In Jesus, Interrupted Bart Ehrman lays bare many contradictions in the New Testament and explains why they exist. Although many people are familiar with the stories that make up the Bible, a historical perspective of the text is one only found in academia. Ehrman presents an understanding of the Bible based on the historical-critical method. This view of the Bible is accepted by a wide variety of scholars and taught in seminaries yet it is not communicated to Christian communities or the public at large.
The starting point for Jesus, Interrupted is for Ehrman to highlight some of the key contradictions found in the New Testament. He then uses the discrepant accounts to tell us something interesting about the motivations and beliefs of the various authors. For example, the birth of Jesus is only described in two of the Gospels – Luke and Matthew but the accounts diverge. Luke has the more familiar story; Mary and Joseph are living in Nazareth when Mary finds herself pregnant. Before she gives birth a census is ordered and every man has to return to his ancestor’s town - Bethlehem for Joseph. They can’t find a place to stay and Jesus ends up being born in a stable. Later, the new family returns to Nazareth where Jesus grows up. Matthew has a different take; Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem where Jesus is born. Visiting wise men that followed a star from the East come to see the new King of the Jews. King Herod then orders a mass slaughter of all infant boys but Joseph is forewarned and flees with Mary and Jesus to Egypt. After Herod has died they return but this time to live in Nazareth where Jesus is raised. Apart from the historical difficulties (there was no such census or infanticide), both accounts are clearly contradictory. They also tell their virgin birth story for different reasons, the Gospel of Matthew is trying to fulfill prophecy while the Gospel of Luke is trying to emphasise that Jesus is the son of God.
After explaining several more significant contradictions between the New Testament writers Ehrman then details the different viewpoints that each author had and their varying approaches to the Christian faith. Paul, writing first, emphasises that salvation is through belief in the resurrection of Jesus not works. Paul goes so far as to say that those following the Jewish laws may be putting themselves at risk by believing in alternate paths to God. Paul believes that the apocalypse will soon occur and everyone should be on the side of Jesus if they want to be rewarded by God. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus preaches an imminent apocalypse where God’s kingdom will come to Earth and overthrow all evil. Jesus is not divine but is the ‘Son of Man’ who will play an important role in the Utopian theocracy. Jesus dies to pay for everyone’s sins and to bring God to the masses. In the Gospel of Luke the emphasis of Jesus’ death is not on atonement but on innocence. Jesus, the literal son of God (not Man), is completely innocent and his unwarranted execution is symbolic of all human sin. The only way to God is to repent for your sins, not by paying for them by sacrifice, but by asking God for forgiveness. This is a judgment against the Jewish system of worship. In contrast, the Gospel of Matthew argues that Christians must follow all the Jewish laws if they want to be accepted by God. This gospel contains the story of the goats and sheep where the righteous but unbelieving sheep are allowed into heaven whereas the believing goats are barred from entering (sorry, couldn’t help myself). Matthew is also terribly keen to use prophecy to show Jesus had been sent by God. In this Gospel Jesus refuses to do miracles which might offer proof of his divine nature. The last Gospel written is John’s and by this time it was clear that the ‘immanent apocalypse’ predicted by Jesus was not going to occur. The interpretation given in this Gospel is that Jesus was a pre-existing divine being, ‘the word made flesh’. There is no virgin birth or baptism; instead Jesus does miracles to prove he is God (signs, so-called). His message is not that the Kingdom of God is coming to Earth, but that we must get to the Kingdom by being ‘born from above’. If we accept God and are ‘born again’ we will get to heaven after death. As can be seen the narratives in the New Testament vary widely in their messages. Ehrman does a great job of explaining all the contradictions between the different accounts and the reasons why the authors thought the way they did.
The most interesting chapter for me was the one on the historical Jesus; Ehrman starts off by talking about the sources. The Gospels are the best sources as there are multiple accounts of the same story, unfortunately they were written by neither eyewitnesses, nor contemporaries (35 – 65 years after Jesus’ death). They are also wildly inconsistent, not independent, and not averse to making up stories (e.g., the virgin narrative). Paul never met Jesus and claimed only to see him in a vision, his writings also vary with the Gospel accounts significantly. When we look outside the New Testament we find that Jesus appeared to be completely insignificant in his time. In the century after his death Ehrman finds two compelling sources that mention Jesus. One is a Roman source from 115CE where Tacitus explains that the troublesome Christians take their name from “Christus” and the other is the Jewish historian Josephus who in 90CE wrote a passage about Jesus and the Christian movement that occurred after his crucifixion. After considering all this Erhman thinks that we can build a realistic picture of the historical Jesus. Jesus was most likely a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who preached the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God and the removal of all evil. Upon arriving in Jerusalem with a small band of followers he annoyed the local Jewish authorities (possibly causing a ruckus at the temple and/or blasphemy) and was handed over to the Roman authorities for execution. I found Ehrmen to be compelling enough of these points to be convinced of this part of his case. He does stretch it a bit further getting into some details about what Jesus probably taught, but given that I’d just read the previous chapters about how the Gospel authors were using the story of Jesus to make their own theological points this part of the book rings a bit hollow.
Overall, a fascinating read into the history of the New Testament. Unfortunately, Ehrman is not the best writer so I give it 8/10.
June 03, 2010
May 29, 2010
Barbarians in the Desert
I don't agree with any of the commentators, but I thought it was an interesting discussion.
May 28, 2010
Could you patent the sun?
One of the biggest enemies facing critical thinking and scepticism is that of personal bias. Bias is extremely easy to spot in other people, but notoriously difficult to spot in yourself. No one likes to think that they may be biased but everyone is, in one way or another. Bias often appears in science denialism where someone may be religiously biased towards a Biblical interpretation of the fossil evidence (for example) rather than towards the scientific explanation. The best we can do about our biases is recognise them and be extra vigilant when we come across evidence that conforms to our biased pre-judgements. Because bias has such an affect on our interpretation of evidence, scientists especially should try to limit the influence of such outside factors on their impartial research. Yet we see precisely the opposite occurring. As research and industry snuggle into a cosy relationship, scientists have become enamoured with their commercial partners.
The commercialisation of research has exploded in the fields of biomedical science and biotechnology, with industry poised to make millions, scientists are all too happy to take a cut of the action. However, money is a powerful motivator and researchers now have an added incentive to find certain result. The result which favours whatever corporation provides the funding. If scientists are being influenced by their source of funding, then it should be apparent in their results. Industry funded projects should find positive results more often than non-profit funding. Indeed, taking the example of pharmaceutical research, that is what we find.
Many scientific journals require the submitting authors to declare any conflicts of interest, for example being funded by the same company who owns the patent on the drug in question. Several statistical analyses have been done on the outcomes of these studies and the results should not be surprising to anyone who understands the effects of bias. In 2001 an analysis of 314 drug trials found that non-profit funded research was 3.5 times more likely to find a negative result than industry sponsored trials1. A 2002 study of 159 articles in the British Medical Journal, which requires that funding be declared, found that the authors' conclusions were significantly more positive in trials funded by for profit organisations compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48, P=0.014)2. A 2004 study showed that in 158 drug trials published in five leading medical journals results favoured industry funded studies by an odds ratio of 1.93. Finally, in 2003 a review selected 37 of the most rigorous studies and pooled their data. They found a statistically significant odds ratio of 3.6 favouring industry funded research4. This review also found that industry funding was associated with restriction on publication and data sharing if the results were negative.
One point to make about these analyses is that they are correlative only, causation could not be determined. Although the quality of the studies was controlled for (often poorer quality in industry funded trials) one possible explanation is that industry interests somehow pick pharmaceuticals that are more likely to succeed in trials. I can’t imagine how they would know beforehand which drugs have better prospects, but it is a possibility. More likely, however, is that the scientists performing these studies are influenced by the commercial factors at play in their research. These results are very reminiscent of ‘tobacco science’ where, for example, 94% of industry funded inquiry found no harm from second-hand smoke compared to just 13% of non-profit funded research. If correct, this interpretation is quite troubling. First, it means that consumers are being bombarded by new pharmaceuticals which are of questionable value over the old versions and in some cases, downright dangerous. Second, the reputation of science for impartiality and following evidence is being ruined by commercial interest by both outside companies and the scientists themselves. When the commercial bias of scientists is revealed, say through a drug recall or hidden financial contributions, the public starts becoming suspicious of these intellectual elites. In fact, the commercialisation of research could be contributing to the distrust of science, the growing interest in alternative medicine, and the rejection of genetic engineering.
Believe it or not there was a time when industry and academia where more or less separate. Scientists with relevant expertise might be given an honorarium to help overcome a particular problem or speak on a certain topic, but that was about it. Funding was largely provided by governments and scientists were free to explore myriad lines of inquiry, whether it might lead to a practical application or not. Even when there research could be commercialised, the scientists themselves would rarely have much to do with it. Their results were given away into the public domain. In 1954, Jonas Salk developed his vaccine against polio, when asked whether he would patent it he found the idea ridiculous replying, “Could you patent the sun?” Unfortunately, this attitude is found rarely in the field of biotechnology. Many exotic genes and interesting methods are often patented by the researchers who first discover them either preventing further inquiry or driving the cost of research even higher. This also makes the funding of science less attractive to the public sector that now sees less return for its investment.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions for the problem. I just think the commercialisation of research makes an important contribution to the growth of science denialism and was worth highlighting. Patent law clearly needs a complete overall. I dislike attempts to own parts of nature - “to patent the sun” - but companies do need protection for their intellectual property. Similarly, industry funding research is having a negative impact on the impartiality of science, but there is no denying the benefits that have emerged from such partnerships. Perhaps blinding individual scientists to the source of their funding and preventing patents on natural products could go some way to removing this troubling commercial bias from academic scientists.
1. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract. 2001 Dec;18(6):565-8.
2. Lise L Kjaergard & Bodil Als-Nielsen. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249 ( 3 August )
3. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80.
4. Justin E. Bekelman, AB; Yan Li, MPhil; Cary P. Gross, MD Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review JAMA. 2003;289:454-465
The commercialisation of research has exploded in the fields of biomedical science and biotechnology, with industry poised to make millions, scientists are all too happy to take a cut of the action. However, money is a powerful motivator and researchers now have an added incentive to find certain result. The result which favours whatever corporation provides the funding. If scientists are being influenced by their source of funding, then it should be apparent in their results. Industry funded projects should find positive results more often than non-profit funding. Indeed, taking the example of pharmaceutical research, that is what we find.
Many scientific journals require the submitting authors to declare any conflicts of interest, for example being funded by the same company who owns the patent on the drug in question. Several statistical analyses have been done on the outcomes of these studies and the results should not be surprising to anyone who understands the effects of bias. In 2001 an analysis of 314 drug trials found that non-profit funded research was 3.5 times more likely to find a negative result than industry sponsored trials1. A 2002 study of 159 articles in the British Medical Journal, which requires that funding be declared, found that the authors' conclusions were significantly more positive in trials funded by for profit organisations compared with trials without competing interests (mean difference 0.48, P=0.014)2. A 2004 study showed that in 158 drug trials published in five leading medical journals results favoured industry funded studies by an odds ratio of 1.93. Finally, in 2003 a review selected 37 of the most rigorous studies and pooled their data. They found a statistically significant odds ratio of 3.6 favouring industry funded research4. This review also found that industry funding was associated with restriction on publication and data sharing if the results were negative.
One point to make about these analyses is that they are correlative only, causation could not be determined. Although the quality of the studies was controlled for (often poorer quality in industry funded trials) one possible explanation is that industry interests somehow pick pharmaceuticals that are more likely to succeed in trials. I can’t imagine how they would know beforehand which drugs have better prospects, but it is a possibility. More likely, however, is that the scientists performing these studies are influenced by the commercial factors at play in their research. These results are very reminiscent of ‘tobacco science’ where, for example, 94% of industry funded inquiry found no harm from second-hand smoke compared to just 13% of non-profit funded research. If correct, this interpretation is quite troubling. First, it means that consumers are being bombarded by new pharmaceuticals which are of questionable value over the old versions and in some cases, downright dangerous. Second, the reputation of science for impartiality and following evidence is being ruined by commercial interest by both outside companies and the scientists themselves. When the commercial bias of scientists is revealed, say through a drug recall or hidden financial contributions, the public starts becoming suspicious of these intellectual elites. In fact, the commercialisation of research could be contributing to the distrust of science, the growing interest in alternative medicine, and the rejection of genetic engineering.
Believe it or not there was a time when industry and academia where more or less separate. Scientists with relevant expertise might be given an honorarium to help overcome a particular problem or speak on a certain topic, but that was about it. Funding was largely provided by governments and scientists were free to explore myriad lines of inquiry, whether it might lead to a practical application or not. Even when there research could be commercialised, the scientists themselves would rarely have much to do with it. Their results were given away into the public domain. In 1954, Jonas Salk developed his vaccine against polio, when asked whether he would patent it he found the idea ridiculous replying, “Could you patent the sun?” Unfortunately, this attitude is found rarely in the field of biotechnology. Many exotic genes and interesting methods are often patented by the researchers who first discover them either preventing further inquiry or driving the cost of research even higher. This also makes the funding of science less attractive to the public sector that now sees less return for its investment.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions for the problem. I just think the commercialisation of research makes an important contribution to the growth of science denialism and was worth highlighting. Patent law clearly needs a complete overall. I dislike attempts to own parts of nature - “to patent the sun” - but companies do need protection for their intellectual property. Similarly, industry funding research is having a negative impact on the impartiality of science, but there is no denying the benefits that have emerged from such partnerships. Perhaps blinding individual scientists to the source of their funding and preventing patents on natural products could go some way to removing this troubling commercial bias from academic scientists.
1. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract. 2001 Dec;18(6):565-8.
2. Lise L Kjaergard & Bodil Als-Nielsen. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002;325:249 ( 3 August )
3. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):477-80.
4. Justin E. Bekelman, AB; Yan Li, MPhil; Cary P. Gross, MD Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review JAMA. 2003;289:454-465
May 27, 2010
Ulster Museum to Promote Creationism?
Nelson McCausland, culture minister for Norhtern Ireland has asked Ulster Museum to put up displays on Creationism. Creationism is the Biblical based view that the Earth was created October 23rd, 4004 BCE. It is anti-science in the extreme and not something a museum ought to be promoting. Guardian covers the story.
May 26, 2010
Buried chest high
A very powerful poem written by an ex-Muslim YouTube user. Some of the images may be disturbing.
May 25, 2010
Dr. Andrew Wakefield in Comic Form
A new 15 page comic covers the MMR vaccine controversy caused by the unscrupulous Dr Wakefield. The comic documents the ethics violations and undeclared conflicts of interest that caused the Lancet to retract Wakefield's paper and the Medical Council to strike him off their register.
I hope that information in comic form will be easy enough for vaccine deniers to digest. On second thought, perhaps not.
I hope that information in comic form will be easy enough for vaccine deniers to digest. On second thought, perhaps not.
May 24, 2010
The failure of prayer
Five heart attacks since they started praying? God certainly has a morbid sense of humour. Faith healing and alternative medicine don't work and just lead to more deaths. This is a tragedy just waiting to happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)