Ehrman, Interrupted - A resource on Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted

Contents:

1. Ehrman on The Colbert Report
2. Ehrman on the divinity of Christ?
3. Dr James White's video response to Jesus, Interrupted
4. Professor Ben Witherington's Detailed Analysis of Jesus, Interrupted
5. Professor Darrell L. Bock's brief response and thoughts
   

1. Ehrman on The Colbert Report

Ehrman recently released a new book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). An amazing title.

To start off with something a little lighter - Ehrman appears on The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert to promote the book:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

2. Ehrman on the Divinity?

Having read a lot of Ehrman's work, I find it odd that he is now arguing that the early traditions of Jesus did not believe him to be divine. In the interview he states, "Jesus who is portrayed as a human Messiah in the earliest parts of Christianity" For example, the earliest writings we have on Jesus portray him as divine. We have the creed in Philippians 2 which scholars believe pre-dates any other preserved Christian text. In fact, Ehrman argues this point in his 2003 book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code.

For Paul—and presumably for the Philippians to whom he wrote—Christ was “in the form” of God and was, in some sense, equal with God, even though he became human.
Similar teachings can be found in other writings of the New Testament. One of Jesus’ common designations throughout these writings is “Son of God.” This is scarcely an epithet that came to be applied to Jesus on the basis of a close vote at the Council of Nicea hundreds of years later! Our earliest Gospel, that of Mark, begins by announcing its subject matter: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God” (Mark 1:1).
p.16

But wait, there is more:

"...the Gospels of the New Testament portray him as human as much as they portray him as divine;"
p.16

"This view of Jesus as divine is not restricted to Paul and the Gospels, however. It is the common view held among Christian writers of the early centuries."
p.17

This interview and what Ehrman has previously stated are difficult to reconcile.

In regard to the claim that the synoptic gospels do not present a divine Jesus, Dr James White has recommended the book Lord of Glory - A Study of the Designations of our Lord in the New Testament with Especial Reference to His Deity by Benjamin B. Warfield. The book may be purchased here, or freely (and legally) downloaded here.


3. Dr James White video response to Jesus, Interrupted

Dr James White addresses Ehrman's claims in Jesus, Interrupted including the issue raised by Ehrman with Colbert:

Dr James R. White - Ehrman vs. Luke and Mark

4. Professor Ben Witherington's Analysis of Jesus, Interrupted

Ben Witherington III is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is author of a number of good books on the historical Jesus (and Paul) among others.

His two part analysis may be found on his blog:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 (Coda)


5. Professor Darrell L. Bock's short Analysis

Darrell L. Bock is the Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Bock is the author of a number of great books - his most famous among laymen being his Breaking the Da Vinci Code.

His short analysis can be found here

Jay Smith vs Adnan Rashid: Muhammad in the Bible?

A great debate between Adnan and Jay. It is clear that the Qur'an (and this Adnan's claims) do not have a leg to stand on. Jay debates rather well, throwing the claim back in the Muslim corner - if you want to accept that this is Muhammad then you must accept what the Bible says about that person.

Rant on Wikipedia and Biblical Scholarship

To declare my agenda - I am in a ranting mood.

I have been working on a research project on the use of biblical interpretation in the Jewish Sectarians at Qumran. (I.e. the people from the place where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.) I decided to check out what the Wikipedia article had to say on the topic (yes, a very scholarly resource!) and to my surprise - it was terrible. Okay, I lie - it was not to my surprise.

This brings me to the question - can Wikipedia be trusted on issues of Biblical scholarship?

The answer is a big NO.

The articles and their use/abuse of scholarship is simply disgusting. I turned to the article on Pesher. It only scratches on the surface of what Pesharim is but - bam - we have time for a massive chunk on "Barbara Thiering's Interpretation". Nevermind the fact that no one other than Thiering agrees with Thiering, we will present it as a salient approach to the topic.

If you were to turn to the long standing Gospel of Mark page prior to a few recent edits - you would go away thinking that everyone believes Mark was written after 135AD. In reality, I can only think of one person who believes that (i.e. Detering) but I am sure there are a few others out there. And just a little note - if anyone has actually read Detering's building up of this thesis in the infamous Journal of Higher Criticism you would make me proud if you could resist laughing. Simply dismissing history because, umm? My thesis wouldn't work without doing such - isn't an all too sound approach. But I do not count myself Journal of Higher Criticism or even Jesus Seminar material.

[NB: If I am ever in desperate need of quick cash I may become worthy of such with the publication of my new thesis 'Elements of Michael Bay filmography in the Synoptic Gospels: A New Perspective'. In short, I clearly idenfy where the authors of Luke & Matthew do not just source from Mark and Q but also incorporate narrative elements of Transformers (2007) and The Island (2005). I am sure that if I were to run into problems in claiming that the New Testament was only written in 2008 Detering could help me out.

And just a further note - even though I do not agree with the majority of what I have read with said authors, I see no reason to impede on their right to do such. My belief is simply that when their view is propagated - it should be done so with consideration where it stands as a fringe form of scholarship.]

Honestly, from the multitude of Wikipedia articles I have visited you would be convinced that- the author of John was a Pythagorean because he mentioned the number "153"; Paul was a Gnostic because - well, someone on a website said so; Bart D Ehrman shares the views of every radical scholar (whether it be associating him with the Jesus Seminar or agreeing with Pagels); scholars are convinced of Jesus' non-existence; the original orthodoxy was Gnostic; etc, etc.

Wikipedians have a serious problem - they take fringe scholarship, present it as the academic consensus, and then take it a step further and add their own 'and this disproves Christainity/the Bible/etc' hypothesis summary. In the end, we end up with an unscholarly and unsound opinion built on what is generally unsound and fringe pseudo-scholarship.

/rant

The 'New' Atheist's Questionable History

A video by Dr John Dickson regarding the 'New Atheist's' use and abuse of historical evidence:

Dr John Dickson's article of a similar nature can be found here.

Does the God of Christianity exist, and what difference does it make? - William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Den

Islamic Higher Criticism of Luke

A few objections that were raised with me, copied from the infamous AC.

Who wrote Luke?

Claim:

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm

If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.

Did he live for 200 years?

Response:

Here, the claim is that the Gospel of Luke was written in either the 2nd or 4th century because - well, they identified two Theophilus' whom were alive in those periods. The arbitrary nature of this claim is simply laughable. How do we know it wasn't talking about Theophilus Lindsey (1723–1808)? Or some pre-Christian Theophilus? It seems that this very thorough investigative technique of typing 'Theophilus' into the New Advent search was sufficient to expose the heavly guarded secrets of the Roman Catholic Church.

Just to clarify - there is absolutely no reason to suggest that those two (of many) Theophilus' are whom the gospel of Luke was written to and for. Similarly, some reasons against the arbitrary dating would be that we physically have manuscript evidence of the Gospel of Luke dating to the 2nd half of the 2nd century (e.g. P4 & P75).

Pathetic Polemics: literary styles of the Bible

The state of Islamic polemics against Christianity is usually pathetic at best. Here is a clear example by 'Yahya Ahmed' in their article Carm.org agrees with the Quran on the Bible's corruption.

The argument:

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-" (Quran 4:157)

Conjecture i.e Guesswork, fiction.

The above Quranic verse says that whoever differs in the matter of crucifixion and agrees that Christ (pbuh) was crucified are actually following conjecture(Guesswork,fiction).

See how Carm.org confirms the Quranic verse.

"The Bible contains many different styles of writing such as poetry, narration, fiction, history, law, and prophecy and must be interpreted in context of those styles. It is the source of the Christian religion in that the Bible contains the words of God and how the Christian is to apply the words of God to his life."

Response:

First things first. Does anyone other than Yahya see how the quote from Carm.org confirms the Qur'anic claim that:

1. Jesus was not crucified?
2. The Bible is corrupted?
   

The Carm.org quote says nothing of Jesus' crucifixion or Biblical corruption - and if you were to read the site an honest individual would struggle to claim the authors hold such positions.

To examining the quote. It seems that Yahya is attempting to persuade us that Carm.org is claiming the Bible is fiction. Even a cursory reading of the quote will not leave such a nonsensical belief in someone's mind - but alas, it is the deceptive meaning Yahya finds himself propagating.

The quote is rather clear- the bible contains "different styles of writing". No one can argue with that. As mentioned there is "poetry" such as is found in the Psalms, and there is "fiction" such as the parables. Although the parables were factually told the narrative recounted by Jesus is fiction - invented to illustrate a point.

I do not believe I have to comment any further. The pathetic nature of such dishonest attacks on Christianity, the Bible and apologists is what I have assuredly come to expect.