Jesus, Interrupted

Ehrman doesn't include anything that a person interested in the history of Christianity wouldn't discover on the internet in short order, but this book does provide a convenient and entertainingly written package for some of the more well known contradictions found in the New Testament, as well as an interesting inside perspective on the gap between what scholars, including the clergy, believe and what is taught to the average churchgoer by those same clergy.

This book is an excellent resource for someone who has read passages of the Bible, identified contradictions, and been interested how religious scholars address them. Ehrman plainly describes how Christians throughout history have interpreted passages of the Bible that do not align with each other and provides historical context on how and why some of these stories were included in the first place.

It's difficult to say how others might feel upon reading this. I feel that Ehrman's writing is fairly objective and he's honest that he does not believe in Christianity the way he once did, but still cares to study the Bible as a historical document. My biggest takeaway is that being a Christian requires a type of faith that I just don't have. A true believer would read this book and not care that there are contradictions in the Bible– they would remain steadfast in their faith because they believe in god. Ehrman also makes it clear that there are a number of aspects of Christianity that just aren't supported by rational accounts (e.g. Jesus rising from the dead), but believing these things in spite of the evidence is what makes someone a believer.

I can imagine some die-hard Christians reading this, calling it blasphemy, and refusing to finish it. I think that's an unfair assessment as much of what Ehrman describes is just exactly what is written in the Bible or other established historical documents (I think it's fascinating that Ehrman has studied ancient Greek and is able to read some of these documents in their original form). Reading this information and still believing is probably a good sign that you really believe.

If someone is on the fence about Christianity I would guess that reading this book would push you towards the non-believer side of things. If that idea scares you, maybe come back to it after some time. For me, there was not a single passage that made me reconsider my choice to not believe in Christianity.

This was my first book by Ehrman that I've read and I enjoyed his writing style and tone. I would definitely read more of his works. I must admit that I was on the fence about rating this 4 or 5 stars, however, as this was a bit of tough read for me to finish. It's definitely written in an accessible manner, but it still is an academic document about religious history and at times I found it boring. I don't think anyone would be clamoring to finish it after beginning, but I took my time and read it a bit at a time and feel glad that I completed it. Ehrman is himself a well-read person and he has taken the time to review an unbelievable amount of documents, and I think he did his best presenting this information to a wide audience. I'm looking forward to reading more.

Each chapter was written like a scientific paper, which led to little connection between each chapter. Additionally, I don't need to the chapter to tell me what it is going to be about in the first paragraph. I'll figure it out soon enough.

(Ehrman is agnostic now, interesting...)

Notes on my reading:

reading the bible devotionally is completely different from reading it from academic historical point of view (“historical-critical”).

Who were the actual authors?
Are some/all all of the authors not who they claim to be, or are claimed to be?
When did they live?
What were the circumstances under which they wrote?
What issues were they trying to address in their own day?
How were they affected by cultural/historical assumption of their time?
What sources did they have access to?
When were those sources produced?
Could the perspectives of the sources differ?
Could authors have had different perspectives from each other, and from their sources?
Are there internal contradictions?

Irreconcilable differences in Gospels - what day did Jesus die on? When was Jesus “begotten” by God?

Resurrection stories conflict.

Gospel of John vs. “Synoptic” Gospels - John was written last, differs the most. Aims of the authors were different. John has Jesus talking about himself, other Gospels he is talking about the Kingdom of God.

8 of 27 books of New Testament people are pretty sure authors are who they are claimed to be. Other 19 books are basically forgeries.

The longer away in time something was written, the likelier it was to be bogus, or to have a purpose that had nothing to do with Jesus.

Christianity is a religion “about” Jesus, not “of” Jesus.

Jesus was a minor Galilean Jewish apocalyptic prophet. Did not, according to earlier sources, claim to be Son of God - attributed to him later, in John. Taught that the end was near, like many other apocalyptic prophets, and that people should be following God's laws as closely as possible to be included in the coming Kingdom.

“Wild Diversity of early church”

Some thought following Jewish law was still necessary, some thought following Jewish law would doom you to damnation, some thought there were different Gods (gnostics), Roman christians won in the end.

Many other gospels/letters/documents that could just as easily have been included in New Testament. Choice of what to include was political - is different in different churches.