Jesus Interrupted (review by Cern)
When I brought Bart D. Ehrman’s book Jesus Interrupted to share with my male coffee clutch friends, the title of the book evoked in them the impression that Jesus practiced an old traditional (and unreliable) birth control technique called coitus interruptus, with Jesus having to stop before finishing the job, so to speak. For some reason, they imagined the Disciples having something to do with this.
If that were the case, I guess the book could have been called “Hey, you Disciples need to give Mary Magdalene and I some ‘alone time’… and quit bothering us!” I guess Jesus didn’t have a tie, hat or sign to hang on the bedroom door knob as a “do not disturb” message to the Twelve.
Well, I’m pretty sure that’s not the image Ehrman had in mind when he sat down to write this book, even though he does view Jesus as very human. But more importantly, he also views the early Christians who produced the Scriptures as very human, fallible and full of diverse opinions.
That the early Christians were fallible human beings is pretty evident just from the stories about them that the Good Book tells us. But for numerous reasons, Christians have been blinded from the reality that the Scriptures are really a collection of a *variety* of human views about God, and do not constitute a single consistent voice written in a book dropped down to us from heaven.
And while the scholars of the Biblical literature have known this truth for some time (going on 500 years now!), rarely has this understanding been presented to the masses without the veil of academic verbiage. Bart D. Ehrman comes down from the ivory tower mountain and uses common speech to make this information available to the masses.
But Jesus Interrupted does NOT focus on the obvious commonly cited contradictions in the Bible-- like Joshua making the Sun “stand still” to make the day longer (he actually would have to make the Earth stand still, not the Sun, since the Earth’s rotation is why we have day and night).
Instead, Ehrman actually jumps over these obvious contradictions, in part because exposing their existence isn’t as persuasive to the literalist Christians-- who tend to conflate, reconfigure and invent elaborate fictions to forcibly make the Bible agree with itself. (For one example of such mental gymnastics, see http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm).
There are deeper conflicts in the Scriptures that cannot be easily explained away, and they are what Ehrman decides to elucidate.
Ehrman points out that each the writers of the New Testament had very different and contradictory views of who Jesus was: a God-man who openly proclaimed his divinity (John) or a preacher/exorcist who expressly forbid any one to speak of him as the Son of God (Mark). They also differ on how salvation is gained: is it by grace alone (Paul) or works (Matthew) or a combination of the two (James)? So, if we are to follow the Bible, just exactly which Biblical author are we to believe?
More disturbing are the passages in which the various Biblical authors differently view the character of God. If God really loves everyone (John 3:16), then how can God order genocidal acts (Deuteronomy and Joshua)? Digging deeper, Ehrman reveals the Bible has contrasting understandings of why God allows or causes people to suffer. The authors of Job, Ecclesiastes, James, Peter all differ on this. Ehrman finds that none of the Biblical views on suffering is satisfactory for him personally. (And he admits that this conflict in Scripture led to his becoming an non-Christian.) It is much harder, and in reality impossible, to explain away contradictions like these.
(If you are interested in the conflicts in broad Biblical themes, a good online resource is
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none1.htm )
Ehrman doesn’t mention it, but a different way of framing these divergent views is called “listening to the intercanonical dialog”. This understands the Bible’s collected books as a discussion rather than as a single listing of divine decisions. Instead, we are invited to listen, then join in the conversation as we seek the best way to solve the issues of our own time.
No, Ehrman doesn’t get that far, but he is able to say that the Bible can still be something we gain insight from, while we recognize its inner inconsistencies... and that the Bible “good literature”. (Like reading Gunga Din on a slow Saturday afternoon, maybe?). This is the point where Ehrman admits that he no longer believes in the Christian faith, and has decided he is an agnostic.
In my opinion, this admission unfortunately undercuts the credibility of Ehrman to make the argument at hand. Why listen to an agnostic ex-believer’s invitation for Christians to focus on the Bible’s contradictions? Why follow the path of someone would ended up leaving the faith? Despite Ehrman’s protests that he really left Christianity because the “God and suffering” issue and not because of his critical approach to the Bible, I do not think he is going to be very persuasive to those who are holding fast to the myth of Biblical inerrancy.
By the way, Jesus Interrupted is a very easy read, and I finished the 300 page book in two sittings. You’ll probably want to underline the passages that are revelations to you and use it as a reference later. If you’re looking for information on the errors found in Bible manuscripts and how the Church changed the Bible over the centuries, you might want to read Ehrman’s former book Misquoting Jesus.
As someone who follows a Pagan path, this book makes me think about my own journey out of Christianity. It shows the pitfalls of having a "holy book" that cannot be questioned. But we don't need a "book" to get stuck in an old mindset that doesn't re-examine our traditions. We need to be continually open to the future, to new ideas, to doing things in new ways. Learning to adapt to changes has been one of the strengths of the Pagan movement that I hope we never lose.
We also need to remember that we are human. Wicca's founder, Gerald B. Gardner, was a fallible human being. All of our leaders are human and prone to make mistakes. But we are also capable of learning from our mistakes and growing. Because once you think you or a leader is above errancy, and once you canonize your beliefs as dogma, you cannot admit your mistakes-- and you cannot grow.
bb,
Cern