Jesus Interrupted–a Revisit

Michael Kruger has copied his review to a blog of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s book, Jesus Interrupted, which I feel is worthy of mention and commending to you here.  The review originally appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal.  The review is an excellent look into what Dr. Ehrman intends and how he actually carries through on his intentions in addition to how well he carries though.

You can look on this blog for my reviews of the book.  The Kruger review is excellent.

Jesus Interrupted Review

Comments on the Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan Declaration is new to me and it is just hot of the presses but has been in the works for some time.

This a stake in the ground for decency, ethics, morality and shall I say holiness.  I say that though I don’t think the American culture know what that is including much of the church in America.  We are a land of hedonism and immorality and the church has been sucked into the strategy.
The Declaration focuses on big issues in our culture:  abortion–murder of babies,  same sex “marriage”, and the founding principles of religious liberty.  Ironically,  it is the view of a mass of Christian thinkers in the USA that we are loosing liberty and freedom of the practice of religion.

Okay, so what is there to say here about the Declaration?  First I like the interview with Dr. Ronald Sider.  Dr. Ronald Sider, a Canadian-born professor of theology at a Pennsylvania seminary and founder of Evangelicals for Social Action.  He gave an interview to Thrasher of a New York blog.

RS: The heart of what you are saying revolves around religious issues. Why should religious ideas form the basis of civil marriage — not marriage in your church or anyone else’s, but civil marriage?

Sider: This is precisely not a religious argument. It’s an argument about what a society needs, to preserve itself, to preserve what is wholesome from generation to generation. The core of that argument is historic, from every civilization.

RS: But in our country, we find that in our Constitution, not in other civilizations. There is a pretty clear argument that denying gays the right to marry is a denial of the equal protection clause of the constitution. In fact, Ted, Olsen, no raging liberal, is getting ready to make that argument federal court.

Sider: You can say what you just said, but you’re not listening to me. My argument was not a religious argument. It is about what marriage means. It’s true, a lot of contemporaries have redefined marriage. Marriage now means an emotional, romantic relationship between people. If that is what marriage is, then it should ought to be available to gays or lesbians. But if marriage is what every culture has always said it was, then it makes no sense to offer it to everyone, and Olsen’s argument doesn’t hold.

 

 

Dr Sider goes on to say about those of a gay persuasion:  ”The constitutional protection of minorities is enormously important. Religious freedom is important, but they are all important. I want gay Americans to be protected by the law. I want an end to gay bashing. I want them to have jobs, and have housing.”  I agree with him on this statement, but I am do not agree with the bending of the definition of marriage that we see in the media and by people with the agenda to change the definition.

Here is a statement by Dr. Mohler on why he signed the Declaration.

Albert Mohler on the Declaration

A link to the Dr. Sider interview.  Link

Manhattan Declaration

See who signed the declaration here and if you agree with it, sign the declaration in the link on the right side of the page.   http://manhattandeclaration.org/list-of-religious-leaders-signatories

More on this declaration later.

Michael Kruger on Bart Ehrman

Great insight into Dr. Bart Ehrman,

In the end, Jesus Interrupted can be best summarized as a book filled with ironies.  Ironic that it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be “right” (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is “right;” ironic that it dismisses Papias with a wave of the hand but presents the Gospel of the Ebionites as if it were equal to the canonical four; and ironic that it declares everyone can “pick and choose” what is right for them, but then offers its own litany of moral absolutes.  Such intellectual schizophrenia suggests there is more going on in Jesus Interrupted than meets the eye.  Though veiled in the garb of scholarship, this book is religious at the core.  Ehrman does not so much offer history as he does theology, not so much academics as he does his own ideology. The reader does not get a post-religious Ehrman as expected, but simply gets a new-religious Ehrman–an author who has traded in one religious system (Christianity) for another (postmodern agnosticism).  Thus, Ehrman is not out to squash religion as so many might suppose.  He is simply out to promote his own.  He is preacher turned scholar turned preacher.  And of all the ironies, perhaps that is the greatest.

From: http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/jesus-interrupted.php

The Jesus Dynasty

I picked up The Jesus Dynasty because as I thumbed through it I saw a very good explanation of why Jesus may have been put to death on a Thursday rather than Friday.  As I read the book I didn’t find other proofs which were as convincing as Dr. James Tabor’s work on Jesus’ burial day.

Dr. Tabor does not like Luke even though Luke based on his own words set out to create one of the best documents on very early church history in The Acts of the Apostles.  Luke’s initial statement in his gospel reads:

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of  the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”

I bring up the Acts of the Apostles because Dr. Tabor references Acts 22 at the beginning of Chapter 16 and states that Luke quoting the Apostle Paul in a speech where he states he was “born in Tarsus” must be wrong based on Jerome’s account (4^th century) which states that Paul was born in Gischala in Galilee.   My first question about his analysis is:  why would you trust a 4^th century writer when the companion of Paul, Luke, is quoting Paul as he speaks in Acts 22 and states that he was born in Tarsus?  It seems that his is not using the standard principles of discovery.  Secondly, does Jerome actually state in his writings that Paul was born in Tarsus?  The best answer I can gather from research is “No.”  Jerome does not say that Paul was born in Tarsus.  He states that Paul grew up in Tarsus.  So, there really is not a conflict or “one’s right and the other is wrong” situation here though Dr. Tabor plainly states that there is a contradiction between Jerome and Luke.   I believe he has an agenda in accepting Jerome over Luke.

Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles several encounters between Paul and the other Apostles (disciples of Jesus) where it is stated that the other Apostles examined Paul and his teachings at Paul’s request to ensure that his understanding aligns with history and their views of Jesus and His message.  Remember that the Apostles were eye witnesses of the life and teachings of Jesus. If Dr. Tabor accepts Luke’s accounts at face value, then he has no bases for saying that Paul created the Christianity that we have today and that it is a radical departure from the message that Jesus and/or the other Apostles taught. If one does a careful analysis of Paul’s writings and those of Jesus, we do not find the contrasts or contradictions which many assert.

Lastly, Dr. Tabor appears to be a more credible archeologist than those men who wrote the Family Tomb of Jesus.   For that reason I do not understand his references to the Talpiot tomb nor do I understand its significance to The Jesus Dynasty.   Though the authors of the Family Tomb of Jesus attempt to associate an ossuary bearing the name of James to the Talpiot tomb, they did not do that in a first attempt.  The Family Tomb work was a “bomb.”  Dr. Tabor would be well advised to only reference credible research and archaeology.

Q, M, and L

On page 152 of Jesus Interrupted, Dr. Ehrman covers the issue of source materials.  Theologians have discerned that there were sources available to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written or memorized before these authors penned their Gospels.   Many theologians accept that there was a Q.  Q stands for Quelle, the German word meaning “source.”  Q is supposed to be one of the sources for Mark.   L is an additional source for the historian, Luke, and M is an additional source for the writer Matthew.

We know that Dr. Luke used every accurate source available to him because of what he said at the beginning of the Gospel he penned:  “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Note that Dr. Luke indicates here that “many have undertaken to draw up and account of the events…”  No one today denies that there were other writings out there about the life of Jesus.  Obviously, many of them did not make it into the canon of scriptures.  Dr. Luke though points out that he investigated everything from the beginning, ordered the information, and presented it accurately so that Theophilus is confident that he has an accurate account of what he had been taught.

Dr. Ehrman concludes on page 152, “the earlier the better.” I just pointed out the Dr. Luke used sources.  These sources were all, no doubt, eyewitness of Jesus and the events of His life and serve to strengthen the case that the data in the Gospels comes largely from eyewitness testimony.  Also we must give Dr. Luke credit for his approach.  He states that the data he is using “were handed down” from the first eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus’ life.  He “investigated everything.”  I can only assume that he verified the data he was handed.  His writing was an attempt to put the events and teachings in order.

From his own writings, Dr. Luke states that his approach is to investigate and verify sources and present those as accurately as possible so that his audience has a written record of what they have already been taught.

We cannot put our hands on “Q,” “M,” or “L” today—they do not exist in hardcopy.  But we can conclude that there were many eyewitnesses to the person and life of Jesus—both antagonists and protagonists.  Both Dr. Luke and the Apostle Paul note in their writings that they used “sources” who were eyewitnesses to Jesus.  Dr. Luke’s attempt was to accurately record the data which eyewitnesses had handed down.

Liar, Lunatic, or Lord

Contrast Dr. Ehrman’s take on Jesus with that of C. S. Lewis who said you can’t just say that Jesus is an ordinary man.  He is one of three a liar, a lunatic or he is Lord of life.

We have found that Dr. Ehrman conveniently covers up the truth by not bringing to light all of the relevant data.   He is covering the data with a bias.

Dr. Ehrman entitles the 5^th chapter of Jesus Interrupted, Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?  Finding the Historical Jesus.  It appears that this title is a sneer toward what he perceives his evangelical roots to be.  The liar, lunatic or lord concept was popularized by a famous Englishman, C. S. Lewis in a statement about the person of Jesus and what is recorded of Him in the Greek New Testament.

Ehrman, however, simply notes this trilemma and adds “legend” which is his main thesis for the data widely accepted by most Christians as the best sources for Jesus’ teachings and the events of His life.  To bring you up to speed on what C. S. Lewis stated I have included the quote here.  Realize that at this point in Lewis’ life, he assumes much of the recorded data in the New Testament to be true.  He was not raised with that view.  In fact, it appears that he was an atheist who came very hesitantly into taking a more reverent view of Jesus.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

To understand that these are our choices; you must put this trilemma in the context of the data of the New Testament.  Some today will not give the documentation of Jesus a fair shake and are not open to the possibility that Jesus even existed as a historical person.  Dr. Ehrman does believe that Jesus existed but looses focus on the closest and, what are I believe, the most accurate sources for Jesus, the Gospels.  He makes an assumption that other sources should be given equal weight.  These sources only muddy the water.  Dr. Ehrman and other modern scholars of any persuasion cannot retrieve in the 21^st century the context in which the 4 or the many gospels were written and the reaction of the “500” witnesses (I Corinthians 15) or other 1^st century Christians to those gospels.  The data is simply not available now.  Therefore,  the best approach is to accept the canon of New Testament scriptures realizing that the “experts” with relevant data developed that canon.  Modern “experts” do not have the resources that 1^st and 2^nd century “experts” had available to them.

The issue is not church father, Eusebius (3^rd century) vs. Water Bauer, an 18^th century theologian (Chapter 5).  What really matters is recorded in the Greek New Testament, and we don’t need the early church fathers to understand the historical Jesus.  We have the best documentation in the New Testament from the mouths of eyewitnesses.  These are the best sources because they are earliest and closest to the actual historical Jesus and the events of His life.

A Mass of Variant Views, Part 2

Now Back  Dr. Ehrman and Jesus Interrupted, on page 178 Dr.Ehrman says that he can’t even deal with an “event” such as a resurrection from the dead because he is a historian only.   So, though he counters some of what he reads in the Gospels about the resurrection, he is admitting, from a historical perspective (which is his domain now), that a historian such as he cannot deal with something like a resurrection from the dead.

But people like you and me can examine the Gospels along with the letter to the Corinthians and come away with our own judgments about the evidence presented there.   Those 500 people who saw Jesus after he died, was buried and subsequently raised from the dead, were Jews—Jews steeped in Jewish history and tradition.  Yet these Jews forsook their culture and history to follow this Jesus.  And not only did they reject their heritage in favor of the statements of Jesus, much of the world of that day became followers of this same Jesus.

This Galilean and his Galilean disciples, unlearned though they were, literally turned the then know world upside down and paid the ultimate price.  They all died martyrs’ deaths.

Just because Jesus’ story was told throughout the civilized world of the time and that he greatly impacted that world, is justification for looking into the claims of this lowly Galilean who claimed to be a great God and fulfiller of 300 Jewish prophesies.

Do you want to look into his claims?  John 10 (Gospel of John, chapter 10) is a great place to start looking.

A Mass of Variant Views, part 1

On page 177 of Jesus Interrupted, Dr. Ehrman says that “the earliest reference to Jesus’ tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years later by someone living is a different country who had heard that it was empty.”

This is not true and I believe that Dr. Ehrman knows that the statement is not true.   Dr. Ehrman knows that Paul wrote much earlier than Mark.  He dealt extensively with the resurrection data and yet he did not mention Paul’s documentation in I Corinthians.  That documentation is the most important documentation because it is much earlier than Mark and for other reasons.

The Apostle Paul writes about the resurrected Jesus in I Corinthians and perhaps in other letters also.  The I Corinthians documentation is especially important because Paul is not the source of the evidence. Followers of Jesus early on, within 10 years, developed a creed which they repeated to one another and perhaps in worship services.  This creed summarized specific data about the life of Jesus Christ that they wanted to remember.  Here are the statements in that creed from one of the latest English translations based on the largest body of manuscripts available today.

that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

that he was buried,

that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

and that he appeared to Peter,

and then to the Twelve.

after that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

then he appeared to James,

then to all the apostles

The first generation Jesus followers were quoting this creed to one another with a few years after Jesus ascended.  That this is a creed from these followers is well documented.  And the text of I Corinthians 15 indicates that:  “for I delivered to you as of first importance what I also receive.”  Paul said this primary statement he received from other believers, probably through his visits to Jerusalem, and passed it on to the Corinthians just as he had received it from the early Jesus followers.

This creed documents several essential beliefs about Jesus.  Jesus died for the sins of humanity. Jesus was buried in a grave by Joseph of Arimethea.  He was then raised from the dead three days after he was put in the grave in fulfillment of His own prophesy and of Old Testament prophesies.   He made several appearances after His resurrection. The most phenomenal appearance was to a group of 500 hundred believer/followers at one point.  According to Paul, most of those 500 were still alive as eyewitnesses to the life and post-resurrection appearance of Jesus.  The point that can be made here is that these 500 people could be contacted because they were still alive to get first hand information about Jesus’ appearance.

So this was a significant omission from the book and I can only conclude that it was omitted because it does not support Dr. Ehrman’s theses.

Mood and Conjecture

In Jesus Interrupted, page 102: “John and Matthew were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels?”   Because they were not written to you, a person in the 20^th century and they were written by two different men to very different audiences and cultures.  That is why they are different.  They used different teachings of Jesus to support the message they conveyed.  Matthew is more of a synoptic gospel, i.e., a chronology if teachings and events where John’s focus was more towards the identity of the person of Jesus and was written to a Jewish community.

By the way,  I need to note Ehrman’s admission on the last page of the book in a footnote (p. 292) “I am not claiming that the message of any book of the Bible is self-interpreting an that its meaning is somehow obvious on a simple reading—that somehow the meaning inheres in the words of the texts.  Texts don’t tell us their meaning.  They have to be interpreted, and they are always interpreted by living, breathing human beings with loves, hates, biases, prejudices, worldviews, fears, hopes, and everything else that makes us human.  All of these factors affect how texts are interpreted, and they explain why intelligent people can have such radically different interpretations of the same text.  Even so, some texts, interpreted according to standard practices that we use to interpret, are more obviously relevant and germane to our human condition today than others.”