I just finished reading a tremendous review of Bart Ehrman’s latest book, Jesus Interrupted, by Michael Kruger. I would highly recommend it. The last paragraph is literary gold in my book. It’s one of those summary paragraphs that I would have loved to have penned myself.
HT: Justin Taylor
Thinking to Believe 
November 19, 2009 at 11:22 am
Very good review. For me, I like the paragraph reviewing Chapter 8.
The last paragraph is good also, however, he does wax “personal” by using words like schizophrenia and essentially diagnoses Ehrman’s motives for writing his book. Had you written that last paragraph, you would leave that out, correct?
LikeLike
November 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I’m not so sure I would change it. I don’t have a problem with Kruger describing Bart’s intellectual contradictions as “intellectual schizophrenia.” It is not an accusation that Ehrman himself is schizophrenic, but rather his claims. For example, in his second debate with Mike Licona on the resurrection Ehrman was emphatic that he’s not trying to prove the resurrection is false, but merely that even if it is true, it is not susceptible to historical proof. He says it’s a theological interpretation only. But on the other hand he claims that it was his own historical investigation of the resurrection claim that forced him to give up his belief in the resurrection. So on the one hand he claims that the resurrection is not susceptible to historical investigation, but on the other hand he claims to have investigated it historically. On the one hand he claims that historical analysis cannot say whether it happened or not, but on the other hand his historical analysis forced him to conclude that it did not happen. If historical research is able to demonstrate that the resurrection did not happen, then by what principle can he say it cannot be used to demonstrate that it did? It reminds me of those who claim intelligent design is not science because it is not testable, but then go on to claim that they have proven it false. I don’t think Ehrman is purposely engaging in double-speak, but he often does.
I’ve used a similar term in describing pluralists who want to say we can’t believe our religion is any more true than our neighbor’s, and yet in practice we are supposed to act as though our religion is true by worshipping Jesus as if He is God and the only Savior of the world. I call that “religious schizophrenia.” It’s an assessment of the claim, not the person making it.
As for diagnosing Ehrman’s motives, the only place I see where he might be guilty of that is when he said Ehrman is “out to promote his own” religion. But given the abundance of evidence, I think this is accurate! Ehrman has written quite a number of books promoting his views on religion, and engages in a lot of debates in order to do the same. He wants to evangelize Christians against their faith, in favor of his own views. I don’t think that is disputable, otherwise his book-writing and debates become inexplicable. And if you read his works and listen to his debates, it is pretty obvious that he promotes his anti-Christian views with religious fervor. If you have ever heard him debate, apart from pounding the podium, you would think he was a preacher!
Other than that one sentence, the rest of the eyebrow-raising comments Kruger makes are simply reflective assessments of Ehrman’s work. And I think they are right on target. Ehrman is not just presenting history, but his own ideological views. So do Christians, but the difference is that Ehrman wants people to think that he is just providing objective facts. He’s not. Kruger is not charging Ehrman with dishonesty or anything like that. He’s simply making observations about his presentation: style and content. It is filled with ideology, filled with contradictions, and presented with religious fervor.
With all that said, when I write, I try to avoid emotionally-laden language as much as possible. While I think Kruger’s assessment is correct, it could have been worded in a less emotionally-laden way. I would have tried to do so.
Jason
LikeLike
November 19, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Oh, I don’t disagree with the review — it’s right up my alley! 😉 I just thought given our past dialog you might want to tone down the personal stuff. One can write a scathing review of a book without assessing motives or using easy-to-be-misinterpreted words like schizophrenia.
Again, I don’t have any problem with the review. That’s life in the big city. 🙂
LikeLike