Jesus, Interrupted Review

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.