Members with This Book
Most Helpful Reviews
see all reviews
Liked It1 of 1 members found this review helpful “Good book. An easy and interesting read. Ehrman is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, and is considered a leading secular authority of the Bible. Ehrman’s position is that the Bible is not without error, but has some major discrepancies. These errors are well...” see full review » see other reviews » |
Didn’t Like It0 of 2 members found this review helpful “BORING BOOK” see full review » see other reviews » |
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“Another eye-opener from Bart Ehrman. "Jesus, Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus" should be read by Christians so that they have a better idea of their religion. ”
NJ Wong wrote this review Saturday, October 31 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No0 of 2 members found this review helpful“BORING BOOK”
Jose V wrote this review Monday, September 28 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“This is a good book for those interested in the historical Jesus and how the books that make up the Bible became the Bible. ”
Scott B wrote this review Thursday, July 23 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No1 of 1 members found this review helpful“Good book. An easy and interesting read. Ehrman is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, and is considered a leading secular authority of the Bible. Ehrman’s position is that the Bible is not without error, but has some major discrepancies. These errors are well known and taught at all the major divinity schools, but they are generally unknown or unrecognized by the general public. Some of the errors are minor and insignificant, but some are quite puzzling and thought provoking.
Ray A wrote this review Monday, July 6 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
A couple of examples: Just before Jesus was born, what was the home town of Mary and Joseph? Matthew says it was Bethlehem. When the Wise Men visited Jesus in Bethlehem, Mary, Joseph and Jesus were living in a house, not a manger. Luke, on the other hand, says that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, and only went to Bethlehem because of the census. Ehrman asks, why the difference? How come the stories of the birth of Jesus are completely different in Matthew and Luke? How come they did not get their stories straight?
Another example: in relation to the Passover, on which day did Jesus die? Mark says that Jesus died on the day of the Passover. At 9 AM that morning. But John has a different story. He says that Jesus died at Noon on the day before the Passover. So, which is it. Did he die on Passover, or the day before?
And the list goes on. Ehrman says the authors of the New Testament have divergent views about who Jesus was and how salvation works. Matthew, John and Paul all represent different views on the religion of Jesus; views that are not consistent with one another. And many established Christian doctrines—such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity—were all the inventions of later theologians.
Good book and I recommend it. I wonder if there is a book countering the ideas presented here.
”
“This is one of the most thought-provoking books I've read in a long time! I've encouraged friends to read it so that I have someone to talk about it with. I am anxious to read some of his other books too. ”
Tony D wrote this review Thursday, July 2 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“good informational reading. Covered some material in Misquoting Jesus. I like Bart Ehrman's books because they are a good source of overview information and give a starting point for deeper study”
Jessica S wrote this review Tuesday, June 30 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“I'm about 1/2 way through. Find it fascinating but much that is covered is also in Misquoting Jesus. Not that anyone who has read one should not read the other. ”
charliep wrote this review Friday, June 26 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“A okay book. Ehrman takes the Bible "at face value", namely he doesn't try to resolve any discrepancies. His discussion about the development of the New Testament will not impress a true believer, but if it were true this were just a human literary production, it most probably did follow along the natural unfolding that Ehrman suggests.
OSR wrote this review Tuesday, October 20 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
Ehrman seems to often to overstate his case, or make a big deal out of issues that probably won't phase someone committed to innerency.”
1 of 1 members found this review helpful“I spent the day reading Bart Ehrman’s newest book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)
James M wrote this review Friday, May 1 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
I have to admit at the outset that I like Ehrman’s work. While I don’t arrive at the same conclusions I am impressed by his writing style and his ability to write about important theological issues in ways that are clear and easy to read, even for those who are not familiar with theological, academic language. Ehrman is a teacher, and it comes through very well in his writing.
In my opinion, this is one of his best books. Maybe even his best. I found his tone in this book to be much more generous than some of his earlier books and he is very careful–almost to a fault–to speak kindly to and about Christians who don’t arrive at his agnostic views.
If you have read Misquoting Jesus, or Lost Christianities, there is not a lot of new content here, but it is presented in a different way and with a different emphasis. As Ehrman points out several times in the book, the textual issues he is shining his light on are not new. To the contrary, most biblical scholars have been aware of these “hidden” contradictions for a very long time. So there will be no surprises in this book to anyone who has had any college level classes in Biblical studies.
The really strong (but subtly understated) critique can be summed up in the parenthetical portion of the subtitle. Namely, why is it that most church attenders are unaware of these “hidden contradictions” when the academic world has known about them for two hundred years or more? Most pastors learn about the history of the sacred texts in Bible college, Seminary, or divinity schools so why do they not some how communicate this history once they enter the world of pastoral ministry?
A quick excerpt will illustrate: “Yet such views of the Bible are virtually unknown among the population at large. In no small measure this is because those of us who spend our professional lives studying the Bible have not done a good job communicating this knowledge to the general public and because many pastors who learned this material in seminary have, for a variety of reasons, not shared it with their parishioners once they take up positions in the church. (Churches, of course, are the most obvious place where the Bible is–or, rather, ought to be–taught and discussed.) As a result, not only are most Americans (increasingly) ignorant of the contents of the Bible, but they are also almost completely in the dark about what scholars have been saying about the Bible for the past two centuries. This book is meant to help redress that problem. It could be seen as my attempt to let the cat out of the bag.”
I think this is a great observation and an intriguing question that should be wrestled with but it is not new. (Edward Farley asks a similar question in his critique of Christian theological education. You can find that question here: http://www.ecclesialdreamer.com/?p=402) It is curious that many pastors are reluctant to bring attention to the multiple challenges our sacred text present to our theological convictions. In the closing chapters of the book, Ehrman extends his argument beyond the problems he sees in the sacred texts of Christianity and shifts his focus on some of the central theological claims of “orthodox” Christian faith. Again, anyone familiar with Ehrman’s work will not be surprised to find that he has serious issues with the doctrines of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and miracles, just to name a few.
And here is where I find that Ehrman’s great teaching ability seems to break down. While I have no doubt that he holds his agnostic views with well informed confidence, he presents his theological criticism against a group of narrow, conservative, evangelical opponents. And while I would share many of the same critiques of those traditions, I would find it more helpful if Ehrman interacted with theologians who are outside the narrow scope of his critique. How would Ehrman’s convictions respond to Richard Bauckham’s view of Christology? (Bauckham has published a book on Christology that offers an alternative understanding to the development of that Christian theology and its relationship to Jewish monotheism. A brief overview of Bauckham’s view can be found here: http://www.ecclesialdreamer.com/?p=72) Or Vincent Donovan’s missiology? (Donovan’s outstanding book, The Church in the Midst of Creation offers an alternative understanding of the development of the missiology of the early church.) I have no doubt that Ehrman is well aware of these other theologians and that his own study of the history and languages of the early church would make it a much more interesting discussion.
But I suspect that such a book would not sell nearly as well as the “conspiracy theory” tomes that he is becoming so well know for. In the end, maybe the reason so many pastors don’t expose their congregations to these “hidden” contradictions and “misquotes” of Jesus is the same reason Ehrman does not interact with Donovan, Bauckham, or Eisenbaum. They want to keep more people in the pews as much as he wants to sell more books. Which makes me wonder if our convictions are shaped more by economy than theology.
In any case, Ehrman has produced another great book that is worth reading and discussing. In my own opinion this is his best book to date and makes me think that there is even better stuff to come from this gifted communicator/teacher.
The original review posted: http://www.ecclesialdreamer.com/?p=1116
”
“Ehrman gives an overview of the historical-critical scholarship of the Bible (particularly the New Testament) that has become accepted by large majority of contemporary academics. It is taught in most universities and seminaries, and learned by most seminarians. And yet, once in the pulpit, pastors shy from teaching it to their congregations--so the vast majority of lay people are unaware of most of its conclusions.
Steve wrote this review Friday, April 17 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
Ehrman: "I have been trying to make serious scholarship on the Bible and earliest Christianity accessible and avilable to people who may be interested in the New Testament but who, for one reason or another, have never heard what scholars have long known and thought about it."
Do pastors shy away from teaching this because they fear they will anger parishioners? Or fear that hearing about it may cause crises of faith? Ehrman says: "My personal view is that a historical-critical aproach to the Bible does not necessarily lead to agnosticism or atheism. It can in fact lead to a more intellighet and thoughtful faith--certainly more intelligent and thoughtful than an approach to the Bible that overlooks all of the problems that historical critics have discovered over the years."”
Displaying 1-10 of 10
