For those who have read Bart Ehrman's other books, his newest Jesus, Interrupted provides nothing new, and lots of it. One is tempted to think that he really doesn't have anything more to say, but realizes that there's a lot of money in saying it. Jesus, Interrupted follows Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus as another New York Times bestseller.

Setting aside any pecuniary motives, his stated motive in writing Jesus, Interrupted is to inform people in the pews about the good news from scriptural scholars—news, he maintains, that is being kept from them by their pastors, ministers, and priests, who all learned it when they went to graduate school. The good news is that the Bible is, in Ehrman's well-worn words, a merely human book, and further, that Christianity is a merely human invention.

Ehrman presents this message as an intellectual fait accompli, the equivalent of someone announcing to uneducated 18th century French provincials that Copernicus had proven two centuries prior that the earth went around the sun. He insists that he is presenting nothing new or radical, but only "standard scholarly material," carefully worked out by academics over the last two hundred years, and "taught in seminaries for over fifty years." He doesn't want to destroy all of faith, but only "the faith in the Bible as the historically inerrant and inspired Word of God."

How does he go about doing it? Same old path he trod in his previous books: we don't have the original manuscripts of the Bible; the Bible is full of contradictions; the Biblical canon was decided upon by mere humans who had less than honorable intentions; Christian doctrinal claims about the Holy Trinity and Christ's divinity are not in the Bible, but add-ons by some later Christians trying to buttress their particular views against other perfectly legitimate views of different Christians, and so on. "But most people in the street, and in the pew, have heard none of this before," laments Bart. "That is a real shame, and it is time that something is done to correct the problem."

Really? As I was reading his book, I thought quite the reverse. It is high time that something is done to correct Bart Ehrman. Let's begin with his assertion that he's not really saying anything new, but merely reporting the consensus of the majority of biblical scholars, one that rests on two hundred years of solid, objective scholarship.

Well, I certainly agree that Ehrman is saying nothing new, but he stands in need of correction in two related points, chronologically and intellectually. First, as far as his pedigree goes, he is off by about a century and a half. Modern biblical criticism began in the Radical Enlightenment in the latter part of the 17th century (not, as he suggests, the early 19th). But that leads to a second error, his intellectual pedigree. The assumptions of much of modern biblical criticism are not neutral, that is, they aren't themselves the result of some kind of objective science. They were in large part formed by radical Deists and Quakers in England and the Netherlands who had as their goal the removal of Christianity as an obstacle to secular progress, or its collapse into a kind of mystic spiritualism devoid of doctrine. There is nothing in Bart Ehrman's books that can't be found in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651), Clement Writer's Fides Divina (1657), Samuel Fisher's Rustick's Alarm to the Rabbis (1660), Lodewijk Meyer's Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres (1666), Baruch Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise (1670), and John Toland's Christianity Not Mysterious (1696). That's only a partial list.

Let's call these folks, collectively, the fathers of modern scriptural scholarship. They are the ones that hammered out the assumptions that would later form the foundation of the historical-critical method, the method that Ehrman claims demonstrates that the Bible is a merely human document and that Christ Himself was not divine.

Here's the difficult point that must be understood. These fathers of modern scriptural scholarship wanted to prove that the Bible was merely a human document and that Christ Himself was not divine, and purposely devised a method of approaching the Bible that would achieve their goal. In the service of this goal, they set out to maximize and manufacture contradictions, stun the faithful with textual variants from multiple manuscripts, wipe out the miraculous as ridiculous, and break apart the unity of texts by focusing on fragments. These were, we must emphasize, strategies meant to undermine the authority of the Bible, and these strategies became enshrined in the historical-critical method.

That's a serious claim and a serious charge. Why, you might well ask, would the fathers of modern scriptural scholarship writing in the latter half of the 17th century want to destroy the authority of the Bible? There is one rather obvious reason, if we stand back and look at what was happening in the first half of the 17th century. During this period, Europe was ravaged by the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), that is, by wars caused, in part, by doctrinal divisions among Christians. What's the best way to stop such carnage? To stop wars rooted in differences in doctrine? You eliminate them at their source: the Bible. If the Bible is a mass of contradictions cobbled together out of scraps of originally disconnected documents, and furthermore, if Jesus Himself was merely a human being, then there's nothing to fight about.

The aim of the fathers of modern scriptural scholarship was to make the world safe from Christianity. The intended effect of their approach to Scripture is exactly the effect that learning the historical-critical method had on Bart Ehrman in Princeton Theological Seminary where he was transformed from a devoted fundamentalist Christian to a very liberal Protestant on his way to becoming an agnostic. Now he funnels all his energies into causing the same transformation in others, a perfect son of such distant fathers, an apple fallen straight down from the same tree.

Ehrman returns to Colbert to joust over topics in his newest book

http://www.themergeblog.com/2009/04/bart-ehrman-and-stephen-colbert-on.html

D'Souza and Hitchens take their debate to small town Mississippi

http://www.jcjc.edu/debate.html

Biblical scholar Ben Witherington scrutinizes Ehrman's reasoning in his 6 part blog on Jesus Interrupted

Ben Witherington III on Bart Ehrman’s scholarship

“Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever! His area of expertise is in textual criticism…He is thus, in the guild of the Society of Biblical Literature, a specialist in text criticism, but even in this realm he does not represent what might be called a majority view on such matters….

A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveal mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in…What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years. It’s as if he is basing his judgments on things he read whilst in Princeton Seminary. And that was a long time ago frankly….

The impression is left, even if untrue, that Ehrman’s actual knowledge of and interaction with New Testament historians, exegetes, and theologians has been and is superficial and this has led to overly tendentious and superficial analysis. Again, I would be glad to be proved wrong about this, but it would certainly appear I am not. This book could have been written by an intelligent skeptical person who had no more than a seminary level acquaintance and expertise in the field of New Testament studies itself. And I do not say this lightly, for this book manifests problems in all areas, if one critiques it on the basis of New Testament scholarship of the last thirty or so years. There are methodological problems, historical problems, exegetical problems, theological problems, and epistemological problems with this book, to mention but a few areas….”

Bart Ehrman, the Fundamentalist?

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington received the same education as Bart Ehrman. Why do they come to such radically different conclusions about the New Testament? Witherington makes an insightful guess. In Witherington’s words,

“When it comes to the issue of textual variants, the development of the textual tradition, and the theological import of such variants, Bart simply over-reads the evidence, or as the British say, over-eggs the pudding. Now I think I understand why he does this. He rightly gets peeved with those fundamentalists who want to stick their heads in the sand and say, there are no such issues or problems even in the least. But an over-reaction is just that—an over-reaction. Throughout this book, the real bogeymen that Bart is trying to refute are fundamentalists who hold to a certain wooden and very literal view of inerrancy which hardly takes ancient historical considerations into account at all. I would actually have as many problems with the same people as I have with Bart’s views.

He also does not do justice to a reading of these [biblical] texts in light of ancient genres, conventions, purposes, history writing and the like, but for very different reasons. The reasons seem to include that he is an ardent convert from fundamentalism to a very narrow and all too modern form of historical critical analysis of these texts—a form that starts with an inherent skepticism about the supernatural among other things, and assumes that critical thinking equals the ability to doubt this, that, or the other ancient datum. I call this justification by doubt. It is no more a valid starting point for evaluating the New Testament than blind fideism is.”

A Conspiracy?

Several times in Jesus, Interrupted Bart Ehrman makes the charge that there is a kind of conspiracy by ministers and priests alike to suppress scholarly knowledge when they take to the pulpit. “The views I set out in this book are standard fare among scholars,” Bart laments, “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.” Ben Witherington comments:

“With regularity in this book, Bart continues to ask the question--- why have pastors trained in seminary in the historical critical method regularly deprived their congregations of such information as he presents in this book? He suggest perhaps a failure of nerve or a ‘when in doubt chicken out approach.’ I cannot speak for all such pastors, but since I do a myriad of church events all over the country every year in United Methodist and other sorts of churches which have pastors trained in such things, I must say the reason they are not telling their congregations the sort of things Bart is saying in Jesus, Interrupted is precisely because for the most part they do not believe in his radical interpretation of the data. Even those who are very keen on the historical-critical method, would not agree with many things Bart says in this book.”

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2009/04/bart-interrupted-detailed-analysis-of.html

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.