by mr palmOn Thursday's episode of the political/news satire show
The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert hosted Bart Ehrman, author of the new book
Jesus, Interrupted. In his book, Ehrman discusses the ways that he believes that The Bible contradicts itself.
If you're not familiar with
The Colbert Report, Colbert plays an adversarial, stubborn, egomaniacal conservative Republican who is a silly goof at heart. He interviews his guests – often authors, activists, and politicians – on serious subject matter, but throws out questions and retorts in a funny manner, playing up the absurdity of his character. The guests, who know what they're getting into, have fun with it. Colbert does a great job of giving his guests respect and allowing them to present their expertise while keeping the audience entertained.
However, his interview with Ehrman – at least in my opinion – seemed more awkward than usual. Maybe Ehrman isn't the type to play along. Maybe Colbert, a practicing Roman Catholic and Sunday School teacher, had the claws out. The interview seemed more like 'Ehrmann, Interrupted' as Colbert kept throwing the jabs in. Either way, I found it to be a curious interaction, and I thought that you might be interested.
Comments (49)
>_>
<_<
I thought it was funny. Ehrman seemed like he just didn't play off of it all that well.
Very funny! Who'd have thought Comedy Central would be a tool of Biblical defense?
Just goes to show that God can use ANYTHING to bring Him praise!
I don't mean to dampen the mood here, but I was really unimpressed by Colbert. I stopped watching that show because I couldn't stand Colbert's interruptions. Last one I watched was his interview with N.T. Wright. I wish his audience would stop laughing at his jokes and interact with the points. I didn't take his responses to Ehrman as a defense of Christianity. I felt that Colbert's defense was a caricature of the way he percieves Christians to defend Jesus against these objections. It plays into the hands of Ehrman.
As a first response to him, I don't see a contradiction between the different portrayals of Jesus in the gospels. Othello is a multi-faceted figure. He is loving toward Iago and suspicious toward the others, he is deeply vexed and paranoid, all while (trying to) appear to the guards and to Desdemona as if he's jolly. Suppose the guards, Emilia, and Desdemona have accounts of his last days before smothering his wife. Do their contradictions in their portrayal of Othello mean that they're all wrong?
On a more significant level, reasoning from the very few things that Jesus says on his last day (not more than a few lines in each Gospel) to trying to generalize the attitudes and demeanor of his personality is extremely speculative. One can just as well conclude that I, mourning a death in the family, must be doing very well since I am taking care of the family business, or conclude that I must be taking it badly since he sees me cry.
That was hilarious. Ehrman really seems to be lacking in his arguments, at least the parts he managed to get out. Colbert while jokingly playing with him completely blew away his arguments.
I didn't even know about the different crucifixion stories.
Nothing will get Colbert out of character faster than attacking Christianity. It's a shame, really, because he is so good at satire, and only so-so at outright argument. I saw this when it aired last week, and I don't think Ehrman or Colbert come out looking too great.
Overall, I love Ehrman's scholarship, I just wish he'd stop presenting it as though it's truly a challenge to Christianity.
Did it ever occur to him that the differences in the story are the results of different people writing from their own point of view? In Matthew the writer may have picked up on things that were said that the author in John didn't and vice versa. It's like the teacher telling her class about the Holocaust and then has the class write a paper about it. Everyone will be writing their own version; no two papers will be exactly the same word for word. Same difference; it's not that hard to figure out.
That was certainly amusing. I've been a fan of both Stewart and Colbert for a while. But is Colbert really personally a Roman Catholic? I mean really? I don't say it in an insulting manner :P It's just that I get lost in the lines of satire that I can't tell when he's being all satirical or not.
The video is a waste of time because he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Seeing videos of Colbert like this (this and another one where he really spoke with some authority and mmph - I forget who he was talking with, though) surprisingly give me respect for him. I hadn't ever expected that when I had first heard of the show.
There are a bunch of people that Colbert interviews that don't go along. It sucks because then the interview is a total waste and nothing really becomes of it. Personally, I'm opposite of Colbert's views (at least the ones that he plays on the show), but I would totally go along with anything he throws at me lol.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Feelings mutual.
I appreciate Colbert asking hard questions, but he's on the all-out offensive, not letting Ehrman say his piece. If you're going to formally take issue with his argument, let him articulate it before you go for the jugular (and even then, I'd recommend you reason together instead of trying to win the argument).
Ofc, it's also a comedy show as well. If they just had a polite conversation about the topic, there'd be fewer laughs. I think Colbert just steered clear of the civil discussion aspect too much this time (which it seems he is prone to do when God comes up).
Btw, I am "the vine." I laughed. Corny? yes, but still, I couldn't believe the deafening silence. The audience stone wall on top of Colbert's aggressiveness made me feel for Ehrman even though I disagreed with him.
Not a huge fan of it. I guess I just don't find mocking Christianity funny. I felt like the whole time Colbert made Christians sound like idiots with "pat" answers that do nothing. So, not seeing how this is funny.
I love colbert but his interviews are hit or miss. I wanted to hear more from Ehrman.
@stuartandabby@xanga - Back in 1977, Keith Green did a song with the lyrics, "I am divine, and you are de branch." That's the first thing I thought of when he said that.
@NoHeroesForTomorrow@xanga - Yes, he's really a Catholic.
I enjoy the Colbert Report, and normally enjoy his interviews. He has a different interview style, which can take awhile to get used to. And sometimes even within his own style he doesn't quite do it successfully. But I thought this interview was typical of his style and done well within that style.
One thing I appreciate about Colbert is that when he deals with topics of Christianity, such as when he interviews people like Ehrman or N.T. Wright, you can tell Colbert actually knows the Bible, unlike most people on TV, who are clueless. The points Colbert made here are ones I agree with. I get irritated with these Biblical scholars who put way too much faith in their own historical-critical method to the point that they are so sure of themselves even though they're talking about something that happened 2000 years ago, like they know better than the people who were there.
I second @ChristiansandMormons on the bit about different eyewitness versions. I don't get why Biblical scholars act like these different versions somehow mean the texts are questionable in value. Read accounts of any event in the news today and there are going to be different versions of it. Another thing that bugs me is the way Ehrman in this video, and other scholars, make a big deal about the Gospel of John being later, as if the stuff is unreliable then. Think about this: Breaking news on the plane going down in the Hudson: sketchy details. Next day: more details. Several weeks later, I saw an hour long documentary on the crash. It's longer and has more details not found in the first accounts because there was more time to gather information.
With irritations such as these I have regarding Biblical scholars who seem determined to trash the Bible, I quite enjoyed Colbert's strong reactions on this interview. Granted, I wouldn't feel the same way if it was a serious show, but it is Comedy Central, and it is Stephen Colbert, who normally takes an adversarial role with his interviewees.
@deepestrecesses - I don't get how you think Colbert is mocking Christianity. He was defending it, in his style of satirical comedy.
@SirNickDon@xanga - I'd like to read Ehrman's books sometimes; I'd like to see what he has to say, because of his evangelical background. But yes, I don't see why the things he brings up have to be seen as a challenge to Christianity.
personally, i love Ehrman. the only reason his theses can be considered challenges to Christianity is because many Christians simply cannot deal with the reality that the Bible contradicts itself.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - the only problem with that argument is that, presumably, everyone heard exactly the same thing at the crucifixion. it's not as though the disciples took turns watching throughout the morning and, therefore, missed some things.
@ChristiansandMormons - sorry, but even though scholars may debate exactly what supposed contradictions mean for Christianity, the consensus is that the gospels were written second-hand at best. to say they are eyewitness accounts would be (at best) to ask a 70-year-old man to write down what he witnessed on his third birthday. i doubt you'd get something accurate.
@bananaleaf_soapbox@xanga - do you challenge the use of historical methods applied to all time periods, or just the ones involving your faith?
@bananaleaf_soapbox@xanga - For the most part he only highlights things that any decent Bible notes in the margins or footnotes. That the ending of Mark isn't in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, for instance. Things like that. He also point out that there is a great deal of difference between many of the manuscripts that we've found, but 98% of the differences are so minor that they don't amount to a challenge. "Our peace" vs. "your peace," for instance, or obvious mistakes like when two lines both begin with the same word, and an inattentive scribe accidentally skipped the first line.
Still, I've always enjoyed his books, even when I disagree with his conclusions.
Unlike a number of people, I didn't think Colbert went out of his way to either defend the Bible or satirize Christian responses to Ehrman's points.
He was just using his usual goofy and adversarial approach as far as I can tell, and I enjoyed it just as much as usual.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I don't challenge the use of historical methods; I think these people too often exhibit too much certainty and pride.
@bananaleaf_soapbox@xanga - i see your point... but that's not a decent reason to dismiss what they have to say. and, frankly, the only other times i've heard someone express the same sentiment was when they were just angry at being proven wrong. a student withdrew from my Early Christianity class for roughly this reason.