Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Plus)

The title of this book is misleading and unnecessarily provocative; but I suppose it's what publishers want in this era of the Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas. As many reviewers have pointed out, it is basically an introduction for non-biblical scholars to the world of New Testament textual criticism. The merit of the book is the clarity and vervre with which Ehrman describes the development of this complex scholarly enterprise from the late fifteenth to the late nineteenth centuries. The demerit of the book is that he says virtually nothing about the development of text criticism after the publication of Wescott and Hort's edition in 1881. In particular, nothing (literally, NOTHING) is said about the successive editions of the Nestle-Aland edition over the past century that have produced a broad consensus among New Testament scholars on the best text. This drastic omission allows him to do two things: first, to disguise the degree of consensus that exists (although when challenged he will concede it); and second, to present, as if they were new, issues and findings that have been around for decades. I find that procedure rather disingenuous; hence my low rating for a book I really wanted to like.

This is a book I had heard a lot about in discussions debating the inerrancy of the Bible. I found the book to be a fascinating introduction to the world of Biblical textual criticism. I liked the structure of the book where he explained the beginnings of scripture and then explained how copying is done and all of the potential problems. Since we live in a time of computers and printing presses, it is sometimes difficult for us to imagine just how tedious it would be to copy books and just how easy it would be to create errors. He then explained the methods textual critics use to identify the most accurate passages, and then spends a few chapters going into examples of changes to texts and what motivated them. Some of the changes he pointed out were things I was glad to see such as the fact that Paul's statement that women were not supposed to speak in church was really an insertion. Others I was sad about, such as the fact that the story of the woman taken in adultery was also an insertion; I always liked that story.

Ehrman does give us a glimpse into his beliefs and feelings of the Bible in the introduction and at the end of the book. He started out his schooling as an extreme believer in Biblical inerrancy and ended up believing the Bible to be the work of men trying to state their beliefs in the best way they new how. He notes how the gospels have fairly different views of Christ and are emphasizing different things. He also believes that most of the scribes that made changes were doing the very same thing. I personally still feel that the Bible is the word of God, but accept the fact that errors have crept in. I also accept that different prophets and apostles do emphasize some things differently given that many times they were teaching to different audiences, though I feel they were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

I highly recommend this book for everyone with an interest in the New Testament. The history lesson on how the New Testament was put together alone is worth the price of the book.

This book is a scholarly look at how the copies of the Bible we read today were altered over the centuries. The title suggestes a somewhat more provacative book than is actually between the covers. Much of the book relates to the science of literary criticism of old texts and the nature of changes, both accidental and intentional, and how they came about.

A good book for anyone who is interested in literary criticism of ancient texts and the evolution of the Bible over the centuries.

The author has an extensive and well researched knowledge of the subject matter. I am enjoying this book thoroughly. Ehrman explains advanced concepts well, making it an easy read.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great writing style and some great information. None of it was news to me, but it was nice to see it collected so well. This is the kind of book I would point beginners to.

My only gripe is that the book takes so long setting up preliminaries. I know that's necessary for readers without a familiarity with textual criticism and the particulars in the transmission of the English Bible. But it was a slow step through it and doubly so for the initiated. If I were re-reading this, I'd start in section three immediately.