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

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

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

3.87 of 5 stars 3.87 · rating details · 6,369 ratings · 664 reviews

For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions. Religious and biblical scholar Bart Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself are the results of bo...more

Paperback, 266 pages

Published February 6th 2007 by HarperOne (first published 2005)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Invention of Christianity by Alexander Drake

The Invention of Religion by Alexander Drake

Understanding the Bible

2nd out of 172 books — 122 voters

God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

Notable Atheist Books

21st out of 227 books — 548 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Sep 14, 2007 Juhem Navarro rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you read the reviews written in the Barnes and Noble website, you’ll probably see three types of review:

1. The smart ass academic or pseudoacademic who says the book isn’t that good anyway
2. The fundamentalist Christian appalled at the idea of someone doubting the infallibility of the Bible
3. Your average Joe that finds the book quite interesting

In my case, I could be a #1 considering that I’m both a smart ass and an academic (or so I like to think). In the case ofMisquoting Jesus Cover bi...more If you read the reviews written in the Barnes and Noble website, you’ll probably see three types of review:

1. The smart ass academic or pseudoacademic who says the book isn’t that good anyway
2. The fundamentalist Christian appalled at the idea of someone doubting the infallibility of the Bible
3. Your average Joe that finds the book quite interesting

In my case, I could be a #1 considering that I’m both a smart ass and an academic (or so I like to think). In the case ofMisquoting Jesus Cover biblical stuff, I’m more like a #3. I wouldn’t say it is the best book I have ever read, but it is a good book in three aspects.

The first aspect is readability. In this case, it is a short and entertaining book. Ehrman doesn’t go into unnecessary details on how textual criticism is conducted, but gives you an idea of how gruesome the process can be. Additionally, the side story of how he converted from a fundie believer in biblical literalism to an agnostic (or if you prefer an “atheist without balls” as Stephen Colbert called him) is both interesting and a little sad.

The second aspect is in the delivery of the goods. Some of the B&N reviewers complained that “Misquoting Jesus” is a misnomer, but I disagree. In several instances he mentions how the things that Jesus [supposedly] said were changed by scribes or even by the gospel authors (yes Luke, you know what you did). In this case the subtitle “The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” is more revealing. This is because he tells us some of the more common reasons to make mistakes transcribing ancient texts (reason #1: no Microsoft Word, heck! not even Gutenberg Print). People got distracted, people got tired, others weren’t very good at neither reading nor writing yet were considered literate in a time when a very small percentage of people knew how to read or write. And sometimes they changed stuff to meet their beliefs (just like some people overlook the fact that Rick Ankiel probably used HGH because they like him). In this sense the book is revealing because he is not talking about conspiracy theories (sorry DaVinci Code fans) but about how incredibly human is this supposedly divine book.

Finally it provides a little perspective into what was going on during those early days of Christianity. Just like there are many interpretations these days, there were many interpretations in those days (and some way too odd). In a way the bible instead of being inspired, evolved for many many years until some loosely unified theology arose in which most could agree (Jesus is God, God is Jesus, both are the Holy Ghost…and nobody thinks it is a little schizophrenic?). I also used the word evolved combined with bible to piss off the intelligent designers out there.

Why I recommend this book? Because of the reasons stated above and because if it wasn’t for this book, we would need to read all the scholarship out there and maybe even learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Coptic, Aramaic, and whatever. Also, because it is pissing off fundies everywhere. (less)

41 likes · like · see review

Dec 18, 2012 Jeffrey rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: spiritual

Please, if you're Christian, read this. If you're religious, read this. If you're atheist, read this. I guess what I'm saying is read this. Misquoting Jesus reminds me of the game we played in elementary school. The teacher whispers a story in the ear of one child and it's whispered from one ear to the next until the last child tells the story out loud. And guess what? It's considerably different from the original. No dah! Well, imagine this . . . A book is copied over and over and over by monks...more

25 likes · like · see review

view all 11 comments

Aaron Lord One of the things I like about Ehrman is he comes from a similar background to mine and he can still appreciate so many things about the texts—from a...more
Dec 13, 2012 08:57pm

Jeffrey Aaron wrote: "One of the things I like about Ehrman is he comes from a similar background to mine and he can still appreciate so many things about the...more
updated Dec 18, 2012 12:31pm

Jul 01, 2008 Trevor rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: religion

This really is a fantastic book. When Wendy recommended it I thought that it would be pretty much the same old stuff that one would expect when an Atheist recommends a book on Religion. Let me explain why this isn’t what you might expect.

Firstly, it is written by someone who I assume still considers himself a Christian. He begins this book by telling the reader his ‘life story’ – how he became a born again Christian at fifteen and how this lead him to become fascinated in The Bible. Not in the w...more This really is a fantastic book. When Wendy recommended it I thought that it would be pretty much the same old stuff that one would expect when an Atheist recommends a book on Religion. Let me explain why this isn’t what you might expect.

Firstly, it is written by someone who I assume still considers himself a Christian. He begins this book by telling the reader his ‘life story’ – how he became a born again Christian at fifteen and how this lead him to become fascinated in The Bible. Not in the way other fundamentalists necessarily become fascinated by The Bible, but rather really fascinated – perhaps obsessed is a better word if you can view that word positively. He knew that The Bible was the ‘inspired word of God’ – but he also knew a few other things, like that it wasn’t originally written in English. So, he wanted to know, how close is the ‘current’ Bible to the ‘original’ Bible? That is the sort of question that can send one off on a lifetime’s adventure – and that is precisely what happens in this book.

He learns Ancient languages, including Greek, Latin and god knows what else. He studies in various (and, to a fundamentalist Christian, increasingly challenging) universities and finally has his faith – the simple-minded faith he started with – rocked to the core by what he learns.

When someone is this engaged, this excited and this informed about what they are writing and obsessed in it is impossible not to feel your pulse race as you read. And this guy loves his stuff.

I also really like it when someone says something that initially sounds paradoxical and then, once it is explained, makes complete sense. Take, for example, his maxim that if you have two versions of the same text and one version is easy to read and understand and the other is difficult, then the difficult one is most likely to be the original. This sounds almost perverse, but really it is obvious. If you were a scribe and you came across a piece of text, you would be much more likely to change it so as to simplify it than to change it to make it more difficult to understand. Numerous examples are given of parts of the Bible being changed (the last six verses of Mark being added is my favourite and a clear candidate for the most remarkable example) so as to make them easier to understand.

This isn’t a book that is seeking to rub the noses of Christians in the contradictions and mistakes inherent in The Bible, but what it is about is pointing out that rather than being inerrant, the New Testament is very much a human book telling a remarkable story in various and very human ways. The book ends with a wonderful explanation of the differences between the four Gospels and makes a compelling argument for why they cannot be read as if they were one book that need to be read to tell the one story, but rather four different tellings of the one story. It is not the similarities that are important in these stories, but their differences and what these differences mean is what is vitally important.

He spends much time addressing the differences between Mark and Luke – particularly the passion and the remarkably different portrayals of Jesus in these two Gospels. For this stuff alone the book is worth reading.

He also quotes some terribly interesting material regarding the transcription and duplication of the early manuscripts. To be honest, it is hard to imagine that this book survived its origins at all. He quotes one person who is charged with producing a copy of the New Testament who describes how he had to transcribe it letter by letter, given he could not read the language the New Testament he was transcribing was written in. Repeatedly we are told that if you compare the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament you will find that there are more differences between them than there are words in the New Testament. A nice line. Of course, like any evolutionary process, most of these differences are clearly errors and make little or not sense, are easily identified and are almost meaningless. However, some couldn’t be more important to understanding the nature of Jesus and the meaning of his life.

He also describes, and makes compelling cases for, intentional changes to the text made by early groups of Christians and their possible motivations for making these changes. I was particularly interested in this as it turns out Paul may not have been the misogynist old prig I’d always taken him to be. Paul’s requirement that women are not to speak in Church – something I tend to raise every time people talk about Women Bishops or Women Priests as my little contribution illuminating how irrelevant Christianity is in today’s world – is asserted to be probably a later addition and is clearly a view that is contradicted elsewhere in the same letter by Paul. Anything that helps remove or even just undermines some of the more obnoxious and objectionable ideas in the Bible (hatred of women, gays, Jews, blacks for instance) can’t be a bad thing.

Part of the reason the author says it is important to get some idea of the original text of the New Testament – for Christians and Non-Christians alike – is that The Bible is a cornerstone of our culture and this alone makes it an important document to understand. I don’t think this is as compelling an argument as he does – in fact, getting to the ‘original text’ is quite irrelevant to The Bible as a cultural artefact, as it wasn’t the original that impacted on our culture, but the innumerable ‘error filled’ versions throughout the years. Even if one was able to prove that the original version of the New Testament stated that Jesus was not the Son of God, but just a man who lived and died – what would that matter? Two thousand years of Western religious tradition would hardly vanish as a result – no matter how good the proof.

No, the point is that this book and the story it tells really doesn’t require external motivations to justify its telling. The history it explains is completely fascinating in itself. As someone who has spent the last seven years reading over what has been essentially the same document with very minor changes (enterprise agreements all have maternity leave clauses and hours of work clauses – but all are potentially different) I found this book utterly compelling. I think I could have quite enjoyed a life as a Biblical scholar, tracking changes to texts and researching why those changes might not have been accidental.

There are many people in the world to whom this book really should be made compulsory reading – for the rest of us no compulsion is necessary – it really is a pleasure to read.
(less)

59 likes · like · see review

view all 27 comments

MoonButterfly I love this book. It's fascinating to me that a respected biblical scholar turned away from his faith, and how it changed his opinion of things. Timot...more
updated Aug 12, 2011 07:13pm

Galen Watson Very insightful, Trevor. Bart Ehrman has a narrative style that makes difficult subjects compelling and understandable. I'm going to have to read this...more
Nov 27, 2012 11:53pm

Jan 01, 2008 Skylar Burris rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: christianity, bible

While I found it interesting to see what differed in various manuscripts, I did not find any of these changes as sensational, apparently, as the back cover blurb writers did. Ehrman's subject and thesis are interesting, but, unfortunately, he is quite repetitive and his arguments are poorly organized. The introduction and conclusion are the clearest, most arresting portions of the book. The introduction is an intriguing spiritual autobiography, but his conclusion leans a little too heavily towar...more While I found it interesting to see what differed in various manuscripts, I did not find any of these changes as sensational, apparently, as the back cover blurb writers did. Ehrman's subject and thesis are interesting, but, unfortunately, he is quite repetitive and his arguments are poorly organized. The introduction and conclusion are the clearest, most arresting portions of the book. The introduction is an intriguing spiritual autobiography, but his conclusion leans a little too heavily towards deconstructionism for my taste: he states there is no meaning inherent in text. It is certainly true that texts give rise to multiple interpretations, but it is equally true that some interpretations are more correct than others.

The book will be disturbing to those who regard the Bible as a single entity sprung full grown like Athena from Zeus's head. It will be far less disturbing to those whose Christianity has been rooted in an appreciation of both scripture and tradition. Although Ehrman's thesis was interesting, the problem is that you can take any of these phrases or words that are found in some New Testament manuscripts and not others and draw from that fact whatever implications you desire. The difference can mean something or next to nothing, and, to Ehrman, they seem to mean a bit too much. I often had the impression that he was making mountains out of molehills. Ehrman also often attributes complicated theological and social motives to scribes when much simpler motives would suffice.

Most of the changes and additions that were made were recognized as such and therefore were not incorporated into our modern Bibles. Even those very few additions or changes that were incorporated into our modern Bibles are inconsequential; it would not alter orthodox doctrine one iota if they were eliminated, because all of the doctrines they bolster find support elsewhere in uncontested passages of the New Testament. In fact, even in Ehrman's own argument, the orthodox ideas were formed and THEN verses were altered to support them; it therefore cannot be reasonably argued that these changes have in any way affected the formation of orthodox doctrine. It is not as if the creedal doctrines we have today are based on some misquoted text; the ideas came first, even before the textual changes; they were drawn from the scriptures as a whole, and not from any one single verse. What Ehrman does make a good case for (though this does not at all seem to be his goal) is the idea that the orthodox tradition is as valuable as scripture, which many denominations recognize explicitly and most recognize implicitly (by the fact that they accept the canon as a canon at all).

In the end, Ehrman is not saying anything new, anything that has not been said by textual critics for years and years and years. Somehow, though, he has managed to break through to a more general audience, and that takes talent. Unfortunately, however, that general audience may be ill informed about Christian history and theology and doctrine and its origins and may not be able to put the facts he reveals into context. I believe anyone who reads this should, for the sake of balance, also read Timothy Paul Jones's "Misquoting Truth."
(less)

17 likes · like · see review

Mar 01, 2008 Wendy rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: those who like history, are curious about the Bible..whether skeptic or religious

As a biblical scholar, the author wanted to read the Bible in the languages in which it was first written and so studied them and went deeper into the texts. His decision to go deeper, to fully appreciate it, led him to find out as the old saying goes more than he bargained for. It led him to reevaluate his faith which had been based on a belief in the literal truth of what he had been taught it said and in the inerrancy of it as brought down thru the ages..as it was originally written.

What he...more As a biblical scholar, the author wanted to read the Bible in the languages in which it was first written and so studied them and went deeper into the texts. His decision to go deeper, to fully appreciate it, led him to find out as the old saying goes more than he bargained for. It led him to reevaluate his faith which had been based on a belief in the literal truth of what he had been taught it said and in the inerrancy of it as brought down thru the ages..as it was originally written.

What he discovered was that the Bible had been changed many times by those who were translating it, copying in, interpreting it, and even adding to it for a variety of reasons. He learned of all the various debates over the nature of Jesus and God and the schools of thought which were responded to by later copyists who "clarified" and reinforced their side of the debates by adding to the text.

He applied his expertise in analyzing the multilayered mysteries of alterations and has provided us a rich and fascinating glimpse into history including the context of various forms of Christian beliefs through the centuries, the purpose of some of the writers and the identification of multiple or single more ancient sources for some of the writing and its authorship and of controversies about the role and nature of Jesus which sparked such changes and forever changes the readers understanding of what the Bible can provide.

I thought perhaps one of the most interesting insights I gained is how rewriting, adding or editing was an accepted practice and not as so many today would imagine as sacrilidge and evil and not in keeping with the Biblical writings being "holy or sacred" texts.

The last person who consciously edited the new testament to strip it of what he thought was wrong, false, and irrelevant to its message was Thomas Jefferson who did so not as a surreptitious amender but who set off his version as standing on its own as an independent book, a slim volume known as The Jefferson Bible.
Not something that a current President or crop of candidates would DARE to admit to even thinking of doing in this time of evangelical religiousity .
Again, much is revealed about the temper of the times and how attitudes toward the Bible and its use has changed over time even within the last few hundred years thru books such as these. I heartily recommend it. (less)

14 likes · like · see review

Jun 12, 2007 Emily Ann Meyer rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: objective scholars of religion

Shelves: history, religion, 2007

I wish there were a 1/2 star method, because I didn't quite like this up to 4 stars, but I liked it more than 3.

The book was not quite what I expected, inasmuch as it focused a lot more on the individual motivations of scribes and/or transcription errors rather than the major political and theological debates that also contributed to changes in the text.

There is much of this that I already knew - changes are made and mistakes happen. What was new to me, and what really made me sit up and take n...more

7 likes · like · see review

Jul 26, 2007 Lena rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, skepticism

Ehrman was just a teenager when he had a born-again experience that led him to devote his life to the study of Christianity. Hoping to help defend the Bible as the true word of God, he focused his studies on the origins of the Bible, only to discover that the history of a book whose words many faithful take as infallible truth is nowhere near as clear as most people would like to believe. It seems that God suffered the same fate as many great writers and had his words altered by numerous editors...more

8 likes · like · see review

Mar 12, 2013 Demetrius Rogers rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: theology

Bart Ehrman, chairman of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, has authored this book as both an introduction to the field of New Testament Textual Criticism and a critique of ancient scribal practices. In this book, Ehrman has provided the reader with a brief and handy overview of the history of textual transmission and the development of critical methodology in the attempt of reconstructing the original text. Ehrman has not only provided the reader with an objective view of th...more Bart Ehrman, chairman of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, has authored this book as both an introduction to the field of New Testament Textual Criticism and a critique of ancient scribal practices. In this book, Ehrman has provided the reader with a brief and handy overview of the history of textual transmission and the development of critical methodology in the attempt of reconstructing the original text. Ehrman has not only provided the reader with an objective view of the scholarly field of Text Criticism, but also produced a record of his personal journey out of evangelical faith to place of agnostic belief.

In the introduction, Ehrman explains that Textual Criticism is a technical term for the science of restoring the original words of a text (5). Ehrman, then chronicles his faith journey during his time at Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and finally during his doctoral studies at Princeton. While becoming acquainted with the Greek of the New Testament his faith in biblical authority began to wane. The notions of inerrancey and inspiration were under hostile siege as he began to allow himself permission to view the biblical authors in a human light. How could Mark, the evangelist, say some of the things he did if he did not simply make a mistake? His conclusion: “The Bible, at the end of the day, is a very human book” (12). He, thus, seems to indicate that his main objective for writing this book was to make assessable to a lay audience the subject of Text Criticism in hopes that the naïveté of inerrancy would be duly dispelled (15).

Ehrman notes that early Christianity was unique in the fact that it was comprised of people that lived by the book. But, the irony was that 85-90 percent of the population were unable to read or write (37-38). Hence, the illiterate had to enlist the services of the literate (41). So it is not difficult to surmise, claims Ehrman, that appropriate controls for preserving the text were defunct from the very first days. These first centuries of the church was a period in which Ehrman claims that a multitude of errors infiltrated the textual tradition such that any talk of recovering an “original” text must be, in intellectual honesty, abandoned. What does it even mean to talk of an original text? At what point was it original? And Ehrman postulates several stages of compilation for a final form of the text that further complicates the notion (57-62).

A new era dawned at the ascendency of Constantine. With extensive favor and funding professional scribes were secured and this provided a modicum of stability for the text, at least within each text family (72-73). The next major advance in stability eventually came with the age of printing. Ehrman then takes the reader through a fascinating 350 year historical journey of the process of standardizing an eclectic text, equipped with critical apparatus, beginning with the emergence of the Textus Receptus on through to the time of Wescott and Hort (78-125).

All of this history brings the reader up to speed sufficiently to now understand Ehrman’s main thesis. Beginning with page 133, Ehrman offers three examples of variants that were specifically the design of deliberate scribal alteration. (Mark 1:41; Luke 22:43-44; and Heb. 2:9). There were unintentional mistakes in textual transmission, but these three and many others were, says Ehrman, attempts to realign texts to say what the scribes believed they should be and/or desired them to be. In Mark 1:41 scribes did not like the sound of an angry Jesus so they changed his demeanor to be that of compassion. And Ehrman points out that Mark does consistently portray (2 other times) the anger of Jesus through his gospel. Then Ehrman shows how the verses of Luke 22:43-44 were inserted into the text to give Jesus a more human appeal in regards to suffering. But again, Luke does not attempt to portray a Jesus who suffers, but one who is relatively calm and without passion. Finally in Hebrews 2:9, Ehrman shows how scribes have altered the text yet again by changing manuscripts from saying Jesus died for all the people “apart from God” to “by the grace of God.” This was a deliberate modification, says Ehrman, to save Jesus from being forsaken by the Father because such would seem inconceivable to the faithful.

In chapters 6 and 7 Ehrman continues to postulate his theories of scribal alteration. In chapter 6 the motivations were theologically driven, whereas in chapter 7 they are socially charged. The Proto-orthodox was the suspect party in Ehrman’s opinion of co-opting the text to read differently from the adoptionistic, docetic, and separationist Christological views they found there. The same party is held responsible for altering readings that they considered to be out of bounds in regards to their views on women, Jews, and pagans.

In his conclusion, Ehrman reiterates his remarks from the introduction in regards to his belief that the Bible is purely a human book (211). Why talk of inspiration if we cannot speak of a preserved text? Words matter and if we do not have the words then we cannot have inspiration. Rather, we posses in the New Testament a collection of diverse interpretations of the Jesus narrative. And not only were the writers diverse in their accounts, but the readers will be diverse in their interpretation. It is here that Ehrman cites his fundamental view regarding hermeneutics: “Meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves… So to read is, necessarily, to change a text” (216-217). So in the end, Ehrman concedes, we should be less judgmental toward the scribes who changed text – for they were only doing what a serious reader would do: interpret Scripture.

This was an enjoyable book not because I agreed with the author's conclusions (or shall I say presuppositions?), nor because I appreciated his tone, but because it made for a lively exchange. I enjoyed reading it, much like I enjoy a good spirited debate. Not that the whole experience was debate; some of the book (most of it actually) was good teaching. Ehrman is a gifted communicator. You have to be gifted to be able to distill a complex field such as Text Criticism for a pop level. If it were not for his acrimony and misrepresentation of the facts this would be a decent introduction to the field. Also problematic were the fundamental biases that bled all over its pages. As we have seen Ehrman is of the persuasion that the biblical text is a wholly human endeavor. So he favors diversity at every turn. If Luke contains a variant that agrees with Mark, let’s say, that is immediately to be taken as a scribal alteration. The "orthodox" party is made out to be the boogie man that is blamed for instigating every change in the text. And this theory lends itself to making mountains out of mole hills. For instance, two of the three main texts that he accuses as corrupt UBS readings (Mark 1:41; Luke 22:43-44; and Heb. 2:9) puts him at odds (self-admittedly) with most of the scholars in his field. He even has to refute the ratings of Bruce Metzger – to whom the book is dedicated – (without even a footnote, no less) in order to make his case! So, naturally, the work struck me as grasping at straws.

Ehrman’s logic, also, suffered from contradiction. But, it did so when the arguments seemed convenient for his purposes. As an example, from pages 57 to 62 Ehrman passionately argues against the thought of an original text. The goal, for the traditional text critic, has always been the enterprise of reconstructing an original text. But, why even talk of such a notion when, according to Ehrman, we do not know how to even get back to one, or what one would look like when we got there. Could it perhaps be what was dictated? And if multiple copies were sent out by Paul and his associates were they all free of error? What if a prologue and epilogue were added at a later time (as he suspects is the case for John’s gospel)? What then? The notion is so shot through with complexity that we should just quit speaking of such a thing. But, in the space of one small paragraph (page 63) he turns on a dime and argues from the basis of the original text that John 7:53-8:12 was never there. He continues to make his case for the absence of Mark 16:9-20 because, as he puts it, they “were not original to Mark” (67). How can he do that? How can he in one breath turn the concept of an original text into a vaporous cloud and in the next a terra firma in which to stand? Apparently, it was an opportunity to advance his cause, which is to cast the veracity of the biblical text into doubt.

Another glaring example of contradiction comes during his conclusion. After dragging the proto-orthodox party over the coals for perpetrating textual alterations (upon which, in my opinion, was dubious grounds) he lets up on them and admits – what else were they to do? And then he makes a surprising statement: “To read a text is, necessarily, to change a text.” What he means by this is that when a text is read any given interpreter brings their own set of presuppositions to the table, their own perspectives, their own desires, and needs. Surely these things will alter their understanding. He said, “Meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves” (216). But, the main thesis of the entire book rests upon the fact that “words matter” because to change words is to change the very meaning of the text (11, 69, 94, 111, 132, 149, 155)! The very methodology of textual criticism assumes that texts speak for themselves. How can we prefer the more difficult reading if there were not agreement regarding the meaning of the text and the motive of the scribe? His whole project has been flushed if this concluding statement were true. Yet he uses it at the very close of the book, seemingly, to leave his reader in a mist of generalized doubt regarding the very meaning of meaning. He traffics in meaning he needs to let his readership do the same. Convenient it seems for a man to deal in a currency that he does not disperse to his reader.

This book, no doubt, proved to be a stimulating read. Much of the body of the work made for a pretty good introduction to the field, but unfortunately the whole work is cast in the unflattering light of radical skepticism. I am sad to say that Bart Ehrman uses his knowledge in Misquoting Jesus to mislead and cause the less informed to doubt the veracity of the text. He provides half-truths and sleight of hands to achieve this desired effect. And for this reason, I believe the book is to be read by committed evangelical pastors and teachers. If we do not have answers to the type of questions Ehrman is conjuring up we sadly forsake the fold to the wolves that prowl in the night. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 20, 2008 Stephanie rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As a believer in "verbal plenary inspiration", which this author once cherished but came to see as ridiculous, I am curious to hear his experience and case. I want to admit up front that I already find myself distrusting his conclusions because of an assumption/leap-in-logic that he made back on page 11 about God's motives and choices. But, that said, he still holds my interest on a number of points.

Update: I am kind of disappointed in this author, because I feel like he promised these earth-sha...more

3 likes · like · see review

Apr 01, 2008 Nat rated it 5 of 5 stars

A must for anyone who wants to know WHY the Bible isn't inerrant. A wonderful work by a biblical scholar who was motivated by his deep faith and only wanted to find the truth. One of the most interesting aspects is that the reader will come to understand how biblical scholars work and the methods they use to decide which text represents an older tradition than another text. Also, those new to the study of comparative religion will probably be amazed to learn (or refuse to believe) that some part...more

9 likes · like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 Aaron Jordan rated it 3 of 5 stars

I listened to this book as an audiobook. I generally enjoyed much of this book and found it to be very interesting. On the other hand, I also sensed that the author was writing with an agenda that missed the mark. He seemed to be relishing the prideful pleasure of iconoclasm as he set himself up as the smartest man in the room to enlighten us poor simpletons who actually believe in the Bible. I suppose I should also blame the narrator for the smug, sneering, condescending tone of this book. I h...more I listened to this book as an audiobook. I generally enjoyed much of this book and found it to be very interesting. On the other hand, I also sensed that the author was writing with an agenda that missed the mark. He seemed to be relishing the prideful pleasure of iconoclasm as he set himself up as the smartest man in the room to enlighten us poor simpletons who actually believe in the Bible. I suppose I should also blame the narrator for the smug, sneering, condescending tone of this book. I have no doubt that much of what Mr. Ehrman wrote is true, but I also felt that my own intelligence was being insulted several times as he repeatedly assumed too much in the fatuous arguments that he made to the effect that the Bible is not so inspired and divine after all. This book contains a potential spiritual danger, because it has the propensity to destroy faith rather than to build it.
He missed the mark, as intellectuals so often do, by straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Perhaps his greatest mistake was to assume that anything inspired by God must be perfect, because God is perfect. Another egregious error that he seemed to commit was to assume that scriptural texts are the foundation and lifeblood of the Christian religion. A third error was to rely too heavily upon reason and empirical evidence alone and to pay too little attention to the invisible spiritual realities that no faithless intellectual can ever discern.
I could not help but think of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and perfect God inspired an imperfect young man to produce an imperfect book of scripture and to found a living church staffed by imperfect human beings. That imperfect Prophet of the Restoration is the most prolific producer of inspired scriptural texts in the history of the world, and by the time the end of the earth comes, those imperfect writings, along with the imperfect Bible, will have led more imperfect people to eternal perfection than any other inspired writings ever could. Although God is perfect, He is not the perfectionist that we myopic human beings so often assume Him to be. I see imperfection all around me in the world, and especially in people, but I also see God's perfect hand working quiet, invisible miracles through small, simple, imperfect means all the time.
As for Mr. Ehrman’s second error, a living prophet and living apostles, exercising keys of the priesthood and receiving revelation from God through the Spirit, are the foundation of authority in the true Christian Church. Even if we were to lose every scriptural text in existence, the Christian faith would remain true and vibrant, and we could still receive all the scripture we need through the living oracles, the prophets and apostles who hold and exercise the keys of the priesthood.
Finally, as for the third error that I mentioned above, consider the following.
After finishing this book, I picked up my error-ridden King James Version of the New Testament and read from the first three chapters of the first epistle of John. I read about apostles who serve as witnesses of eternal life and of their efforts to help all people to experience fellowship with God and to feel the joy of the gospel. I read about the light that is in God, the light of His love, and I read about the darkness of sin and hatred. I read about Christ as the propitiation for our sins and about obedience as the key to acquiring a knowledge of God and to having the love of God in us. I read about the transitory and foolish lust and pride of the world, as contrasted to the eternal rewards of obedience. I read about several other principles, but perhaps most relevant among these was the doctrine at the beginning of chapter 3, which teaches us that we attain a hope in Christ and come to know Christ by becoming like Him. To me, this doctrine is the essence of the gospel.
As I read, my heart softened, and I felt the ineffable influence of the Spirit of God. I felt joy and peace. I felt less inclined to commit sin. I felt a desire to improve myself, to continue the fight against the evils in my own life, to master myself and to commune with the Almighty. And I knew by that same Spirit that the Bible is indeed the word of God. Moreover, I know that this Spirit, which I obtained through reading the Bible, can become within me a source of living water that can help me to help other people draw closer to God and build their own faith. The same is true for any person who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Mr. Ehrman’s book put some interesting information into my mind, but when it came to the living waters of the Spirit of God, and especially in comparison with the very Bible that Mr. Ehrman was criticizing, his book was conspicuously lacking.
But do not misunderstand me: this book was a fascinating read and well worth my time. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject. But I would counsel anyone who reads it to be careful not to miss the mark by overlooking the tremendous spiritual power contained within the Bible.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Nov 20, 2008 Heather rated it 3 of 5 stars

Recommended to Heather by: Robin

i really wanted more from this book; it felt like the introduction to a more in-depth exploration. as such, there certainly were things new to me, but as someone with mild exposure to exegesis, much of this was known territory, and i repeatedly felt frustrated at the cursory descriptions (and terse! footnotes).

that said, i am glad i read this, and i highly recommend this to *anyone* who takes the bible to be the inerrant word of god. ehrman's writing style is relatively easy to understand, has a...more

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 19, 2007 Schnaucl rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: library, non-fiction, read_2007, history, november

This was a really interesting book. I knew there were problems with the texts, of course, but I had no idea there were "more variations than words in the New Testament."

I knew some of the basics of textural criticism before but it was fascinating to see how it applied to these particular texts. And I'd known that the oldest forms of Latin were written without grammar or even spaces between words, but I had no idea the same was true of Ancient Greek.

It was also interesting that the older texts...more

2 likes · like · see review

Laura Amazing, isn't it? The additions and deletions completely change the meaning of those texts sometimes. That's why I always say an indepth study of the...more
Nov 20, 2007 05:40am

Kenny Bell PLEASE READ* Does Bart Erhman provide the resources or evidence to where he claims "We don't have the original bible" and "we dont know who wrote the...more
Jan 17, 2012 12:19pm

Schnaucl I think scholars agree there's no complete original bible which isn't surprising considering it was written before the invention of the printing press...more
Jan 19, 2012 12:06pm

Sep 20, 2007 Xysea rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, book-on-home-shelf

I enjoyed this book from many perspectives.

I enjoyed reading about a fundamentalist who actually saw the light and understood the Bible, like the Constitution, was intended to be a living document - not a frozen one.

And that the whole purpose of Christianity, in Jesus, was to foment change in how people viewed the things they previously believed were absolutes as well (Laws of Moses).

As an aside, I had been down this road before. I took a course in college called the New Testament as Literature....more

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 25, 2013 Dan Ragsdale rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: all who are fascinated with scriptural studies

Shelves: christianity-and-sprirituality, philosophy

This is the second of Ehrman's books I have read - I plan to read many more. My first exposure to his work was his book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer in which he addressed the thorny topic of human suffering in the context of a loving God. I found it to be both intellectually honest and it provided comprehensive coverage the many ways, throughout history, that theologians and philosophers have attempted to explain this apparent contradicti...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 31, 2007 David rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: bible

Ehrman did a good job of explaining textual criticism for the average person. The reason I only give two stars is because I learned pretty much everything he says in this book at a conservative evangelical seminary. In other words, he writes as if these things are a shocking secret to Christians when most Christians, even the most evangelical ones, learned this ages ago and are fine with it. This book should encourage Christian teachers and pastors to teach these things to the people in their ch...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jan 13, 2012 Steven rated it 4 of 5 stars

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D Ehrman is the first informational, as opposed to fictional, book that I have listened to through audible. I very much enjoyed the experience.

The book is about the discrepancies between the various scribal copies of the books of the New Testament. This is a facet of an area that I’ve always been interested in. There really isn’t much to say except that if you are looking for truth in the bible, trying to discern which parts reflect customs, which life truths, divine tru...more

like · see review

Feb 02, 2009 Jeremy rated it 5 of 5 stars

A book that does a fine job of compacting hundreds of years of Biblical scholarship into a readable and compelling story. The author's own journey, from non-faith, to faith, and back, provides a seldom-referred to but important back story. What is most shocking for me, and I imagine for most readers who were brought up Christian, is how many years after Jesus the books that make up the New Testament were written, AND how many textually distinctive versions of almost every book exist. In other wo...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 02, 2009 Steven Stark rated it 4 of 5 stars

The title of this book is definitely the most provocative thing about it. I would bet you $20 that the publishers came up with it rather than the author. After all, publishers try to sell books! Aside from the Introduction and the Conclusion, where Ehrman talks of his personal views and history, this is a fairly straightforward, scholarly book about textual criticism, both in general and more specifically concerning the New Testament. I don’t think even conservative Christians would be too taken...more The title of this book is definitely the most provocative thing about it. I would bet you $20 that the publishers came up with it rather than the author. After all, publishers try to sell books! Aside from the Introduction and the Conclusion, where Ehrman talks of his personal views and history, this is a fairly straightforward, scholarly book about textual criticism, both in general and more specifically concerning the New Testament. I don’t think even conservative Christians would be too taken aback by anything in it, unless their doctrine involves the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.

Ehrman is very easy to read and likable as an author. He presents complex ideas simply and does not repeat himself too much. Of course, like every single author I have every read, he makes an occasional leap that I do not agree with based on the information he presents, but by and large his writing reads as if he has very little agenda except to seek the very best possible version of the earliest and best texts of the New Testament we can find.

He talks about the history of copying a lot. Remember, there were no printing presses. Every copy of every book was a handwritten copy, and every one is slightly (or not so slightly) different. Ehrman discusses the methodology used to figure out which manuscripts are better when dealing with those that disagree. If there are two different versions of a verse or verses and they are both represented in several of the oldest and best manuscripts, how does a critic decide which is closer to the original? It’s really super interesting, but I’m realizing that it would take several paragraphs to go through it all here. And luckily, Ehrman writes in a very easy to understand way so check out his book if you would like more information. I plowed through it in just a few days because it was so interesting.

Here are just a few interesting points in the book:

- There are over thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT for scholars to work with, but there are less than 10 copies which contain the entire NT.

- Aside from some papyrus fragments dating to the second and third centuries, the earliest copies we have of most NT books are still hundreds of years after the original autographs. This is very common with any ancient text, of course. The New Testament is actually way better represented than most other ancient works. This can create its own problems, of course.

- Most of the errors (accidental or purposeful) in copying occurred in the earliest versions because these were done by the few Christians, in the first few centuries after Christ, who had the ability to copy. Later, a more professional scribal class emerged who did the copying.

- The story in John about the adulteress and “let he without sin cast the first stone” was almost certainly not in the original gospel.

- The author of Revelation calls down curses on anyone who would add or subtract anything to his book. This was to persuade copyists to do a good job!(less)

like · see review

Apr 21, 2013 Stein rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: biblical-theology

This book is a fascinating study in how the Bible came into existence and how its contents can be evaluated based on modern scholarship. It should be required reading to liberate those who have been indoctrinated by the bibliolatry existing in the majority of so-called Bible-believing fundamentalist organizations. A commandment supposedly upheld by all Christians is to not tell a lie. Why then do so many of them lie by omission and commission when it comes to Biblical veracity? It is academicall...more This book is a fascinating study in how the Bible came into existence and how its contents can be evaluated based on modern scholarship. It should be required reading to liberate those who have been indoctrinated by the bibliolatry existing in the majority of so-called Bible-believing fundamentalist organizations. A commandment supposedly upheld by all Christians is to not tell a lie. Why then do so many of them lie by omission and commission when it comes to Biblical veracity? It is academically and ethically dishonest in the extreme to purport that this collection of old manuscripts, called The Bible, is the complete inerrant divine truth dictated by God, even for our time.

I am a firm believer in the ultimate universal reality, historically called "God" by our western culture. I also believe in the inner Christ which, as well as can be determined, was exemplified by the life of Jesus/Jeshua. These three words: God, Christ and Jesus have acquired myriads of meanings and associations. Mankind has been bombarded by "those who know God's truth" for five millennia. Only in recent time have we become unshackled from some of the fears and falsehoods. Today we can, if we have the will and courage, investigate to find our own truth about divine concepts--supernatural as well as natural. Our loyalty needs only to be to our eternal Higher Self. How wonderful is that?!

Ehrman is one of our time's most eminent scholars in the field of theology and eschatology. He seems to come without the baggage of hypocritical loyalties which induce so many authors to present evidences to fit a predetermined conclusion. (I highly recommend his religion courses available from The Teaching Company.) This book is very readable by anyone of average intelligence and education. It may provide challenges for people loyal to fixed faith formulae but the revelations presented by Ehrman need not lead to disbelief and despair. God and Christ are larger than what can be contained in a book, including the Bible. The truth can make us free if we open heart, mind and spirit to revelations and inspiration whatever their source. To succeed it does require discipline and discernment. But let us never accept that all the answers have been found. Truth can seem ephemeral but it is always within reach and continually expanding as our consciousness evolves.

Most everyone who composed scripture, transcribed it, interpreted it and lived by its message was earnest in his or her devotion to what they believed to be the will of God. But a few others used power and influence driven by selfish motives to corrupt the Higher purpose. In this book Ehrman gives us the opportunity to examine the historical authenticity of the Bible and to ask ourselves what was and is the divine intention.(less)

like · see review

Apr 17, 2013 Marcus rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: everyone

This is a good book for those just beginning to delve into historical criticism; it hits many of the common misconceptions about the Bible believed in America and other uber-Christian countries, and it does so with a fair-handedness and scholarly air that is less likely to turn off fundamentalists. It is not, unfortunately, organized as well as it could be, and Ehrman pinballs about from subject to subject at times, some of which do not actually relate to his main thesis (it is called "Misquotin...more

like · see review

Mar 28, 2013 Lage von Dissen rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book was another great supplement for those interested in the historicity of both the New Testament, and Jesus Christ. Ehrman goes into some detail to explain specific cases where scribes either added or removed text from the manuscripts that eventually would constitute the New Testament. There are quite a few critical scholars out there who using various methodologies, can compare one manuscript to another, compare writing styles of supposed authors between their proclaimed writings, and d...more This book was another great supplement for those interested in the historicity of both the New Testament, and Jesus Christ. Ehrman goes into some detail to explain specific cases where scribes either added or removed text from the manuscripts that eventually would constitute the New Testament. There are quite a few critical scholars out there who using various methodologies, can compare one manuscript to another, compare writing styles of supposed authors between their proclaimed writings, and determine with a large probability what was added and what was removed. They can examine texts to find words or passages that either don't fit well based on the other authors works, or words or phrases that weren't used in the corresponding areas, cultures, or time periods that fit the rest of the text. Many techniques have been used to examine what is "more original" than anything else. Nobody can be certain with any conclusion, but scholars can make claims with incredibly high probabilities that fit in line with and are supported by other literary scholarship. We find out interesting examples of stories that aren't present in the oldest manuscripts, like that of the adulterous woman that Jesus heroically saves by saying "Anyone who is without sin should cast the first stone". Another example is the last twelve verses in the book of Mark. These were added by a later scribe because once again, they were not present in the oldest manuscripts, nor does the writing style match that of the rest of Mark. Yet they remain in the Gospel. As Ehrman points out, "Scribal errors were so common in antiquity that even the author of the Book of Revelation (a man named John) threatened damnation to anyone who "adds to" or "takes away" words from the text." There are countless examples of erroneous manuscripts, and there are even a few books that made it into the canon that are forgeries. What are we to make of all of this? What are we to make of the numerous contradictions present within the modern canon we have to this day? The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John have messages and perspectives that vary quite a bit from one another (despite certain scribes efforts to harmonize them, as well as the fact that the author of Luke and Matthew used the book of Mark as a common source). What are we to make of the fundamentally different views of Jesus and his disciples and that of Paul's. Paul had a radically different view in terms of the importance of Jewish law. Yet both the Gospels as well as several letters from Paul, all made it into the same canon. Many readers of the NT will fail to see these differences. On top of this most readers of the New Testament have no idea of the contradictions and variations present in the manuscripts, because only those that read about or dabble in critical biblical scholarship are made aware of them. If more ministers would share what they learned in seminary school regarding biblical scholarship (we can see why they wouldn't want to mention these "minor" details), more religious followers would actually have a decent background in the text and religion they ascribe to. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, nor was it for me when I was a born-again Christian years ago. We were taught that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, inspired as such. When we realize that whatever divine inspiration may have existed has been altered to such a great degree, that we no longer have it -- or that these changes have have led to contradicting messages and many central Christian doctrines, what can we say about the supposed inerrant nature of the Bible? Anyone that is confident in their faith and beliefs and willing to research them from a historical-critical perspective will no doubt be amazed at what critical scholars have known for over two centuries. Some fundamental beliefs may not change, but if denial isn't dominant, many things will have to be reconsidered to say the least. The question is whether or not the followers of this religion would even bother reading a book about critical biblical scholarship, especially scholarship that represents the general consensus. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the New Testament, or Jesus Christ, whether from a religious perspective, a historical one, or both.(less)

like · see review

Nov 23, 2012 Christopher rated it 3 of 5 stars

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Aug 21, 2012 Kathy Davie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

A non-fictional account of how and why the Bible is NOT the direct word of God.

My Take
This was an excellent, very scholarly account using scientific and textual inquiry to present the manner in which people have for centuries been changing the words that make up the New Testament. The work involved in determining which copy is the more original was and is tremendous. It gives me a headache just thinking of how to keep track and organize the mass of material! I want a time machine!!

Ehrman explain...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 15, 2012 Matthew Harris rated it 4 of 5 stars

Bart Ehrman coming from an evangelical background has done a great job at getting into the Textual Criticism of the Bible and looking at the earliest extant texts of the bible, such as Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and others.

Unfortunately, it seems that Ehrman, along with many secularists take the slippery slope route. Such a route takes the position: Because we don't have the original New Testament manuscripts produced in the first century of the common era, somehow the bible loses its authe...more

like · see review

May 29, 2012 Erika RS rated it 2 of 5 stars

The first thing to know about Bart Ehrman is that you should ignore the titles of his books. I don't know if he comes up with him or if it is his publishers, but I do know that the titles are meant to grab eyeballs. The books are much less sensationalistic than the titles or the publisher's blurbs -- Ehrman mostly covers academically mainstream, vanilla views of the Biblical as a historical and literary text. These books, like pretty much anything that looks at the Bible as a historical and lite...more

like · see review

May 24, 2012 Bart Breen rated it 4 of 5 stars

A Very Engaging Book

This is the first book of Ehrman's I have read. I found it interesting and well-written for the average person who has little background in Biblical Textual Studies, (which equates to more than 99% of the population.)

I do not have the credentials of Dr. Ehrman, but I do have the equivalent of a degree in Biblical Literature and have worked in the original languages. My Senior Thesis was doing a textual comparison of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi with...more

like · see review

Nov 20, 2011 Kristen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

This was recommended to me by a friend who is quite religious as an excellent treatment of problems with literal reading of the Bible. The book clearly lays out how the original text of the Bible was written in Greek and then hand-copied over and over by scribes. Particularly in the early days these scribes were barely literate AND had their own agendas. Therefore both intentional and unintentional mistakes were made, things added, and things deleted. We don't have any of the original documents,...more

like · see review

Nov 10, 2011 ***Dave Hill rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, text, favorites

(Original Review Jan 2007)

Overall 4/5
Writing 4/5
Re-Readability 4/5
Info 4/5

This book will probably most upset those who consider the Bible to be the inerrant, complete, perfect, inspired, transmitted-by-telegraph Word of God. Ehrman’s thesis — respectfully presented — is that recourse to the original words of the Bible are fruitless, because we don’t have them, only copies, copies of copies, and copies of those copies, and those copies are themselves full of differences, errors both trivial and...more

like · see review

Oct 10, 2011 Sarah Bringhurst Familia rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: christianity

Provocatively titled and insightful, this book is more than anything the story of a believing intellectual's love affair with the Bible. Ehrman gives a mini history of how we got our modern Bible, and why the words we read today are different from what was originally written. He covers how the "books" and epistles in the Bible were transmitted in ancient times, and how and why they were canonized, when similar writings were left out. Some of the most interesting parts of the book talked about th...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Hitler button	4	45	Jan 14, 2013 02:17pm

combine
Other Editions (23)

More editions...

Genres

Religion

412 users

Non Fiction

270 users

History

184 users

Religion > Christianity

68 users

Religion > Theology

29 users

Philosophy

28 users

Religion > Atheism

24 users

Spirituality

23 users

Christian

17 users

Religion > Faith

11 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Bart D. Ehrman

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies.

A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Div...more Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies.

A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited 21 books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a Greek-English edition of The Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press), an assessment of the newly discovered Gospel of Judas (Oxford University Press), and two New York Times bestsellers: God’s Problem (an assessment of the biblical views of suffering) and Misquoting Jesus (an overview of the changes found in the surviving copies of the New Testament and of the scribes who produced them).

Among his fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Professor Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as coeditor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E.J. Brill), coeditor in chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Professor Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Professor Ehrman has two children, a daughter, Kelly, and a son, Derek. He is married to Sarah Beckwith (PhD, King's College London), Marcello Lotti Professor of English at Duke University. He lives in Durham, North Carolina.

(less)

More about Bart D. Ehrman...

Books by Bart D. Ehrman

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible {and Why We Don't Know About Them}

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer

Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Misquoting Jesus:...

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

title link	preview: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
avg rating	preview: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why Goodreads rating: 3.87 (6369 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51364.Misquoting_Jesus?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1349030656l/51364.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51364.Misquoting_Jesus?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman[/url]

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

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website