A biased agenda - Rated 
Ehrman was once a niave inerrantist ('The belief the Bible is without error'). When he lost this belief he swung in the other direction.
The books title is misleading. Ehrman does not show Jesus is misquoted at all.
Not one textual variant in scripture affects a Christian doctrine and 98%-99% of the text is not disputed. Indeed most textual variants are due to ancient lectionaries which transcribed 'He' for 'Jesus' to make the speaker obvious.
Read this book with a very large pinch of salt.
Textual Criticism - Rated 
Bart Ehrman is a biblical historian who posits that scribes' alterations to New Testament manuscripts reflect both human error and the influence of theology, culture, and politics. He explores the development of written scripture from the Greco-Roman era, the effect of inconsistencies on doctrine and later versions, and attempts to reconstruct original text. This was written with lay readers in mind rather than academics. And I would have rated it four stars if the author would stayed away from adding his own speculation. But it is a serious work that will open discussion on textual error again.
99% perspiration - Rated 
Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" covers similar ground but seems addressed primarily to scholars. This popular presentation is not only considerably more readable for the lay reader but has a superb, open introduction by Ehrman in which he details his path from a born-again believer to the mature scholar he is today, who appreciates the Bible but sees it as the work of human beings who may "... have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting the Bible up as a false idol ..." Strong words indeed and a challenge to those who have not yet read this book or, having read it, remain unable to accept even the factual aspects of Ehrman's presentation.
Ehrman explains textual criticism for lay people with examples. He exposes the problem that the present versions of the Bible have: besides having been copied over centuries and translated, they are derived from multiple differing versions, such that even scholars don't know in places what the original words of the Bible were.
Ehrman, since his youth, has had a deep and authentic interest in how the Bible came down to us. You may disagree with him in part or even whole as to his speculations but he's made a gifted and sincere effort to share with you what he has learned. He's no salesman. If you read it with an open mind, you may never regard the Bible in the same way again.
Separating wheat from chaff seldom got so interesting - Rated
Ehrman believes the history of our great stories matters. And his exploration of the New Testament's evolution is an enormous accomplishment. This is a work building on hundreds of years of research, for example, Stephanus's 1550 translation with marginal notes identifying variations between 14 different ancient Greek manuscripts. Or John Mill's 1707 comparison of over 100 Greek manuscripts to show 30,000 points of difference. And Ehrman's data base includes over 5,700 manuscripts in Greek alone, which yield a total of between 200,000 to 400,000 varients among them.
While comparing manuscripts, Ehrman gives us a parallel history of arguments and riposts among scholarly egos, making this a fascinating human story. We have, for example, the French Catholic scholar Richard Simon who in 1689 produced "A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament", giving a partisan blast at Protestant rejection of Church tradition in favor of reliance on scripture alone:
"The great changes that have taken place in the manuscripts of the Bible ... since the first originals were lost, completely destroy the principle of the Protestants ..., who consult only these same manuscripts of the Bible in the form they are today. If the truth of religion had not lived on in the Church, it would not be safe to look for it now in books that have been subjected to so many changes and that in so many matters were dependent on the will of the copyists."
Do all these differences among ancient hand-copied versions of the Bible make any difference? Ehrman shows thay do at many important points -- concerning Jesus, women, Jews, leadership, and more. And that's the really good part. I think this book is a big step forward in separating wheat from chaff in the scriptures.
--BG, author of "Different Visions of Love" and "The Gardens of Their Dreams"
Biased and skewered logic. - Rated
All I can say to those who have read this book is:
Read 'Misquoting Truth' by Timothy Paul Jones.
It would surely be impossible to deny that Ehrman's book is more a prejudiced evangelising of his agnosticism.
|
