This last week I had a chance to read Bart Ehrman’s new book called Jesus, Interrupted. I had already finished reading Misquoting Jesus this last summer, and was quite excited to discover that he had a new book out. I purchased it the day it was released.
As usual, Bart Ehrman does an extremely good job of presenting the historical facts in a compelling manner that will leave an inquisitive and open Christian pondering. And from Bart’s own admission of his intent at the end of the book, I think this is all he wants to do.
The book is well laid out, starting with a transition from Misquoting Jesus. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman covers the textual tradition passed down to us and why the texts we have cannot be trusted. Ehrman clearly shows why he personally found belief in the inspiration of the autographa to be a sketchy claim at best – if not impossible to resolve. He cites his classic concern that if the differences “do not matter”, why do theological seminaries like Dallas Theological spend millions on studying the differences?
In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman goes much further than in Misquoting Jesus. He begins to explain not only the textual manuscript problems, but the internal Biblical contradictions and theological and historical problems of the faith as well. While at first I was disappointed that Ehrman did not include a greater volume of internal contradictions (particularly between the gospels), I think I now see why he chose not to do so. While Ehrman does spend close to 40 pages discussing a “World of Contradictions” (as the chapter is titled), he demonstrates a deep understanding of fundamentalism in how he goes about presenting them. For the fundamentalist, the number of contradictions is not the issue. The issue is whether the contradictions can be “resolved” or “harmonized”. As long as they can be “resolved” (no matter how tacky the resolution), a fundamentalist will feel satisfied. Ehrman carefully chooses contradictions which are almost impossible to harmonize without extremely clever invention. Rather than a “brute force” attack, Ehrman takes a calmer road.
Ehrman also ventures into matters of the historical Jesus, canonization, and church history. He explains canonization and clearly delineates a view that puts the “Canonization was not about choosing the books, it was about recognizing them” argument to rest. What I found interesting about this part was how closely it mirrored my own thoughts on this subject during my Bible Introduction class at Moody Bible Institute last spring. The real problem as I saw it is that so many believers believed in the wrong canon before the Nicean council decided on (“confirmed” if you are a fundamentalist) the twenty-seven books we now have. The issue for me was not whether we had the right canon now, but how could God allow so many believers to be duped for two hundred years into accepting books which were not inspired? Why would God allow that? And if God allowed so many believers back then to be duped into accepting the wrong books, how can we trust we have the correct books now? Ehrman echos similar sentiments.
While some have indicated that Bart Ehrman is trying to attack Christianity, I do not find this at all. His tone is clear, concise, and to the point without being aggressive. At the end of the book he explains in length that he is not trying to force anyone to lose their faith. He is simply explaining his position and hoping that getting this knowledge to the masses will do a world of good. His biggest concern – echoed on many occasions – is that pastors are not teaching their congregations the whole truth. Pastors go to seminary, learn all the historical problems, but then never inform their congregations of these issues. Just think of how many fights over women’s roles in church could be resolved if church members knew the passage in 1 Corinthians was added by later scribes! This is Ehrman’s point: knowing the historical background of the faith millions adhere to is essential in understanding our own culture, our churches, and the doctrines that so many accept almost without question from the clean-as-the-driven-snow lips of their pastors.
All in all, this is an excellent book – regardless of where you are coming from in the “debate”. I highly recommend it!
Sounds interesting. For some reason I never finished Misquoting Jesus, which I was really excited to get last year. Still on my shelf – should dig it out.
You wrote: “He cites his classic concern that if the differences “do not matter”, why do theological seminaries like Dallas Theological spend millions on studying the differences?”"
To be fair, this is the exact same argument that trolls make on de-con: if God doesn’t exist, why are you spending so much time thinking and talking about Him?
According to Christian theology, the differences in the manuscripts do not matter because of God’s sovereignty.
According to atheism, God does matter because a belief in him influences people’s behavior in radical ways.
So I think the argument is valid in Ehrman’s case.
If you lived in Iceland, you would probably spend a decent amount of time “studying” and discussing elves, even though you would not believe they existed. Why? Because a belief in them matters over there apparently. They even redirect highways :)
Muser, where did you get the notion that the Council of Nicaea made any decisions related to the NT canon? The idea is so often repeated as if it were an obvious fact. Surely Ehrman doesn’t make this claim, does he?