Has anyone read "Misquoting Jesus"?

Question

If so, what do you think of it?

Answer 1

I used to fall for books like that too when I was younger. I lost my faith in Christianity in fact partly due to The Passover Plot. Long story short, since then I rediscovered my faith and have gone to seminary and have a Bachelor's in Sacred Theology.

Eventually I found out these books are the author's opinion and usually rely on faulty evidence. Erhman's too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Example: The story about Jesus chasing people might be out of place in John, but telling something out of sequence doesn't invalidate a story! It's also possible there are two incidents of Jesus overturning the tables, the synoptic Gospels mentioning one, and John the other.

Erhman also laments about things I learned in seminary, such as the King James manuscripts (Textus Receptus) supposedly being faulty. The manuscripts agree with 98% of known Biblical manuscripts. The Alexandrian manuscrips make up 2%...but some scholars consider them more "authentic" simply because they might be a little older. Furthermore, most modern Bible translations are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts anyway, so what's the big deal?

Erman makes claims about the number of textual variants in the New Testament, but fails to mention that most of these are either spelling variations (e.g. "Colossae" or "Colassae") and minor disagreements (e.g. "Christ Jesus," or "Jesus Christ," or "Jesus," or "Christ"), and would rarely affect meaning, let alone doctrine!

Erhman is a big fan of Gnostic Gospels, which are about as authentic as The Urantia Book or the Book of Mormon. The Gnostic scriptures were written 400 years after Christ. They are a rebellion against Christianity, combining Pagan beliefs with the Gospel. If Erhman was really worth his salt, he would realize this. They're hardly a credible source. Apparently niether is Erhman!

Lay people might find this book interesting (Just as the DaVinci Code is a runaway hit), partly because they don't know any better, but most ministers have heard this stuff before.
Those examples which he claim do affect doctrines, are many times cited misleadingly and the doctrines are in fact supported elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. in parallel synoptic texts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

If you really want to study the bible, dowload a free copy of Esword. It will allow you to look up the Greek or Hebrew word of any word in the Bible and see it's meaning (and it's easier than learning Greek or Hebrew).

Answer 2

I found it fascinating. I enjoyed finding out how scholars go about deciding the authenticity of the scriptures and reading about the different sects that developed after Christ's Crucifixion. What he says makes great sense, and corroborated much of what I have read previously. I just finished Ehrman's book Lost Christianities. That was equally good and contained many facts about the NT that were not included in Misquoting Jesus. I'm reading textural criticism on the OT now.

Answer 3

"ERROR 1: Judaism may have been the only pure monotheistic religion of antiquity, but sure enough other religions had monotheistic tendencies: although people like Cicero condemned Judaism as a "barbaric superstition", other Romans learned to cherish the Jewish monotheistic idea, like Virgil and Varro, who thought it judicious to have one highest god and who identified Jupiter directly with Yahweh. (This was not forgotten when King Herod, an avid follower of Julius Caesar and Augustus, rebuilt and expanded the temple of Jerusalem: from then on it had also been a Roman temple, where Yahweh was worshipped along with Jupiter and the Roman emperors.) "

"ERROR 2: Judaism wasn't the only religion that attributed importance to the written word. Since Hesiod's "Theogony", the genealogy of the Greek gods, all religions of antiquity had been religions of scripture. "

"ERROR 3: The Jews did not write in sacred books, they wrote on sacred scrolls. There's a huge difference. Apparently Ehrman has never read the book "The Birth of the Codex" by Roberts & Skeat (Oxford 1983): Christianity was the religion of the "book", while Judaism was (and has been to this day) the religion of the "scroll". - in other words: the book was a Roman medium, and a revolutionary medium as well, because it was aimed against the aristocratic ruler class of the Roman republic, who were at that time still writing on scrolls (cf. Suetonius: "Divus Iulius"). "

"So, in using the book and not the scroll, the early Christians chose to be Romans rather than Jews, i.e. the book is actually what sets Christianity apart from Judaism: "

"ERROR 4: Ehrman writes that "books played virtually no role in the polytheistic religions of the ancient Western world". Well, the only noteworthy religion of the Western world at that time - all the others were minor religions, mostly in the Eastern part of the Empire - was the religio Romana, and it can be safely said that Ehrman is absolutely wrong here: although it is true that the word "fas", i.e. the "divine right", the divine law of the Romans, is derived from the verb "fari" ("to speak"), the Romans and their pontiffs used numerous books to supervise the "ius divinum". The words used by the Romans to circumscribe their religious activities were "respondere" ("to answer"), "cavere" ("to take precautions"), "agere" ("to conduct", "to deliver (a speech)") and "scribere" ("to write"!!!). "

"Of course there were more books, even something like a Roman "Old Testament", namely the "libri Sibyllini" - with their "interpretes" and "sacerdotes" Sibyllini -, which played a big role as sacred books since the time of Tarquinius (cf. Verg. Aen. 6.10, i.a.). Needless to say that Roman historians, theologians etc. also wrote the stories about their gods outside of the purely pontifical realm. So when Ehrman says that the book played almost no role in any religion except Judaism, he is writing absolute nonsense! "

"ERROR 5: Ehrman writes that "some time after Christianity began" - in the first century A.D. (as he wrote a page earlier), this itself being a purely hypothetical assumption! - a bunch of Hebrew books were announced "sacred canon" and formed the "Jewish Bible of today", which the Christians accepted as the first part of their canon, the so-called "Old Testament". However, the OT is not based on the "Biblia Iudaica" of the first century A.D., but on the Septuaginta, a Greek translation of an older Jewish Bible, created mainly during the 3rd and 2nd century B.C.. No piece of Hebrew scripture from the first century A.D. made it into the Christian Bible. The Christian OT tradition is autonomous. "

All these errors occur on the first 3 pages of chapter one !!!

Answer 4

I found it quite interesting and informative. Whether one is a believer or not, this book is still quite enlightening and educational on the New Testament and the problems concerning translations. Some people I let borrow my copy was surprised to learn that the King James version is not the only one, and that the bible was not originally written in English. A bit far fetched to believe, I know, but then again, I am in Mississippi.

Answer 5

This is such common (and thoroughly documented) knowledge that it makes it difficult to believe in the sincerity of conservative Christians. There is a reason they call it the “King James” Bible (that should be a hint, right there, about who wrote it).

Conservative Christians wonder why people call them stupid. I think it is because people are trying to be kind to them. The only explanation other than stupidity and ignorance is dishonesty and lying.

So, it is either stupidity or dishonesty. Since they say they are not stupid, it must mean that they are dishonest. Well, at least now we know exactly where they stand.

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

Gary -

You're really a god-hating atheistic commie socialist, aren't you?

Answer 6

didnt know it was something to read but alot of people do it

Answer 7

no, but sounds like an intellectual read.

Answer 8

Not yet. But it's on my list.

Answer 9

no

Answer 10

No ...I prefer not to be deceived.