Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible Why We Dont Know About Them by Bart D. Ehrman

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible Why We Dont Know About Them Reviews

• 
  Eric

  First off, I think it’s important to dismiss any of the common misunderstandings about Bart Ehrman and this book. The book is not a diatribe. It does not set out to debunk Christianity. Ehrman, in my opinion, is not angry, condescending, or uncaring in this book – quite the opposite, actually. Ehrman is not asking that you abandon your faith. I personally feel, having read the book, that Ehrman has served us up a wonderful tool, and has provided us with a great opportunity for discussion that could be very good for society at this point in time. It is also very important to understand that the book does not make any assertions that are new, radical, or unpopular among biblical scholars. And that is exactly what makes the book so incredibly fascinating, and quite honestly, shocking.
  
  Ehrman is very clear from the get-go that he is not serving up anything that would be surprising to anyone who went through a non-evangelical seminary schooling. The assertions in Ehrman’s book are something that most ministers and scholars of the New Testament have learned. They are things that have been agreed upon by the vast majority of biblical scholars. The only shocking part is that we, as a nation and a society so greatly influenced by the Bible, know so little about The Bible. We think we know a lot about it, and in many ways we do. We know the parables. We know, and can recite from memory, entire portions of scripture. We know the many characters, their many trials, and we know the great many lessons to be learned from The Bible. But those of us who claim we know our Bible – what do we really know? We tend to believe that it is the inerrant word of God. We view it as a book. We call it “The Good Book”. We treat it as a package, a unit, as we do most other books we own.
  
  The problem is that we do not approach the Bible from a historical-critical perspective. We do this with any other manuscripts or literature when we want to better understand it. Why do we not approach our most beloved text in the same way? We read each book in the Bible, but rarely do we compare narratives and note their striking theological and historical differences. We often do not take into account when each book was written, to whom, by whom, and why. Mostly, this is due to the popular notion that it is God’s book, and it is inerrant or divinely inspired and therefore its attributes are divine and universal. If we believe that, then we are not doing a very good job of reading.
  
  Ehrman notes the phenomenon of compressing different narratives into one clean narrative – creating a narrative that cannot be found existing on its own in the Bible. He writes of our reluctance to read the books of the Bible horizontally – meaning comparing separate accounts of the same events in different books, rather than compiling aspects of each into one imagining. If we read the books of the Bible, Gospels or otherwise, horizontally, we notice how much of what we know about the Bible is contradictory, irreconcilable, historically incorrect, or theologically incompatible. He urges that in order to fully understand what each author is trying to say, we need to look at the details of each account – each author is using devices to make a theological point, a point that is lost when we create our own narratives from more than one account.
  
  Here are some things, from Ehrman’s book, that many of us do not know, or accept. And it is important to note that these are not simply Erhman’s assertions, but are well-documented by Biblical scholars, and Ehrman provides a wealth of footnotes, and supporting information and bibliographies which he urges the reader to explore on their own. And that is one thing Ehrman does do – he urges the reader, on many occasions, to read your own Bibles and do your own research.
  
  • “Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly were written by the authors to whom they are traditionally ascribed: the seven undisputed letters of Paul and the Revelation of John” (which may not be the John most people believe it to be.)
  
  • The other nineteen books fall into three groups: “Misattributed writings”, “Homonymous writings” (written by someone who has the same name as someone else, i.e. James was most likely written by a James, but not written by Jesus’ brother James – its reason for inclusion as scripture), and “Pseudepigraphic writings” (written in the names of people who did not actually write them – scholars have known this for over a century).
  
  • “In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles.”
  
  • “Jesus’ disciples were “lower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee.” “The authors of the Gospels were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside Palestine.”
  
  • There exists a wealth of early Christian forgeries (Gospels allegedly written by Peter, Philip, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus. There were forged apostolic acts, “such as the Acts of John and of Paul and Thecla; we have epistles, such as the letter to the Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca, and letters allegedly written by Peter to James in order to oppose Paul; and we have a number of apocalypses, an Apocalypse of Peter (which nearly made it into the canon, and an Apocalypse of Paul”. It is likely that forgeries could have made it into the canon.
  
  • “This view that the New Testament contains books written under false names is taught at virtually all the major institutions of higher learning except strongly evangelical schools”. “It is the view taught in all the major textbooks on the New Testament used in these institutions. It is the view taught in the seminaries and divinity schools. It is what pastors learn when they are preparing for ministry.”
  
  • The Gospels were likely written after the year 70. Between the time of Jesus and these writings, Christianity was spreading through major urban areas of the Mediterranean region, solely by word of mouth. The way to convert people away from their (mostly) pagan religions was to tell them stories about Jesus: what he said and did, and how he died and was raised from the dead. Word of mouth, in a world of no mass media. If you look at our own ability to create urban legends, exaggerate, or alter details in the age of information, it would be disingenuous to assume that in the decades of repeated oral histories of Jesus, details did not undergo changes before they were committed to paper.
  
  • If Jesus lived and died in the first century, what do the Greek and Roman sources from his own day through the end of the century have to say about him? The answer is breathtaking. They have absolutely nothing to say about him. He is never discussed, challenged, attacked, maligned, or talked about in any way in any surviving pagan source of the period. There are no birth records, accounts of his trial and death, reflections on his significance, or disputes about his teachings…his name is never mentioned once in any pagan source. And we have a lot of Greek and Roman sources from the period: religious scholars, historians, philosophers, poets, natural scientists; we have thousands of private letters; we have inscriptions placed on buildings in public places. In no first-century Greek or Roman (pagan) source is Jesus mentioned.”
  
  • CS Lewis put forth the formulation that since Jesus called himself God, there were only three logical possibilities: he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Ehrman states that “none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it.” “Only in the latest of our Gospels”, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine.” Perhaps Lewis’s formula is flawed. Perhaps Jesus was actually “a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity”.
  
  • The idea of the divine being becoming human was not introduced until the Gospel of John, written after the other three Gospels.
  
  • There are “flat out discrepancies among the books of the New Testament. Sometimes these discrepancies could be reconciled if one worked hard enough at it with pious imagination; other times the discrepancies could not be reconciled, however fanciful the explanation.” (i.e. Jesus dies on different days in Mark and John).
  
  • “A whole range of theological perspectives came into existence, not during the life of Jesus, or even through the teachings of his original apostles, but later, as the Christian church grew and came to be transformed into a new religion rather than a sect of Judaism. These include some of the most important Christian doctrines, such as that of a suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the existence of heaven and hell.”
  
  These are only a few examples of items that I personally found fascinating (there scores more tidbits, inaccuracies, contradictions, and theological problems, that Ehrman details), and in some cases shocking. I grew up in the Methodist church. I was exposed to the Bible as much as your average Christian. Obviously I formed my own opinions, as we all do, in regards to the Bible’s inerrancy, historical accuracy, etc. I took a few courses in college in which we studied the Bible from a historical critical perspective. These had a huge influence on my changing views of The Bible and of religion in general. Therefore, many of Erhman’s assertions, opinions, and conclusions, did not come as a surprise. But the experience of reading “Jesus, Interrupted” is certainly eye-opening even for those who have been exposed to reading the Bible from the historical-critical perspective.
  
  I understand the reluctance of many to read the book. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to Ehrman. Sure, anytime we are asked to truly examine our own long-held beliefs, we are hesitant. With these understandings, I would urge anyone who has any interest in the Bible to read the book. It is not meant to change your faith. It likely will, however, change aspects of your faith. Ehrman does is not stating there is no God. He is not stating that Jesus did not exist. He is not saying Jesus did not perform miracles or rise from the dead. There are some things we cannot know from historical critical research. That is where faith comes in. All Ehrman is urging is for us to allow ourselves to truly know and understand the human aspects of the New Testament. Why the Bible exists as it is, who wrote it, and why they wrote what they wrote. There are two texts that greatly affect us in our daily lives: The Bible and the Constitution. It is shocking that we know so little about how both came to be. It is up to us to make our own decisions about the things in it which we cannot prove or disprove. But we have no excuse for not exploring and understanding centuries of painstaking research on the most important text ever written. If Ehrman is not your cup of tea, there are numerous other books, and plenty of divinity programs serving it up in another form.
  
  It’s a fascinating read. Ehrman is a refreshing voice in non-fiction. He’s incredibly knowledgeable, funny, and likeable, regardless of your religious views. I urge everyone, believers and non-believers, to spend some time with his writings. You will be challenged and you will learn a lot, no matter your background (okay, unless you’ve been through seminary school), and that’s something that’s rare in these days when we tend to live in ideological echo chambers.
  
  
  
  
• 
  Ian

  I have written elsewhere in angry fashion about a crisis of faith I experienced a couple of years ago. I have emerged from the crisis and entered something of a renaissance in my own faith. I haven’t given up on everything I once believed but I also won’t pretend that the faith I now hold is merely a stronger version of what I was taught to believe growing up. To be sure, my faith now is much stronger than what I was taught to believe, but it’s also much more thoughtful, intelligent, egalitarian, and flexible.
  
  Given where I began my journey as a conservative evangelical Christian, the crisis of faith I experienced was a necessary step if I was to reach the place where I am now. Perhaps my crisis was an inevitability given where my journey began and the route my life took. But my crisis of faith was neither necessary nor inevitable in an absolute sense. That is, my crisis was only necessary by virtue of where I began my faith journey. Had I been encouraged to hold (or, more precisely, had I not been discouraged from holding) a more progressive view of the Bible and Christian theology in my youth, the crisis of recent years might have been avoided entirely; certainly it would have been mitigated significantly.
  
  What I’m getting at here, if I’m really to be honest, is that I can’t help but wonder whether my spiritual journey would have been smoother had I been raised with more progressive beliefs. I know it’s not a fair question, not fair to my parents, not fair to my pastors and others who had significant influences in my developmental years. I also know that it’s not even a productive question to ask. Nevertheless I can’t help but wonder. In any case, I do recognize that dwelling on that question gets me nowhere. So, whereto now? Well, to explain Bart Ehrman’s books in the context of where I am now, I’ll need to explain where I’ve been.
  
  I was raised to believe what I would now politely call a conservative evangelical view of the Bible and Christian theology in general. Regarding the Bible, I believed the Good Book represented the literal, inerrant, inspired Word of God. Furthermore I was raised in the Solo Scriptura tradition; that is, I believed the Bible, in its fullness, was both necessary and sufficient for proper Christian belief. The Bible contained everything one needed to believe and no source other than the Bible—whether Church tradition, personal revelation, or even one’s own ability to reason—could stand above or on par with the Bible as a source of Truth. As you might guess, a significant element of my belief system was the underlying assumption that the Bible is always correct. Thus, every argument, in my mind, began and ended with the language of scripture: nothing contrary to the Bible could possibly be true, and nothing in the Bible could possibly be untrue. As a corollary to this belief I was taught that the Bible always could be harmonized with itself. The Bible, I thought, contained no outright contradictions, and any seeming contradictions were merely the result of a failure to properly interpret one passage or the other. Finally, I was given to understand in my youth that all Christian theology—the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the path to salvation, the existence of heaven and hell, and so on—was derived from the Bible, even to the point of being necessary logical deductions from scriptural language.
  
  The one point that I admittedly struggled with, even as a young man, was whether the Bible was literally true as a historical document. Did history play out precisely as the scriptures describe, from the creation of the world through the ages to the coming of the Christ? The creation myth is a good example. I was always good at math and science. I delighted in learning how the universe works in my physics and chemistry and biology courses from high school all through my undergraduate education. I trusted what science told me and I trusted the expertise of those who had devoted their careers to discovering and learning the laws of nature. Yet when I was about 20, I became enmeshed in the “creation science” movement. I became convinced that the world really was created inside a week’s time and that it happened about six thousand years ago. I believed evolution was a farce—that while natural selection was a valid process and some microevolution happens, macroevolution simply couldn’t have happened the way it was taught in universities—and thus that God created life in pretty much its present form. I read book after book claiming to teach, in scientific terms, how these things could be. Thankfully these sorts of hyper-fundamentalist beliefs lasted only a few years before reason won the day. I had badly wanted to believe those things because they supported my view of the Bible as the literal and inerrant Word of God, but I could not long retain those beliefs while remaining intellectually honest with myself. I came to accept that the universe is many billions of years old and that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years on this planet. I never abandoned my belief that God had a hand in the creation of the universe and the rise of intelligent life on Earth—I still haven’t abandoned that belief and I don’t think it’s incompatible with conventional scientific views—but I no longer pretend that my belief in a creator is “science” itself. My belief in a creator is faith, pure and simple. And if you now try to tell me that the universe was created in six days about six thousand years ago, I’m going to look at you as though you’d told me the Earth was flat. Well, in any case, this is a long-winded way of saying that the first brick to fall from my wall of conservative Biblical interpretation, while still in my early 20’s, was my belief in the Bible as a literal historical document.
  
  As I approached as passed the age of 30, more bricks began to fall. By this time I had become close friends with a few gay men and women, and I can tell you that getting to know a gay person on a close, personal level changes everything. You can’t have a close friend who is gay while maintaining that being gay is a choice, and, once you recognize that people are born gay, the things the Bible has to say about homosexuality start to seem much less relevant. I began to see that much of protestant Christianity, evangelicals in particular, were missing the point with their emphasis on salvation and getting people into the heaven instead of making this life a better one for everybody. I started to wonder whether God really wanted me to abrogate my own conscience and ability to reason in favor of someone else’s view of scripture. For example, is there really a hell, a place of eternal torment for those poor souls who fail to use the “magic words” to get into heaven? I no longer thought so; I could no longer reconcile the existence of a loving creator-God with the existence of a place of eternal punishment. Jesus’ message, indeed his command, to love our neighbors as ourselves began to resonate more with me than any message of reward and punishment in the afterlife ever could. Jesus repeatedly spoke of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God, yet two thousand years have passed since he said those things. Is it possible that he was not, after all, speaking of a coming judgment and His return to Earth, but perhaps he was exhorting his followers to make Earth more like God’s kingdom by loving their fellow humans? Are conservative Christians abrogating their responsibility to help those less fortunate than themselves by focusing on reward and punishment in the afterlife rather than loving their neighbors in this life? These are the sorts of question that I asked myself, and often answered in ways contrary to a conservative, literal interpretation of the Bible. These questions ultimately culminated in one of the most important questions of all, one that I believe all Christians must come to grips with at some point: how can a loving God allow such suffering in the world, not just among the “wicked” but also among his most loyal followers? That is the question I was trying to understand in my review of
  Doomsday Book, and the one I still struggle with the most, having rejected the platitudes and tautologies I once found so comforting. And, to the those many Christians who would say that I am wrong because my views are contrary to their biblical interpretation, well, I can only say that I’m no longer willing to sublimate my own conscience and reason to the views of a few humans who lived thousands of years ago.
  
  So here I am, having come so far, and only now do I bother to read books that look at the Bible from a historical-critical perspective, as opposed to a devotional perspective. I recently finished Bart Ehrman’s
  Misquoting Jesus and
  Jesus Interrupted, two books that examine the history, content, and authorship of the New Testament and the history of early Christianity from a scholarly perspective. Mr. Ehrman chairs the religious studies department at UNC Chapel Hill, is a well known New Testament scholar, and has written a number of books on the New Testament and early Christianity. First I want to say a bit about the books themselves and then get to how they fit into the context of my life right now.
  
  Bart Ehrman has a knack for breaking down difficult scholarly subjects into bite-sized pieces for the lay person. His writing is easy to read, his explanations of complex scholarship are straightforward and require little effort to comprehend. He throws in enough entertainment and humor to break up the serious and sometimes dry subject matter. Mr. Ehrman recognizes that his work is controversial in conservative evangelical circles and he sets forth the scholarly work in an objective manner, making it clear where he is interjecting his own opinion and telling the reader when he is presenting a minority view instead of the scholarly consensus. He gives the reader enough information about his own life and faith journey to understand where he’s coming from and recognize any biases he might hold. The only beef I have, which prevents me from rating the books five stars, is that he tends to be repetitive, sometimes annoyingly so. Perhaps he is merely trying to hammer home certain points in a way that makes it stick for people who aren’t accustomed to reading scholarly or technical works. I am accustomed to reading scholarly and technical works so, for me, it just came across as repetitive. Given the foregoing, both books get a solid four stars from me.
  
  Now, how do Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted fit into my life context? Essentially, they helped me make sense of my faith journey, including the crisis of faith I experienced a couple of years ago. These books provide the intellectual foundation I needed to understand why I was forced to abandon the views of the Bible that I held in my youth. I now feel more confident with my decision to no longer abrogate conscience and reason in favor of biblical literalism, a decision that was a direct result of the faith crisis I endured.
  
  Let me be clear: I had long left behind the conservative biblical views of my youth before I started reading Bart Ehrman. Had I read them sooner, Ehrman’s books might have sped up my journey to a more progressive and inclusive faith, but it’s probably just as well I came to that place on my own. What reading Ehrman’s books has done for me is give me new tools to explain what I already think and a stronger historical foundation for what I’ve come to believe. The knowledge I’ve gained from these books allows me to explain certain issues more effectively and gives me confidence that my choice to embrace a more reasonable faith was the right one. As I said at the beginning of this review, what I now believe is not a stronger version of the faith I used to hold, but rather is a stronger faith overall.
  
  The books are packed full of material, pretty dense in some places (though Ehrman does a good job of not making them feel dense), so I can’t summarize everything here, nor do I want to go into all the supporting arguments and evidence. But to give you a taste, here are some the points Ehrman makes, and makes convincingly in my mind:
  
  >>>We don’t know precisely what the original New Testament manuscripts said. The closest we have are copies of copies of copies of the originals, prepared many decades removed from when the originals were first written down, and to complicate matters the copies we have say different things.
  
  >>>There are more variances among ancient New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the 27-book New Testament. To be sure, the vast majority of those variances are of little or no consequence historically or theologically; they merely prove that ancient scribes don’t have any better spelling or grammar than your average high school student today. But a small portion of the variances have varying degrees of significance, some minor and some major.
  
  >>>Even after we figure out what the original books of the New Testament probably said, they are full of differences, both factual and theological. Many of the differences are just that, different viewpoints or different emphases placed on the same story or event. But some of the differences are flat-out factual contradictions or irreconcilable disagreements over various theological points.
  
  >>>We don’t know who wrote all but eight books of the New Testament. Among those whose authorship is in dispute are the gospels, which were written anonymously and which were not attributed to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John until a century after they were written; the attributions are problematic given that there is no direct link between the earliest manuscripts and any of those men, and that Mathew and John in particular almost certainly were illiterate in their own language (Aramaic), much less could they read or write Greek. Even the originals, now long lost to the sands of time, were written decades after Jesus died and based on oral histories passed from person to person to person.
  
  >>>Many more letters, gospels, and apocalypses were written than are now included in the 27-book canonical New Testament. Political and theological disputes had as much to do with deciding which books were included in the New Testament as any prayerful and thoughtful consideration.
  
  >>>Several books of the canonical New Testament are now known to be flat-out forgeries.
  
  >>>The Bible is full of passages that have been used over the centuries to oppress women and homosexuals, passages that were forged and/or added by later scribes for their own purposes.
  
  >>>Key Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, cannot clearly be deduced from the New Testament; they were inventions of the early Christian churches and accepted only after centuries of internal debate.
  
  I can already hear the arguments that I would have made as a youth, or that many of my friends still would make. For instance: the fact that a book is forged does not mean its content isn’t divinely inspired; God could still have spoken through the forgery. Well, okay, a forgery does not mean, of logical necessity, that the content is not divinely inspired. But think about it this way: the fact that a book was thought to be written by someone (i.e., Paul) who couldn’t have actually written it, and that it contains views contrary to those expressed elsewhere by the supposed author, certainly doesn’t mean it is divinely inspired, either. Another argument from my former worldview: so there are variances in the manuscripts and differences in the accounts; so what? The central message is still the same, right? Well, maybe it is, depending on what you think the central message is. If you think the central message is that Jesus gave his life for his fellow humans and God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves, then yes I’m cool with that. But it’s intellectually dishonest to maintain the solo scriptura viewpoint in light of these problems.
  
  On the other hand, some of you are saying: “umm, duh. I already knew all this.” (That was, in fact, my wife’s response.) Well whoop-die-do for you. Bart Ehrman notes repeatedly that he is not exploring new territory. Nearly everything he says is the scholarly consensus and it’s taught in Bible schools and theological seminaries throughout Europe and North America. Well I never went to Bible college (like my wife) or to theological seminary (like my wife nearly did). I studied math and science and engineering, then later politics and economics and law. My career is in tax law. Until my faith began to seriously trouble me I had no reason to learn any of this. So it’s all new to me. Note also that my wife never endured the crisis of faith that I did. Her journey from conservative evangelical to progressive egalitarian theology was much smoother than mine in large part, I think, because she had studied the Bible from a historical-critical perspective.
  
  So here’s what it comes down to for me today. My faith today is far removed from the solo scriptura worldview upon which I was raised. In fact I now see solo scriptura as an intellectually dishonest position. One cannot say in light of the evidence that the Bible as we know it today represents the literal Word of God or literal historical truth. To say the Bible is inerrant is to make a statement of blind faith unsupported by anything other than purely circular reasoning. Contrary to what I was taught in my youth, the Bible is not the source of key Christian doctrines such as the Trinity or salvation by grace alone. The factual and theological contradictions in the Bible cannot honestly be denied. In sum, to proclaim solo scriptura is to take a position of ignorance, at best, or at worst demonstrates an inability to engage in rational thought. Also, from now on, whenever I’m discussing theological or doctrinal issues and somebody begins a sentence with “the Bible says” or “according to the Bible” or similar phrases, I’m going to respond with the question: which Bible?
  
  I now believe (and like I say I have believed since before I read Bart Ehrman’s books) that there are three sources of Christian truth: scripture, church tradition, our own ability to reason. The Bible—the New Testament in particular—still has valuable things to say, things that are applicable to our modern society, like messages of equality and self-sacrifice and loving your fellow humans. Church tradition also cannot be discounted; if you discount church tradition in favor of solo scriptura then I daresay you have to abandon the concept of the Trinity, something your typical Christian is not prepared to do. Finally, your own conscience and your ability to reason are important tools in search of a truth that makes sense to you and resonates with you; it’s hard to believe in something that doesn’t make sense. I haven't abandoned faith, but I have abandoned ignorance.
• 
  Trevor

  Here’s a question for you. How important is it that the Jesus of the Bible and the historical Jesus are more or less the same guy? Or even better, how important is it that the ideas Jesus was trying to spread by his ministry are the same ideas that have come to be followed in the various Christian churches?
  
  There was a time when I would have thought that all Christians would have wanted to answer both of these questions by saying that it was fundamentally important to their faith that what they currently believe as Christians is exactly what the historical Jesus taught. I would have thought that Christians would have developed their ideas about what Christ had to say about the world from the Bible (which, I had always assumed was seen by most Christians as the inspired and inerrant word of God) and that their task, as Christians, would be to come to an increasing understanding of that message by close and intense study.
  
  As Ehrman basically says somewhere in this book – if you truly believe that the Bible is a book that God wrote on how you should live your life it seems a bit strange that you might believe that and not have bothered to go on and read it.
  
  The other side to this is that if the Bible is the inspired word of God then you would not expect there to be any contradictions in it – particularly not in the various tellings of the Jesus story which is presented four times, once in each of the first four books of the New Testament known as the Gospels.
  
  But there are differences between these tellings and some of these are not just differences of passing interest only to the pedant – although, I would have thought that the guy responsible for creating the Universe might have been the world’s worst pedant, myself. No, some of these tellings actually say opposite things, that is, are literally contradictory. And some of the differences have fundamental theological significance.
  
  This is a book that looks at what scholarship is able to tell us about the historical Jesus and what his actions meant in his time and therefore the significance of those actions for him. It also shows how the significance of those actions to him would have been quite different to what those actions have come to signify to us a couple of thousand years later. The short version is that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew and he and his earliest followers believed that they were living at the end of times and that meant their world was about to end and to end immediately. When they say things like there are people here who will see me return in glory that was meant to be taken literally. Paul believed he would be alive to see the second coming. I would think that for these reasons alone the historical Jesus can hardly be seen as identical with the Christian Jesus.
  
  Large parts of this book look at our earliest texts of the New Testament and then question whether Jesus and his earliest followers actually believed that he was divine and then if he was divine when did he become divine. For John, for example, the last of the gospels to be written, Jesus was with God at the beginning of time as the word that created the universe. For the other three Apostles his literal divinity is never quite so well spelt out and if he was divine at all, then he probably became divine after the resurrection.
  
  There are fascinating questions asked in this book. For example, as Jesus was going to his death was he anxious and upset – as he is depicted in Matthew – or was he pretty well cool, calm and collected as he is depicted in Luke. You know, there is a pretty big difference between these two versions of Jesus’ death which can be summed up by what they say his last words on the cross were: either “My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me” or “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
  
  The point is that Luke and Matthew were wanting to make very distinct theological points with their tellings of the crucifixion story and they do this by telling very different stories. Ehrman makes it clear that how these contradictions are generally resolved is by having Jesus say both of these lines while he was on the cross and for some reason both Luke and Matthew left out the other one, but this does not go nearly far enough to resolve the many, many contradictions in the two stories. The problem with this way of resolving contradictions in the Bible is that it creates a new text which is different from both of the texts you are using as your source. But the real point here is that this third text you have just created by smashing together the two gospel versions has to be less accurate than either of the gospel versions, not more accurate as we generally assume. We confusedly think that the Bible is one book, whereas it is many books telling somewhat similar stories - this can make us think that the differences are just differences in detail, whereas some of the differences are much deeper than that.
  
  These differences are fundamental and make for quite different ways of looking at Christianity. To focus on one more than the other gives quite a different ‘Christianity’. And I would have thought that Christians would be told about the differences that exist in their gospels and the implications of these differences. But this is another reason why Ehrman has written this book. Although standard Christian scholarship has accepted and studied the contradictions in the Bible for around 150 years and have developed many explanations as to why and how these differences arose – this is virtually never taught either in Church services or (much more surprisingly) in Bible study classes organised by Churches – despite the fact that this is precisely what ministers are taught in seminary.
  
  Ehrman’s passion and depth of knowledge always make me want to spend time reading over passages of the Bible and consider the implications of the various differences and emphasises laid by the various authors of the Bible – if he can do that for an atheist, I would imagine he would only have a much stronger effect on a Christian, at least, I would like to imagine that would be the case. But it seems I’m invariably wrong about what interests Christians about their religion. This is another excellent book beautifully written.
  
• 
  Anne

  Ok, so what makes this a decent read is that it is designed to be read by the layman who is interested in the New Testament. And because of that you don't actually need a degree in anything to understand what he is saying.
  The vast majority of things that Ehrman mentions as contradictory or odd are all things that you can just go look at yourself. Pull out your copy of the King James or the NJV or whatever you've got and go for it.
  You can agree with him or not.
  But I would personally suggest that you always go back and read the material for yourself and decide for yourself.
  If you come from an evangelical background and (like me) noticed a lot of things that didn't seem to make sense to you about the Bible, then you are probably aware of the strange kinds of tap dances done by well-meaning pastors and teachers to make the inconsistencies... consistent.
  
  
  
  But as with most things in life, I've found that the simplest answer is usually the right answer.
  For example, if I found my husband drinking in a bar with a woman on his lap and his hand on her boob, then he is probably cheating on me.
  Let's say he were to tell me that he was only in the bar because he felt faint and had to stop his car and get out so that he didn't wreck and kill a bunch of people on the road. Then as he sat down, a strange woman that he had never seen before tripped and fell onto his lap, and as he tried to do the gentlemanly thing and catch her, his hand grasped her breast. Turns out that he was feeling faint because he was dehydrated (see above stopping at a bar) and his hand cramped around her breast and he was unable to release it.
  And that was when I walked in.
  See?! It all makes sense, dear.
  Now, nothing this imaginary husband told me is outside the realm of possibility, is it? No. Every bit of that could have happened.
  But if I were to believe him, you would all think that I was a complete idiot.
  And yet.
  You know that there are women out there who would believe him if he were their husband. Why?
  Because they desperately want to believe that their husband loves them and would never cheat on them. And to them, it's completely worth the hit to their reasoning skills to be able to cling to the idea that everything is just the way they always thought it should be and nothing has changed. Just a misunderstanding that is easily explained when you know the whole story.
  Truth be told, I don't care.
  I don't have to live with the guy.
  Just don't come whining to me when he empties your bank account.
  
  
  
  To me, the New Testament books actually make a lot more sense when looked at through a more historical lens that allows for humans to insert their own opinions into the passages. I mean, what makes more sense to you?
  That the almighty creator of the universe thinks women should be silent and subservient and then inspired that to be written down in a holy text? Or that a man who was a product of his times added a few passages here and there to keep the ladies in line?
  You are welcome to believe what you like.
  
  
  
  To me, however, I truly think those who believe in God would benefit from understanding how the Christian Bible and its creeds came into existence.
  And not in a you're an idiot for believing in God sort of way, either. In a way that might help people who are struggling with their faith, or maybe just struggling to find a way for their faith to remain relevant to them under the onslaught of all the things happening around us.
  
  Over and over Ehrman repeats that nothing he has to say needs to shake anyone's faith in God, and I agree with that for the purposes of this book.
  I grew up in a very evangelical household. And for all the nonsense, I have known and loved some amazing Christians who have shown me nothing but the best side of Christianity, which I take to be the unconditional love that they felt Jesus showed for humanity. That's the good stuff and what I hope people take away from this religion.
  
  I've read a lot of Ehrman's stuff at this point, and there are a lot of repeated things in here in you've read his other books. That's fine. I read this one because it was recommended to me by a friend as an interesting look at the New Testament. And I'm glad I went ahead and listened to it because it is one of the books that I would recommend to someone with questions since it only really requires that you read the Bible itself.
  Recommended.
• 
  Carolyn

  I read the first half of this book with friends and then gave up on it. I felt like Erhman consistently took advantage of his credentials and readers' ignorance to make claims that would not stand up to rigorous inquiry. He completely dismisses centuries of scholarship and the entire discipline of hermeneutics when he claims all sorts of "contradictions" in the Bible. Does he really think devoted Christians who believe the Bible have not noticed these things before? That Calvin wrote his institutes without doing both a horizontal and vertical reading of the Gospels? Does he honestly believe everyone who graduates from seminary has lost their faith in the Bible but fails to tell their congregations out of fear? And since when did the "majority" or "consensus" of scholars/seminaries exclude all evangelical scholars and seminaries (which actually make up the 10 largest seminaries in the U.S.)? I could go on, but I would just urge anyone not to settle for Erhman's straw men, but to look for better sources, including N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, Tim Keller, or R.C. Sproul.
• 
  Stephanie *Eff your feelings*

  I’m going to catch Hell for this………..
  
  The Bible is the most boring book ever written. Ever.
  
  This book has some very interesting observations and conclusions, but the author admitted he was delving into the minutia of the Bible but that he just couldn’t help himself, he then stated “I’m going to stop that now.” Soon after a few cogent points, he was right back at it. God love him.
  
  Bart D. Ehrman knows his stuff when it comes to religion and the Bible, in particular. The guy has more degrees on religious studies than a hooker has one night stands, so when he makes a statement about Jesus and/or the Bible, I tend to believe him ‘cause I sure as Hell am not going to read the thing myself. He does, so I don’t have too.
  
  What Ehrman does here is to take all the books of the Bible, Mark, Luke, John, Phil (just checking if you were paying attention.) and lines them up horizontally. Most of the time, when a person reads the Bible (usually when having major insomnia) they read it one book after the other. That makes perfect sense, and when you read it that way you don’t see anything odd. But when you line the books up next to each other you see discrepancies, major ones, like the actual day of Jesus’ death.
  
  Discrepancies should not be a big surprise to most people. The Bible was written a really fricken long time after Jesus died. Decades AFTER the apostles were dust. The only source of information about Jesus’ story was through oral tradition…..ever play the telephone game? Then one day ‘someone’ wrote it all down; but who? The apostles were illiterate (in the Bible) and very, very dead. Mark, Luke, John and Phil did not write their own books.
  
  Other interesting tid bits…..
  
  1. Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, he was born in Nazareth. Why would you travel to birth your son with some cows and chickens and some creepy old wise men just to turn around and go back home? Because, you need to line up a prophecy that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Insert deity here.
  
  2. Jesus never claimed to be God.
  
  3. Homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible as a bad thing simply because the concept of homosexuality did not exist in those times. I know what you’re thinking “But Stephanie, what are you talking about? Gay people have always been around, making the place better.” True. Men slept with men and women with women in those days just as they do now, but it wasn’t vilified. It was not even in their thought bubble that it was wrong. Sexual orientation was not even a concept until the 19th century. It’s true. So it was never thought of as unusual until then.
  
  Isn’t that fascinating?
  
  This book was good, but all the nuts and bolts of the Bible made my head spin. I think this book is for the person who really, really believed(s) in the Bible and now maybe wanting to open their minds a bit to consider the possibility that It isn’t a perfect or infallible book……..just incredibly boring.
  
• 
  Kevin Stilley

  Miscellaneous thoughts I had while reading Ehrman’s book Jesus Interrupted:
  
  1. I was disappointed, because I was expecting this book to make a challenging case against Jesus as the Christ that would require serious thought and reflection. Instead, I grew frustrated by Ehrman’s refusal to interact with the best answers to his conundrums or the writings of experts in the field that disagree with him. Instead, he parodies the ideas of the opposition and builds straw man arguments, but nowhere do I see him taking on the best arguments of the best scholars. Everyone should find an approach like this to be suspicious.
  
  This contributes to the credibility of what some critically acclaimed evangelical scholars say regarding Ehrman’s scholarly bona fides. They point out that Ehrman has never written a scholarly monograph on the New Testament. All of this works have been written for popular audiences and have been severely critiqued by respected scholars such as his own mentor Bruce Metzger. This argument is definitely ad hominem, however, Ehrman can’t really claim it is unfair as long as he is making that same argument against the mythicists, that they are writing outside their area of expertise.
  
  2. He sometimes puts all ancient literature that claims to be Christian into the same category, then critiques the absurdities found in pseudopygra, gnostic, and non-canonical works, and then uses those criticisms against canonical works.
  
  One example of this is the way he acts as if the absurdities of the Apocalypse of Peter and Gospel of Peter are somehow evidence against the Bible.
  
  This seems to ignore that fact that early Christians had the same problems with these wild-eyed pseudopygraphical works that Ehrman does. If early Christians rejected these books then why is Christianity and the Bible guilty?
  
  It is bad logic. It’s like someone labeling a person as a “liberal” and then using that to accuse them of every bad thing that others bearing the pejorative “liberal” label have believed/done. In fact, when this approach is used as a rhetorical trick/strategy it is not only bad logic, it is dishonest.
  
  3. Then, when it is convenient to do so, he does just the opposite. He points to works that the early church excluded and tries to implicate them for excluding opposing ideas and managing the message.
  
  The fact is that these books were excluded because they were not consistent with apostolic teaching. That was the main test.
  
  4. Ehrman claims that 1 & 2 Peter could not have been written by Peter because literacy was not very extensive in the first century, and the two books are stylistically different.
  
  If literacy was rare during the first century, then wouldn’t we expect these two pieces of correspondence to differ significantly depending on who the amanuensis was who wrote down what Peter was communicating orally? Ehrman dismisses the idea that Peter would have used a scribe in this manner because “that just isn’t the way it was done in the ancient world.” Now, that is just silly. That is exactly the way it was done in every culture where literacy levels are low, those who can’t write use scribes to prepare their correspondence. The book “The Breadwinner” describes how the process works in modern day Afghanistan, and I can point Ehrman to examples in the ancient world. In fact, anyone who browses the correspondence of Cicero can’t miss it.
  
  So, the question running through my head is “Why is Ehrman saying such a thing? Is he ignorant of attempting to deceive? Neither of the answers reflects well on him.
  
  5. I thought it was interesting the way he attempts to create credibility for his position on the authorship of certain NT books. First he starts by excluding all Evangelical and Conservative Scholars up front, and then “Surprise” almost everyone who remains are the true scholars and almost all agree with Ehrman.
  
  If you can choose your judge and jury it shouldn’t be a surprise that you will win your court case.
  Ehrman implies that a scholar can only be trusted if they have the same worldview as Ehrman, and then Ehrman’s position can be trusted because all of these scholars that agree with him happen to agree with him. Can you say “ad hominem” “circular reasoning” “tautology” “begging the question”?
  
  This would make a great example for someone writing a book on logic to use as an example of confirmation bias and special pleading.
  
  I am open to changing my mind on these issues if someone can point out my error. I want to be fair in my assessment of the work.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Jan Rice

  I have read several of Bart Ehrman's books previously, or listened to his lecture series: The New Testament (Great Courses series), From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity (Parts 1 and 2) (Great Courses), Lost Christianities, and now the present book. For some reason Goodreads isn't showing many of his books, and I'm not up for laboriously adding them tonight. This is surprising, for surely he has a wide readership. Bart Ehrman is one of those writers about whom it is said he is famous for writing the same book over and over. There is some truth in that. Certainly, in reading, I recognize paragraphs I've heard in the lectures. He may not reinvent the wheel when doing those lectures.
  
  What Bart Ehrman does is deconstruct the New Testament. He shows the inconsistencies between the various Gospels and epistles. Then he shows that the reason for those inconsistencies is that the various writers each have their various theological points to make and lessons to teach. Along the way he also shows that mostly we don't know who was doing the writing nor do we know whether most of the authors are who they say they are. To boil down what he shows, it is that the intrinsic meaning does not reside in Jesus but in the theology and teaching. The various writers have considerable disagreement on what that intrinsic meaning is. What Ehrman does, he does well, at a not-too-technical level that is intended for a lay audience, not scholars.
  
  Although Ehrman, as I say, deconstructs the treatments of the various books of the New Testament--showing how each author writes according to his own needs and expectations, and those of his community--what he does not much touch on is that community in which Jesus is set, that is, the Jews. He treats "the Jewish leaders" in the traditional way, as all working together, though it is commonly known that isn't historical. He treats Jewish belief as monolithic, although it was an age of Jewish sectarianism. He is traditionally anachronistic about such things as "Jewish law" and "keeping kosher," which were later developments. He has no notion of the new views of Paul. In those and many more ways he maintains traditional ideas. He does not address the extent to which the picture of Judaism he accepts as monolithic and historical is itself constructed according to the needs of the various writers and their communities. The writers had their theological points to make, just as they did regarding other aspects of the narrative. Ehrman, while at points deploring anti-Judaism in Christian tradition, for the most part leaves the basis of it untouched.
  
  Bart Ehrman's general thesis about the NT will come as a shock to New Testament literalists. To others the idea that religions have something to teach even when the adherent is not a fundamentalist will be old news. Unfortunately, because of the aspects Ehrman leaves untouched, I think the typical reader won't find it hard to continue picturing Jesus and his followers as arraigned against "dead religion," as having morphed into a different or better Jew or into a Christian, or having come to reform his society and take Judaism in "the intended direction." Those are not uncommon views for people who have moved away from scriptural literalism but remain literal about the relationship of Jesus and "the Jews."
  
  Once before I tried to email Bart Ehrman with a similar question. It is often possible to contact authors who are college professors by email. That's something wonderful that we have in our age of electronic communication. From Ehrman, though, I got no response. Maybe I'll try again!
  
  Addendum: My husband got on my case for giving Jesus, Interrupted only three stars. His point is that what he does, he does very well, and it needed to be done. I don't get the feeling Ehrman errs deliberately. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a case of his seeing only as far as he does and no further. He simply didn't get his head far enough above water to see further -- I think. It's still a serious omission. (On the other hand, I think Marcus Borg, of whom I have read smatterings, may take his similar tack deliberately.)
  
  I believe every people or group has a right to develop their own identity. Only not on the backs of, or at the expense of, someone else.
• 
  Literary Chic

  Absolutely fantastic! I've read Bart Ehrman before, but I believe this is my favorite so far.
  
  In Jesus Interrupted, the author looked at the Bible, specifically the life of Jesus from a historic view rather than a devotional one. He showed contradictions and fallacies in the New Testament. By his own account, he doesn't reveal anything that isn't already being taught in most seminaries. Unfortunately, the history rarely makes it to the believers.
  
  I tend to agree with Dr. Ehrman's final remarks that faith would be made stronger by teaching the contradictions and having a transparent view of one's beliefs. A closed minded, literal approach to the Bible seems to support Hannah Arendt's philosophy, "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any."
  
  Amazing read; highly recommended.
• 
  K.D. Absolutely

  An eye-opener. This book points out the inconsistencies in the Bible. But it is written positively or with no malice of putting down one's faith. It just makes the reader aware of those inconsistencies so one can search for truth be it in further research by reading more books or internet entries or, in my case, search from the bottom of my heart on those deep-seated beliefs that no matter how blunt and thought-provoking the exposes are, what prevails is that belief that I have since I was a little boy. And that is something that is unshakable.
  
  The trick to find those inconsistencies is simple: read the Bible horizontally. That means put four of the gospels or those letters of St. Paul and some minor prophets side by side. Read a portion in St. Luke for example about genealogy of Christ and the same part in St. Matthew. You will see the inconsistencies like Luke starts with Adam and Matthew starts with Abraham. Matthew of course wants to show the Jewishness of Jesus while Luke focuses on writing for gentiles. What's the point here? That these writers had some personal agenda when they wrote their books and those "colored" the Bible that we now revered as the "single source of truth."
  
  There are many of those inconsistencies pointed out in the book. Too many, in fact, for me to mention here. For example, if Mary gave birth as a virgin why did Luke used Joseph in his genealogy? Or the different messages God the Father said during the baptism of Jesus in Jordan River. Matthew, Mark and Luke, who wrote their books based on stories they heard (they were not there when the baptism happened), seemed not to agree whether Jesus is His Father's son or just a man "with whom His favor rests."
  
  I did read this book with much interest but it did not shake my faith. I guess I am stubborn or it's just too late for me to worry about these things. But this is a nice book especially for those people who have religion and faith as among their favorite topics for conversation.
  
  Like me.
• 
  Miebara Jato

  My view of the Bible has changed over time. As I grow older physically and intellectually, I trashed some of my previously fundamentalist position about the Bible. The Bible was once for me dropped from heaven: without flaws or inconsistencies. This is evidently indefensible and false. Faith and religion apart, persisting in that fundamentalist inerrancy position would define me intellectually dishonest.
  
  The Bible is chock full of discrepancies. Now, these errors and inconsistencies doesn't render the Bible a useless piece of work. The Bible is a serious book, and I continue to study it. Instead, what we can agree is that the Bible was written by human beings and as such, contains the kind of human errors you find in other human works.
  
  Furthermore, the authors brought to bear their individual (author's) point of view (POV). John's or Paul's position differs in some areas with Matthew or Mark because they were presenting or presented their individual opinions and idiosyncrasies. Besides, many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles.
  
  And I don't understand when some Christians say the Bible has no mistakes. Do they mean the authors are beyond reproof or they are completely in agreement with everything written in it? This, of course, put them in a bind.
  
  Okay: Where was Jesus the day after he was baptized? In Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the so-called Synoptic Gospels—Jesus, after his baptism, goes off into the wilderness where he will be tempted by the Devil. Mark especially is quite clear about the matter, for he states, after telling of the baptism, that Jesus left “immediately” for the wilderness. What about John? In John there is no account of Jesus being tempted by the Devil in the wilderness. The day after John the Baptist has borne witness to the Spirit descending on Jesus as a dove at baptism (John 1:29–34), he sees Jesus again and declares him to be the Lamb of God (John is explicit, stating that this occurred “the next day”). Jesus then starts gathering his disciples around him (1:35–52) and launches into his public ministry by performing his miracle of turning water into wine (2:1–11).
  
  Sadly enough, you can find discrepancies in the account of the birth of Jesus, in the death of Jesus, in the genealogy of Jesus, in the trial narrative, in the death of Judas, in the resurrection narrative, in the cleansing of the temple, about the duration of Jesus ministry, in the life and lessons of Paul, the list is endless. Some of the discrepancies are minor, therefore, can be easily reconciled. Others are significant and irreconcilable
  
  Again, the contradictions are not only between books but even within books. For example, take the last address Jesus delivers to his disciples at his last meal with them. In John 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” A few verses later Thomas says, “Lord, we do not know where you are going” (John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, “Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect.
  
  Many Christians who holds the inerrancy view of the Bible have a clever way of reconciling and interpreting these Biblical contradiction. That is, they end up coming up with their own fancy interpretations and versions of the Bible.
  
  For example, the Gospel of Mark indicates that it was in the last week of his life that Jesus “cleansed the Temple” by overturning the tables of the money changers and saying, “This is to be a house of prayer…but you have made it a den of thieves” (Mark 11), whereas according to John this happened at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John 2). Some readers have thought that Jesus must have cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end. But that would mean that neither Mark nor John tells the “true” story, since in both accounts he cleanses the temple only once.
  
  Some parts of Jesus Interrupted was eye-opener, while others were already familiar. But for most Christians, these discrepancies are hidden, never detected. The reason is simple: they are reading the Bible vertically. According to Ehrman, reading the Bible vertically, that is, reading Mark 14:1-22, then jump to John 13:1-23, as the case may be, makes it difficult for the unsuspecting reader to detect the discrepancies. But if you want to detect the discrepancies, Ehrman suggests reading the Bible horizontally, i.e, reading the books side by side. "Pick a story in the Gospels—for example, Jesus’ birth, the healing of Jairus’s daughter, the crucifixion, the resurrection—most any story will do. Read the account in one Gospel, listing carefully everything that happens in sequence; then read the same story in another Gospel, again taking careful notes. Finally, compare your notes. Sometimes the differences are slight, but sometimes they matter a lot—even if at first glance they seem rather unimportant".
  
  Ehrman didn't reveal anything new. For centuries, scholars had established that the authors of the New Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation works; that the New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later; Jesus, Paul, Matthew and John all represented fundamentally different religions; that the established Christian doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus & the trinity—were the inventions of still later theologians.
  
  Final words: Don't be misled by the title, Ehrman is a professor of the New Testament so the analysis is mainly on the New Testament and not the whole Bible. The book is accessible, and I recommend it for both believer and non-believers.
• 
  Casey

  So when I bought this book on a whim who knows how long ago, I expected it to be a collection of interesting contradictions in Biblical statements. I thought that Ehrman might do something like contrast 1 Corinthians 14:33 ("For God is not a God of disorder but of peace") with Matthew 10:34 ("I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"). Then we'd all get a good laugh out of the ridiculous of it all.
  
  Jesus, Interrupted is not a book about these surface level contradictions. In fact, it was far more compelling than I expected, because Ehrman actually focused on what certain contradictions can teach us about the early Christian church and the historical context. The result was seriously mind-blowing, because the book lead me to doubt whether the bible actually teaches some seemingly foundational ideas, like whether Jesus saw himself as the Messiah or whether the church has any real reason to accept the idea of a holy trinity.
  
  This feels like the correct time for an obligatory disclosure: I am an atheist/humanist who was raised Catholic, so I have no strong ties to metaphysical biblical teachings and I've never given serious thought to the idea that the bible could be the inerrant word of God. I sometimes wish that I could be a secular Catholic, because some of the traditions are super fun, but apparently that's not allowed. Whatev. However, considering that I like literature, I have to admit that the bible is a pretty important historical document (I mean, try to read
  Moby-Dick; or, The Whale without biblical background knowledge. I dare you.). Anyway, I thought that I had a fairly decent understanding of the bible, given that I've read large swaths of it in a few different contexts. But, as it turns out, I really had no idea.
  
  The cool thing about Jesus, Interrupted is that it's epistemologically interesting. Ehrman first explains how contradictions in the bible can be found: by reading "horizontally," which pretty much means reading the same stories as they appear in different gospels, back to back. What happens is that you start to see some weird stuff, like Mathew claiming that Jesus cried out on the cross "My god, my god, why you have forsaken me?" while Luke claims he said "Father into your hands I commit my spirit." And, if you think about it, the two different gospels are actually pretty irreconcilable, in terms of the type of Jesus that they depict. So a careful reader might think, yo, what's up with that? If these two gospel writers were both there, and both knew Jesus intimately, then why would they report the event in such completely different ways.
  
  Well, that brings us to the fact that the apostles didn't actually write the gospels (something that I knew, but that doesn't seem to be widespread knowledge). And the writers of the bible had different viewpoints. The ways that they switch up the stories can tell us about the viewpoints, but only if we look closely. Through a close reading, with careful attention paid to the contradictions, scholars can get a sense of who the gospel writers were, and why they created the type of christianity that they did. The whole story is completely fascinating.
  
  I recommend this book for everyone, both people of faith and nonbelievers. While it's true that Erhman is now an agnostic, the contradictions in the bible didn't cause him to lose his faith, a fact that he repeatedly points out throughout the book (he lost faith because he couldn't reconcile the amount of suffering in the world with the teachings of Christianity, which he details in
  God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer, which I now want to read). So believers shouldn't be scared to understand what the bible truly says, although I expect that some (particularly evangelicals) may not be comfortable with this information. Strangely, I feel better about the bible after reading this: it's clearly the product of humans, but much of the dogma isn't as clear-cut as I thought it was. I'll definitely be reading more of Erhman's books in the future.
• 
  Ross Blocher

  This is the third book I've read by Bart Ehrman, and after each I've thought, "THIS is the book I'd recommend everyone [interested in the Bible] should read." That may be availability bias speaking. The real takeaway is that I should work my way through his extensive ouvre, because I gain important new insights with each book. In Jesus, Interrupted, he tackles some of the most salient contradictions in the New Testament related to internal consistency and authorship. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar who brings the findings of historical-critical scholarship - findings which are uncontroversial at any non-doctrinaire university, yet seem to get lost on the path to the pulpit - clearly and digestibly to the masses.
  
  As ever, Ehrman takes time to explain his own background, knowing that many will see a critical reading of the Bible as a challenge to faith. Indeed, he began his scholarly training as a true believer and biblical literalist, only to question and eventually leave the faith. He is quick to point out that it was not scholarship that put the final nail in the coffin (wrist?). That honor goes to the problem of evil, a topic outside the scope of this book. Ehrman acknowledges that examining biblical errancy may be destructive to certain forms of belief, but that one can ultimately, simultaneously maintain belief and scholarship in one brain (as many of his colleagues do).
  
  Like Ehrman, I am a former believer who maintains a fervent (fervid? feverish?) interest in the Bible. As he aptly argues: what's not to enjoy? Whatever its truth or falsity may be, the Bible is the most sold, most distributed, most translated, most influential book in history, and many people could stand to understand it better - especially those who most ardently swear by it. To hundreds of millions, it is seen as a single volume handed down by God, with every step of transmission, encoding, alteration, selection, elision, translation and interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit. The book becomes far more interesting and coherent as one begins to see it in human terms, as the very human work of multiple authors, very often not who they claim to be, with distinct viewpoints and goals.
  
  That's what Ehrman's doing here. He starts by highlighting some of the inconsistencies in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), the earliest sources we have for events in Jesus' life. They tell many of the same stories, but in ways that are incompatible. What day of the week did Jesus die on the cross? What were his final words as he died? Who came to his tomb after he was resurrected, and what did they see? What were the events around his birth (
  a favorite topic of mine)? When did he clear the temple? How did Judas die? And, in case you're thinking none of these are that consequential... Did Jesus even claim to be divine? You'll get different answers to these questions based on which books you read, and these differences fall in line with the particular ideologies of each author.
  
  Speaking of authors, Ehrman demonstrates how little we know about who wrote each book in the New Testament, including (and especially) the gospels, which are all technically anonymous, written decades after Jesus' life, and at best second-hand. The writings of Paul are a major focus, with only 7 of the 13 books attributed to him likely to have actually been written by him. Forgeries and pseudonymous writings were common at the time, and Ehrman has examples of many that were rejected from the canon (3 Corinthians, anyone? Apocalypse of Peter? Barnabas? 1 Clement?), but many others that were included which now appear to have been pious pretenders (such as Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians). Same for books claiming to have been written by important figures such as James and 1 and 2 Peter. Aside from the verified works of Paul, the only other NT book with a confirmed author is Revelation, written by someone named John, but not the same John who is said to have authored the gospel of the same name.
  
  This is all part of a fascinating retelling of how we inherited the Bible we have today, which was never officially adopted by any particular counsel or vote. The 27 books we have in the New Testament were first listed by Athenasius in Alexandria in 367 CE, but only won out over time by slow spread, influence, conformity and attrition. A parallel process saw a conflict between various strains of Christianity, such as the Ebionites, Marcionites, many flavors of Gnostics, and the eventual victors, what Ehrman calls Proto-Orthodox Christianity, championed by early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
  
  Ehrman also presents broader looks at what we know about the historical Jesus, whether he is historical and what he most likely taught in his lifetime if you peel away the various layers of legend surrounding him. Jesus was most likely an itinerant, apocalyptic preacher who prepared the way for the "Son of Man" (someone different from him and predicted in the Old Testament book of Daniel (which has its own crazy history)) who was to usher in the judgment and Kingdom of God within the lifetime of the his followers. Ehrman also takes a look at where modern Christianity came from, and some of the hands that shaped specific doctrines that are not spelled out in the Bible itself. It's all great and important context for this supremely important book. Or rather, I should say: this supremely important collection of books.
• 
  A.J.

  Christians, here is what Dr. Ehrman will do for you. He'll pick you up at the airport on his own time and with his own car. He'll put your bags in the trunk, engage you with small talk, and show you around town so you're comfortable. He knows what's going through your head, but once the surroundings are more familiar, maybe you'll loosen up. Then he'll explain why we have the Procedure. He knows it's scary, but by now you'll know that a lot of people have been through it. As you arrive at the facility with your nerves bubbling, he'll be the friendly voice in your head the whole way, always in tune with what you're feeling. Now it's time for the Procedure, and Dr. Ehrman knows that for some this is going to hurt. A lot.
  
  But he'll start slow and keep it positive. Sure the gospels disagree on some stuff, but that's okay––they're by different authors with different views. Trying to mash them together into one supergospel steals away the message from the original and creates your own gospel completely different than what any one of the others has to say. Next you'll learn a harder truth to swallow: they're anonymous, and almost certainly not written by the people whose names have been plastered on the cover. As for the rest of the NT canon, forgeries and false attributions abound. The canon wasn't decided at one time by one group, but was the product of an extended campaign of debates and heresy hunts at the end of which the stronger faction controlled the draft, and often made their picks based upon theological positions. There were other books that on another day would have made it in and others that made it in which probably shouldn't have.
  
  When the Procedure is over, Dr. Ehrman will walk you to the door and kiss you on the cheek. He'll remind you that he remained a devout Christian for a decade or so after his own Procedure before a completely separate issue led him to agnosticism. In fact, almost all reputable biblical scholars accept and are quite comfortable with the facts you've just been injected with. He'll remind you that the Procedure may have some side effects, but as you woozily make your way back to the airport, you'll begin to realize that knowing the facts is the only way to have an informed opinion about anything. And that's the only thing the Procedure was ever intended to do.
  
  Jesus, Interrupted is the layman's guide to biblical scholarship taught at seminaries and historical institutes all throughout the Western world. As Ehrman frequently reminds us, nothing contained herein is particularly new or unknown by anyone who's bothered to look. Yet for some reason in the United States churchgoers are largely ignorant of the basic findings of the historical-critical method. This is a passionate and intensely readable remedy. The only real controversy to be found is in the book's subtitle, which like with Misquoting Jesus, were it not to have been placed on the cover half of Ehrman's critics would have vanished overnight.
  
  What one does with the material is his or her own decision. Ehrman isn't a polemicist. He's a scholar whose sole purpose is to educate. Some will find the book's contents troubling, but if you can build a bridge across your river of tears and get over it, you'll be that much better off.
• 
  Clif Hostetler

  I recommend the review of this book by Trevor at the following link:
  
  http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
  
  The following is my review written five months ago:
  There is nothing new or revolutionary in this book for anyone who has studied bible in a mainline seminary or divinity school (or in my case, listened to Ehrman's lectures from the Teaching Company). The problem is that most ministers use the Bible only as a source of devotional material, and refrain from telling their parishioners about what they know about historical critical study of the Bible. The following is a quotation from the first chapter of the book:
  
  "... this material is widely taught in seminaries and divinity schools. But most people in the street, and in the pew, have heard none of this before. That is a real shame, and it is time that something is done to correct the problem."
  
  If there's something revolutionary about this book, it is the fact that the author, Bart Ehrman, is trying to "correct the problem." Knowledge of the historical-critical approach to Bible scholarship does not take away its use as devotional material. It can enhance the devotional experience by providing a more knowledgeable and mature perspective on the source of Biblical materials.
  
  This book provides a readable overview of the subject of critical study of New Testament history. It is information that has been around for a long time and should be common knowledge. The reason it is not widely known has many reasons, one of which is that everybody is happy picking and choosing the parts they choose to believe. Mr. Ehrman says the following about that:
  
  "Everyone already picks and chooses what they want to accept in the Bible. The most egregious instances of this can be found among people who claim not to be picking and choosing"
  
  I think the historical subjects covered by this book are broader than the subtitle indicates. The subtitle refers to "Hidden Contradictions In The Bible." That subject was covered in Chapter 2 of the book. I think a more descriptive subtitle would have been, "The Diverse and Contentious History of Early Christianity." The following is a list of chapter titles which can give an indication of the wide range of subjects covered:
  
  1. A Historical Assault on Faith
  2. A World of Contradictions
  3. A Mass of Variant Views
  4. Who Wrote the Bible?
  5. Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus
  6. How We Got the bible
  7. Who Invented Christianity?
  8. Is Faith Possible?
  Notes
  
  In Chapter 6 he revisited some of the same material covered in his previous book, Misquoting Jesus, and responded to some of the objections made by critics of that book. He goes on to discuss the long, contentious and uncertain history of the formation of the biblical canon. Mr. Ehrman reminds readers that the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed make no mention of the New Testament as being an important part of Christain beliefs. As a matter of fact, the New Testament canon was not fully formed when these creeds were written. That's hard to imagine in today's era of "bible believing Christians" where many understand the New Testament to be the central core of Christianity.
  
  In Chapter 7 Ehrman provides an interesting description of the step by step elevation over many years of the concept of Christ's divinity until it finally resulted in the doctrine of the trinity. By the time of Constantine, whether one accepted the doctrine of the trinity became the supreme test of orthodoxy. Ironically, it's a doctrine that was probably not articulated by anybody for the first couple hundered years of church history. And so "Within three hundred years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the trinity. Early Christianity is nothing if not remarkable."
  
  In the first and last chapters Ehrman talks about his own faith journey and that of others who have been involved with biblical scholarship. He argues that the historical critical method can deepen one's faith, making it more knowledgeable and mature. He says the goal of this book is to make serious biblical scholarship available to all.
  
  I puzzled for a long time over the meaning of the word "Interrupted" in the title. In answer to that I found the following quotation of Bart Ehrman in a March 19, 2009 N.Y. Times article:
  
  "The book is about how the voice of Jesus gets changed by all these other messages, and how these different voices are impeding the voice of Jesus. But some people have made jokes about coitus interruptus."
  
  I guess his joking like that proves that he is a "happy agnostic" which is what he called himself in the same article.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  Stephie Williams

  This book is an assault on biblical inerrancy. The rationale for the book, given in its subtitle, is that churches do not generally offer their congregants the biblical-critical method of studying the Bible, and its results, which are well attested by the vast majority of biblical scholars of which Bart D. Ehrman is one. He also claims he has no intention of turning believers into nonbelievers and states that the results given in the book were not responsible for his agnosticism. It was the problem of evil that did that.
  
  In chapter one, Ehrman presents the historical-critical method, and some of its findings. Chapter two discusses the contradictions found in the Bible. These are both contradictions with known history, like the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke and with other parts of the Bible, like the same nativity stories in these books illustrated this kind of contradiction. Chapter three covers the lack of original texts and the plethora of variant texts. Chapter four delves into who actually wrote the different books of the Bible. Among these books most biblical scholars don’t believe all of Paul’s letters were written by Paul himself. The consensus is that only seven were actually written by him, although some scholars find evidence that known were, but Ehrman does not mention this in the book. Chapter five presents the evidence for what can be known about the historical Jesus. Although again, not mentioned in the book, some scholars believe that Jesus was not a historical person. Chapter six describes the canonization process. Chapter seven looks at how Christianity actually developed. Finally, chapter eight discusses what the implications are for biblical inerrantists.
  
  One contradiction that I was not already aware of is mentioned on pages 8 and 9. Here he relates that the Gospel of John gives Jesus’ first sign of his divinity, then many signs, and then his second sign. On page 112 Ehrman says that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark for some of the information they include in their own gospels. Why cannot all three rely on some other document(s)? On page 281 he makes a good case for cherry picking the bible, accept for those that do not admit that that is what they are doing. I will go further and say that for most of what we extract from some piece of writing we indeed cherry pick. It almost seems like a necessity. Where people can run into trouble with doing the cherry is when they actually take something out of context. Cherry picker beware. In addition to these page citations, somewhere in the book he seems to ignore that orthodoxy did not come until after Constantine was dead and gone, despite his trying to resolve the disagreements still flourishing in his day, calling multiple church councils. Even arianism survived until after the fall of Rome at the hand of the Goths.
  
  “Furthermore, even those of us who do not believe in the Bible can still learn from it. It is a book that deserves to be read and studied, not just as a historical record of the thoughts, beliefs, experiences, activities, loves, hates, prejudices, and opinions of people who stand at the very foundation of our civilization and culture. It can also can help us think about the big issues of life - why we are here, what we should be doing, what will become of this world. It can inspire us - and warn us - by its examples. It can urge us to pursue truth, to fight oppression, to work for justice, to insist on peace. It can motivate us to live life more fully while yet we can. It can encourage us to live more for others and not only for ourselves. There will never be a time in the history of the human race when such lessons will have become passe, when the thoughts of important religious thinkers of the past will be irrelevant for those of us living and thinking, in the present.” This is Erhman’s final paragraph on page 287. I find these claims extravagant. I suppose his sentiments are understandable seeing how he is defending the relevance of his profession – biblical criticism. But, as Hector Avalos has argued it is time to give up this study and admit its bankruptcy, hopelessness, and irrelevance for today’s issues. I will add that the Bible is not a very good work to base history on even it might capture some of these “thoughts . . .” Next, I will point out that a large part of modern culture has moved on from the Bible’s former foundation of civilization; therefore, this foundation cannot now be based on the Bible. It is a timed document, not a timeless one. I also see no real gain from examining the bible for the importance of life’s big questions. Well, maybe it can inspire some people to do good, but its adverse effects on society out way the benefits gain thereby, especially one considers that these goods can be found without the Bible. It might encourage the idea that we should try to live “not only for ourselves,” where again I say the Bible is not needed. Matter of fact, the Bible is a profoundly selfish document whose whole point is the eternal salvation of “mankind” that people pursue individually. I say mankind because the bible is quite male center, and most of the time the Bible denigrates women. Finally, while the Bible may not become irrelevant for large portions of humankind, I say it should not be relevant. I might only hope that Sam Harris’ dream of a world without religion will eventually come.
  
  The book for me had no big reveal. I was already familiar with the main themes of the book, if not some of the examples Ehrman used to illustrated what biblical criticism is all about. I decided to read the book because, while he uses the historical-critical method, he is in the historical Jesus camp of biblical scholars, which I believe is nowhere near being proved. I wanted to at least get his take on his biblical views. There is one other book I would like to read of his – God’s Problem. It is a book on the problem of evil and explains his move to agnosticism, which even the critical study of Bible did not lead him to. I will say while Biblical criticism does not disprove that there is a god, it leaves it a large enough possibility to hardly needing much more argument. Of course, while I have lots of reason not to believe in god, the problem of evil is a big part of the arguments I use to arrive at my beliefs about the nonexistence of god(s).
  
  The book is still a valuable lesson for those willing to question at least a part of their Christian belief, and so my main recommendation is for those people in particular. It could also be of profit for those that would care to deepen there understanding of biblical criticism, accept for those who are already well informed of it.
• 
  Dave

  Bart Ehrman, saddened by the misery in the world and deluged by factual discrepancies in the canon, succumbs to the "Historical Jesus" movement and sets out on a crusade to convert the unwashed masses to his newfound agnosticism. Previous reviewers of this book squabble about whether it's a diatribe or not; I'm not sure, but Ehrman doesn't score any points with his tone, style, or editing. I find his approach transparently pedantic: (1) point out differences between accounts in the Gospels, (2) conclude that the faith-inspiring elements of the story must have been fabrications, if the writers can't even agree on simple details, and (3) appeal to authority, ensuring us that most scholars and even our pastors secretly see things this way. Rinse and repeat. After nearly every cycle he reiterates the assertion that to harmonize the accounts by merging details (no matter how minute) from different gospels into one story is akin to writing a new gospel, and who would dare do that? (gospel of Q, anyone?)
  
  Ehrman frequently takes a stance that I find intellectually dishonest. He claims that affiliation with the "Historical Jesus" movement is not only benign, it is mainstream: that one can be Christian and doubt the divinity of Jesus seems absurd to me, but Ehrman takes this to a new level by exploiting the naivety of his readers -- assuring them that his views are backed by decades of consensus among the majority of both historians and clergy.
  
  Many of the errors he cites are well known -- the chronology of the birth, trial, and death of Jesus for example -- but to Erhman, the fact that different gospels present different elements of a story, and sometimes even contradict each other, means that the purportedly divine events in the stories should be doubted as well. If conviction of divine events comes from historical inquiry, why did Ehrman wait so long to leave the faith? These discrepancies were a non-issue to Ehrman until he decided that the suffering in the world was too great for there to be a caring God. And that is the main point: religious conviction is the product of real or perceived personal experiences with the Divine. It was a lack of those experiences, not an encounter with factual discrepancies, that led Ehrman to lose his faith. Why then should he expect to sway anyone from their beliefs if this rhetoric never worked on him?
• 
  Melissa Chung

  I picked up this book because I was participating in a readathon that required Who, What, When, Where, Why and or How in the title. I literally typed in Why books into Goodreads and this one caught my eye from the list. One of my favorite classes in college was my Angels & Demons English class where we studied the sacred and the profane. I also had to watch Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. Religion has always interested me in an academic way. I love learning the history about how religions were created and how it has changed over time. This book was very informative and super interesting. I found I agreed with almost all of it. It definitely follows my beliefs that has changed from my childhood, into my teens and then adulthood.
  
  "Jesus, Interrupted" is not a debunk or negative look on the Bible, what it is, is a historical look at the stories. How the stories came to be, who wrote them and who decided which stories to add and which to keep out. All students in Seminary school learn the contradictions of the bible. They learn that the New Testament in particular, has stories about the life of Jesus (born, leading the people, death and resurrection) written in a few different ways. The Apostles are not on the same page as one another and so we can't know for certain which stories are more accurate. When the students begin their preaching and teaching to the outside world they keep those historical learnings to themselves instead of teaching that to the masses. It may be because they are afraid of what their leaders or fellow church goers will say. In any case, everything written in this non-fiction isn't new. It is taught to all students in Seminary.
  
  If you like theology or are interested in Christianity, I'd definitely give this book a go. I enjoyed listening to it on audio. The narrator had a pleasant voice and it helped me not be overwhelmed with the material.
• 
  Matt

  I generally avoid the religion section of the bookstore, not for lack of interest but because of a general fear of accidentally picking something up that basically wants to preach one way or another. In that sense, it's not a lot different than the political aisle. Some years ago I stumbled into the work of Elaine Pagels and I liked several of her books. But with religion, most books are guilty until proven otherwise.
  
  But I took a flyer on this one. I became familiar with Ehrman because he's one of the superstars of the Teaching Company's "Great Courses", the audio/video courses seen advertised in highbrow magazines. So I've heard a few of his lectures, and indeed, he takes what he calls the historical-critical approach to theological research. And he's pretty sharp.
  
  And lo and behold, it's a very easy and fun read. Ehrman teaches at the University of North Carolina, and I suspect a lot of this material comes straight out of his undergraduate New Testament course. Which explains why it's such an easy read. (Sorry, I couldn't resist a jab at the Heels.)
  
  What this book sets out to do is give a broad overview of the different viewpoints of the different authors of New Testament writings, highlighting the variety of viewpoints and beliefs proposed by each, and even contrasting those views with gospels that never made the canon and beliefs that are held today. All of this is framed as being the result of the broad consensus on scholarship today.
  
  And for me, raised in a liberal church and retaining a rather hazy recollection of the general accumulation of the Jesus story, it's really interesting to hear a lot of this spelled out. Sure, I knew the book of Revelation offers a theology vastly different than the book of Psalms. But I didn't realize just how different John and Mark are, and I learned a lot about what scholarship says about the historical Paul. I already knew a lot about the essentially political debate in the early church about how to portray the Jews and Romans in the crucifixion story, but I didn't realize how intense the debate was over whether it was important for followers of Jesus to obey Jewish law. And the book pays off with a lot of these details. Furthermore, it tries to set everything into proper context regarding the historical development of the church and the battle of ideas that was ensuing in the several centuries after the death of Jesus.
  
  What I really liked about this book is that while it doesn't explain with volumes of footnotes how scholars and historians have arrived at their conclusions, it doesn't simply parrot their findings either. Ehrman puts some effort into describing the background and logic of their methodology.
  
  And ultimately, this is a really quick read. There's a lot of repetition, but I feel like I learned a bunch and it didn't outlast my attention. For someone really into this stuff, a more in-depth volume might be called for, but for the 8th grader, or the Carolina undergrad, or me, this was a real fun book to motor through.
  
• 
  Rickey

  I'm not an expert on the Bible, which is why I read this book, although I'd always been interested in the history of the Bible and early Christianity, which a lot of people also aren't very knowledgeable about. Many seem to think the Bible just dropped down from heaven in the form it is today and that the Christian religions of 2000 years ago were the same as today. Ehrman convinced me that he had quite a lot of expertise on the New Testament. I liked his delivery and was impressed with his research. Even though he is a Biblical scholar, I thought he wrote it in terms the layman can understand. He seemed to deliberately "tone down" his scholarly thoughts. It was also written in a way that is not offensive and is respectful to religion (as opposed to some similar books I've read). That there were 30,000 variants found in studies done in the 1700's of only 100 manuscripts pretty much astonished me. How many would there be if every manuscript still in existence were compared? I also hadn't really given much thought to how much the early manuscripts had been copied, copied, copied, copied ... and the degree of forgery. I enjoyed reading this book, although I can see where people who believe that the Bible is inerrant wouldn't like it. My opinion is that everyone who reads the Bible should study its history. He commented at the end of the book (and I don't recall his exact words), but it says something along the lines of, "Can you be a true Christian, yet not completely believe that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired?" I also found it interesting that, even though the author had become an agnostic, he continued to study and teach about the New Testament because, as he says, "The Bible is the most important book in the history of Western civilization." As you can probably tell, I liked the book and thought it was well worth the time reading it.
• 
  Terence

  Bart Ehrman is joining
  Jonathan Kirsch as a writer whose earlier books I admire and enjoyed but whose more recent works are largely rehashes and (worse) often poorly written and edited. Jesus, Interrupted doesnt' cover any territory not already covered in Ehrman's
  Misquoting Jesus or
  Lost Christianities. It also reads like Ehrman threw together his lecture notes - it's repetitive and slapdash. I could envision him using this to good effect in a lecture hall but as a book, the style has serious problems.
  
  There are better introductions to critical Bible studies elsewhere (and in Ehrman's own oeuvre mentioned above).
• 
  Jacob Yates

  A lot to digest here, and a couple of disclaimers to start off... since I'm in no way an expert on the New Testament, I don't want to get into criticizing Ehrman's ideas, but more so how he presents them.
  Ehrman also clarifies throughout the book is not to bring people away from their faith, but to present historical facts and give context to the forming of the New Testament (he says many of his professor friends agree with most of what is in this book and still consider themselves Christians). also, if you were wonderingm I read this book and am still a follower of Jesus! Woohoo!!
  
  Ehrman's main argument is that the books of the Bible are much better read critically, in context of history as separate books than one big story. I think I agree with him in that there is a lot to learn from reading the Bible in context of the scripture around it, and knowing cultural/historical significance of how the original texts were interpreted by the original readers. Most of the time when I read the Bible I don't really know much about what is going on in the world outside of the text, so i definitely learned some stuff from Ehrman on this topic. Also, I'm sympathetic to his complaint that a bunch of people only read a couple of verses and totally take it out of it's 50 AD, Middle Eastern context and into the USA 2000 years later (also guilty).
  
  What I disagree with Ehrman about is the fact that reading the Bible as a unified story/devotional style is totally useless. For example, Ehrman claims that Jesus' message in Matthew about, "not one letter falling from the law" and Paul's teaching that we are no longer under the law, but under grace, are at odds with each other. At first glance, I would have to agree, but having read more of Paul, I think Paul means that if we are "in Christ," we are seen as perfect by God, because Christ has done what no one else could, and that is keep the law. I think there are lots of times that parts of the Bible seem to be at odds with one another, but when studied a little deeper it makes the whole puzzle of life make a little more sense. Here Ehrman seems to be falling into his own trap by taking these verses out of context/not clarifying the author's main idea with surrounding verses. Interpretations like this led me to be on guard of Ehrman's other opinions, even if i had no background knowledge, and this was pretty tiring.
  
  At the end of the book I felt like there is so much that I am ignorant of about early Christian history that it was a little overwhelming. The books that change my mind have a knack of presenting an idea that I don't really agree with and then their first counterclaim is exactly what I was thinking in my head, and then when the author shows why the counterclaim doesn't really make sense, I am won over. When Ehrman would make claims on who he thinks wrote the new testament or what early church leaders were influenced by, he seemed to repeat himself a lot and also give counterclaims that were not usually on my mind at all. He sometimes seemed to be trying to take the easy way out.
  
  This was not a book I particularly enjoyed, but am happy that I finished. I was glad I read this book because I think my imagination of what could be in a book (Jesus, Interrupted) claiming to show all the discrepancies in a book (The Bible) I respect so much was way worse than it actually was. Reading through the Bible last year was also pretty helpful. A lot of the book I found boring, parts about different sects of Judaism/early Christianity and also early church leaders deciding the canon was not too good at grabbing my attention. Apparently a lot of this information is common knowledge to anybody who has gone through seminary but more than just the facts I think Ehrman let his agnostic bias get the best of him at times. I am a big believer in reading things by people who think differently than myself and I definitely learned something from this book.
  
  
  
• 
  David S. T.

  Imagine if you tried to remove all of the later history of the bible, the views of inerrancy of scripture, the later theology, later tradition and then started to study the bible for the first time, looking for clues in the text, study the culture it was written in, treat it like any other surviving ancient document not the divine word of God, you'd probably come away with something like what is presented in this book. This book was a very good easy to read introduction to the historical critical method and modern non-evangelical scholarship and out of the handful of Ehrman books I've read, this is easily the best (although Misquoting Jesus is also essential). One thing I should point out is this book focuses almost exclusively on the new testament, for a similar introduction to the old testament, I really enjoyed the slightly dated Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction by Boadt. The most obvious negative with this book (and one that affects all of Ehrman's books), is that he doesn't really present opposing views and if he does its only briefly, but I don't find this to be too much of a problem, there are plenty of books refuting his work and if you want to see the conservative opposition's views just read one of those books after this one.
  
  I first encountered the views presented in this book a few years ago while reading the great catholic scholar Raymond Brown's excellent introduction to the new testament. Obviously there's nothing new in this book or things which haven't been said before, but this book does a nice job of presenting a bunch of topics in a relatively short space in an easy to understand manner, something which Ehrman seems to do well. He (Ehrman) points out that he wrote this because while these views are well known in seminary they're rarely known by the public. For the most part I think this is true, I remember the slight shock while reading Brown's introduction and realizing for the first time that perhaps there are contradictions in the bible, that many of the books of the bible likely weren't written by who they claimed to be, perhaps the virgin birth didn't happen and was added to give some background to Jesus and raise his Christology above that of a normal prophet, perhaps Jesus wasn't always viewed as part of the Godhead. There really is a lack of knowledge of bible history and even the bible itself in our current culture, while at the same time everyone thinks himself an expert on what god wants.
  
  In a way its kind of nice to approach the bible this way and read the text for what it says. When one encounters something which seems like an obvious contradiction such as the different day which the synoptic says Jesus was crucified compared to John, its nice to admit that perhaps the bible does contain a contradiction rather than try to do some bizarre hermeneutics to work around it. When one reads Paul and his version of the good news seems so much different than the one Matthew presents of Jesus (or James), one can question if perhaps they seem different because they were different. No longer do you have to try to figure out a way to try to tie them together. Its really liberating when you read a seemingly highly offensive passage such as 1 Timothy 2:12 which says that a woman can never teach or have any authority over a man and she must remain quite, to admit that perhaps Paul didn't write this letter and perhaps isn't not a direct commandment from God, but the later view of someone (it sure seems different that Paul's normal message).
  
  One thing Ehrman constantly emphasis (almost to a fault) is that looking at the bible this way or accepting this view doesn't mean that you have to lose your faith. Of course to approach the bible this way also means that it loses a bunch of its authority. To admit that its not inerrant and infallable creates a new set of problems for the modern Christian. If one can question the bible, then where do you get any authority? One only has to look at the conflicting ideas presented in the Charismatic movement to realize that when one moves beyond the authority of the bible there are some pretty bizarre ideas that arise. Of course there are many liberal theologians who are doing just this exact thing, and once you're on this path its not as scary as it seemed to be from the outside.
• 
  Tim

  Oh man was this book good....
  
  It's along the same vein as Misquoting Jesus, his previous book on the scribal mistakes of the NT. This book focuses more on the textual, political, and theological history of early Christianity and how these factors came to influence the orthodox views that we're familiar with today. Ehrman exposes a few very important issues and the impact they may have for us today.
  
  A few of the issues that he brings up strike me particularly hard, and now that he's brought them up I can't see how I could have missed them in previous readings of the Bible.
  
  Namely that every author, speaking to a particular audience with a particular culture, had emphasized DIFFERENT aspects of the same familiar stories about Jesus to portray a DIFFERENT view of Jesus, and a DIFFERENT interpretation of what Christianity means to the individual. When writing these books the authors did not know, or intend, that their writings would one day form a formal orthodox canon of scripture. In fact they would have considered that heretical because "scripture" was a term that referred only to the ancient writings of the Jewish prophets. For instance...in Mark Jesus rebukes any attempt to display his miracles as proof of his divinity, instead opting to say that God should not be tested in this manner. In John it seems as if Jesus is just going around performing miracles every day to prove his divinity. Clearly one or both of these versions of the story is untrue. How do we decide? How do we decode Jesus life from the documents we have left? What did Jesus ACTUALLY teach and believe? Does modern Christianity have anything in common with the religion of Jesus? If not, does it matter? All these questions and more are addressed in stunning clarity and easily digested sentences. Truly a powerful glimpse into the world of biblical scholarship for the layman.
  
  One thing this book asserted for me was that the Christianity I grew up with was certainly NOT the religion Jesus preached about. Many of the beliefs that Christians hold as truth were not uttered from Jesus' mouth, but added to scripture decades, and sometimes centuries later by scribes, priests and theologians who were probably well-meaning, but changed the landscape of Christianity nonetheless.
  
  It strikes me as a delicious irony then that to reclaim the Christianity of Jesus we cannot look to orthodoxy...indeed we must seek the sources deemed heretical. We must throw off the shackles of antiquity and re-examine the scriptures in the light of reason, history, and faith. We need to give up the notion that for Christianity to be valid it must be based on an infallible document, that it cannot be a human religion. We are all seeking the truth of God. Even a Christian would not disagree with the fact that God is too infinite to comprehend and that religion is our attempt to place the infinite in a finite box so that we might understand, love and relate to God. So what's wrong with religion being human? What's wrong with the Bible being a document written by human hands, mistakes and all, as a record of devotion and theology throughout the ages?
  
  The biggest question of all... If the evidence shows us that modern Christianity is actually misaligned with what the original authors knew of God and Jesus, then aren't we called to abandon it? In other words, If the church has the wrong view of Jesus and His message, then by beleiving it we are actually growing apart from what God intends for us...how then do we proceed in seeking truth? and once we embark on this mission how do we avoid trading the shackles of modern Christianity for shackles of our own making through our own misinterpretations and inadequacies? I don't know, but I'm going to continue reading, seeking, praying and when I find something good and true I will hold onto it.
• 
  Steven

  Had I read or been taught the bible from the perspective Bart D. Ehrman gives in Jesus Interrupted, I might still be a practicing Christian. But I was brought up a fundamentalist, a Northern Baptist. In that religion every word of the bible is inspired, the word of God himself, inerrant. So what does a smart kid do when he perceives contradictions and no religious leader can give him a good answer; chuck the religion. What sort of religion perpetrates such absolutism, but then contains such broad errors?
  
  So it is a breath of fresh air when Ehrman presents the bible as literature by authors, from a historical time, with their own thoughts and agendas. It makes the religion acceptable when you don't have to explain away its self-contradictions. And it made the creation stories so much more profound to listen to this past week in church when I could look at it as such; stories and myths, not absolute truths.
  
  What I found particularly interesting about this book is that Ehrman mostly restricted himself to staying within the bible. He didn't reference external contradictions, as he had in his Misquoting Jesus. It was refreshing to hear what scholars have found about the new testament, things that are largely accepted outside of the evangelical, fundamentalist sects.
  
  At times, the writing itself gets boring, repetitive. But it is worth slogging through those passages. Who should read this book? Anyone who is a Christian or is strongly pulled towards religion. It is not Ehrman's goal to destroy faith. Instead, for me, it enabled faith.
  
• 
  Chandra

  Week 18: Book by a Local Author
  
  Bart D. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and professor of religious studies at UNC Chapel Hill. This was super convenient for me for this category. I really wish I could take one of his courses!
  
  I think the title is a bit provocative compared to the actual content of this book. This book is decidedly not a deconstruction of Christian faith, but rather a sort of introduction to historical-critical analysis. It's is both scholarly and approachable at the same time. There were times when I felt Ehrman assumed a bit more familiarity with the Bible than I personally posses, but it wasn't a huge problem.
  
  Ultimately, I'm glad I read the book, but I must admit I still have yet to find a book that approaches the Bible in a way that feels 100% relevant for me. I tried
  Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth a while back and found it similarly sort of lacking. I don't think it's the fault of these books or authors but rather it is more indicative of what I am seeking - a more broad primer on Christianity and the Bible from a secular/historical/critical perspective. Always taking recommendations!
  
  *Note: The audio version was fine - nothing offensive or special.
• 
  Caroline

  Only a relatively small part of this book was what I was looking for, although that is not Ehrman's fault. Ehrman spends over half of it detailing a variety of discrepancies in the Bible, so if you are already convinced that both old and new testaments were written by unknown authors long after events (if they happened) and re-written or copied with errors over the years, you have to wade through a lot of evidence for the unconvinced before you get to the 'why and how'. I should have read the title more thoroughly before I started.
  
  The more interesting sections deal with the various sources for the gospels, the reasons for deciding which letters were written by Paul and which not, and the ways that the early divisions in the church affected what kinds of text fragments got inserted into the original books (or, potentially, excised, although of course that is harder to tell).
  
  However, Ehrman is so very repetitious that it was hard to keep going. This book could be about a third or a half as long if he only said things once. Or, better, it could be more thorough, because I wanted to know a lot more about the actual scholarship--linguistic, historical, etc.-that is used to trace the sources of these texts and to evaluate their real meaning in the context of their times. This is really a surface treatment.