# Misquoting Jesus - Anyone read it?



## panta dokimazete (Nov 13, 2005)

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why *
*Bart D. Ehrman.

In the absence of any original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, how can we be sure that we're getting the intended words and meaning? Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill, has devoted his life to the study of such questions and here offers an engaging and
fascinating look at the way scholars try to answer them. Part memoir, part history, and part critical study, he traces the development of the academic discipline called textual criticism, which uses external and internal evidence to evaluate and compare ancient manuscripts in order
to find the best readings. Ehrman points out that scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have. His absorbing story, fresh and lively prose, and seasoned insights into the challenges of recreating the texts of the New Testament ensure that readers might never read the
Gospels or Paul's letters the same way again. (Nov.)

Interested if anyone has seen a rebuttal/response from anyone on this book?

-JD


----------



## turmeric (Nov 13, 2005)

This argument is so old it's got long gray whiskers!


----------



## cupotea (Nov 14, 2005)

Haha Meg!

I haven't read this book, but I had to read another book by Ehrman for my New Testament class. It's pretty, uh, "open-minded".


----------



## LarryCook (Nov 14, 2005)

> Interested if anyone has seen a rebuttal/response from anyone on this book?
> 
> -JD



Here's one!

2 Timothy 3:16, 17

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 14, 2005)

Bart Ehrman was my New Testament religion professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. His unbelief and antagonism towards the Bible as God's Word was fully evident back then. It seems that he hasn't changed course, nor will he, except by the grace of God.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Bart Ehrman was my New Testament religion professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. His unbelief and antagonism towards the Bible as God's Word was fully evident back then. It seems that he hasn't changed course, nor will he, except by the grace of God.



(Argh, lost my first response!)

I agree - I skimmed his opening "testimony" and it is a typical "I once was an ignorant fundamentalist until I found the TRUTH through textual skepticism!"

I also skimmed his book - which is why I was wondering if anyone knew of or was creating a rebuttal/review of this book - I assure you it would be read by many on the 'Net.

I did a Google search and only came away with recommendations and places to purchase.

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete (May 14, 2006)

Doing a thread resurrection now that Reformation21 has posted a review/critique of his book:

http://www.reformation21.org/Shelf_Life/Shelf_Life/181/?vobId=2930&pm=434


----------



## Maestroh (Jul 10, 2006)

My DTS advisor, Dan Wallace, has given a review of this particular book at this link:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000

I saw Ehrman on "The Colbert Report" the other night. I never watch the show, I was on break at work, but I recognized Ehrman. Colbert was hilarious, telling Ehrman, "Isn't an agnostic an atheist without (synonym for manhood here)?"

The audience roared in laughter.

Another review that incorporates Wallace's with his own is by Ben Witherington at this link:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

Finally, James White devoted THREE Dividing Line episodes to it in January.

I hope this helps.

Note: Ehrman's professor at Princeton, the renowned Bruce Metzger, has rejected Erhman's claims as well and has directed everyone to a review done by J.N. Birdsall of Ehrman's other book, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture." 

You can also read a good refutation of that particular book by contacting DTS and asking for Stratton Laedwig's thesis about Ehrman's book from 2000.

And one last point: I was unable to find it, but I hear that charismatic Gordon Fee has written a devastating review of Erhman's work as well.

Maestroh


----------



## Maestroh (Jul 10, 2006)

Here's one more from Craig Blomberg at Denver Seminary:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2006/0200/0206.php



Here's a taste:

One surprising factual error occurs when Ehrman insists that Acts 4:13 means that Peter and John were illiterate (the term agrammatos"”"œunlettered" in this context means not educated beyond the elementary education accessible to most first-century Jewish boys). But otherwise, the most disappointing feature of the volume is Ehrman´s apparent unawareness of (or else his unwillingness to discuss) the difference between inductive and deductive approaches to Scripture. The classic evangelical formulations of inspiration and inerrancy have never claimed that these are doctrines that arise from the examination of the data of the existing texts. They are theological corollaries that follow naturally from the conviction that God is the author of the texts (itself suggested by 2 Tim. 3:16, Jesus´ own high view of Scripture and his conviction that the Spirit had yet more truth to inspire his followers to record). But if the texts are "œGod-breathed," and if God cannot err, then they must be inspired and inerrant.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 10, 2006)

Thanks, Bill - great info. 

- good to see another Music Director on the board!

-JD


----------



## CubsIn07 (Mar 15, 2007)

Maestroh said:


> Note: Ehrman's professor at Princeton, the renowned Bruce Metzger, has rejected Erhman's claims as well and has directed everyone to a review done by J.N. Birdsall of Ehrman's other book, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."
> 
> You can also read a good refutation of that particular book by contacting DTS and asking for Stratton Laedwig's thesis about Ehrman's book from 2000.
> 
> ...



If you could link or name Birdsall's or Fee's reviews that would be great


----------



## Maestroh (Mar 17, 2007)

*Haven't Seen Them*

Sorry man. 

But if I do, you can bet I'll link them.

maestroh


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 18, 2007)

jd,

James White interacts with him quite a bit:

[URL]http://aomin.org/index.php?query=ehrman&amount=0&blogid=1[/URL]

[URL]http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1210[/URL]

A critique by Challies w/a number of links: [URL]http://www.challies.com/archives/001832.php[/URL]

Here are links to audio of White on Dividing Line discussing Ehrman (you will have to look through them, as but some of them deal with Ehrman):

Dec 05: http://aomin.org/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2005-12&catid=12

Jan 06: [URL]http://aomin.org/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2006-01&catid=12[/URL]

There may be more current ones as well.

Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## Tom Roach (Mar 29, 2007)

Most of these Biblical scholars strip out the existence of a living God. And when God is recognized, His sovereignty is not. This is mostly in part due to the way they analyze the texts. I'm taking a class called "The Historical Jesus" at a college in New Jersey, and one of the books is "The New Testament" by Bart D. Ehrman. The other book is "The Complete Gospels" edited by Robert J. Miller. The latter book has all of the canonical gospels, gnostic gospels, incomplete manuscripts thought to be non-canonical gospels, and so on.

The idea behind all of these texts is the more texts they have, the more they can know about the history of Jesus (as a human being). I don't recommend anyone reads these books to better understand God. Yes, some of these gospels have more information about Jesus Christ, but they also have a lot that appears to be directly taken from parts of Mt., Mk., Lk, and Jn. but reworded.

The huge problem with scholarly thinking is that they are concerned so much with history that they neglect the main purpose of the gospels (and all of scripture): to teach people how to live a lives of sanctity, repentance, direction (through instruction), courage (through relying on God), and possible salvation by way of His light. The historical aspects of it (the authors, the likelihood that the events actually occurred, etc.) pulls us away from God's message.


----------

