of what I thought I knew was wrong.

    Better get my knower checked!

    I received my copy of the book, and I must say it is disappointing.

    NOT in that some “liberal” is even daring to ask questions of the Bible (applaud him for that);
    He is indeed asking, but not adequately addressing, those right questions.

    I hate sounding like a fundamentalist apologist, it’s just not my vibe or intent:
    defending attacks by dreaded “liberals” of Jesus Seminar.. been there, done that.

    But I was assuming Ehrman would be more substantial. Yes and no: again the questions he raises are; but not much sign of substance as he grapples with them. Ironically (intentionally?), he seems to fall into the same reductionistic, dualistic, rationalist, modernity traps that fundamentalists do.

    Ehrman’s journey from the fundamentalist-evangelical (Moody, Wheaton) world and worldview to an agnosticism is well-known. I was glad he made a major point in the opening and closing chapters that he decidedly does not think that any open-minded grappling with historical-critical method, and asking the questions he and it do, necessitates a loss of faith. He goes out of the way more than once to spell out that some his best and most academic friends (in fact, in suspension of my belief, he says “all” on p. 17) have wrestled with the same evidence and theories, and only deepened their faith in Christ, and view of the veracity of Scripture.

    He also clarifies that his loss of faith was not the direct result of his pursuing historical-critical method.

    Sounds great and charitable…. yet the tenor and conclusions of his book betray that he may not fully believe his own press. Why, in his mind, would anyone be dumb enough to still believe in a book so full of “contradictions”?

    The non-sequiturs, and instances of shallow (I prefer that descriptor to deliberately deceptive, but am unsure) thinking, are too many to catalog. I’ll deal with a few, and refer you to Ben Witherington’s critique/review if you are interested in countering most of Ehrman’s conclusions.

    Ehrman is insistent that only John among the gospels understands, and sets out to paint, Jesus as divine. I just happen to be reading Paul Johnson (no fundy)’s “A History of Christianity”

    Paul’s church had not been anchored to the historical Jesus of the Jerusalem church.. This was remedied by Mark, who wrote the first biography of Jesus, presenting him as a deity.”
    (42)

    Ehrman’s repeated arguments that the gospel writer’s adapting chronology is damning are themselves damning to Ehrman’s own argument. Why can’t Ehrman even admit he has even heard of progressive evangelical scholars (I Howard Marshall, Fee and Stuart’s’ “How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth,”) who are nowhere near losing faith in Christ or trust in Scripture; and who know what is common knowledge: that in the
    culture of the Bible , it is not considered lying or deception to rearrange chronology to fit a writer/editor’s point and theme.

    Ben Witherington, professor at the evangelical seminary I attended (Asbury), responds to Ehrman:

    If you actually bother to read ancient biographies (see e.g. Tacitus’s Life of Agricola, or Plutarch’s famous parallel lives) you will discover that the ancients were not pedants when it comes to the issue of strict chronology as we are today. The ancient biographical or historiographical work operated with the freedom to arrange there material in several different ways, including topically, geographically, chronologically, to mention but three. Yes they had a secondary interest in chronology in broad strokes, but only a secondary interest in that.
    -Ben Witherington

    So, contrary to what Ehrman would have you believe, one doesn’t have to resort either to believing that Jesus cleansed the temple twice (the tempe tantrum occurs at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John, and towards the end in the other gospels) or that the Scripture is in error.

    In fact, the apparent contradictions are so plain and unhidden in Scripture that they cannot be accidental, or purposed: any discerning reader picks up that Matthew’s Sermon on The Mount, and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain order material differently, or that the resurrection narratives differ.

    The other “contradictory” accounts Ehrman cites (the two creation accounts using different names for God, Romans 13 emphasizing the God-ordainedness of government and Revelation 13 addressing the satanic corruption of such) cause me to grieve that Ehrman either has little capacity for complentarianism, holism and paradox; or has an agenda which he has denied.

    Among the questions listed in the promo material for “Jesus, Interrupted”:

    “Mark’s account depicts a suffering Jesus crying out, ‘My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?’ as he dies. Luke, however, portrays a calm Jesus who simply says ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.’

    Where’s the contradiction? Wouldn’t anyone in Jesus’s situation who had some faith, respond similarly? Aren’t we, or Jesus, allowed to be honest; and bounce around the Kubler-Ross stages?.

    This feels like an agenda to deconvert; or a publisher’s advice and device to shake up some sales.

    The author’s ridiculous argument that John can’t count is either incredibly naive (other “signs” are mentioned between the “first sign” and “second sign”…anyone reading John picks up that John has arranged his material into seven definitive signs, which does not exclude many others).

    Even the New York Times Book Review points out that

    Ehrman himself has certainly taken some knocks. Writing in Books & Culture, a magazine often referred to (deservedly) as a sort of Christian New York Review of Books, the scholar Robert H. Gundry took him to task for exaggerating the theological significance of some of the mistakes and inconsistencies inserted into the New Testament by generations of copyists, and for having too literal an idea of what it might mean for the Bible to be divinely inspired.

    In fact, one word captures the gist of what Dr. Gundtry thought of Ehrman on this topic:
    Horsefeathers!

    But Gundry adds, with a wink:

    “That’s ‘Horsefeathers!’ with documentation.”

    I wish everyone having the chutzpah to diss a scholarly conclusion as “horsefeathers” had the a credenitials and documentation to do so! Gundry does; as does Witherington.
    link

    Having said all that, one insight of Ehrman’s was hugely
    helpful, as I am adjunct professor of Bible:

    For nearly twenty five years now, I have taught courses in the New Testament…In all this time, the lesson that I have found most difficult to convey to students–the hardest to convince them of–is the historical-critical claim that each author of the Bible needs to be allowed to have his own say ( 99)

    I believe it; and I grieve it.
    Much of the fault is an oversimplistic view of God as the (only) Author of the Bible.

    Thank God for The Voice translation:

    Most English translations attempt to even out the styles of the different authors..Instead The Voice distinguishes the uniqueness of each author. (The Voice, Preface,vii)

    I wish “Jesus, Interrupted” offered more constructive help in coming to terms with the metannarative and “distinguishing uniqueness” of each author.

    I feel for Ehrman, losing his faith, unecessarily. Again, he claims the findings of criticxal method were not part of that loss, but I wonder of he protesteth too much.
    His real struggle, he says, is the problem of evil.
    Another Ooze Viral Blogger was able to score an interview with Ehrman, which is enlightening as to how far his transition has teken him:

    In regards to the makeup of the universe, Ehrman is certain that there is no good God, because he thinks that there is no good answer to the problem of evil in the world. Therefore, he said that we live in an “indifferent universe” where “good is not an objective idea’ and that good for one person is not the same as good for another. Surprised by Ehrman’s answer and how far he had moved from being an evangelical Christian, I wanted clarification,
    so I asked Ehrman a question:

    Goodness for Osama bin Laden was flying airplanes into buildings, whereas I believe that that was an evil act. Would you still say that bin Laden is doing good, subjective to his interests and that each opinion is valid?

    Ehrman answered, “yes.”
    -Ahub, link

    Hmmm…Bin Laden, Interrupted.

    Taking Ehrman completely seriously, as I thought I could, interruptus.

    http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2009/05/interrupting-jesus-interrupted.html

    May 27th, 2009

32. Gotthammer

    In the early years of my decade-spanning journey from pastor to academic, I was enrolled in a course at the University of Alberta titled simply, “Jesus.” The three textbooks we had assigned to us were: John Dominic Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, which contains the unqualified statement “Jesus was not born of a virgin, not born of David’s lineage, not born in Bethlehem, there was no stable, no shepherds, no star, no Magi, no massacre of the infants and no flight into Egypt” (28); Jesus in History, Howard Clark Kee’s far more even and fair assessment of the historical Jesus, which I would recommend to any serious student of biblical historical criticism; and Bart D. Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. This trinity of historical critical works, along with Jonathan Z. Smith’s Drudgery Divine, nearly shattered my faith in the resurrection. I found myself on Easter Sunday, preaching a sermon on Mary’s words, “They have taken my Lord away…and I don’t know where they have put him” (John 20:13 NIV). At the end of that particular semester, I could really identify with her.

    Nearly 10 years later, I’m wishing it had been Ehrman’s latest book on the syllabus. Jesus, Interrupted, while qualifying for one of the most misleading titles of the year, is subtitled Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them), which is the book’s truer, albeit less marketable moniker. I was ready to dismiss this book as another one of the bastard children of the Jesus Seminar’s legacy, which was exacerbated into a rabid frenzy by Dan Brown’s infamous DaVinci Code. One more book about all the stuff the Vatican’s been hiding from us? Nevertheless, familiar with Ehrman, and interested in how he was currently rehashing and reusing old material, I began reading.

    Jesus, Interrupted was a more than pleasant surprise. I haven’t read all of Ehrman’s works, although I’m familiar with his reputation. In this book, he lays all his ideological cards out on the table in the first chapters, revealing his own journey to agnosticism, clarifying that historical criticism was not responsible for that agnosticism, and then stating that this book is not an expose of a clerical conspiracy, but rather an attempt to reveal at a lay level what many in the clergy already know, but for ambiguous reasons, are not preaching from the pulpit.

    Ehrman’s thesis, in a nutshell, as revealed in the subtitle, is that the Bible is full of contradictions, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Furthermore, as Ehrman discusses in his final chapter, admitting these contradictions does not, of necessity, lead to a loss of faith. This balanced discussion contains no surprises for anyone who’s read anything about historical criticism, with Ehrman using what I consider the lynchpin of the argument, the discrepancy in the time of the crucifixion chronicled in the four gospels. He follows this example up by challenging the usual response to the contradictions, which is the assumption that since the facts don’t agree, it clearly never happened, or that clearly it doesn’t matter, since the point is that Jesus was crucified. The when is immaterial. Instead, Ehrman encourages his reader to ask not “Was Jesus crucified” but also “What does it mean that Jesus was crucified?” And for this, Ehrman continues “little details like the day and the time actually matter” (27).

    Whether one agrees with everything Ehrman puts forth in Jesus, Interrupted, his fair treatment of the subject matter cannot be denied. He delineates the difference between devotional and historical approaches, without being derogatory or dismissive of the former. Throughout the book he displays a genuine concern for proper study of the Bible, and an undeniable love of the material he studies, all the while reminding the reader that he is not a professing believer. In chapter seven, “Who Invented Christianity,” he allows history to remain a complex process, rather than assuming that it was just the Council of Nicea or the ascension of Constantine which was some sort of ancient tipping point for Christianity to suddenly spring into being.

    Christianity as we have come to know it did not, in any event, spring into being overnight. It emerged over a long period of time, through a period of struggles, debates, and conflicts over competing views, doctrines, perspectives, canons, and rules. The ultimate emergence of the Christian religion represents a human invention–in terms of its historical and cultural significance, arguably the greatest invention in the history of Western civilization. (268)

    One could disagree with Ehrman here, and still conceivably come away without the feeling that their faith has been slandered. Ehrman pays Christianity a very high compliment here, one mirrored in Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity? I am in unequivocal agreement with Ehrman on several points he makes in Jesus, Interrupted, and while I am guarded about some of his conclusions, my reading of this book felt more like an amicable conversation about the academic study of the bible over coffee or beer than it did an attack on the innerrancy of the Word of God. I went away from reading it encouraged, and strengthened in my own faith position. As Ehrman rightly says, “a historical-criticism approach to the Bible does not necessarily lead to agnosticism or atheism. It can in fact lead to a more intelligent and thoughtful faith–certainly more intelligent and thoughtful than an approach to the Bible that overlooks all of the problems that historical critics have discovered over the years” (272).

    In the years that followed my “Jesus” course, I had to fight my way through wondering whether accepting historical criticism meant I had to give up on my faith. After all, I was denying everything Josh McDowell had ever written about, and in the late 80s and early 90s, making the statement that McDowell was wrong was a sort of Evangelical heresy. I’m no longer an Evangelical Christian, but I am still firmly rooted in the religious identity of some sort of Christian. Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted gave me a bit more licence to remain Christian, while still admitting there are some serious textual issues when it comes to the bible. I had learn all this the hard way, and while I’m of Schopenhauer’s opinion when it comes to experienced knowledge as superior to read knowledge, I must nevertheless recommend this book. I recommend it for anyone who has some serious questions about the contradictions in the bible, but continue to choose to believe in the truth of the resurrection. I’ll end this review with Ehrman’s words on the subject, since they’re rather powerful. I’m strongly convinced they could have been the closing remarks of my Easter Sunday sermon so many years ago. Maybe they will be for some unpreached Easter Sunday sermon I have yet to give.

    The resurrection of Jesus was not a historical event that could proved or disproved, since historians are not able, by the nature of their craft, to demonstrate the occurrence of a miracle. It was a bold mythical statement about God and the world. This world is not all there is. There is life beyond this world. And the horrible actions of humans, such as crucifying and innocent man, are not the end of the story. Evil does not have the last word; God has the last word. And death is not final. God triumphs over all, including death itself. (276)

    May 30th, 2009

33. larryboatright

    Bart Ehrman is all the rage these days. His book, Misquoting Jesus, was immensely popular, earning him the status of being a household name. He’s been on tons of press spots; heck, he even got interviewed by the distinguished journalist Steven Colbert.:) With his followup, Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman continues the same line of claims he began with Misquoting Jesus. As a result of his writings, countless people who at one point claimed to follow Jesus abandoned their faith, as Ehrman “obviously” proved that the Bible was an unreliable document, and if the document is unreliable, the faith it speaks of must be unreliable as well, right?

    Bart Ehrman is a competent scholar. I think that’s what really baffles me about his writing. No, I’m not saying what he is writing is dumb at all. He’s obviously brilliant and has some good points to make. The problem is, his generalizations and many of his one-sided assertions don’t mesh with a scholar of his caliber.

    Let me give you an example. Ehrman says, “Most of the books of the New Testament go under the names of people who didn’t actually write them. This has been well known among scholars for the greater part of the past century, and it is taught widely in mainline seminaries and divinity schools throughout the country. As a result, most pastors know it as well. But for many people on the street and in the pews, this is ‘news’.” (p.112) The problem lies in his sweeping generalization that this is taught widely and that most pastors know this as well. In reality, he is talking about liberal scholarship. Conservative scholars rise up to stand against his claims. Ehrman makes it sound like all of academia (in the Christian world, at least), believes this. In truth, many liberal scholars do while most do not. To further the point, many books in the New Testament were NOT written by the person we traditionally associate authorship with. News to you? Yes, many letters were written down by what was called an amanuensis, a person who essentially took dictation down from the author. So, in Galatians, it’s most likely Paul did not physically write the letter. But, he did speak it, and his amanuensis wrote it. Paul signed off on the writing, however, saying “See what large letters I write with my own hand!” This doesn’t mean Paul wasn’t the author- it just means that as was typical of the day, he dictated it to someone else who wrote it down. Paul likely read and approved the final copy as authentic.

    Ehrman likes to speak about contradictions in the text. The truth is, the contradictions he speaks about are there. He says, “When students are first introduced to the historical, as opposed to a devotional, study of the Bible, one of the first things they are forced to grapple with is that the biblical text… is chock full of discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable.” (p.19) He goes on to discuss discrepancies between stories contained in the gospels. Ehrman fails to really capture the opposite view that each of these gospels are written from starkly different viewpoints, written to vastly different audiences. Finally, the Bible nowhere claims to be a historical document. God allowed things to be written through the eyes of the respective writer, and it’s natural that perspectives are different. There are no theological discrepancies. Sure, one gospel may contain a glimpse of a story (the crucifixion, for example) that seemingly has contradicting accounts (did Jesus cry out to His father and seem fearful of the cross or was He calm and collected?). But reconciling these against the theological message of the Scripture is not a problem at all. One must remember genre when discussing the Bible, as well.

    A favorite topic of Ehrman comes regarding variants between Greek manuscripts. Many scholars and critics use big numbers in an effort to make a point. Sure, the NT has over 100,000 words, and 300,000 variants. What liberal scholars fail to point out is that most variants are as simple as inverting the words Jesus Christ for Christ Jesus, or putting the letter n at the end of the word rather than in the word (the variable nu). No cardinal doctrine is affected by this. Another topic is copyist errors. Ehrman claims that copyist errors throughout the centuries have led to an unreliable manuscript. He also claims that the documents we have came hundreds of years after the original writing. Again, in a case of selective presentation, he fails to mention that the earliest extant manuscripts have been traced back to 125AD, a generation from their writing. No other ancient literature can boast anywhere near this claim. What he has done is give stats that at first glance cause everyone to say, “Holy Cow!” without qualifying them (which would greatly reduce the shock value).

    What bothers me is that his attempt to bring “what the scholars know” to the laypeople who this supposed truth is kept from doesn’t present all the information, leading good people who trust the Word of God to doubt their Holy book and the Christ it speaks of. I enjoy when good scholars present their view but clearly state other views as well. Ehrman writes matter-of-factly (and why shouldn’t he, it’s his book?) about heavy topics that are by no means “settled” in the academic community. Textual Criticism has operated within ebbs and flows for the last two centuries, and competent scholars on both sides of the issues produce excellent scholarship. But to present things as if they are widely accepted without giving the inverse argument is a scary place to be if I’m a scholar like Ehrman. It undermines his credibility and causes deep doubt to set in the hearts of many people unnecessarily. I’d encourage you to read Ben Witherington, Dan Wallace, Scot McKnight, and other competent scholars to see their take on the same viewpoints. They frequently bring both sides of the issue into their writings. Ehrman has a nasty habit of making his and other liberal scholars’ beliefs the norm.

    Here are three important takeaways I’d ask readers to think on.
    First, I think Ehrman is absolutely correct that pastors have not done a good job conveying some of the concepts he speaks of (NT manuscripts, controversies, etc). I personally believe a healthy discussion about how we got our bible could do a lot of people good in the church today. It’s important that as followers of Jesus, we have open and honest discussion about important issues like this, and people learn the history of the faith they engage in.
    Second, I think it’s important for people to read from people who disagree with their beliefs. Despite arriving at different conclusions than I have, I appreciate Ehrman’s contributions to the field of study. He’s right- we need to talk about these issues. They ARE important. We shouldn’t shy away from them.
    Finally, if you’re a pastor and you checked your brain at the door when you graduated bible school or seminary and your only reading today is popular how-to methods books, you NEED to read books about the Bible. I can’t say that strongly enough. The field of study didn’t stop when you left school. It moves on. People in your church are reading Ehrman and John Shelby Spong’s books, and they are filled with doubt, some eventually leaving the church and their faith altogether. Don’t be ignorant of some things that are being discussed right under your nose. I have a rule of thumb- I try to read a balance of 50% of books about the Bible/Bible-related and 50% about other subjects (practice, etc). That’s why I read books like this one. I want to know the current issues. I want to learn what new discoveries have been made. I want to keep my mind sharp. When was the last time you looked at a commentary other than to pull a quote for a sermon? When was the last time you thought about how this book or that book arrived at it’s present state? Dig!

    Ultimately, I think Ehrman did genuinely follow Jesus as a young man. I think his brilliant mind was afforded the opportunity to study with the best of the best (Dr. Bruce Metzger). I don’t think the academics really were the reason he chose to go this other path. I believe he began to wrestle with the problem of suffering (how does a good God allow suffering), and his bright intellect ate at him and overwhelmed his faculties, and once he crossed the line of doubt, his intellect kicked in yet again and took him down this path. I understand that. I know it’s a tough issue, and I admit I don’t fully understand it as well (although I can give you a nice textbook answer). I think Erhman’s faith unraveled over this fact, and his academic mind began to see things in another light. In short, God just doesn’t tell us everything. We have to trust in Him and ask Him for truth. Ehrman believes he found the truth, and is now an agnostic. Jesus said “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” I believe the truth Ehrman believes he has found has taken him down a defensive path of un-freedom. I pray that his heart meets up with the Creator of all truth once again.

    original post on my blog at http://larryboatright.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/jesus-interrupted-review/

    May 31st, 2009

34. johnchandler

    For those unfamiliar with Ehrman, he has an interesting background. A former evangelical, he was educated at Moody, Wheaton, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He describes his transition between these schools and his own progression from a very conservative view of Scripture to a, uh, not so conservative view. Some years later, Erhman did reject Christianity, though he describes that rejection in connection to the inconsistencies he sees between suffering in the world and the claims of the Christian God.

    For the most part, Jesus, Interrupted serves as an introduction to the historical critical approach to understanding Scripture. Simply put, this approach evaluates Scriptures not as a sacred devotional text, but as historical documents that merit critical scrutiny. Erhman’s primary thesis is that most pastors learn about the historical critical approach, and the difficulties it brings to how we view Scripture. Yet, most lay people in church have no knowledge of this as pastors don’t talk about it. Jesus, Interrupted seems to be Erhman’s attempt to bring this conversation to a wider audience.

    A few thoughts that came from my experiences reading the book:

    From what I understand, Erhman has a bit of a reputation at times of being somewhat condescending in his tone toward Christianity. I didn’t get that feel out of Jesus, Interrupted at all. I appreciated the tone with which he wrote the book.
    I also appreciate the attempts to present a historical-critical understanding of Scripture at a more popular level. I think it is an important conversation to bring in to churches. I’m not aware of a book that has attempted to do this from a Christian scholar at a popular level…thus enforcing one of Erhman’s main points.
    Because the book was written at a popular level, there is the danger of overgeneralizing, and I think Erhman did so. After reading the book, one would be left with the impression that all conservative Evangelical Bible scholars don’t see any inconsistencies in the Scripture, and all non-Evangelical scholars see many and doubt the authorship of a good portion of the New Testament. The discussion simply can’t be reduced to those two camps with those two views.
    Ehrman’s approach seems to be hyper modern in that he only wants to view the Scriptures through a historical critical approach. I can respect this and think seeing Scripture as a historical text sheds a great deal of light on our reading. Yet I also think it is important to understand that the Scriptures weren’t written by people who even comprehended a rational modern way of thinking, and can’t be evaluated only in that light. To oversimplify my point, I wonder if this would be akin to only critiquing Edgar Allen Poe as very poor Haiku. The historical critical approach should not supersede attempts to approach Scripture as a sacred devotional text, and vice versa.
    If there is a shortcoming to the book from a Christian perspective, it comes in the fact that Ehrman writes this as an agnostic scholar. I give him credit for saying that he didn’t become agnostic because of the material he is presenting. And he doesn’t demand that others do so. But, he also seem compelled to provide a way forward for someone who is just being introduced to this material. I suppose he is hoping that a reader will bring the conversation into their own faith circles…and he is probably right.

    originally posted at http://www.somestrangeideas.com/2009/06/03/jesus-interrupted/

    Jun 3rd, 2009

35. drmikekear

    I know that I told you to “watch this space for what should be an interesting review” of Bart Ehrman’s new book, Jesus, Interrupted, but my review is not very interesting at all, I’m afraid.

    Ehrman’s book is interesting, but not compelling. Much of what he has written has been hashed and re-hashed in recent years. For those who come to this book presupposing the Bible to be an error-filled product of some ofttimes disingenuous writers this will simply be more grist for the mill. For those whose presuppositions require an inspired Word, Ehrman is easily dismissed.

    As I read through Jesus, Interrupted I was continually reminded of Marcus Borg. But there is a world of difference between Ehrman and Borg. Ehrman comes across as dry and secular, whereas Borg, in spite of his divergent views on the inspiration of the Scriptures, gives the reader an alternative spirituality which still includes (or at least allows) God, and even Jesus Christ, as legitimate objects of our faith. I have always enjoyed reading Marcus Borg, even when I disagreed with him. I simply can’t say the same for Bart Ehrman.

    Jun 3rd, 2009

36. drmikekear

    http://moderatecalvinist.blogspot.com/2009/06/jesus-interrupted-review.html

    Jun 3rd, 2009

37. wilddreamergrl

    originally blogged at http://livewithdesire.com/home/2009/6/4/book-review-jesus-interrupted.html

    About a month ago, my wife was invited to review several books on her blog, in exchange for keeping the books afterward. Never one to turn down free reading material, I volunteered to assist.

    The book I’m reviewing is called Jesus, Interrupted, by Bart D. Ehrman, also known for another book, covering similar subject matter, called Misquoting Jesus.

    The topic of this book is scripture – specifically, the New Testament. Ehrman’s purpose in writing this book, he says, is “to explain why scholarship on the Bible forced me to change my views.” In it, he catalogues his journey from an evangelical Bible scholar at Moody Bible Institute, to an agnostic professor of religious studies who still holds a great deal of reverence for scripture, but no longer believes in much of what it teaches.

    First, the good. This book makes a very convincing argument in the debate over Scriptural infallibility. After checking up and verifying some of the assertions made in this book, it was enough for me to conclusively say that I do not believe Scripture to be infallible.

    The significance of this statement is largely dependent on what I mean by it. Ehrman does a good job cataloging a number of inconsistencies within the New Testament – particularly between the different accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus found in the gospels.

    Most of them are mere nitpicks. Was Jairus’ daughter dead (Matthew 9:18) or alive (Mark 5:23) when he came to see Jesus? The day after John the Baptist baptized Jesus, was he in the wilderness being tempted or was he still hanging out with John (John 1:29)?

    And whatever happened to Judas Iscariot after he betrayed Christ? Matthew 27 tells us that he gave back the 30 pieces of silver and went and hung himself. The blood money, Matthew says, was then used to buy a field for burying strangers in, which came to be called the “Field of Blood.” Acts 1, on the other hand, tells us that Judas himself bought the field, and then fell off a cliff into it. As Ehrman so picturesquely puts it, “For Luke, the reason the field was called the Field of Blood is because Judas bled all over it.”

    As I said, though, these are largely nitpicks. Whichever account is the accurate, it probably has no effect on anybody’s theology. However, not all the contradictions Ehrman points out are equally insignificant. For example, Mark 14 contains a detailed account of the Passover meal Jesus ate with his disciples just before his death. However, in John 19:14 it is very clear that Jesus is being crucified on the night of the Preparation of the Passover, before the event actually occurs. This is more significant than the other discrepancies I have mentioned, because of the importance that is given to Christ’s role as the ultimate Passover sacrifice. Was he actually crucified on the night of Passover, or was that a detail slipped in later by some well-meaning scribe in an attempt to ensure that readers understood his death as sacrificial?

    These are important questions to be asking – and we do ourselves a disservice when we term scripture “infallible,” or when we take refuge in one of the many explanations that have been created to get around the more obvious discrepancies, such as “it’s infallible in the original texts” (how do we know, since we don’t have them?) or “none of the discrepancies are anything more than semantics” (some are, some very plainly are not).

    Why is it important? Because, in attempting to reconcile some of these discrepancies, Christian culture has in some cases managed to invent a whole new “biblical” narrative that is not found anywhere in Scripture. One example Ehrman gives is the scene at Jesus’ tomb on Easter Sunday. When the women showed up that morning, Ehrman asks:

    Do they see a man, as Mark says, or two men (Luke), or an angel (Matthew)? This is normally reconciled by saying that the women actually saw “two angels.” That can explain everything else . . . The problem is that this kind of reconciling . . . requires one to assert that what really happened is unlike what any of the gospels say.”

    It is important that, when we read Scripture, we actually read Scripture. All too often, we instead read into Scripture whatever we want to see pictured there. Ehrman makes this point quite vividly.

    That being said, you might think that I would recommend this book to anybody looking to better understand Scripture in its historical context. The truth is, I would not. There are three reasons why.

    The first reason lies in Ehrman’s tendency to oversimplify. Granted, on an incredibly complex and well-worn topic like this, with two thousand years of careful study behind it, there is a need to simplify somewhat in a book of fewer than three hundred pages. However, Ehrman’s retreat for a lot of statements that are fairly controversial (at least outside of academic circles) is that “most academics agree.” Consensus, however, is never a prima facie case for truth. Just because a group of people – even a group of experts – agree on something does not make it true.

    Take, for example, the fairly well-accepted assertion that Mark was the earliest of the gospels to be written, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Ehrman asserts this throughout the book, and uses it to make a number of claims. For all I know, it may well be true, but Ehrman never demonstrates the truth of this claim – he simply makes it. If it is indeed true, in the pages of this book we have only his word for it.

    A second flaw in Ehrman’s methodology is his tendency to overlook or explain away passages that don’t fit his narrative. For example, he spends an entire chapter on an argument very familiar to anyone acquainted with the cottage industry that has sprung up surrounding attempts to prove that Dan Brown’s books Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are as fictional as their author claims. Perhaps the most important – and flawed – claim in the entire book is that Christ did not truly understand himself to be divine, and that his divinity was a later invention of the Church.

    His basis for this is that nowhere in the synoptic gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke – does Christ claim divinity, and that this claim was not made until the later gospel of John was written. He notes – correctly – that in the synoptics, Christ tends to refer to himself as the “son of God” or the “son of man” and points out that these terms had multiple meanings, not all of which referred to the divine.

    Fair enough. But Ehrman’s entire case falls apart at Christ’s trial before the Sanhedrin. Ehrman asserts that Christ was crucified for his political rabble rousing . . . and that is probably true from the Roman perspective. But according to Mark, by Ehrman’s own account the earliest source we have for the life of Christ, the Sanhedrin convicted him of blasphemy based on the same two claims – the claim to be the Son of God and the Son of Man (Mark 14:60-63). They, at least, understood that he was claiming divine status, and used his own words to condemn him.

    So Ehrman’s tendency to overlook passages that don’t fit his narrative trips him up throughout the book, but most importantly, on this claim that is the very heart of Christianity.

    The final flaw in his methodology is his tendency to fill in historical gaps with his own imagination. He spends a great deal of time arguing that a historical perspective cannot comment on certain aspects of Scripture – miracles, for example – because reconstructing history from uncertain sources by definition requires historians to speculate about what was likely to have happened.

    Again, fair enough, but at the same time, this sets a very low bar for getting at anything resembling actual fact. For example: As I mentioned, he makes a (common) assertion that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. This explains why several passages are common to Mark and Matthew, or Mark and Luke, but not any other gospels. He also asserts that a great deal of common material from Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, likely came from another source, now lost to us. Biblical historians call this missing source, largely comprising many of Jesus’ aphorisms and sayings, “Q.”

    For all I know, again, that’s exactly what happened. But the truth is that nobody really knows if Matthew and Luke really used Mark, or if there ever was a “Q.” Another perfectly logical explanation could be that all three of them pulled different (but sometimes overlapping) source material from a single “proto-gospel.” We just don’t know.

    Another claim of this type is that most of the books in the New Testament were not written by the authors to whom they are attributed. In the case of the two gospels – Matthew and John – attributed to Christ’s original disciples, he makes a very good case. A Hebrew tax collector and a fisherman were not likely to be literate at all, much less educated in Greek, though it is entirely plausible to think that they might have dictated their memories of Christ to someone who was. Mark – supposedly written from Peter’s perspective – could well be the same. We know far less about Mark and Luke – little, in fact, other than that they were companions of Peter and Paul, respectively – so the claim is far less sustainable in their cases based on any sort of actual evidence.

    But more significant is the simple fact that it doesn’t matter.

    Certainly, those who originally compiled the canon gave more weight to certain books based on whether they (legitimately or otherwise) bore the names of certain authors. But the fact is that the gospels and epistles we have are the most credible accounts we have of Christ’s mission on earth – accounts that are likely the result of a generation or two of oral tradition between the life of Christ and the authors of the gospels. Are they flawless? No, but they do capture, to the mind of any honest enough to truly examine it, a coherent theology-in-transition from pre-Christian Judaism into Christianity itself.

    And that, to me, is the ultimate flaw with Ehrman’s book. He is quick to impute to the authors of Scripture the lowest of motives – regularly spicing his chapters with words like “forgery” and “agenda.”

    The truth, though, may be far more mundane – an oral tradition of a nascent Christianity still in search of itself, captured in writing by those rare few who were both willing and able to do so, and brought to maturity as others built on their work, ultimately culminating in the creation of the canon.

    Is Ehrman’s explanation – the life of a Jewish apocalyptic prophet (Jesus) promoted to deific status by a Jewish philosopher (Paul) and spread throughout the Western World as a means to power by an opportunistic emperor (Constantine) plausible? Sure. But it’s not history – at least not in Ehrman’s sense of the word. It’s not truth. At least not in any known sense.

    And therein, perhaps, lies the problem. Ehrman is an eminent scholar in Greek and Hebrew, and a respected researcher with regard to the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular. It may even be argued that he is a historian – though having read this book I would term him an inconsistent historian at best.

    But what the study of Scripture needs is a psychologist’s eye. Too often the historical researcher looks at the dusty old documents before him and is ill-equipped to fill in the gaps because he does not understand the “why” . . . why did John write thus, and why did Paul say that? A historian can try his best to fill in those blanks, but he is ill-equipped to do so, because he does not understand the mind.

    I am neither a historian nor a psychologist, but I would wager that any differences in tone or word choice between, say, Matthew and Paul, stemmed not from the fact that they were pursuing radically different belief systems than because they were writing for radically different audiences. Certainly there seem to be some genuine differences of theology – Matthew, for example, is far more willing than Paul to insist that converted Christians follow Jewish laws. But those differences largely reflect the unsettled nature of first-century Christianity. We know from Acts that this issue, in particular, was argued over at the highest levels of the Christian community. But much of it likely stems from the fact that Matthew was speaking to a largely Jewish audience, while Paul’s audience was largely Gentile. Those distinct groups are going to have distinct cultures, preferences, and methods of processing information. And, contrary to Ehrman’s implications, there is nothing particularly sinister about that.

    So I cannot recommend this book as anything other than an interesting read. For those, like myself, who are fascinated with history in general, and with the history of the early church in particular, I would highly recommend From Jesus to Christianity by L. Michael White as a much more balanced and thorough alternative to this book.

    Jun 4th, 2009

38. MicahMin

    My pastoral heart nods a knowing “yes” in Ehrman’s general direction as he continues to reveal himself to his readers. I hope that CPE supervisors are reading these volumes and are using them as a springboard for fruitful group discussions. If Ehrman’s struggle with the mystery of human suffering can help one student become a better pastor then perhaps the theological criticism from the right and the cynicism from the left will balance on the fulcrum of “helpful.”

    Jun 8th, 2009

39. jasonboyett

    From http://blog.jasonboyett.com/2009/06/review-jesus-interrupted.html

    You might recall that, back in April, I teased a review of Bart Ehrman’s new book, Jesus, Interrupted. As an author of a book about the Bible and an armchair student of theology and biblical studies, I’m pretty fascinated by Ehrman’s work — as well as his personal story. (He entered college and then seminary from a fundamentalist Christian background, interested in studying the Bible in its original languages. By the time he earned his doctorate, he’d become an agnostic.)

    So I’ve read the book. Actually, I read the book very quickly, and have been postponing a review of it for awhile because I wasn’t sure what to write. A single-post review won’t really do the subject justice — especially as much as Jesus, Interrupted relates to my own writing career (and faith) — so I’m going to spread it out a bit.

    To begin, I thought it would be fun to explore the book using my friend Bryan Allain’s quirky, efficient, and totally subjective “Cannarf Rating System.” That’s right: Cannarf. What’s a Cannarf? Read this to find out. In short, it’s a means of reviewing almost anything based on your expectations going in. Was the book better or worse than you expected?

    So…here we go.

    Author: Bart Ehrman

    Book Name: Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)

    I’m Glad It Wasn’t Called: Jesus, Interrupted: A Book Intended to Destroy Your Christianity (Bwa-ha-ha-ha-HA)

    Book Synopsis in Twitteresque 140 Characters or Less: The New Testament has some serious reliability problems, which you probably aren’t aware of since they’re rarely discussed in church.

    Where I Bought It: I didn’t. A review copy was provided to me free by the publisher, HarperOne. Which I’m always tempted to pronounce “Harperone,” as if it rhymes with chaperone or megaphone.

    Paid for With: My mortal soul. (Or not.)

    How Long It Took Me to Read: About a week. I don’t have time to just sit for hours and read — I have to make time for it — but I kept returning happily to the work. Because, being a big nerd, I enjoy reading Bible scholarship. No, really, I do. That’s one reason I wrote Pocket Guide to the Bible: to bring Bible scholarship to the masses. With jokes. And it should be said that this book can be described as “Bible scholarship,” but it’s not a heavy, hard-to-read book. It’s a popularization of scholarship, when means you can read it without having to know, in advance, words like eschatology or dispensationalism or Nag Hammadi.

    Who I WOULD NOT Recommend This Book to: That’s a really interesting question, and one that deserves more than a paragraph of explanation. Here’s the deal: If your Christian faith is wrapped up in the inerrancy of the Bible — the belief that every word of scripture is inspired by God and contains no errors — this book will either make you 1) confused; 2) dismayed; or 3) angry. Ehrman goes to great lengths to explain how he doesn’t see Jesus, Interrupted as an attack on Christian faith. And I agree, to an extent. It is, however, an attack on the kind of Christianity that requires an inerrant Bible and cannot allow any human fingerprints on the Old and New Testaments. Other than a few opinions he carefully qualifies, Ehrman isn’t presenting any new or unusual scholarship. He’s simply outlining some of the contradictions and discrepancies (from dating of events to diverging views about Jesus by the biblical authors) that are apparent in the Bible. If these human elements are new to you, then yes, you’ll struggle with this book.

    So I’m not sure whether to recommend it or not. I believe all Christians need to be better informed about the Bible. That’s why I wrote my own book about it (and which discussed a few of these contradictions). After all, truth is truth, and if your faith can’t withstand some honest questioning, then what kind of faith is it anyway? But I know a lot of Christians whose faith might not survive becoming aware of the “humanity” of Scripture. If you grew up in the kind of biblical fundamentalism that says, of the Bible, “God wrote it, I believe it, that settles it,” then you probably won’t enjoy Jesus, Interrupted. At all. It’ll complicate things, but personally I’d rather have a complicated faith than a simple but uninformed one.

    Who I WOULD Recommend This Book to: Pastors, ministers, students of theology, anyone wanting a better understanding of the scriptures and ideas from which Christianity developed (…with all the hesitations rambled about above).

    What I Used for a Bookmark: An outdated business card from my days in the advertising world.

    What Were Some Interesting Stories from the Book? There were tons, though I wouldn’t call them stories. More like examples. I’m pretty familiar with most of the biblical discrepancies in the New Testament — again, scholars have been noting them for some time — although Ehrman pointed out a few new ones. In the Gospel story of the healing of Jairus’ daughter, the account in Mark 5:21-43 has Jesus learning the girl is sick and dying. Jairus asks Jesus to heal her. But Jesus is interrupted on the way to visiting her, and eventually hears from Jairus’ servants that it’s too late. The girl has died. (He goes to see her anyway and raises her from the dead.) In the same story as told in Matthew 9:18-26, Jairus comes to Jesus and tells him, “My daughter has just died.” He asks Jesus to bring her back to life. So which is it? Is she dying when he approaches Jesus? Or is she already dead?

    What Is the One Thing I Will Take from the Book? Because I’ve done a lot of reading about the Bible already, there weren’t too many “surprises” in Ehrman’s book. Most of this stuff — as he points out many, many times (almost too much) — is widely known and widely accepted. What strikes me the most was Ehrman’s contention that it wasn’t his knowledge of these biblical problems that led him to abandon his Christian faith, but rather his inability to get past the problem of evil. But that’s another book entirely. (It’s called God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer. I haven’t read it.)

    What I Learned from This Book That I Will Apply to My Next Book: It confirms my hatred of end notes. Ehrman cites a lot of scholarly sources and adds comments via endnotes, but you have to turn to the back of the book to read them. Big pet peeve of mine. I personally love to use footnotes in my writing, but only if you can read the note without having to turn to the back of the book. True footnotes are best used on the bottom of the page in which they appear. If I have to interrupt the reading of the chapter so I can turn to the back of the book, look up the chapter and note, and then read it before going back to the original page, then I am officially annoyed. My books all have true footnotes, and always will if I have my way.

    Expectations Going In: Again, I wasn’t surprised by the information, but I was surprised by a couple of things. First, Ehrman’s writing is very accessible. His wordcraft isn’t elegant by any means, but he’s good at distilling the information in a way the average pew-sitter can read and understand. Secondly, I was surprised at his tone. Based on some responses to his books, I almost expected him to be the kind of raging, angry atheist who is intent only on dragging you out of your faith and into their own non-belief system. (I guess I was expecting a Christopher Hitchens-type diatribe?) But this doesn’t seem the case at all with Ehrman. He seems very concerned with making sure the reader realizes he’s not trying to attack faith or deter his readers from Christianity — even though he has personally left the faith. This concern seems genuine, and almost pastoral. Like he’s torn between his desire to educate people about the Bible and his concern that their whole belief system not end up torn to shreds.

    Cannarf Rating: So I was fascinated by the subject matter, enjoyed his approach as a writer, and appreciated a tone that was more gracious than I expected. And it’s thought-provoking, too, which is good. +2 cannarfs.

    Have any of you read this book? (Or another Ehrman book?) If so, how do you rate it?

    Jun 11th, 2009

40. thomstark

    This is a very belated, quite overdue review of Bart Ehrman’s latest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them). I had a deadline for this review which I think was up in mid June. Why has it taken it long to write a review with a minimum of 50 words? I guess because I liked Ehrman’s book, and that surprised me a bit. Now, sure, there were some sensationalist bits (but not as many as you might think). Sure, there were bits that were frustratingly simplistic if not just out and out rationalistic. But I was surprised at the tone and the persuasiveness of many of his arguments. I had been told that Ehrman was just out to get Christians–that he had a distinctly anti-Christian agenda. A close friend of mine spoke about it with a close friend of Ehrman’s, and Ehrman’s friend apparently said that he has such an agenda–but it’s not there in this book. In fact, Ehrman frequently takes the time to point out that his arguments against the historicity of the NT accounts of Jesus are not arguments against the Christian faith, that he has many friends and colleagues who accept all the historical data he accepts yet continue to possess Christian faith, and that his leaving the faith has nothing to do with the historical data but with his personal and intellectual struggle with the problem of suffering. All in all, despite several cases where I think his interpretations of the Scriptures are stilted, unimaginative, or literalistic, Ehrman has written a cogent book that has challenged me to reassess key features of my Christian faith. Granted, Ehrman does love to shove the Bible’s many problems in the face of inerrantists. Like most of his other books (I’m sure), this is primarily a book for those who believe in biblical inerrancy–like Ehrman himself used to do. Those of us who don’t will find most of the book to be rather mundane in that regard (he’s preaching to the choir). But there are still some big ones.

    One discrepancy he pointed out struck me as rather obvious once I saw it–humorously so. In John 3 in the account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus: Jesus tells Nicodemus that if he wished to see the kingdom of God, he would have to be born “from above.” The Greek word used here is “anothen,” which has two meanings in the Greek. One meaning is “from above,” the other is simply “again.” Every time the word anothen is used in the Gospel of John it means “from above.” The conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus therefore revolves a rather humorous misunderstanding. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born anothen, meaning from above, and Nicodemus takes Jesus to mean that he must be born anothen, meaning again. So he asks Jesus how a man can be born a second time (deuteron). Jesus goes onto to correct the misunderstanding, saying that the birth Jesus was talking about is a spiritual birth, not a second physical birth. Can you anticipate the problem here? It’s really quite obvious: Jesus and Nicodemus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek. In Aramaic, the word for “from above” does not have a double meaning. In Aramaic, there would have been no room for the misunderstanding. In other words, the whole conversation could not have happened as it did. It is a rather humorous, very theologically instructive, Greek conversation. It couldn’t have happened in any other language the way it is recorded in John.

    Of course, except to strict inerrantists, it shouldn’t strike anyone as a serious problem that the Gospel of John isn’t strictly historical. On the one hand, Ehrman even admits that John wasn’t really doing history. In Ehrman’s terms, John was doing theology. But then Erhman turns around and censures John for not doing history. Ehrman can’t have it both ways. Nevertheless, this little episode was striking.

    One of the ones that stuck with me and continues to haunt me was his chapter about the divinity of Jesus. He quite rightly points out that of the four gospels, only John speaks about Jesus as divine. I investigated this for myself and found out it’s true. Only John–the latest of the four gospels–speaks about Jesus as a divine being, equal with God. The others use exalted language–calling him “son of God,” which just means “king,” and things like that. But John is the only gospel to speak about Jesus as God. Ehrman points out the oddity there. If Jesus really did go around claiming to be equal to God, a claim no sane person ever made before in Israel, you would think something like that would make it into any biography of Jesus. But it doesn’t–only into the last and the latest of four.

    Unfortunately, Ehrman doesn’t discuss at any length at all the fact that Paul speaks unequivocally of Jesus as God in Philippians and (assuming Pauline authorship) Colossians. Philippians at any rate is considered early. Ehrman doesn’t touch that. But elsewhere he does go into a significant discussion about the fact that early Christianity was comprised of several streams each with its own set of emphases about who this Jesus was and what his significance is. Perhaps Ehrman would answer that there were early streams of Christianity (Pauline streams) that saw Jesus was divine, but that Mark and Q did not see Jesus as divine. Perhaps he would have some other explanation. But regardless of what we think about Paul, it remains striking that talk of Jesus’ divinity is entirely absent from the synoptics.

    This is just one of many examples of the kinds of arguments Ehrman makes that challenge even non-inerrantists like myself who still profess faith in Jesus of Nazareth. What exactly it means for my faith, for your faith? I don’t have the answer. Perhaps that’s why it took me so long to write this response to Ehrman’s book. Eventually I guess I realized answers weren’t going to come quickly, so I’d better go ahead and write the response anyway.

    Again, a lot of Ehrman’s arguments and scriptural interpretations fall short of persuasive to me. Unfortunately, many of Ehrman’s claims may appear correct to those without any background in biblical studies, so I cannot recommend it to the novice–the very sort of person to whom Ehrman professes to be writing. But to those with some background, who know how to take what with a grain of salt, overall the book is a very welcome challenge from, I think, a very sincere individual.

    By the way, after reading this book I finally took the time to read the debate between Ehrman and Tom Wright on the problem of suffering. I must admit, apart from a few obvious points to Wright for his critique of Ehrman’s old-fashioned reading of Paul, in my book Ehrman won the day in strides. I’ve been critiquing Wright and other NPPers about this for some time now–for not incorporating historical criticism into their discussion of the development of Second Temple Judaism. Wright reads the Bible just like Paul does–as one grand narrative with Abraham as one of the central figures. So Wright can sideline all the problematic texts related to God and suffering, while arguing that through Abraham God was “bringing the world to rights.” Ehrman nailed Wright to the wall here, because the fact of the matter is, the Bible isn’t one grand narrative, but a wild collection of disconnected narratives that are frequently at odds with each other. It’s all very well for Wright to read the Bible like he thinks Paul does. But it’s illegitimate for him to claim that that’s what the Bible is, which is what he does. When Ehrman brought up several texts that would seem–far from solving the problem of suffering–rather to impugn God and make him culpable for suffering. Among other texts (like the Canaanite genocide texts), Ehrman brought up the flood. How does the flood get God off the hook for suffering? It’s precisely God who is responsible for the suffering and death of the entire world, save eight. Wright responds by claiming (without any explanation) that the flood somehow fits within the narrative of Abraham, and should be read in that context. Of course, Wright doesn’t explain how that’s possible given that Noah came before Abraham.

    Ehrman is also right that the apocalypticism of Jesus should be seen as an answer of sorts to the problem of suffering (though not necessarily a philosophically conscious answer), but that even apocalypticism has problems of its own.

    Jul 17th, 2009

41. holy heteroclite

    reposted:
    http://davewainscott.blogspot.com/2010/01/jesus-interrupted-and-gods-problem.html

    Jan 27th, 2010

42. tripp

    paper back reminder on the HBC: http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2010/01/27/bart-ehrmans-jesus-interrupted-is-coming-to-paperback/

    Jan 27th, 2010

43. jasonboyett

    Repost/Revisit:
    http://blog.jasonboyett.com/2010/01/archives-jesus-interrupted.html

    Jan 29th, 2010

44. frgregoryj

    “While the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted.”

    Flannery O’Connor

    Bart D. Ehrman’s new book, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), attempt to free himself from his Evangelical Christian past. Whether he has personally or not I can’t say. I can say that I found very little of value in the work and was often distracted by the author’s attempt to free himself from an understanding of Christianity in which he no longer believes but which I suspect still haunts him. Like Flannery O’Connor’s South, Jesus, Interrupted is haunted, if not by Christ then certainly by the author’s own Evangelical past.

    Though out the book I found myself wondering why the author bothered. I don’t doubt that most Protestant and Catholic seminarian learn some form of the historical-critical approach to the study of Sacred Scripture. And I don’t doubt that most of them forget what they learn as soon as they finish their studies. Nor do I find it in the least surprising that “pastors are, as a rule, reluctant to teach what they learned about the Bible” from historical critical scholarship (p. 13).

    Ehrman, however, is amazed and perplexed “that seminarians who learn the historical-critical method in their Bible classes appear to forget all about it when it comes time for them to be pastors” (p. 12) The author’s amazement and perplexity, I think at least, does not reflect (necessarily) a deficiency in pastors but the fundamental disconnect between the academic study of Scriptures (and really, the academic study of religion in general) and the life of the Church.

    Thinking of my ministry and preaching, I am hard press to think of a situation where I might want–as evidently Ehrman would have me do–present to a congregation “the discrepancies and contradictions” of Scripture. Nor do I know when it would be appropriate to examine with those entrusted to my care the “historical errors and mistakes” of the Bible. Or, to take another example, when I might want to share with people how “difficult” it is “to know whether Moses existed or what Jesus actually said and did” (p. 12).

    No where does the author explain to me the circumstances under which his research might aid my ministry. Nor is it even clear to me if he has any understanding of what it means to pastor a congregation. In other words, why on Sunday morning would I want to preach a sermon based on the historical-critical scholarship of the last 200 years?

    I am not, as an Orthodox priest, adverse to the historical-critical study of Scripture anymore than as a psychologist I’m adverse to the study of brain physiology and its relationship to human behavior. What I am opposed to is reducing human life to its biological foundations and limiting our understanding of Scripture to meaning in its original historical context. Just as a good knowledge of physiological can be helpful in a counseling relationship, the work of Ehrman and his colleagues can be helpful in ministry. But, in both cases, it belongs to researchers to make a case for the importance their work for mine.

    To be fair, I do not think I am a member of Ehrman’s target audience. He’s concerned with justifying historical-critical research to those Christians who believe “that the Bible is a unified whole, inerrant in all its parts, inspired by God in every way” (p. 279). As an Orthodox Christian this is not my understanding of the Bible. And so Ehrman’s assertion that in the Scriptures “There are too many divergences, discrepancies, contradictions; to many alternative ways of looking at the same issues, alternatives that are often at odds with one another” does not overly concern me. My faith is not in a book but the Holy Trinity and the Orthodox Church. These, and not my own personal understanding of the text, are content within I read and understand the Scriptures.

    While I think Ehrman is rightly critical of how many American Christians read the Bible, I do not think that–in and of itself–a historical-critical approach to Scripture is the solution. To be sure understanding the various books of the Bible in their historical context is important. Parallel to this, however, is the context within which Christians have historically understood the various books of the Bible, the Tradition of the Church. We can no more limit our understanding of say the Gospel of Matthew to its original historical context than we can to a putative literal reading of the text or our personal understanding in light of our own experience. All this, potentially at least, have their role to play in how we understand St Matthew’s Gospel; we cannot however make any of these the normative understanding.

    Often when I read books critical of Evangelical Christianity I find myself agree with the diagnosis and opposed to the cure that the author would apply. In the current situation, the illness is fundamentalism and biblical illiteracy; the cure is historical critical method and a rationalistic understanding of human history. Though he describes himself as an agnostic, it seems to me that Ehrman is still wedded to his own Evangelical past for his understanding of the nature of Scripture and how we ought to approach it. Granted he’s rejected the popular Evangelical Christian approach to Scripture. However it is still this tradition that informs–now in negative sense–Jesus, Interrupted.

    In Christ,

    +Fr Gregory

    Mar 23rd, 2010

1. “Jesus, Interrupted” – by Bart Ehrman « Practicing Disciple - Jan 27th, 2010
2. God’s Problem « What Would Jesus Eat? - Jan 28th, 2010
3. Hardly the Last Word » Jesus, Interrupted Coming in Paperback - Jan 28th, 2010
4. Jesus, Interrupted « Scooterrev’s Weblog - Jan 28th, 2010
5. Reading Ehrman on Theodicy | The Edge of the Inside - Feb 2nd, 2010
6. Bart Erhman? Do You Have Any Thoughts? New Book: Jesus Interrupted « Groans From Within - Feb 9th, 2010
7. Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman | Leaving a Mark - Mar 2nd, 2010

for “Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman”

You must be logged in as a VIRAL BLOGGER to post a review.

2009 April2 August Barna Brian McLaren Christ church community culture David C Cook ecology emergent emergent church emergent village emerging emerging church eschatology faith George Barna God gospel grace house church Indie interfaith Jesus June Kingdom of God Len Sweet Leonard Sweet love missional organic church politics postmodern Quantum Spirituality redemption reform September Shane Claiborne So Beautiful spiritual formation spirituality theology The Shack