I liked this book a lot more than I expected to. My typical reaction to Bart Ehrman is that I find his facts compelling, but I don't feel compelled to accept all his conclusions, and this book was no different.

He does a good job of presenting scholarship (i.e. facts you can look up for yourself in the Bible) about discrepancies in the New Testament accounts. He also presents good historical information about the origin of the New Testament canon, as well as conclusions scholars have drawn about authorship of the books.

One comment my wife consistently makes, though, is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example, because the book of Matthew doesn't say Matthew is the author doesn't mean Matthew is not the author. Because the book is written in extremely well-formed Greek not expected of a Jewish tax collector doesn't mean he didn't dictate it to a scribe. My view is that you can't necessarily prove some of this one way or the other, yet Ehrman often advances conclusions and assumptions like this, that because you can't conclusively prove something to be true it must be false.

He does a good job of surfacing his biases and being explicit that you can believe everything he says and still be a faithful and committed Christian. What you cannot do is maintain a simplistic view of the Bible as being a consistent set of works of known authorship. Factual details presented in the accounts disagree, so does that mean one or the other or both is somehow not inspired?

Honestly this book produced a huge wrestling match with my previously held view of the Bible, but I remain on the side of faith. Not so much faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, but faith in a God who works in ways I don't always understand. My faith emerges better and stronger and more solidly grounded than it was before.

I believe every Christian should read this book with an open mind, prepared to sift out truth and facts from opinion. If you can't read this book and come out stronger, your faith is founded on shifting sands.