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

This book is a very good introduction to the history of the development of NT canonical text. Ehrman, a historian, provides a historian's rigor and standards to this publication while presenting his findings in a very readable narrative style. "Misquoting Jesus" is a short, fast read which intentionally doesn't attempt to cover all the questions scholars actively research and analyze between historical reality and the versions of manuscripts current laymen read. Instead, Ehrman provides a pleasant wade, especially for those readers unfamiliar with output by credentialed scholars such as Ehrman. He provides a perfect start to a journey towards an intellectual understanding of early Christianity. Ehrman stays away from theological arguments and exegesis of some of the more topical controversies (e.g., Paul's perception of the life of Christ prior to his crucifixion is not covered, nor are textual criticism methods to test the veracity of claims covered, like the criterion of dissimilarity test that would dismiss the Jesus counting fishes miracle since it's the same story as a much earlier Pythagoras story - even down to the fish count). Instead Ehrman focuses on what the manuscripts say, and how we know that some parts have changed over time by comparing texts. Ehrman does cover theories on why they were changed though he does so briefly without getting bogged down in any dense analysis to prove his point. Another reason this is a good introduction to the study of early Christianity is that Ehrman avoids most of the controversies within scholarly circles regarding the divinity of Jesus. I assume this is because to many conservative Christians who appear to be one of Ehrman's primary target audiences, discovering the ease at which scholars have proven the Bible is errant as reported in this book will be contrary to what they've been indoctrinated into by many churches; with that being enough provocation to deal with in an introductory book. My assumption is based on Ehrman's introduction, a short memoir of his own intellectual journey from being an ignorant evangelical to enlightened historian, a "hey, if I can take this journey, so can you" essay I believe would have been more appropriate as an appendix. I don't believe Ehrman is dishonest by avoiding the historical veracity of NT claims for a divine Jesus; most of those controversies require that readers have some foreknowledge of what we know regarding early manuscripts well beyond the scope of an introductory book along with some skills in exegesis to understand the theories presented that challenge a literal reading. However, due to the relative shortness of this book and Ehrman's narrative skills, I believe Ehrman had plenty of room to include some of the easier conceptual contradictions between manuscripts and outside source material, e.g., the corruption of the Josephus texts or some of the miracle stories and how they compared to earlier non-Christian texts. This is my one major criticism of this book; Ehrman would have made a more powerful presentation by adding additional case studies that are conceptually easy to understand for even casual readers. Regarding the claims by some readers who were put off by this book and accuse Ehrman of bias for not better representing the fundamentalist dogma they support. There are very few instances in this book where Ehrman wades into waters where there isn't a peer-accepted theory. Those instances are ones in which Ehrman presents earlier manuscripts with less corruption of text as closer to the original author's version, but these Byzantine texts also challenge current conservative Christian beliefs which use later, more corrupt manuscripts, like the Middle Ages' Textus Receptus. Ehrman does an adequate job in this book of providing a small portion of the empirical evidence available to destroy any notion that this particular manuscript is a trust-worthy source given the lack of source material used along with the suspect quality of source material to develop the Textus Receptus, which was the subsequent primary source for the King James Version. All areas of study have their flat-earthers; ignoring the apologists who are unable or unwilling to use the scientific method as Ehrman does do not deserve attention when one is seeking truth. In fact, I would argue Ehrman bent over backwards by not delving into the more radical claims which do have some empirical evidence supporting them and are reasonable claims (Robert Price's deconstruction of Jesus or Earl Doherty's construction of Jesus from Paul's Christ being two examples). Ehrman's objective with this book is to kick-start an intellectual journey for laymen to bring some intellectual knowledge to their beliefs beyond the traditional paradigm of indoctrination, I can't imagine anyone not appreciating the information Ehrman provides to his readers, even the flat-earthers themselves. While I appreciate his effort, I'm still waiting for Ehrman, due to his talent and skill as a writer, to let us have it with both barrels by writing a more comprehensive analysis of the status of textual criticism of the early Christian manuscripts.

If you believe the Bible is infallible then this book is not for you. Bart does an exceptional job of pointing out how scrolls were changed and updated over time. In some cases, it was because of simple error by untrained writers. In other cases, it was on purpose (Luke completely changes the character of Jesus compared to Mark). Over time, we lose the original scribes intent to cultural, political and theological changes. I learned this first hand in seminary school which is why today, the Bible must be taken with a very large grain of salt. The Bible is not inherent. Once we accept that, we can stop taking it literally and read it in it's larger theological context about the character and nature of God. My only issue is that he often repeats himself over and over in chapters which does drag down the book. Comes across as a forgetful person telling you the same story over and over.

A well written book about the evolution of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, and how our present text came to be in all its various forms. Dr. Ehrman begins with a brief summary of his own life. From an "ordinary kid" he becomes a fundamentalist Christian believing the Bible to be wholly inspired. During his graduate program in a Christian school he develops an interest in the wide variety of historical documents that have, through many generations come down to us a our present Bible. He becomes, in short, a textual-scholar, and has an epiphany! Ehrman quickly learns that there are no longer any "original texts" anywhere. The earliest texts found, more fragmented the farther back one goes, come from the 2nd century some 100 years after Jesus' death. None of the original Apostles, nor Paul are any longer alive at that point, and what early notes exist for geographically fragmented communities are already copies of lost originals. Even if the literal-original writing was "inspired by God" as fundamentalists claim, by the opening of the 2nd century the earliest copies of these writings have already passed through human hands and the real originals are no more. Except for the Christian community of Alexandria where professional scribes already existed, all of the early copies were made by amateur believers who, as it happened could read and write, and so copied texts for their congregations; sometimes well and sometimes poorly. It was not until late in the 4th century that more professional scribes assumed the copyist role. Roughly the first half of the book is taken up with the history of textual criticism. Ehrman leads us through early (17th century) classification attempts and the techniques developed to determine which texts were "more original" than others. Ehrman notes that in many many cases even that matter cannot be decided with any finality. That the modern obsession with the text began after the Reformation is no accident. Protestant scholars were far more compulsive about the text than Catholics. Protestant theology and doctrine rests entirely on the text, while Catholicism has its priestly class for precisely the task of interpreting the text in what ever form it takes. By the 18th century, scholars had identified some 30,000 textual variations in the manuscripts that come together as the then relatively stabilized New Testament. Most of these variations were simply mistakes made by non-professional copyists. Sometimes they left out a word or whole sentences. Sometimes what there were of literal originals were physically degraded even when first copied. Copyists sometimes had to "fill in the blanks", a smudged word, or a bleed-through from some earlier text on the page for example. So why not go back to the more professional Alexandrian texts and call those "closest to original"? Because while the vast majority of changes were copy errors, not all were merely that. Here and there changes were made for theological and socio-political reasons. In point of fact (something he does not mention) the Alexandrian scholars were among those who, by the early 5th Century, were considered among the heretical sects by the then solidifying Roman Church. Ehrman does not mention is the textual difference between the modern Western (Roman) and Eastern (Greek and Eastern European "Orthodox") churches. His aim is historical, and he does cover the early Greek texts whose alterations became mixed in with all of the others. In the second half of the book Ehrman covers three types of changes made deliberately by one group of copyists or another so as to make the text easier to read and better line up with the various theological opinions and social controversies of the time, each propounded by groups of believers who were doing their own copying! In the end, Ehrman is forced to conclude that even the lost originals were probably not autodidacts (texts dictated by God) because if God had wanted Christians to have his un-corrupted words in perpetuity, He would have made sure the originals survived. I gave the book 5 stars not because the book's subject was of great interest to me, but because Dr. Ehrman does such a marvelous job of treating a scholarly subject (many many references are provided) with easy to read language aimed at non-scholars of the subject like myself.

This was a great look at the textual variants that exist in our New Testament manuscripts. I enjoyed the church, scribal, and manuscript history Ehrman provides. There were many things I did not know, so I enjoyed the journey, the learning, and getting a closer look at the methods our scholars use. Manuscript history and textual criticism is surely an interesting field of study. As a Christian, I understand how this book could aid someone in their deconstruction from Christianity or aid someone in confirming what they already believed, but I don’t see the information here as a source or reason that threatens Christian faith and theology. Ehrman made the point that intentional scribal changes occurred on occasion and no variant affects core doctrine. There’s a more relevant point, since Christianity existed before the New Testament, then the New Testament and the existing variants they contain don’t truly change or affect Christianity at all. Christianity predates the New Testament and therefore predates any textual variant. It’s a misconception that Christianity is the words on a page. It’s a misconception that the Word of God means the actual books of the Bible. The “Word of God”,when used, was mostly referring to the preaching of Jesus Christ and the Gospel message. Jesus is the Word of God and the Gospel message. If everything hung on the words on a page, I would expect God to somehow make them perfect too, but it doesn’t. Jesus even said that the (Jewish) scriptures were about Him. 2 Timothy 3:16-17-“all scripture is God-breathed”, inspired by God to teach, train, and equip people for good work, work after salvation, not the means by which someone is saved. Scripture leads us to truth, but Jesus is Truth. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, discerning what is true or false; after one is already saved. Paul was writing to those already saved so it wasn’t his letters that saved them, so variants do not affect salvation or undermine the truth of it. The words on the page are not a substitution for the Gospel message and the Holy Spirit. Some variants I can see the motivation behind when dealing with things that are hotly debated then and now, like the role of women in the church. This is an application issue, not a question on if Christianity is true or not. Ehrman, I believe made this clear, but sometimes speculation and imagination can run wild. Ultimately, this was very informative and gave great historical context into our early manuscripts of the New Testament.

I enjoyed reading this book very much. As the author Bart Ehrman gave a brief introduction of his early life in how he became a "born-again" believer of Jesus Christ in his teens. To how he was told and believed that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God... Until he went to Bible College, learned Greek and began to see many changes in the present English translations from some of the earlier copies of the Greek manuscripts. Ehrman became a textual critic of the New Testament. In this book, Ehrman tells a compelling and convincing reason to not believe that the Bible is the "infallible word of God" - In explaining that we don't have the original manuscripts. What is available are "copies of copies of copies". Another thing that is pointed out was in the 1st century church, 90 percent of the people were illiterate. That the scribes available to copy the Gospels and Paul's letters that circulated around for the first few centuries were not professional scribes - nor are any of those copies available today, they have not survived. Ehrman points out that in the first few centuries, there were many different ideas floating around about who Jesus was and many different sects of beliefs; some followers of Christ believed Jesus was fully human others believed he was fully God. There were other people who wrote Gospels and letters however did not get canonized into the present Bible at the time of the Council of Nicea in the 4th century. When Roman emperor Constantine had a conversion into Christianity in 325 A.D. and decided to choose which Gospels and letters to formulate the Bible. And today we don't even have those copies available to decipher. Bart Ehrman is not the first textual critic of the New Testement and explains the history of textual criticism dating to the 18th century and even then - 30,000 errors were uncovered from the English Bible from the earliest surviving manuscripts. An example of these errors is how things have been added into the Bible, in other words they are not in the early manuscripts; i.e. when Jesus said "forgive them father for they know not what they do." that wasn't in the early manuscripts. Or how Jesus said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" - that too was not in the early manuscripts. Another interesting thing Ehrman uncovers is that the surviving manuscripts of Revelations, the apocalyptic book of the Bible - is that those manuscripts are illegible and did not have the last three chapters. So the scripture in the end of Revelations that states Jesus is coming back; "a rider on a white horse, with fire in his eyes, and a sword out of his mouth." ---- that was made up! I too used to believe that the Bible was the infallible word of God when I too became a "born again" believer in my early teens as Ehrman. I began to question the idea of eternal hell and found (from other Bible scholars) that the early manuscripts did not have the idea of hell and eternity put together. Instead of the word hell, the words that Jesus supposedly spoke were "Gehenna" an actual valley in Jerusalem or "Sheol" which means "the grave" - and "Aionion" instead of eternity, which means "a long time or age of the ages" - not forever.... (You can actually learn that Jesus was not speaking of hell and eternity if you read the oldest Gospel which is Mark as Ehrman states, and read the Lamsa translation from the Aramaic Peshitta - eternal hell is not in the book of Mark in the Lamsa Bible.) It has been very liberating reading this book, I thank Bart Ehrman for putting in the great effort to become just about the top bible scholar of the New Testament. Though I still believe in Jesus Christ as a Savior and an Avatar - I now question some of the contradictions in the Gospels - It remains a mystery to what Jesus actually said - I can no longer look at the Bible the same.

When I first heard about this book I was excited. Finally, a well-researched book on textual criticism written for laymen! Although I was well aware of Ehrman's liberal views, I didn't think this would affect the factual and historical issues related to this subject; and it didn't. Bart Ehrman may very well be one of the foremost authorities on this subject alive today. And I think those who dismiss Ehrman's work without reading it need to give him more credit. One thing I learned from this book is that liberals CAN do research. I don't care how conservative you are (I am very conservative myself), the historical and factual observations in this work are to be commended. And this brings up a very important point: fundamentalists (in any sense of the word) should not automatically dismiss the work of unbelievers. Too often I encounter those who refuse to buy or even read books like "Misquoting Jesus" simply because they would be "supporting the anti-Christian work of unbelievers." Does Bart Ehrman present conclusions in his books that are simply exaggerated and unreasonable? Yes. Does this mean we should conclude that Bart Ehrman is an apostate who can't do good historical research? No. The first 5 chapters of this book were excellent. They were based upon true historical research and were almost completely void of Ehrman's presuppositional conclusions that we find in the concluding chapter. I really appreciated the introductory chapter because it allowed the reader to understand exactly where Ehrman was coming from. In no way would the reader be able to start this work and be deceived into thinking that the author was somehow hiding his bias. For example, we read on page 11, "If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don't have the very words of scripture...for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we don't have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn't perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words." I think anyone reading Erhman's words here can see where he is coming from. In essence, he is saying, "unless God transmits the scriptures in a way that is in accordance with my presuppositions, they couldn't possibly have been inspired." Can you imagine the implications of this view? Think about what it would be like if the scriptures were transmitted in the way that Erhman would have preferred; Take, for example, a monk who is copying the gospel of John. It is about 20 degrees outside and his fire is about to go out. And not only that, but the last meal he ate was about 12 hours ago. His hands are shaking. He is tired. It is late. He knows that if he doesn't get this done tonight...well, it better get finished. Then it happened...he is so exhausted that he accidentally skips a line because it looked so much like the previous one (yes, this happens to all of us...even on computers). And then, "ZZAAPPP!!!!!!" Lightening from the heavens strikes him dead. If this copy of the Gospel of John had been released, then we would have had...yes friends, you guessed correctly, a textual variant! No matter how easy it would be to dismiss the variant as a simple copyist error, this couldn't happen if Bart Ehrman's view on "inspiration" is true. Do you see the implications of this? God would have to either strike every monk dead who accidentally misspelled a word or copied a line twice, or he would have to temporarily turn them into human dictation machines (now think about THAT!). Now, I want to be fair to Ehrman. If it weren't for the so-called "theologically motivated alterations" of the texts (such as Luke 5:43-44, according to Ehrman), I don't think that his view on inspiration wouldn't be as radical as they are. But because these changes could have happened (or did happen according to Ehrman), it couldn't be the way God wanted to do it. And it must be emphasized that in the vast majority of cases we know what the original reading was, whether or not the variant was accidental or intentional. So in most of these cases the question is not, "what did the original texts say," but, "was the change accidental or intentional?" I felt that Ehrman was quite fair in dealing with these variants, but what I don't understand is this; if Bart Erhman believes that it is at least possible to know what the original authors wrote (he claims on p. 210, "A number of scholars...have even given up thinking that it makes sense to talk about the 'original' text. I personally think that opinion may be going too far...so at least it is not "non"-sense to talk about an original text."), why should we conclude that God couldn't have inspired these books? Yes, God used fallible men to copy the scriptures. But isn't it remarkable that in at least 99 percent of the cases (its probably a lot higher, but I'll be generous to the liberals), and out of over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, we know with complete certainty what the original authors wrote down? In addition, those places where it is difficult to determine the original reading, we must keep in mind that we HAVE the original reading; it's in the texts. We just have to choose which text has the original reading. So the next time someone tells you, "show me the writings of Paul," just pull out a Nestle-Aland 27th edition and a United Bible Society 4th edition Greek New Testament and hand it to him or her. The original writings of Paul are there. We just have to determine what they are (which I must emphasize again; we KNOW what they are AT LEAST 99 percent of the time). Now, I want to come back to something I mentioned earlier. Many Christians are ignorant, willingly or unintentionally, of these issues. If you see "Misquoting Jesus" as complete trash that shouldn't be read by Christians, then you either a) haven't read the book, or b) are ignorant of textual criticism. Yes, Bart Ehrman's conclusions are far fetched and his presuppositions completely unreasonable. But this makes up a very small percentage of the book. The rest is very excellent, well researched history (and well written, I might add). With this, I want to conclude this review on an encouraging note Christians who are un-informed on this issue. So let's face it, many of us don't know how we got the Bible. We like to believe that our leather-bonded NIV study Bible magically fell from the heavens into your friendly neighborhood Christian bookstore. We don't like to believe that most Christians in the early church didn't have complete Bibles (considering it was very expensive and often times illegal) and that the copying process was done by hand in a very painstaking way. With this we can somewhat sympathize with Ehrman; if God miraculously inspired the original writings of the texts, why couldn't he have miraculously transmitted them as well (some actually believe that God did this in the King James version of the Bible)? Could Erhman be right? If he is wrong, then why is he wrong? If you are a Christian, ask yourself, "where did my NIV study Bible come from? Does it matter?" Should you simply trust those who translated your Bible; that they were infallible in choosing which variant readings were the best? How do YOU know that your Bible contains the original readings? For example, how many times have you heard a sermon preached on the woman being caught in adultery (John 8:3-11) with Jesus forgiving her? Bart Ehrman and many other scholars (some even conservative) have concluded that this story wasn't the original reading. Or how about 1 John 5:7, which reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Try to find this verse in your NIV; it's not there. But it's in the KJV. Why? This verse clearly attests to the Trinity. Does it matter if God is three persons that share one being? King James onlyists insist that the King James Bible is God's very words preserved for us in the English language and that all "new" versions, such as the NIV, are corrupt. Are they right? Do you see the implications? Books like "Misquoting Jesus" are very important and contain information that every Christian needs to be concerned about. So I just want to encourage you, Christian or not, to look into these issues. You don't have to have a Master's degree in Greek exegesis to be informed on these issues. All you need is a desire to study. Don't take my word for it. Don't take Bart Ehrman's word for it. Don't take the KJV translator's word for it. And don't take your pastor's word for it. Study this issue for yourself. The implications and consequences may be eternal.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman is an incredibly eye-opening book—packed with detail, scholarship, and examples of just how much the words of the Bible have been altered, both intentionally and unintentionally, over centuries of human handling. Ehrman lays out clearly how scribes, translators, and church authorities shaped Scripture, sometimes through innocent mistakes and sometimes through deliberate edits meant to steer doctrine. It’s the kind of book that forces you to see the Bible in a completely new light, not as a single divine manuscript but as a living document molded repeatedly by human hands. That said, the ending left me frustrated. After building such a strong case for how intentional manipulation affected the text, Ehrman seems to pull his punches. He draws a false equivalency between those early scribes who changed Scripture and modern readers who simply interpret it. To me, that’s a cop-out. When we interpret the Bible today, we’re reflecting on meaning for ourselves. We aren’t rewriting the text, altering its words, and passing off our version as the original. Comparing those two acts undermines the gravity of deliberate alteration that Ehrman himself so powerfully exposes. Overall, Misquoting Jesus is an essential read for anyone interested in biblical history or textual criticism—insightful, well-researched, and challenging—but it stumbles at the finish line by soft-pedaling the very point it so brilliantly proves.

Growing up, I was taught that the scribes who copied the Bible were incredibly meticulous—so much so that if they made even a single mistake, they would destroy the entire scroll, either by burning or burying it. As I became older, that story began to fall apart. How could accurate copies have been produced in largely illiterate societies? And what about the many non-canonical writings, especially considering that the biblical canon was not finalized until centuries later? Fortunately, there is Bart Ehrman. In this book, he offers a well-reasoned, academically grounded explanation of how the texts were transmitted. Ehrman approaches the material without a faith-based agenda—neither promoting nor dismissing belief—but instead focuses on the historical and textual evidence itself. While this is not my favorite of his books (I tend to prefer his works that explore theological ideas more directly), I still found it deeply compelling and thought-provoking.