Review: “Jesus, Interrupted”

I was recently provided a review copy of Bart Ehrman’s latest book, Jesus, Interrupted.  I still don’t really understand how the title relates to the book, aside from Ehrman’s claim that the Gospel as we know it was not the gospel that Jesus preached.  His main point, however, seems to be that most pastors know that the Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions, but they continue to preach from it as if it were actually true.  This apparently makes Ehrman frustrated, so he’s taken it upon himself to reveal this scandal to the uninformed public.

Overall, Jesus, Interrupted is possibly the poorest example of scholarship I’ve read in years, if you could even use the word “scholarship” with regard to this book.  Hardly a page went by without my thinking, “Is he really that stupid?” or “Does he really think we’re that stupid?”  Once I even found myself saying out loud, “What an idiot.”  Time and time again Ehrman fails to see the plain meaning of Scriptural passages and repeatedly jumps to conclusion after conclusion, often without the need to make the jump.  It is also clear that if given the option of jumping in more than one direction, he will always jump left instead of right, even if left is an impossible jump.

I will say, however, that I do agree with Ehrman on a few points:

  • I do not believe that “inerrant” is a word that properly describes the Bible.  I know this will get me excluded from certain groups, but so be it.  I do believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  However, if you hold the Bible to a literal, inerrant standard, you run into problems.
  • A Christian’s faith should not be in the Bible.  We are to have faith in Jesus.  Putting one’s faith in something other than Jesus is not only idolatry, it leads to unnecessary faith crises.
  • The authors of the various books existed in a specific time and culture, and what they wrote needs to be understood in the author’s context.
  • Each Bible author must be allowed to have their say.
  • Historical criticism does not necessarily lead to a loss of faith.

Ehrman’s favorite fallacies

Rather than being a scholarly work, Jesus, Interrupted is mostly empty rhetoric, making use of various fallacious arguments.  One of his favorite fallacies is the appeal to false authority.  Besides setting himself up as the expert, I can’t count how many times he refers to “most scholars,” “many scholars,” and makes statements like, “well known among scholars,” and my favorite, “Scholars have known this for well over a century.” (p. 113)  He also makes reference to friends of his (which he does not name) who agree with him.   He also obviously holds himself out as an authority, as he makes many outlandish statements like, “In the early church, baptism was not performed on infants” (p. 127).

Another favorite fallacy of Ehrman’s is the argument from silence. If an author doesn’t specifically say that Jesus was God, he must not have believed it. Again, Ehrman would probably qualify for the Olympic conclusion-jumping team.

While one of Ehrman’s points is that “each author must be allowed to have their say” and they must be understood in context, he never really does either.  Instead, he suspects many of the authors of inventing or changing information in order to support their own agendas.  Those he charges with deception include Matthew, Luke and John, none of whom Ehrman believes were really who they say they were.

I also found the book frustrating in that either Ehrman is really quite obtuse, or he is being purposefully obfuscatory.  He seems to have problems understanding very basic points, and at times he goes well out of his way to take passages literally where there is no reason to do so.  For example, he states, “Matthew thinks that the followers of Jeus need to keep the law” (p. 89), and that Matthew believed that “salvation also requires keeping God’s laws.”  Anyone who has studied the Bible at all should be able to understand what Jesus was saying with regard to the law; but that wouldn’t have served Ehrman’s purpose.  He also has real difficulty interpreting the Old Testament, especially concerning prophecies relating to Jesus. And here again, he accuses the NT writers of making up facts to fit the OT prophecies.

His logic is generally circular, and sometimes so convoluted it’s hard to follow.  When nothing else works, he resorts to his claims that the documents were forgeries, or that the authors made up facts for their own, twisted agendas.

It is not my intent to refute in detail all of Ehrman’s claims; for that, I would have to write a whole book.  For a very good series of posts dealing with many of Ehrman’s claims, I would recommend Ben Witherington, or perhaps Ehrman’s interview with Stephen Colbert.


I just had to mention a couple of issues where Ehrman seems particularly obtuse.  He acts as though none of the 1st Century Christians ever spoke to each other. For example, he suggests that much of the birth story in Luke is made up, as no one was there. He fails to mention that Mary was, of course, present, and that she was no stranger to the disciples.  You don’t think Mary ever told anyone any stories of the old days?  In fact, I have no problem believing that the song of Mary as recorded by Luke was probably a song Mary wrote, and perhaps sang from time to time.  Again, these people did not exist in a vacuum.

Also, with regard to his theories about John not writing the Gospel of John, etc.  Here, he fails to mention that Polycarp was a student of John’s, who in turn taught Irenaeus, who wrote a number of commentaries on the Gospels as well as on Paul’s letters.  Don’t you think these people would have a bit of information about who wrote John’s Gospel? (But of course, Ehrman would accuse them of lying as well.)

My Ehrman-style conclusions

Using Ehrman’s style of reading intent into the Biblical authors, here’s what I think is really going on with Jesus, Interrupted:  Ehrman tells us that he starting doubting much of the Bible long before he became agnostic.  However, his bizarre logic and general lack of understanding would indicate that this is not merely an intellectual issue.  In fact, I think Ehrman is being intellectually dishonest.  It seems that Ehrman has chosen his beliefs, and is interpreting the Bible in such a way that supports his moral decision to disbelieve.  It is very common for those who turn away from Christianity to have a moral issue at the bottom of that decision. I don’t know what Ehrman’s issue is, but he does hint to it in the book (p. 273) with respect to the issue of suffering.

By the way, if you’re thinking, “he’s making this up… he doesn’t know anything about Ehrman’s life or his motives,” then I’ve made my point.


If someone really wants to understand more about the Bible and the issue Ehrman discusses, here are a few recommendations:

The Last Word, NT Wright

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Baukham

The Meaning of Jesus, NT Wright and Marcus Borg

This entry was posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Review: “Jesus, Interrupted”

  1. mattincinci says:

    great response beachbum, i couldnt have said it better myself

    • me says:

      “great response?” You are kidding, right? Beachbum is right up there with Holocaust deniers.

      For a different perspective, go here and read the pages linked to.

  2. Beachbum says:

    You are obviously not familiar with theology, history or archaeology, as evidenced by your review of Ehrman’s book. The authority of Ehrman and others on this topic as a point of contention by you is laughable, sorry. The historical inaccuracy and blatant revisionist attempts at correlation of old testaments with new are more than obvious even to the layman. This is why reading of the Bible was prohibited by the early Roman church. Any authority that knows anything about the history Christianity backs off of Biblical Authenticity like a plague. When you open your mind up to the idea that christianity is nothing more than another means by which to rule over ignorant, illiterate, fearful, (e.g. superstitious) peoples, as understood by Constantine – an organization by which to rebuild a failed Empire, you will understand why people of poverty would be forced to swear by a book they could not read, written in a language seen as cryptic even to their experts, then rewritten (translated/ edited) by a heretical monarchy’s court. King James version, why?
    The reason it was in 325 CE the Council of Nicea canonized or rejected writings or other Synods produced decrees or proclamations is because many things had to be forgotten before the populous would take to re-education with the new Christology, mixed with their ancient pagan ideologies for no other reason than to exert power over their mind through fear, a police state of the mind.

    Many great and charitable men have given up many things including their lives to combat this greatest of evils, Christianity. Great men like many of this countries founders, great scientist and philosophers; Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, great thinkers from the era of the Enlightenment. Great women from Hypatia of Alexandria to Neda resently killed in the Iranian revolts have given everything in defiance of dogmatic persecution from the Abrahamic religions.
    All of this, all of the death, destruction, war and hate, segregation and bigotry etc., has been caused by a misconception of a mistranslation by a misanthropic megalomaniac looking to secure power through maligning the bronze age myths of superstitious desert goat herding tribes from an area still notorious for a loose grasp of reality (Google Baghdad Bob). Bart Ehrman, in his published works has continued to highlight the obviously manufactured correlations, historical fabrications, and blatant lies in this tool of indoctrination that science has continually shown to be only the most immoral mind virus created by man. Thank you

  3. Pingback: » Blog Archive » Evidence? What evidence?

  4. Pingback: » Blog Archive » Forget the Old Testament

  5. Pingback: God's Problem is Bart Ehrman | Tangled Up in Blue Guy

  6. Jeff Carter says:

    And, what after all, is the difference between Ehrman and Nicodemus and creationists? They are all literalists.

  7. Fred says:

    NIcely done. I can only imagine what you would say if you didn’t like Ehrman so much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *