who here has read Misquoting Jesus?

About Misquoting Jesus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.

Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.


I was going to, but it was too long, so didn't read.

 

I haven't read it yet, but I will. Unless I can find a cheap used copy, I'll probably get the paperback version when it comes out next spring.

I read the preview pages on Amazon, and I'm definitely intrigued.

 

It is very well documented. Naturally people of faith will claim that the acknowledged edits and intentional/unintentional errors were god editing it.

He is done changing it now though, so that is why homos have to fry.

 

I'm interested, too. But even the corrected versions were written by people.

 

I've got Ehrman's text on the New Testament siting on a bookshelf a few feet away. He does focus heavily upon redactive (editorial) composition of most of the NT. I personally think he goes a little overboard, reading different themes and/or styles of writing within a book (of the Bible) as evidence of multiple sources. For example, in the Gospel of John, he argues there is evidence of use of a source on signs, a source on Jesus' discourses, a source on Jesus' passion, a source for the prologue of the Gospel, and a source for the conclusion of the Gospel. Ehrman asserts these different sources hinted at through changes in writing style point to different authors. I prefer to see them more as evidence of the author using multiple oral traditions and perhaps a few written traditions in the early Christian community. It could still be one author. Either way, the important part is that the gospels, at least, are some of the earliest stories we have of Jesus, less re-interpreted, or re-spoken in another's vocabulary, as we have in the rest of the NT.

I haven't read Ehrman's 'Misquoting' work, but it sounds interesting. I suspect it may be a stab explaining quality textual analysis in relatively layman terms and making academic biblical scholarship more accessible. Differences in versions of Biblical texts (different wording or added text in versions from later centuries versus ones from earlier centuries) are an undeniable reality. We'll perhaps I shouldn't say undeniable, because people deny them regularly, but they are a proven reality.

That last paragraph of the review above sounds a bit exagerated to me. I recall Ehrman having a highly analytical approach, but I don't remember him making strong assertions "that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes." He certainly does not hesitate to point out contradictions in texts, and also explore cultural and political motivations behind the words of the text. My perception was that he treats the development of the Christian Church as a very complex, organic process with multiple influences. More of what I took from Ehrman was trying to uncover and understand those influences. Then again, this book you're referencing seems to focus more upon redactive (editorial) analysis than source analysis.


I prefer to follow more of the styles of Biblical interpretation of Luke Timothy Johnson. He's not as much looking for "a new source" under every text as Ehrman does, but still provides excellent scholarly analysis.

 

Ehrman is no friend to Christianity but I believe I read someone questioning his material that he used in writing a review of his book but I can't recall exactly. I don't get how he is able to find items that say Jesus is misquoted yet the Bibical books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT practically match word for word to what we have today. Seems to me that if the NT has incorrect stories then the OT would have errors as well.

 

There are a million different translations of the Bible. Shocker! Most of these disputes are minor, but anyone who has wanted to could learn Greek & Hebrew and read the originals at any point since their original creation. You can then decide for yourself how faithful different translations are, which is something my uncle (an Episcopalian priest) and an uncountable number of other people have already done. There are no grand revelations to be made. Either you believe or you don't, and I wish non-believers would just leave the Bible alone (noting that I am not a believer).

 

Collin you are a bit naive.

read the book.

 

Yeah, because one book is the unmitigated authority

 

Kinda like the Bible, right?