Sign in with FacebookRussell Ince's Reviews > Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible {and Why We Don't Know About Them}
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible {and Why We Don't Know About Them}
by Bart D. Ehrman
I'm a big fan of Bart Ehrman because, as an erstwhile Christian and venerable New Testament scholar, he is adequately equipped to discuss these subjects but unlike many Christian academics his agnosticism lends him an air of intellectual honesty which I, as an agnostic atheist interested in Christianity, sometimes find lacking in other New Testament scholars. Ehrman has a respect for his Christian material that axe-grinding atheists may lack but is not clouded by personal subjectivities and religious dogmas. Put simply, Ehrman is not afraid to call a spade a spade.
'Jesus Interrupted' is a work that covers a lot of ground in a short space and I would recommend it to anyone beginning a study of the New Testament. It is, however, rather a hodge-podge of different subject areas, many of which Ehrman had previously or has since covered in more detail elsewhere.
'Jesus Interrupted' makes largely the same point as Ehrman's earlier work 'Misquoting Jesus', namely, that the New Testament should be read for what each individual author or editor had to say rather than as a single text with a single unifying dogma. But whereas 'Misquoting Jesus' demonstrated this point through textual criticism and the study of changes to the text in the course of its transmission, 'Jesus Interrupted' makes the point by looking directly at the text itself.
Chapter 2 of this work looks at some of the discrepancies in the gospel narratives of Jesus. Whilst scholars have long recognised and celebrated the different flavours of the evangelists, Ehrman, as an agnostic, is not afraid to see contradictions where Christian scholars prefer to see nuances of emphasis.
In chapter 3 Ehrman attributes these contradictions to different dogmas. Ehrman states (p.62): "Many of the differences among the biblical authors have to do with the very heart of their message. Sometimes one author’s understanding of a major issue is at odds with another author’s, on such vital matters as who Christ is, how salvation is attained, and how the followers of Jesus are to live."
Chapter 4 then discusses the question of authorship of the books of the New Testament. This ground is covered in more detail in Ehrman's later work 'Forged'.
Chapter 5 deals with the quest for the historical Jesus. Again, this is an area Ehrman has covered before and at greater length in 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium'. Ehrman uses the the usual methodology of various criteria (contextual credibility, independent attestation and dissimilarity) to establish which traditions about Jesus are the most reliable. This methodology, whilst useful, does not offer nor does it claim to offer, any cast iron guarantees. To take a few example, Jesus is believed to have been baptised by John the Baptist because this would have been an embarrassment to Christians and so is not likely to be untrue. Indeed Christianity, as it emerged and now exists, would find Jesus' early inferiority to John the Baptist embarrassing but it may have been the case that the earliest Christians did not possess such an exalted view of Christ as later emerged, especially in the gospel of John. In actual fact, John the Baptist was a well known and admired preacher discussed at good length by Josephus and so an association with him may have offered prestige rather than ignominy.
That Jesus, as Messiah, was believed to have come from Nazareth may also be a legend explained by the fact that the evangelists claimed this was prophesied (although we don't know by whom) or from a confusion with the place Nazareth (which according to Rene Salm was not inhabited in the early 1st century) with the word Nazarene. Paul is described in Acts as the ring-leader of the Nazarenes and there are a few etymological theories on its original meaning.
Chapter 6 looks at the transmission of the bible and the formation of the canon which Ehrman explores in greater detail in 'Misquoting Jesus'.
Chapter 7 deals with the theological development of Christianity and the notion that the faith is not so much the religion of Jesus but the religion about Jesus. Again, Ehrman explores this subject in more detail in works such as 'Lost Christianities'.
by Bart D. Ehrman
I'm a big fan of Bart Ehrman because, as an erstwhile Christian and venerable New Testament scholar, he is adequately equipped to discuss these subjects but unlike many Christian academics his agnosticism lends him an air of intellectual honesty which I, as an agnostic atheist interested in Christianity, sometimes find lacking in other New Testament scholars. Ehrman has a respect for his Christian material that axe-grinding atheists may lack but is not clouded by personal subjectivities and religious dogmas. Put simply, Ehrman is not afraid to call a spade a spade.
'Jesus Interrupted' is a work that covers a lot of ground in a short space and I would recommend it to anyone beginning a study of the New Testament. It is, however, rather a hodge-podge of different subject areas, many of which Ehrman had previously or has since covered in more detail elsewhere.
'Jesus Interrupted' makes largely the same point as Ehrman's earlier work 'Misquoting Jesus', namely, that the New Testament should be read for what each individual author or editor had to say rather than as a single text with a single unifying dogma. But whereas 'Misquoting Jesus' demonstrated this point through textual criticism and the study of changes to the text in the course of its transmission, 'Jesus Interrupted' makes the point by looking directly at the text itself.
Chapter 2 of this work looks at some of the discrepancies in the gospel narratives of Jesus. Whilst scholars have long recognised and celebrated the different flavours of the evangelists, Ehrman, as an agnostic, is not afraid to see contradictions where Christian scholars prefer to see nuances of emphasis.
In chapter 3 Ehrman attributes these contradictions to different dogmas. Ehrman states (p.62): "Many of the differences among the biblical authors have to do with the very heart of their message. Sometimes one author’s understanding of a major issue is at odds with another author’s, on such vital matters as who Christ is, how salvation is attained, and how the followers of Jesus are to live."
Chapter 4 then discusses the question of authorship of the books of the New Testament. This ground is covered in more detail in Ehrman's later work 'Forged'.
Chapter 5 deals with the quest for the historical Jesus. Again, this is an area Ehrman has covered before and at greater length in 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium'. Ehrman uses the the usual methodology of various criteria (contextual credibility, independent attestation and dissimilarity) to establish which traditions about Jesus are the most reliable. This methodology, whilst useful, does not offer nor does it claim to offer, any cast iron guarantees. To take a few example, Jesus is believed to have been baptised by John the Baptist because this would have been an embarrassment to Christians and so is not likely to be untrue. Indeed Christianity, as it emerged and now exists, would find Jesus' early inferiority to John the Baptist embarrassing but it may have been the case that the earliest Christians did not possess such an exalted view of Christ as later emerged, especially in the gospel of John. In actual fact, John the Baptist was a well known and admired preacher discussed at good length by Josephus and so an association with him may have offered prestige rather than ignominy.
That Jesus, as Messiah, was believed to have come from Nazareth may also be a legend explained by the fact that the evangelists claimed this was prophesied (although we don't know by whom) or from a confusion with the place Nazareth (which according to Rene Salm was not inhabited in the early 1st century) with the word Nazarene. Paul is described in Acts as the ring-leader of the Nazarenes and there are a few etymological theories on its original meaning.
Chapter 6 looks at the transmission of the bible and the formation of the canon which Ehrman explores in greater detail in 'Misquoting Jesus'.
Chapter 7 deals with the theological development of Christianity and the notion that the faith is not so much the religion of Jesus but the religion about Jesus. Again, Ehrman explores this subject in more detail in works such as 'Lost Christianities'.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Jesus, Interrupted.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-4 of 4) (4 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kenny
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
17 jan. 12:13
PLEASE READ* Does Bart Erhman provide the resources or evidence to where he claims "We don't have the original bible" and "we dont know who wrote the bible"? He just says this thing without pointing readers where to look this up. And it was also weird to me that if we dont have the original bible then what did they use to translate to English?
reply
|
flag
*
I would recommend you read Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus', which is my favourite book of the few I have read on the New Testament. This work explains how we got the bible most people read today. I'm not quite sure I understand your questions. The evidence that Bart Ehrman provides to support his claim that we don't have an original copy of the Bible is the fact that WE DON'T HAVE AN ORIGINAL COPY OF THE BIBLE! The earliest surviving manuscript from the New Testament is the very fragmentary Rylands Library Papyrus 52 fragment dated to ca. AD 125. We don't start to get more substantial manuscripts until ca. AD 200.
What Ehrman means by 'we don't have an original copy of the Bible' is simply that we do not have the autographs (or the very first written versions of the texts) in the way that we do have the original manuscript for Huckleberry Finn hand written by Mark Twain himself. But we do not have St. Paul's original hand written letters or any other original New Testament texts.
This is true of most ancient literature but because the Bible was copied so many times by so many different people in different languages there are lots of differences in our ancient manuscript copies of biblical texts. The problem is working out which manuscripts more accurately represent the originals.
We do not know who wrote many of the books of the New Testament because some (including the 4 gospels) were originally anonymous (as demonstrated by our earliest manuscript copies) and were only assigned authorship much later by church authorities. Furthermore, some books claiming to have been written by one author (particularly Paul) were actually forged in their name as demonstrated by a range of clues such as language and theology.
The texts that were used to translate the bible into English were themselves copies of copies of copies. The problem is that when a work is copied so often without one single universal authoritative text that is established from the earliest times, many differences will emerge.
I still dont understand that all we have are copies. The earliest copy of Mark is dated to 70 Ad-- 40 yrs after Christ. In the middle of those 40 yrs were oral tradition(telling about Christ) Until someone wrote them down. Who is to say that the copy that we have of mark now is the original copy?
