Jesus, Interrupted

[Gefra]

I’ve been reading “JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” by Bart Ehrman. He is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He claims that the Bible is riddled with contradictions about who Jesus was and what was the significance of His life. He states that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living at later times and that biblical scholars have been aware of this for many years. He cites chapter and verse when pointing out contradictions in the New Testament and makes a pretty good case for his points.

I would like to know of any reviews of this book by Catholics and their response to his claims.

Thanks,

Gefra

 

[LilyM]

I’ve been reading “JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” by Bart Ehrman. He is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He claims that the Bible is riddled with contradictions about who Jesus was and what was the significance of His life. He states that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living at later times and that biblical scholars have been aware of this for many years. He cites chapter and verse when pointing out contradictions in the New Testament and makes a pretty good case for his points.

I would like to know of any reviews of this book by Catholics and their response to his claims.

Thanks,

Gefra

You get four or five - or twelve - eyewitnesses to ANY incident and get them to report on what they experienced, you’ll find some contradictions. You get a book’s worth of statements that any one person has said throughout a course of three years and GO LOOKING for seeming contradictions and you’ll find 'em.

Doesn’t mean the event didn’t really happen, nor even that the recollections are particularly untrustworthy in spite of some discrepancies - they’re going to happen in any written work. Or that the reported comments are inaccuracte - people WILL say seemingly contradictory things at different times, depending on situation and context they may not really be contradictory.

 

[katy]

There are different emphases for different audiences, and perhaps different events reported that were similar, but not the same. The overall importance of Jesus and what he said and did is consistant. The guy is spouting the same stuff that costs many college freshmen their faith. “Religious studies” is generally done by those with no faith, IMHO.

 

[narrowpath]

Isn’t there more to it than that. If the words of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t there be NO CONTRADICTIONS WHATSOEVER?

 

[Pons]

Not to mention the types of Christians these authors usually have for their audience are the Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Bible Literalist types particularly vulnerable to their attacks. (As with Dan Brown).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve been reading “JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” by Bart Ehrman. He is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He claims that the Bible is riddled with contradictions about who Jesus was and what was the significance of His life.

He states that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living at later times and that biblical scholars have been aware of this for many years.

They have indeed - this really is not news, nor is it a wild & marginal opinion. The consensus is that the NT literature was written between the early 50s, & 120 or so: the earliest book being 1 Thessalonians, the latest being 2 Peter. The dating of each & every book depends upon a variety of evidence, & has been much debated - there is a case for dating all of them before 70 (as the late Bishop John Robinson did in “Redating the New Testament”); while some would date books or parts of books later than 120. Ehrman’s position, from what you report (I’ve not read his work) sounds fairly typical of mainstream NT scholarship.​

For many reasons, this kind of thing can be quite a shock when first one comes across it; shocking as it may well be, ideas of this kind are not plucked out of the air, nor are they put forward for the sake of caiusing controversy: there are reasons behind the conclusions about authorship, dating & unity of books & so forth.

I hope that is some help.

He cites chapter and verse when pointing out contradictions in the New Testament and makes a pretty good case for his points.

I would like to know of any reviews of this book by Catholics and their response to his claims.

Thanks,

Gefra

If you could give a few examples of what Ehrman mentions, maybe they can be discussed.​

 

[Paladin_V]

Isn’t there more to it than that. If the words of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t there be NO CONTRADICTIONS WHATSOEVER?

You are correct.

There aren’t any contradictions in scripture, just seeming contradictions that can be reconciled when the “contradiction” is viewed in light of scripture (as a whole) AND tradition; in light of the fullness of truth.

 

[Mintaka]

Pretty much all of the secular Bible scholars are disgusted with Mr. Ehrman. His academic work, like most academic work on the Bible, was based on the helpfulness of having seeming contradictions and textual variants. These things help the scholar, because they help narrow down what really is being said and meant. But this book of Ehrman’s tells ordinary people that these things are bad and make the Bible useless and ahistorical, instead of interesting and highly valuable for learning all kinds of things.

The religious Bible scholars and theologians of all Christian and Jewish groups are disgusted with Mr. Ehrman, also. He acts as if he’s the first person to discover such seeming contradictions and textual variants, when in fact they’ve been the subject of close spiritual study down the ages. Nobody thinks it’s a contradiction when Mom orders you to “Speak up!” on one occasion and to “Be quiet!” on another, so it’s not surprising that the Word of God would include similar goings-on. All you have to do is try to understand instead of making assumptions.

Mr. Ehrman is happy, because he is making money off the gullible with this non-scholarly tripe, while also keeping the tenure and salary he won by his previous scholarly work. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[COPLAND_3]

If you can provide some of the best so-called contradictions that you can find in that book, I would like to tackle them as a rebuttal. I have already tackled some from Jim Merrit here litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22

 

[AmbroseSJ]

You are correct.

There aren’t any contradictions in scripture, just seeming contradictions that can be reconciled when the “contradiction” is viewed in light of scripture (as a whole) AND tradition; in light of the fullness of truth.

Correct. The Bible is teeming and full of contradictions, historical errors and other anomolies, that are often overlooked, most particularly by Sola-Scriptura believers. John Henry Newman writes in the 1830’s a good summary of some of the most notorious contradictions, and what it means to Catholics.

I HAVE above insisted much upon this point,—that if Scripture contains any religious system at all, it must contain it covertly, and teach it obscurely, because it is altogether most immethodical and irregular in its structure; and therefore, that the indirectness of the Scripture proofs of the Catholic system is not an objection to its cogency, except as it is an objection to the Scripture proofs of every other form of Christianity;

See

Tract 85

It’s not a short or easy read, but well worth it, especially for its reduction of popular protestantism and the Sola Scriptura folks. He wrote this as an Anglican, but it does not in any way contradict the Catholic doctrine.

 

[Gefra]

If you can provide some of the best so-called contradictions that you can find in that book, I would like to tackle them as a rebuttal. I have already tackled some from Jim Merrit here litteralchristianlibrary.wetp…tradictions%22

Ehrman argues that St. Mark’s dating of the crucifixion is in contradiction with St. John’s. He points out that Our Lord was crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover according to St. John, but that He was crucified on the Day of Passover according to St. Mark’s Gospel.

Probably it would be a good idea for you to take a look at the book for yourself since he lays out his case in each chapter.

I appreciate the comments from all, but would still like to know of any reviews of INTERRUPTING JESUS by Catholics who have actually read it.

Thanks,

Gefra

 

[juliamajor]

If you can provide some of the best so-called contradictions that you can find in that book, I would like to tackle them as a rebuttal. I have already tackled some from Jim Merrit here litteralchristianlibrary.wetp…tradictions%22

Ehrman argues that St. Mark’s dating of the crucifixion is in contradiction with St. John’s. He points out that Our Lord was crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover according to St. John, but that He was crucified on the Day of Passover according to St. Mark’s Gospel.

Probably it would be a good idea for you to take a look at the book for yourself since he lays out his case in each chapter.

I appreciate the comments from all, but would still like to know of any reviews of INTERRUPTING JESUS by Catholics who have actually read it.

Thanks,

Gefra

I think it’s rather hysterical all the hype for stuff that has been around and out there for years. I love it when these guys hint that somehow these"truths" have been hidden by some nefarious people! Nonsense! that’s stuff has been out there for years! the difference between Mark and John’s Passion? Well if it’s being hidden they didn’t do a very good job of it. I just did a class on it. John’s gospel is very theological and everything he puts in his gospel, even when out of synch with the Synoptics, has a theological point. Day of Preparation was used because that’s when the lambs were slaughtered for the Passover. and for John the Passion is the main focus of his Gospel.
Ehrman, like many in the Jesus seminar was once a fundamentalist/evangelical- now he’s nothing. such are the dangers of fundamentalist outlook on Scripture.

 

[mvh18]

I’ve been reading “JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” by Bart Ehrman. He is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He claims that the Bible is riddled with contradictions about who Jesus was and what was the significance of His life. He states that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living at later times and that biblical scholars have been aware of this for many years. He cites chapter and verse when pointing out contradictions in the New Testament and makes a pretty good case for his points.

I would like to know of any reviews of this book by Catholics and their response to his claims.

Thanks,

Gefra

Most of the so called contradictions aren’t really contradictions. Different witnesses to an event will have different accounts on what they remembered, and what they thought were the important happenings. The following is supposedly a contradiction in the New Testament:

“And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, ‘THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—Matthew 27:37

“The inscription of the charge against Him read, ‘THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—Mark 15:26

“Now there was also an inscription above Him, ‘THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—Luke 23:38

“Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, ‘JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—John 19:19

Which as you can see is not really a contradiction at all, if the inscription was in fact the last of the four.

Furthermore, you’ll find that these types of arguments are flawed. If the New Testament is full of contradictions, does that supposedly imply that the Gospels were made up? But if they were made up, why do they supposedly contradict each other? Wouldn’t they do a better job and make the four gospels consistent?

 

[Pete_Holter]

If you can provide some of the best so-called contradictions that you can find in that book, I would like to tackle them as a rebuttal. I have already tackled some from Jim Merrit here litteralchristianlibrary.wetp…tradictions%22

Ehrman argues that St. Mark’s dating of the crucifixion is in contradiction with St. John’s. He points out that Our Lord was crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover according to St. John, but that He was crucified on the Day of Passover according to St. Mark’s Gospel.

Probably it would be a good idea for you to take a look at the book for yourself since he lays out his case in each chapter.

I appreciate the comments from all, but would still like to know of any reviews of INTERRUPTING JESUS by Catholics who have actually read it.

Thanks,

Gefra

Greetings Gefra!

Sorry. I am not aware of any Catholic interaction, yet. But Dr. James White begins interacting with Dr. Ehrman’s new book in this video, although he doesn’t get through much material. They also had a debate this past January, free transcript here.

Here are some thoughts from St. John Chrysostom on the specific example you provided:

“And why did they lead Him away there where they were all assembled (cf. Matthew 26:57)? That they might do all things with consent of the chief priests. For he was then high priest, and all were waiting for Christ there, to such a degree did they spend the whole night, and give up their sleep for this object. For neither did they then eat the Passover, but watched for this other purpose. For John, when he had said that ‘it was early,’ added, ‘they entered into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover’ (John 18:28).

“What must we say then? That they ate it on another day, and broke the law, on account of their eager desire about this murder. For Christ would not have transgressed as to the time of the Passover, but they who were daring all things, and trampling under foot a thousand laws. For since they were exceedingly boiling with rage, and having often attempted to seize Him, had not been able; having then taken Him unexpectedly, they chose even to pass by the Passover, for the sake of satiating their murderous lust” (Homily 84 on Matthew).

Comment: Here are two other solutions that he offers from his homilies on John’s Gospel:

“But what is, ‘That they might eat the Passover’ (John 18:28)? For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread. Either he calls the whole feast the Passover, or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated” (Homily 83 on the Gospel of John).

Comment: What’s notable here about his second solution in John’s Gospel – that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day early and reserved His own sacrifice for the Day of Preparation – is that this is essentially the same solution that Pope Benedict offers us in modern times:

“This contradiction seemed unsolvable until a few years ago…

“…the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.

“Jesus truly shed His blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.

“In all likelihood, however, He celebrated the Passover with His disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; He celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

“Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb – no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb He gave Himself, His Body and His Blood. Thus, He anticipated His death in a manner consistent with His words: ‘No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord’ (Jn 10: 18)” (Homily for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, April 5, 2007).

Comment: *Note that Pope Benedict called it a contradiction, but then offered a solution. And, of course, true contradictions admit of no solution, so that we understand him to mean apparent contradiction, which is the only kind found in Sacred Scripture. *

May the LORD be with you!
Pete

 

[patrick457]

Most of the so called contradictions aren’t really contradictions. Different witnesses to an event will have different accounts on what they remembered, and what they thought were the important happenings. The following is supposedly a contradiction in the New Testament:

“And above His head they put up the charge against Him which read, ‘THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—Matthew 27:37

“The inscription of the charge against Him read, ‘THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—Mark 15:26

“Now there was also an inscription above Him, ‘THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—Luke 23:38

“Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, ‘JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS’.”
—John 19:19

Which as you can see is not really a contradiction at all, if the inscription was in fact the last of the four.

Correct. The essential portion of the inscription IMHO is Jesus’ crime of “being the King of the Jews” - or Judeans, if you prefer (‘O Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn’). Now all the Gospels agree on saying that the inscription records Jesus’ “crime”, and they all give very much the same words in Greek:

Matthew: Outos estin Iēsous o basileus tōn Ioudaiōn
Mark: O basileus tōn Ioudaiōn
Luke: O basileus tōn Ioudaiōn outos
John: Iēsous o Nazōraios o basileus tōn Ioudaiōn

Some had attempted to solve this by suggesting that the placard was replaced over and over - but that is unnecessary and would only be tenable if one does a very literalistic reading of the text.