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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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!

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

* 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?