Jump to content

Misquoting Jesus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 35: Line 35:
Neely Tucker of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' wrote that the book is "an exploration into how the 27 books of the New Testament came to be cobbled together, a history rich with ecclesiastical politics, incompetent scribes and the difficulties of rendering oral traditions into a written text."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html |title=The Book of Bart |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date= March 5, 2006 |first= Neely |last=Tucker |access-date=2009-04-06}}</ref>
Neely Tucker of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' wrote that the book is "an exploration into how the 27 books of the New Testament came to be cobbled together, a history rich with ecclesiastical politics, incompetent scribes and the difficulties of rendering oral traditions into a written text."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html |title=The Book of Bart |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date= March 5, 2006 |first= Neely |last=Tucker |access-date=2009-04-06}}</ref>


[[Craig Blomberg]], of [[Denver Seminary]] in [[Colorado]], wrote that "Most of ''Misquoting Jesus'' is actually a very readable, accurate distillation of many of the most important facts about the nature and history of textual criticism, presented in a lively and interesting narrative that will keep scholarly and lay interest alike."<ref name="Blombergreview">{{cite news |url=http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/ |title=Book review: Misquoting Jesus |publisher=[[Denver Seminary]] |date=March 5, 2006 |access-date=2009-04-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090425151325/http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/ |archive-date=April 25, 2009}}</ref> Blomberg also wrote that Ehrman "has rejected his evangelicalism and whether he is writing on the history of the transmission of the biblical text, focusing on all the changes that scribes made over the centuries, or on the so-called 'lost gospels' and 'lost Christianities,' trying to rehabilitate our appreciation for [[Gnosticism]], it is clear that he has an axe to grind."<ref name="Blombergreview"/> Despite this, Blombers was also critical of Ehrman's book: in his 2014 book ''Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions'' he wrote a lenghty response to ''Misquoting Jesus'', pointing out that nothing in Ehrman's work is new to biblical scholars - both liberal and conservative - and that the interpolations he mentions are all explicitely mentioned as such in standard Bibles and that, in any case, no cardinal doctrine of Christianity is jeopardized by these variants.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Blomberg|first=Craig L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kZ38AgAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=Can+We+Still+Believe+the+Bible?:+An+Evangelical+Engagement+with+Contemporary+Questions&hl=it|title=Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions|date=2014-04-01|publisher=Brazos Press|isbn=978-1-4412-4564-9|language=de}}</ref>
[[Craig Blomberg]], of [[Denver Seminary]] in [[Colorado]], wrote that "Most of ''Misquoting Jesus'' is actually a very readable, accurate distillation of many of the most important facts about the nature and history of textual criticism, presented in a lively and interesting narrative that will keep scholarly and lay interest alike."<ref name="Blombergreview">{{cite news |url=http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/ |title=Book review: Misquoting Jesus |publisher=[[Denver Seminary]] |date=March 5, 2006 |access-date=2009-04-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090425151325/http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/misquoting-jesus-the-story-behind-who-changed-the-bible-and-why/ |archive-date=April 25, 2009}}</ref> Blomberg also wrote that Ehrman "has rejected his evangelicalism and whether he is writing on the history of the transmission of the biblical text, focusing on all the changes that scribes made over the centuries, or on the so-called 'lost gospels' and 'lost Christianities,' trying to rehabilitate our appreciation for [[Gnosticism]], it is clear that he has an axe to grind."<ref name="Blombergreview"/> Despite this, Blomberg was critical of Ehrman's book. In his 2014 book ''Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions,'' he wrote a lengthy response to ''Misquoting Jesus'', pointing out that nothing in Ehrman's work is new to biblical scholars - both liberal and conservative - and that the interpolations he mentions are all explicitly mentioned as such in standard Bibles and that, in any case, no cardinal doctrine of Christianity is jeopardized by these variants.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Blomberg|first=Craig L.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kZ38AgAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=Can+We+Still+Believe+the+Bible?:+An+Evangelical+Engagement+with+Contemporary+Questions&hl=it|title=Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions|date=2014-04-01|publisher=Brazos Press|isbn=978-1-4412-4564-9|language=de}}</ref>


In 2007, Timothy Paul Jones wrote a book-length response to ''Misquoting Jesus'', called ''Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"''. It was published by [[InterVarsity Press]]. ''[[Novum Testamentum]]'' suggested that ''Misquoting Truth'' was a useful example of how conservative readers have engaged Ehrman’s arguments.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Book Notes|journal=[[Novum Testamentum]]|date=2008|volume=50|page=417}}</ref>
In 2007, Timothy Paul Jones wrote a book-length response to ''Misquoting Jesus'', called ''Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"''. It was published by [[InterVarsity Press]]. ''[[Novum Testamentum]]'' suggested that ''Misquoting Truth'' was a useful example of how conservative readers have engaged Ehrman’s arguments.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Book Notes|journal=[[Novum Testamentum]]|date=2008|volume=50|page=417}}</ref>

Revision as of 08:36, 20 June 2021

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
First edition
AuthorBart D. Ehrman
LanguageEnglish
SubjectBiblical criticism
PublisherHarperCollins
Publication date
2005
Pages256
ISBN978-0-06-073817-4
OCLC59011567
225.4/86 22
LC ClassBS2325 .E45 2005
Preceded byTruth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (2004) 
Followed byThe Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (2006) 

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (published as Whose Word Is It? in United Kingdom) is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book made it to The New York Times Best Seller List.[2]

Summary

Ehrman recounts his personal experiences with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to de-emphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism).

Ehrman discusses the significance in understanding how Christianity stemmed from Judaism. Christianity was foreshadowed by Judaism, and was seen as the first "religion of the book" in Western civilization.[3] Judaism, in its earliest years, was distinctive in some ways to other religions; it was the most-recognized monotheistic faith, set apart from all the other faiths that were polytheistic. The most significant and unique aspect of Judaism, Ehrman points out, was of having instructions along with ancestral traditions written down in sacred books, which were found in no other religious faith on the face of the earth during the given time period. The sacred books read by the Jews stressed ancestral traditions, customs, and laws. In order to pinpoint the canonization of the religion of Christianity, Ehrman discusses how the New Testament came into existence during the first century of the common era. Jews were scattered throughout the Roman Empire, and only relied upon the writings given to Moses by God, the Torah, which literally means "law" or "guidance." Ehrman continues on discussing how those writings were canonized and then later on recognized as the "Old Testament" following the rise of Christianity at the given time period.

In order to summarize his point that Christianity at its beginning was a religion of the book, Ehrman concludes how Jesus who himself was a Jewish rabbi and adhered to all the sacred books held by the Jews, especially the Torah.[4]

Reviews and reception

Alex Beam of the Boston Globe wrote that the book was "a series of dramatic revelations for the ignorant", and that "Ehrman notes that there have been a lot of changes to the Bible in the past 2,000 years. I don't want to come between Mr. Ehrman and his payday, but this point has been made much more eloquently by... others."[5]

Jeffrey Weiss of The Dallas Morning News wrote, "Whichever side you sit on regarding Biblical inerrancy, this is a rewarding read."[6] The American Library Association wrote, "To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants."[7]

Charles Seymour of the Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, Texas wrote, "Ehrman convincingly argues that even some generally received passages are late additions, which is particularly interesting in the case of those verses with import for doctrinal issues such as women's ordination or the Atonement."[8]

Neely Tucker of The Washington Post wrote that the book is "an exploration into how the 27 books of the New Testament came to be cobbled together, a history rich with ecclesiastical politics, incompetent scribes and the difficulties of rendering oral traditions into a written text."[9]

Craig Blomberg, of Denver Seminary in Colorado, wrote that "Most of Misquoting Jesus is actually a very readable, accurate distillation of many of the most important facts about the nature and history of textual criticism, presented in a lively and interesting narrative that will keep scholarly and lay interest alike."[10] Blomberg also wrote that Ehrman "has rejected his evangelicalism and whether he is writing on the history of the transmission of the biblical text, focusing on all the changes that scribes made over the centuries, or on the so-called 'lost gospels' and 'lost Christianities,' trying to rehabilitate our appreciation for Gnosticism, it is clear that he has an axe to grind."[10] Despite this, Blomberg was critical of Ehrman's book. In his 2014 book Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions, he wrote a lengthy response to Misquoting Jesus, pointing out that nothing in Ehrman's work is new to biblical scholars - both liberal and conservative - and that the interpolations he mentions are all explicitly mentioned as such in standard Bibles and that, in any case, no cardinal doctrine of Christianity is jeopardized by these variants.[11]

In 2007, Timothy Paul Jones wrote a book-length response to Misquoting Jesus, called Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus". It was published by InterVarsity Press. Novum Testamentum suggested that Misquoting Truth was a useful example of how conservative readers have engaged Ehrman’s arguments.[12]

See also

References

  1. ^ Interview with Bart Ehrman, Publishers Weekly, January 25, 2006.
  2. ^ Publisher's website. HarperCollins.com.
  3. ^ (pg. 19-20)
  4. ^ (pg.20)
  5. ^ Beam, Alex (Apr 12, 2006). "Book review: The new profits of Christianity". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2009-04-06. (behind paywall)
  6. ^ Weiss, Jeffrey (Apr 16, 2006). "Book review: Some ask: Are Bible texts authentic? Are stories true?". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  7. ^ "Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the..." Booklist. Nov 15, 2005. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  8. ^ "Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the..." Library Journal. 2005. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  9. ^ Tucker, Neely (March 5, 2006). "The Book of Bart". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  10. ^ a b "Book review: Misquoting Jesus". Denver Seminary. March 5, 2006. Archived from the original on April 25, 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  11. ^ Blomberg, Craig L. (2014-04-01). Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions (in German). Brazos Press. ISBN 978-1-4412-4564-9.
  12. ^ "Book Notes". Novum Testamentum. 50: 417. 2008.