Nov
17
2009
The Ironies of Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted
Michael Kruger, Associate Professor of NTand Academic Dean at RTS in Charlotte, NC, reviews Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted. Here’s the conclusion:
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.
9 Comments
Pwned!
I think Kruger is being very generous/gracious to use the word ‘ironic’.
I come to much the same conclusion when I am reading Erhmnan. The reason I say this is not because I have anything up on Mr. Kruger, but that Erhman’s anti-god bias is plainly obvious. He says he is agnostic and suggests by this that he is mostly neutral on “god.” However, his own analysis of Scripture or other theistic writers leans hard toward the same conclusions that atheists make. Erhman has created for himself an “intellectual safe zone” by being a closest atheist who calls himself an agnostic. Yet, he seems to be quite very sure that “this is all there is” (last page of God’s Problem).
After listening to a number of talks by Ehrman, it seems clear to me that he has a sadistic desire to attack the Bible and the faith of those who believe it, while elevating his own perspective and knowledge. I don’t know Ehrman’s heart, but when I hear him speak (including the sarcastic, haughty humor) I’m reminded of the devil’s question in Genesis 3: “Did God actually say…?” The spirit behind a leader whose life work is destructive (causing doubt about God’s Word) and misleading (promoting his own belief system of skepticism and agnosticism) seems to me to stem from unseen evil principalities. When I hear him speak I think, “It takes no guts whatsoever to raise hard questions. It takes guts to raise hard questions AND do honest work to help answer them.” Ehrman does the wimpy job of raising questions, but wimps out on showing valid answers that have been suggested.
Learn this now, fellow readers: You do not want to be on the receiving end of a theological (or epistemological, or philosophical) smackdown from Mike Kruger. I say this as a friend.
whatever Erhman’s ironies (or own faults) are, he points out so many discrepencies and mistakes in the Gospels in that book that its takes a whole lot of justification and vitreal from Christian reviewers like Kruger to still have us believe that this book is “inerrant.”
If the Bible is still labeled “inerrant” by these guys than that word has no meaning anymore.
[...] HT: Justin Taylor [...]
Kruger=Stud.
Drew, I don’t know how much exposure you’ve had to Ehrman, but his idea of inconsistency is when 2 authors use different words. It really is absurd. By his standard you could never have 2 accurate eyewitness accounts of anything.
Also, your use of “vitriol” to describe Mike Kruger’s incredibly reasoned and detailed analysis of Ehrman makes me wonder if you know what that word means.