Misquoting Jesus

There are few times that I miss my first husband, but this is one of them. I do wish that I had someone with whom I could seriously discuss this book, someone who would also read it and Ehrman's other works. I participate in a Facebook group that provides some of that need, but it isn't quite the same as a face-to-face conversation.

Anyway, I finished the book today. It was wonderful. Now I want a copy of the New Testament with all of these changes that Ehrman points out marked. I don't know what translation to trust, or if any of them are trustworthy! And what about the Old Testament - he doesn't even address that! Even if one were fluent in all the languages in question, who would have access to all the relevant manuscripts, let alone the lifetime it would take to compare them all? No, it's been done by various scholars, so a definitive “this is what we THINK is what the autographs said” version needs to be in print.

Author concluded that, because God did not preserve texts of New Testament, even though He could have, they therefore are not divinely inspired.

Errors were made as a result of accieent - wrong word, skipped lines, etc.

Changes made deliberately to emphasize point being made by individual authors.

I had never thought of the books in the Bible as either literary or political texts before - e.g. why do the four Gospels have different versions of the Passion - depends on what each author wanted to emphasize. “Duh” moment for me.

“Genealogy” of individual manuscripts is traceable through common errors.

King James Version of the Bible is complete crap.

(Recommended reading: Living Text of the Gospels by David C. Parker 1997 Columbia Univ. Press)

This was really fascinating, just had some repetitive moments.

The book describes the field of textual analysis, where biblical researchers go back through manuscripts to try and ascertain which sources for the New Testament are oldest and/or best based on variations in words and phrases.

It's incredibly cool. The entire chapter on the gospel of Mark was so intriguing. I read the first half of this book with Wikipedia open on my laptop so I could research all the apologists and heretics who are referenced.

I went to Catholic school and let me tell you, we never did anything like this. Every bit of the Bible we read was parceled out in isolation. I don't remember reading any part of the the NT in context to another, despite the fact that MMLJ share so much in common. In fact, I don't really remember understanding the context of why Paul and Timothy wrote all the letters they did.

It would have been a gripping history/historiography class.

Another fine work by Dr. Ehrman, this time detailing modifications to the text of the New Testament. Ehrman dedicates chapters to topics including but not limited to:

Historical attempts to reconstruct the original text
The methods used by textual critics
Theological motivations for modifying the text
Social motivations for modifying the text

As is typical of his books written for laypeople, Ehrman gives a general overview of his arguments but does not delve into great detail. Perhaps I ought to attempt one of his academic works one day. For anyone unfamiliar with the field, I think that this book would serve as an excellent introduction to Biblical textual criticism.

I think that every person should be compelled to read this book before being baptized or confirmed in the Christian faith. Actually, I think that every would-be Christian should be compelled to read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, but for those who would still commit to religion this book should be a mandatory follow-up.

The book is written by a born-again Christian, and the purpose of it is to help lay Christians (and others) see how the New Testament cannot be viewed as the inerrant word of God because there are literally thousands of different versions of the texts which make up the New Testament. The differences were sometimes accidental (misspellings, etc.), but other times the scribes creating the texts made deliberate changes to the New Testament in order to justify and propagate their own beliefs. I thought that the book would contain more examples - I found myself wanting ten examples for every one that the author provided - but the ones he did include were very interesting.

Bart Ehrman geeft een korte introductie tekstkritiek van de Bijbel. Het begint met een kort overzicht can de verschillende geproduceerde soorten tekst (evangelies, brieven, apokalypsen, ...), het vervolgt met een korte bespreking van de redenen waarom sommige mensen sommige dingen vervormden of toevoegden en het paradoxale gegeven dat de vroegste teksten vaak het meest van elkaar afwijken (ook omdat de copyisten geen professionals zijn).

Er staan interessante stukjes in over het hoe en waarom sommige (stukken van) brieven van Paulus niet van Paulus zijn, stukken Marcus zeker niet Marcus zijn (wie Marcus ook geweest was), dat soort zaken.

't Is kort, 't is weinig controversieel, 't is interessant voor wie er nog nooit echt bij had stilgestaan. Het boek in zijn geheel hangt ook rond het verhaal van Bart Ehrman, die vertelt hoe hij van een hardcore gelovige christen via onderzoek en tekstkritiek een gewone gelovige werd en uiteindelijk ook dat niet meer.

Niet dat mij dat per se stoorde, maar het had er niet gemoeten.

I was apprehensive about reading this book. I shouldn't have been. I would feel good about recommending it to anyone, even staunchly fundamentalist Christians or atheists. It is simply a close look at how the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible came to be and the errors and additions and deletions that were made as decades and then centuries and then millennium passed. Reading this book gave me a new cautious feeling about the stories and thoughts within the New Testament.