{"id":22637,"date":"2025-08-18T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-18T08:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=22637"},"modified":"2025-08-20T12:13:48","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T16:13:48","slug":"gospel-scholarship-pell-mell-a-critical-review-of-jordan-petersons-the-gospels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/longform\/gospel-scholarship-pell-mell-a-critical-review-of-jordan-petersons-the-gospels\/","title":{"rendered":"Gospel Scholarship Pell-Mell: A Critical Review of Jordan Peterson\u2019s The Gospels<\/i>"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Not long ago the \u201cNew Atheists\u201d were the darlings of new media. Names like Hitchens and Harris, Dawkins and Dennett seemed to be everywhere. One of their principal critiques of Christianity (all religions in fact) was how bad <\/em>it has been for the world. The subtitle of Christopher Hitchens\u2019s magnum opus was even How Religion Poisons Everything<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The Gospels<\/em>, season 1, episode 10, \u201cCrucifixion and Resurrection,\u201d hosted by Jordan B. Peterson, aired January 26, 2025, on DailyWire+, 1:00:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

But the nature of media is fickleness. These days it seems Jordan Peterson has singularly replaced the four horsemen and brought a new message: not only is religion good for the world, but specifically \u201cChristianity is necessary, or our culture falls apart.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/sup> Such is the driving thesis of the ten-part series on the Daily Wire called The Gospels<\/em>, where Peterson hosts eight other scholars for a roundtable discussion of the Jesus tradition and its impact on the west. The format is simple: Peterson reads a passage from a Gospel harmony called The Single Gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Consolidated into a Single Narrative <\/em>(Neil Averitt; Resource, 2015), and the participants offer observations, reflections, commentary\u2014textual, intertextual, historical, contemporary social, etc.\u2014ask questions, and banter. While the participants vary slightly from episode to episode, most of the lineup is consistent. Robert Barron is a Catholic bishop; Gregg Hurwitz is a novelist and screenwriter; James Orr is a Cambridge professor of philosophy; John Vervaeke is a professor of psychology and colleague of Peterson at the University of Toronto; Dennis Prager is a \u201creligious Jew\u201d; Douglas Hedley teaches philosophy of religion at Cambridge, and particularly interested in Christian Platonism; Stephen Blackwood is the founder of Ralston College; Jonathan Pageau is an Eastern Orthodox iconographer. These make up the panel on the majority of episodes, representing ideas from Judaism to Catholicism, Platonism to Protestantism, Orthodoxy to atheism. Then there is Peterson\u2019s own perspective that is Jungian through and through (more on that below). Yet, even among such diverse perspectives, they all have this same basic concern in common: the western intellectual, aesthetic, and ethical tradition is rapidly eroding, and the secular replacements range from trite to terrifying. Everything comes under the microscope, from pornography and its effects to the horror of the forced labor gulags. The consistent solution around the table\u2014even from the skeptics and atheists\u2014is that everything good, true, and beautiful about western civilization has emerged from the Judeo-Christian tradition. We turn away from that tradition at great peril.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The Gospels<\/em>, season 1, episode 10, \u201cCrucifixion and Resurrection,\u201d hosted by Jordan B. Peterson, aired January 26, 2025, on DailyWire+, 0:57:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

There is a lot to commend here. It is good to see Christianity\u2014specifically the stories about Jesus\u2014taken so seriously for its intellectual depth and indelible impact it has had on the world. It is also refreshing to observe such an erudite public discourse over the literary-artistic genius of the Gospel narratives. Some of the comments on the texts are very helpful and often quite profound. And I wholeheartedly agree with the understanding that the ideals of democracy, equality, liberty, justice, education, healthcare, humanitarianism, etc. that we so deeply cherish in the west are the collective byproducts of Christianity\u2019s spread throughout the ages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, I cannot recommend this series as a helpful guide for understanding the Gospels for three reasons. First, there is so much hermeneutical diversity that it is very hard for viewers to key in on the most helpful ideas. The result is that Peterson\u2019s psychotherapeutic interpretations carry the day because of the amount of airtime he gets. Second, the use of a Gospel harmony\u2014a single basically chronological narrative of Jesus\u2019s life\u2014obscures the particular theological contribution of the four individual Gospels. God\u2019s will for communicating the life of Jesus to the world is through four distinct voices, not through one amalgamation of traditional source material. Much is lost in neglecting this, and this approach actually exacerbates the first problem, creating more space for allegorical interpretations to insert themselves. And third, the series is more a commentary on \u201cthe west\u201d and what the participants like about it than it is a reading of the Gospels. But the true telos of New Testament theology, and the ultimate exhibit of its veracity, is not \u201cthe west,\u201d but the church<\/em> and a new creation. I will comment on the problematic nature of each of these in turn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. A Sea of Voices<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As I mentioned, some of the discussion is quite illuminating, and the recurring emphasis on the Old Testament background is especially helpful. Yet, because there are so many different hermeneutical approaches around the table, and the questions emerge out of such a variety of presuppositional commitments, it is extremely hard to get a handle on what any given passage is really about. Yes, the recurring thesis of the goodness of western society and the requisite Christian foundation is ever present. But therein also lies the problem. It is one thing to say this or that is the result of Christianity; it is another to provide the meaning <\/em>of Christianity. What are the Gospels actually saying when there are so many takes? When one participant has a legitimate and helpful point to make, it only gets lost in the stew of competing hermeneutical agendas. The average viewer, I believe, gets lost in the sea of erudition\u2014and often esotericism\u2014and comes away still unsure what the passage truly means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, one voice does rise above the din. Throughout each round of discussion Peterson weighs in with great rhetorical verve. The result is that the viewer mostly hears his <\/em>take. The viewer is simply confronted with his views far more than the others. It is roughly a 50\/50 split between Peterson\u2019s airtime and all the rest combined. That is fine as far as it goes. It is his series; he is the convener; his name is the one that will draw the greatest audience. I have no problem with the proportion of airtime, but with the message that is conveyed when that happens. Peterson clearly reads the Gospels through the lens of Jungian psychology, and also through the idea of archetypal anthropological and sociological forms that he sees channeled through the Gospels and their value for a well-ordered life and society. His Jungian presuppositions are so strong that they dominate the text. <\/em>He does not listen<\/em> to the Gospels, but rewrites them in support of his Jungian views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In so doing, Peterson relativizes the Gospels\u2019 central claims about the exclusivity of Christ and his unique work of redemption. Though I do appreciate Peterson\u2019s emphasis on sacrifice as a grounding narrative, he does not understand Jesus\u2019s <\/em>sacrifice as either unique or vicarious. Rather the life and ministry of Jesus is an archetypal story full of primordial tropes, and an exemplar of self-discovery and personal improvement\u2014\u201cupward striving\u201d as he calls it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the ministry of John the Baptist is a demonstration of \u201cconscience preceding the sacred.\u201d It is a neurophysiological and anthropological take on baptism that emphasizes \u201cthe transformation of the personality,\u201d the dissolution of the old self and emergence of the new.[3]<\/a><\/sup> The annunciation is a philosophical and psychological reflection on motherhood. The beatitudes are about the liberation in letting go of addictions to power, fame, money, and sex. Jesus\u2019s miracles are mythological invitations to \u201ctrace how ancient wisdom might illuminate our path from fragmentation to integration.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/sup> The resurrection is (perhaps) \u201cthe same idea as the impenetrable mystery of the resilience of the human soul . . . Devastated by evil and we can rise up again, the fact that people can pass near death and still live, the fact that we transform and learn continually.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/sup> To be sure, much (all?) of the supernatural amounts to \u201cthe image of the ideal\u201d that calls us to be something better than what we currently are. The program description to episode nine, called \u201cBetrayal and Trial,\u201d reveals much: \u201cIn humanity\u2019s darkest hour, Dr. Peterson\u2019s circle confronts the Passion\u2019s haunting truth: evil triumphs not through villainy, but through good people\u2019s small compromises. Between Gethsemane and Pilate\u2019s seat, they face an eternal question: what price is truth in a world demanding compliance?\u201d Notice that it is not Jesus\u2019s <\/em>darkest hour, but \u201chumanity\u2019s.\u201d And it is read as a primordial mythos of what happens when people turn from truth through \u201csmall compromises\u201d and \u201ccompliance.\u201d In the end, the Bible as a whole reveals that \u201cthe result of total self-giving is not death but life,\u201d to which Peterson concludes, \u201cThat\u2019s like the definition of eternal life.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
3. The Gospels<\/em>, season 1, episode 1, \u201cBirth – Youth – Baptism,\u201d hosted by Jordan B. Peterson, aired 2024, on DailyWire+, 1:00:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. The Gospels<\/em>, season 1, episode 3, \u201cMiracles,\u201d hosted by Jordan B. Peterson, aired December 8, 2024, on DailyWire+ (program description).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The Gospels<\/em>, \u201cCrucifixion and Resurrection,\u201d 1:16:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. The Gospels<\/em>, \u201cCrucifixion and Resurrection,\u201d 1:07:00.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

This kind of language is on constant display throughout the series, though much of it is lost on those unfamiliar with Jungian psychotherapy. Yet, there is one back and forth with Dennis Prager where it all becomes a little more explicit. When Peterson is asked about the \u201croad to being good,\u201d he describes it as the \u201cupward aim in [the] grace of God.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/sup> Peterson expands, \u201cI came to grips with evil, and I decided I was going to do everything I could to get as far away from that as possible.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/sup> He goes on to say that it is something like an encounter with Satan in the desert when he looked at evil so intently. He spent a lot of time studying the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz and Gulag Archipelago <\/em>by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn\u2014not as a detached observer, but as one who wonders what he would have done if he had been there. He concluded that he did not want to be that kind of person, as likely as it is that anyone could become that kind of person. So he committed to head in the other direction. Then, through his reading of Solzhenitsyn and Carl Jung, he learned how to orient himself away from \u201cthe lie,\u201d as he calls it, and commit himself to truth-telling.[9]<\/a><\/sup> Thus, salvation is from one\u2019s own potential moral decrepitude, and into self-improvement, \u201cupward striving,\u201d \u201cthe road to good.\u201d But you have to want it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
7. The Gospels<\/em>, season 1, episode 8, \u201cHoly Week and The Last Supper,\u201d hosted by Jordan B. Peterson, aired 2025, on DailyWire+, 1:57:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. The Gospels<\/em>, \u201cHoly Week and The Last Supper,\u201d 1:58:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. The Gospels<\/em>, \u201cHoly Week and The Last Supper,\u201d 2:00:00.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Within this perspective Jesus ceases to be an historically unique figure, but the \u201cSon of man\u201d and the \u201clogos\u201d are expressions of the essence of humanity, patterns to attain to in our lives. Peterson says, \u201cWe call on each other to be a manifestation of the logos.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/sup> And \u201ceternal life\/the Kingdom of Heaven\u201d is when we attain to this great upward aim in self-sacrifice for each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point is that Peterson\u2019s reading of the Gospels is thoroughly preconditioned by his psychotherapeutic a priori commitments. Then he finds in the Gospels tropes to reinforce that. There is no sense of Jesus as the unique savior who atones for sins in his death or grants eternal life through his resurrection. Rather, Peterson praises Jesus for his constant sacrifice\u2014though it is not a unique or vicarious sacrifice. Instead it is an ideal to which we can all aspire if we too live lives of sacrifice (basically the Peter Abelard reading of the atonement with an existential flare).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. The Gospels<\/em>, \u201cHoly Week and The Last Supper,\u201d 1:16:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In the sea of voices, this is the one that rises the loudest. It is the lasting impression viewers will have even among many of the other perspectives that to varying degrees align more naturally with the meaning of the Gospels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is Christianity true? Well, in Peterson\u2019s final reflection he says it is \u201cthe best we have,\u201d and he readily confesses that \u201cit isn\u2019t clear to me how what the Bible portrays is true.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/sup> In it all, he reduces the Bible to the same level of many other \u201cmythological texts\u201d (by that I suppose he means the ones he likes) that provide stories for personal and societal \u201cupward striving.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. The Gospels<\/em>, \u201cCrucifixion and Resurrection,\u201d 2:15:00.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

To put it simply, Peterson\u2019s interpretation does not square with any Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox confessional tradition.[12]<\/a><\/sup> And it is not a reading of the text, but an imposition of twentieth century psychology onto the text, resulting in twenty hours of Jungian allegory. Jesus is not unique. Jesus is not a savior. The historical nature of the text is not given its weight. The Gospels are not considered on their own terms for their own claims. With such a thick layer of contemporary psychological jargon, the Gospels actually never get a chance to speak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. Jonathan Pageau, the Eastern Orthodox, even says at one point that the interpretations provided by Peterson and others on the panel are \u201cweird and different positions\u201d (The Gospels<\/em>,  \u201cCrucifixion and Resurrection,\u201d 2:14:00).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

To take a step back, this is an issue of the hermeneutical spiral, and in which direction the interpretive streams of influence are running between reader and text. The series is such that nine men are sitting around a table with the Gospels laid open before them. Each comes with his own presuppositions\u2014ideas about the nature of reality and expectations of what they will find in the text. Then those presuppositions influence what the reader sees. Sometimes, therefore, the text can become a reinforcing mechanism for what the reader already believes. This does not have to be a vicious cycle, however. For the text can change the reader\u2019s mind. But if the presuppositions are too strong, and too controlling, then the opposite occurs. Instead of the text influencing the reader, the reader distorts the text to see what is actually not there. This diagram is meant to illustrate the process. The dark line represents the strength of the presuppositional conviction of the reader, exerting a heavy influence over the reading process. The lighter line represents the influence the text then has back on the reader. It is much softer. The result is that the text is muted, and the reader simply retrieves from the text what he already expected to see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In such a case the text becomes a mere soundboard for testing, and a prop for supporting, a priori convictions. In short, the text is used<\/em>, not listened to. Now image nine people doing that at the same time (to varying degrees to be sure) and you get a sense of the hermeneutical chaos on the screen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I call this the hermeneutical spiral running in the wrong direction, when readers overlay the text with their philosophical priors, and in turn retrieve from the texts what they already believe. The exact opposite should be happening. If the Bible is the word of God, then we must let it have its way with us. We must listen to it on its own terms and receive from it its own message, not impose our ideas as if it were a plaything in our hands. We must allow it the space to influence us, and change us if necessary. While we cannot jettison our presuppositions altogether, we can<\/em> hold them loosely and with enough self-awareness that the text can actually influence and mend them. The strength of the lines of influence\u2014what we bring to the text and at what volume the text speaks to us\u2014should run in the obverse direction, as I try to illustrate in this diagram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a hermeneutic of faith, where we let the text\u2019s ideology challenge and change our ideologies, not vice versa. \u201cFollow me\u201d Jesus said, not \u201ctake my words and make them fit what you already believe.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. Cf. e.g. Matthew 4:18\u201322; 7:24\u201327.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

As I said, much of the conversation is insightful, with good questions and plenty of food for thought. But Peterson\u2019s comments simply rule the day, and his psychotherapeutic take truly guts the historical and literary search for truth. It all makes it very hard for viewers to discover what the Gospels are really about, even when the other participants often have legitimate interpretations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. A Collapsing of Voices<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

My second criticism is far more basic, but equally important. In fact, it is this shortcoming that opens the door all the wider for the hermeneutical chaos above to ensue. It is this: There are four distinct witnesses to Jesus\u2019s life, not one. To mash them up is to lose the coherent contribution of each in their own right. Several of the participants do comment on this problem, but it is not redressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be sure, there is a long tradition inside the church of creating Gospel harmonies. They can be very helpful for understanding the chronology of Jesus\u2019s life, and comparing the details of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But there are two problems with relying on harmonies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For one, they require a reorganization of the original material, creating a new discourse across the whole. Readers are, therefore, already at the interpretive mercy of the compiler\/s. Thus, we are back to the first problem above: a set of prior commitments that influence interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And secondly, such works destroy the structure <\/em>of each Gospel. Jesus\u2019s biographies are not presented as a list of words and actions in isolated literary units. Rather, each Gospel has an intentional and intricate structure wherein the stories and sayings of Jesus have mutually interpretive power based on the way they are laid next to each other. This is all lost in harmonies, both on the microscale in dealing with each passage, and also on the macroscale in understanding the overall message of each Gospel. The result is that the stories about Jesus are treated in the abstract, not as part of the unified narratives that the original authors intended to present to the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, this series is not a study of the Gospels<\/em> strictly speaking, for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not studied as coherent texts. They are ripped apart and reassembled, then disassembled again in musings over various passages while leaving out much material. It is not a study\/discussion of the Gospels specifically, but what we might call \u201cthe Gospels tradition.\u201d But then the question re-emerges as above: who puts the tradition together, and on what presuppositional grounds?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shortcoming actually gives space for the other dynamic to happen at greater scale. By breaking up the structure of each Gospel, dislodging the stories from each other, and vacating the interpretive power the structures have, all the more room is created to insert the determinative presuppositions mentioned above. For the context of each story\/saying of Jesus exerts hermeneutical influence, and provides guardrails <\/em>against misinterpretation. That is all lost when the stories and sayings of Jesus are dealt with in the abstract, detached from their literary settings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One example will have to suffice that demonstrates both critiques in one place: the withering of the fig tree from Matthew 21:18\u201322 and Mark 11:12\u201325. The panel\u2019s interpretations are all over the place. It comes across like grasping, searching their presuppositional pools for whatever will fit from this story. No attention is given to the fact that in both Matthew and Mark the immediate contexts revolve around the temple. Moreover, the cleansing of the temple\u2014right before the cursing of the fig tree in Matthew, and interlaced into the fig tree episode in Mark(!)\u2014cites Jeremiah 7, while Jeremiah 8 uses the image of a barren fig tree to metaphorize the temple leadership. Without going into a lengthy interpretation right here, it suffices simply to note that a contextualized reading of the cursing of the fig tree at least puts the interpreter in a place to discover something of its meaning\u2014in this case vis-\u00e0-vis Jesus\u2019s criticism of the temple leadership\u2014rather than scrambling up ideas potentially foreign to both Matthew\u2019s and Mark\u2019s larger theological goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need to remember that the Lord could have<\/em> given us one super-Gospel, a chronologically straightforward telling of Jesus\u2019s life and ministry. In his providence and wisdom, however, he has given us four distinct witnesses to the life and ministry of the one and only Messiah. We dare not think we are wiser than the Holy Spirit who inspired four Gospels by mashing them all up together, forfeiting the unique structure and voice of each. Jesus prayed for \u201cthose who believe in [him] through the [apostles\u2019] word\u201d (John 17:20). Well, that opportunity to believe in Jesus through his hand-picked and authoritative apostles is lost when their diverse voices are crumbled into one reshaped presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. The Voice of Those Crying in the Wilderness<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Finally, we must briefly point out the elephant in the room. Just because the Gospels illuminate what is good, true, and beautiful in western society, that does not mean the Gospels themselves are true. But if the Gospels are true, then we should look to them <\/em>for what is the telos and goal of their aim. Moreover, if we are talking about letting the Gospels speak to us on their own terms (which is the principal point underwriting my two previous critiques), then we must ask why \u201cwestern civilization\u201d is used as the yardstick for evaluating the Gospels, or the telos that reveals the genius of the Gospels? The historical horizon beyond themselves to which the Gospel\u2019s look is not \u201cthe west,\u201d but the church<\/em>. The Gospels foresee an international witnessing and worshipping people, who believe in and follow Jesus, from every society<\/em> across time and space.[14]<\/a><\/sup> And their life and love for one another will be the ultimate exhibition of the Gospels\u2019 veracity.[15]<\/a><\/sup> The creation of this people, in turn, both inaugurates and foreshadows a new creation.[16]<\/a><\/sup> To read the Gospels as a justification and apologetic for \u201cthe west\u201d is just another allegory driven by philosophical pre-commitments. The Gospels point us to the church as the place where their teachings are lived out, not \u201cthe west.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
14. Cf. e.g. Matthew 28:16\u201320.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. Cf. e.g. John 15:12\u201317.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16. Cf. e.g. John 1:1, 14; 2:11; 17:20; 20:29\u201331.<\/h6>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Gospels are perennially susceptible to misuse. But they are also extraordinarily resilient. This is not the first time the Gospels have been put under alien interpretive grids. Surely it will not be the last. Yet, over the ages the voices of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John always seem to come through. Sadly, however, Peterson\u2019s The Gospels <\/em>is not the place where that happens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Peterson comments in this series, he is not commenting on the text of the Gospels, but on his own ideology that he makes the text to fit. Dicing up the Gospels and remaking them into a \u201csingle Gospel\u201d makes this all the more possible. The result is missing the point that the church, not \u201cthe west,\u201d is the ultimate teleological goal of the Gospels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Positively I would remind church leaders that in reading the Gospels we must remember our own presuppositions and how they can distort our reading too. We must hold them lightly and let the text of the Gospels speak on their own terms. We must let the Gospels challenge our presuppositions too, and bring every thought captive to the lordship of Christ. We must remember also always to read in context. We must pay attention to passages right before and after our text of study. And we must pay attention to the structure of each Gospel as a whole. In so doing we will see better how the individual stories about Jesus do not float around in the abstract, but come together to develop each Gospel\u2019s unique voice and theology. Finally, we must remember that the world will know that the Father sent the Son through the love his people show for each other. In other words, the evidence of the veracity of the Gospels\u2019 claims is in the church, not in any one philosophical or social tradition, even as that tradition is deeply shaped by the Gospels themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/h6>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is what happens when the gospels are ripped out of their contexts, psychologized, and discussed by one of the most famous cultural commentators of the day. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22678,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"Gospel Scholarship Pell-Mell: A Critical Review of Jordan Peterson\u2019s The Gospels","_seopress_titles_desc":"This is what happens when the gospels are ripped out of their contexts, psychologized, and discussed by one of the most famous cultural commentators of the day.","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"[]","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,1974,8,38],"tags":[2266,823,2265,2203,102,1931,1297,1701,185,1537,2267,122],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[193],"class_list":["post-22637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-august-2025","category-longform","category-theme","tag-carl-jung","tag-christ","tag-daily-wire","tag-four-gospels","tag-gospel","tag-gospels","tag-historicity","tag-jesus","tag-jesus-christ","tag-jordan-peterson","tag-psychology","tag-theology"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Gospel-Scholarship-Piotrowski-scaled.jpeg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:25:54","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":193,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"nicholas-piotrowski-1","display_name":"Nicholas Piotrowski","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Nicholas-Piotrowski.jpeg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/Nicholas-Piotrowski.jpeg"},"author_category":"1","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"","first_name":"","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"Nicholas Piotrowski<\/b>\u00a0is the President of\u00a0Indianapolis Theological Seminary<\/a>. His books include\u00a0In All the Scriptures: The Three Contexts of Biblical Hermeneutics<\/i>\u00a0(IVP Academic, 2021) and\u00a0Return from Exile and the Renewal of God's People\u00a0<\/i>(Crossway, 2025), and he has has written dozens of articles and book reviews in various journals. Dr. Piotrowski has two boys with his wife, Cheryl, and they are members at Castleton Community Church (Indianapolis, IN)."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22637"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22637\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22786,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22637\/revisions\/22786"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22678"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22637"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=22637"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=22637"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=22637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}