Talk:Jesus, Interrupted

Questionable POV Regarding Scholarly Reception

This article strongly suggests that the scholars in Ehrman's field largely reject the content of his book. I doubt that the scholarly reaction was so negative. That's not much more than a hunch at this point, though, so someone with more time on his hands than me should look into it. Fried Gold (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to find more moderate scholarly reviews of the book as well, but have been unsuccessful. I emailed Dr. Ehrman to see if he knew of any scholarly reviews that were not written by biblical literalists, and he replied that, to his knowledge, there hasn't been any. The strange thing is, if you go to the wiki pages for specific biblical contradictions mentioned by Dr. Ehrman in his book, you'll find that the scholarly consensus about these matters is exactly what he says they are. wagnj1 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article spends more words refuting the book than in describing it. iminy Christmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.214.223 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

It may be that this article was written pre-release and relied on media reviews, but the contents of the book should really be coming from the book. I will begin to work on this shortly. --Ari (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of POV hatchet-job is this? A vague one-sentence description - by a third party! - in the intro, then a string of hostile reviews written by people with a vested interest in the status quo.

How many times do these supposed authorities "[present] an opposing viewpoint" in their writings?

This is not a Wikipedia article but a crude attempt to suppress an author's voice!

Incidentally, I just stumbled upon this shameful excuse for an article. I have no knowledge of this man or his works, but simply recognise in his opponents a classic form of censorship. Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks better, but now all the hostile knee-jerk traditionalist stuff is simply stacked at the end, leaving the casual reader to finish the article with a thoroughly negative impression - one seemingly not warranted by the facts. Why do the the views of religious writers who are fundamentally hostile to modern comparative religion and scientific textual analysis get so much space here? Learned faith is not a valid counterpoint to a reasoned, evidence-base argument. Maybe in a church, but not in the context of an encyclopedia article! Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Problems with the article as It Stands Today (3 December, 2011)

There are two major problems with the article as it stands today, and they are both related:

(1) The last two sentences of the "Reception" section state:

Another criticism raised, which was also raised over "Misquoting Jesus," is that Ehrman implies that the information being presented is new, or groundbreaking. Bishop William H. Willimon says, "He keeps presenting this stuff as if this is wonderful new knowledge that has been kept from you backward lay people and this is the stuff your preachers don't have the guts to tell, and I have."

This is emphatically not the case! Not only does Ehrmann never imply this, but he expressly repudiates any claim of novelty whatsoever. Rather, he claims to be merely passing on to lay readers what scholars have known, and most of them have agreed upon, for a century or two.

Whether this claim is accurate or not, I am not in a position to attest. But that is what he actually says, repeatedly.

(2) The "Reception" section also quotes Michael J. Kruger, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, criticizing the book on the ground (among others) that it "rarely presents an opposing viewpoint." Well, if Ehrmann is in fact presenting material as uncontroversial and long-established as he claims he is, then there should be little need to present opposing views.

So again, I believe the key question is whether Ehrmann's claim to unoriginality is accurate or not. And if it is not, then he not only should be faulted for failing to present contrary views, but for misleading readers concerning the existence of such opposing views!

But it certainly would help greatly to know: which specific claims that Ehrmann presents as uncontroversial are in fact in dispute, and who disputes them, and on what basis.

Ehrman does not assert that the views he presents are subscribed to universally, but he does assert that they are accepted by most scholars in the field. (With the express or implied exception — I forget which — of scholars working from some specific religious starting point that influences — at least in the sight of Ehrmann and others in the mainstream — their interpretations of the available texts and the historical record, and their resulting conclusions.) The article here should mention these claims, and should discuss and evaluate the book both in light of them and in regard to them.

76.114.95.207 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The "Reception" section devotes over half its length to the opinions of two very conservative evangelical (and one apparently very conservative Methodist) theologians who disliked the book, despite the positive reception of the book being far more widespread. What's worse, the fact that positive reviews are quoted, but only in footnotes, implies that this was a deliberate attempt to paint the book in a negative light. I'll hunt down some extensive quotations from the dozens of qualified professionals of numerous theological backgrounds who like the book later, but for now I'm tagging it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone would call Ben Witherington "very conservative". If the positive reception of the book is far more widespread, the article should indicate that, but you will need to supply a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)