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

May 16, 2010 Bakari rated it liked it

Shelves: ebook, atheism-religion, history, 2010-books-read, kindle

I’ve known about Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus every since I read his excellent book, God’s Problem. I hadn’t planned on reading Misquoting Jesus, but a local atheist book group had selected it for reading and discussion, so that was my impetus for reading it. (Unfortunately I ended up not being able to attend the discussion.)

Sad to say, I was a little disappointed by the book. Ehrman does the job of giving examples of what many of us should know about the Bible—that it’s an ancient collection I’ve known about Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus every since I read his excellent book, God’s Problem. I hadn’t planned on reading Misquoting Jesus, but a local atheist book group had selected it for reading and discussion, so that was my impetus for reading it. (Unfortunately I ended up not being able to attend the discussion.)

Sad to say, I was a little disappointed by the book. Ehrman does the job of giving examples of what many of us should know about the Bible—that it’s an ancient collection of books that have been mistranslated or intentionally mistranslated from the original books. In fact, the Greek and Hebrew language of the original texts can only be read by a few dedicated scholars, leaving the rest of world using the “King James” version and other translations of the books. (By the way, he point out: “The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early seventeenth century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.” Does this mean he thinks there’s a God that really spoke through the original sacred text?)

The scholarship that Ehrman provides is useful, but think he didn’t do enough to critique why these mistranslations of scribes even matter. For most Christians, it doesn’t matter there are textual discrepancies between the accounting of Jesus’s life in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For most believers, just the idea of Jesus as the “way to Heaven” is all they’re really concerned about at the end of each Sunday’s service.

For me, the book is at it’s best by chapter six when explains what might have influenced many of the major discrepancies between translations. Understanding the history behind these “sacred” books and the development of Christianity is more revealing about the contradictions of the theology and movement itself. As you understand the context in which Christianity arose, you see that it’s nothing more than a man-made theology that doesn’t factually prove that Jesus‘s dying on the cross brought about the “salvation” of humanity. The very idea of that doesn’t even make sense. It simply sounds like some cultural views of the time.

I mean, just think about the how the notion today of some modern-day prophet “shedding his blood” for us would sound. We wouldn’t even understand it because what in fact does it mean? What changes in human nature took place as a result of the “shedding of blood?” It all sound barbaric to say the least.

I also think the Ehrman should have connected the contradictions in sees in New Testament texts with similar ones in the Old Testament. How can he say the the modern translations of the New Testaments scribes “are not the inerrant word of God,” when the fact of God‘s existence himself is based a pure lack of evidence. Even if we had access to the original books, they wouldn’t prove the existence of God or even change what most people think about the identity of Jesus.

I’m not saying Misquoting Jesus is not worth reading, but I would prefer to read a book which discusses more the history the of the “sacred“ texts and how they might have come about. and what were the contemporary influences of several hundred years that helped shape the theology, the Biblical canon, and the various Christian sects as a whole. For it seems from reading this book that there was indeed a Christian movement that developed before the New Testament came along. That understanding itself shows the lack of divine nature of the Bible.
...more

1 like · Like · see review

Jul 08, 2010 George King rated it it was amazing

One fact from this book says it all. There are more errors in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament. Ehrman explains clearly why the Bible is not the unerrant word of God.

Like · see review

Jun 03, 2010 Mimi V rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, 2010, atheism, kindle

of course i knew that the new testament is not the unerring word of god, but this book, written by a biblical scholar, explains why this is so. in very understandable language, he explores how the 'original' texts were changed (and that we do not, in fact, have the 'original' texts at all) and some of the reasons for the changes, from accidental to deliberate changes to promote a belief.

the one thing that wasn't discussed in this book was how the books in 'the bible' were chosen to be included ...more

Like · see review

May 31, 2010 Kaylana rated it really liked it

Shelves: nonfiction, bible-history, read-2010

Ehrman is very readable and really enjoyed his condensed descriptions of some of the textual studies of the New Testament and how things have been changed over the centuries. Really looking forward to more.

Like · see review

May 01, 2010 Gofita rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2010-read, biblical-studies

Excellent introduction into textual criticism in general and how it's been used to find the ways the Bible manuscripts have been changed over the centuries. A very engaging and important book. ...more

Like · see review