Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

This is an easy to understand book and walks you through how Ehrman gets it wrong and what his stumbling blocks are. Great book to also learn how the Bible came to be. A must read.

By way of introduction, I am an Anglican priest with two masters degrees, the equivalent of a third, and a doctoral degree (D.Min.) from The School of Theology of the University of the South (Sewanee), an Anglican/Episcopal seminary, so I have done some theological studies. I don’t earn my living as a priest, though, but as a school counselor and psychology teacher. Over the last couple of years, I became somewhat enamoured with the writings of Bart Ehrman. Specifically, I read and studied the following texts: Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them); The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew; Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why; Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are; and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. Truth be known, I really bought into Ehrman’s research and his writings and began to believe that Jesus was really simply an apocalyptic Jewish prophet, and perhaps the messiah (in a human way), but certainly not the incarnate Son of God and second person of the Holy Trinity. As time passed, and my wife became more and more disenchanted with my “new” beliefs, she told me one evening how much she disliked Bart Ehrman. Well, I liked (and still very much respect) Bart Ehrman’s work, but I decided to read a couple of books purported to debunk Ehrman’s theories with their own research, just to see for myself and to give the “other side; i.e. orthodox Christianity” another shot. I am so glad that I did! The books that I read are Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" by Timothy Paul Jones and How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart D. Ehrman by M.F. Bird, C.A. Evans, S. Gathercole, C.E. Hill and C. Tilling. Both of these books are well written and very informative. Misquoting Truth is a bit “folksy” at times for me (this is serious material and I am not a bit folksy about it), but Jones’ research is sound and his logic inescapable. How God Became Jesus is quite a bit heavier and deeply researched (amazingly so) and I found it answered so many of the questions I had that Ehrman raised. Both books are well worth reading and I am going to give them both five stars because of this.

Bart D. Ehrman is probably America's leading New Testament scholar. His books are best sellers, particularly Misquoting Jesus. He's controversial, however, because his scholarship conflicts in some regards with evangelical Christian doctrine. Consequently, evangelical scholars have written several books to refute Ehrman.One of those books is Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, by Timothy Paul Jones, professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary from which he has a doctorate. Conservative Christians hoping for a point-by-point refutation of Ehrman will be disappointed with this book. Despite Jones' intention to expose fallacies, he actually agrees with Ehrman about a surprising number of things:* One is that Ehrman's concepts have been current among scholars for decades.* Jones also concedes Ehrman's point that the earliest manuscripts of the gospels don't mention any authors.* Jones also agrees that such issues "really do matter," and he thanks Ehrman for showing that to readers.* The two authors agree about the massive number of errors in the copies of the original lost New Testament books, and that almost all of those discrepancies are insignificant.Of course Jones disagrees on many matters as well. One if them has to do with a key part of evangelical doctrine - the inerrancy of Scripture. While Ehrman depicts Scripture as fully human, Jones says they are both human and divine. Ehrman contends the massive error in extant copies of original New Testament books suggests the New Testament cannot be the inerrant word of God.A way Jones (and other evangelicals) reconciles thousands of errors with the belief in the "inerrancy" of the Bible is by redefining the term. The dictionary defines "inerrant" as infallible and without error. Defenders of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, however, define it to mean that the Bible tells the truth despite approximations and variations.Jones recognizes that believers in the pews typically embrace the dictionary definition and therefore can't accept discrepancies as real despite the evidence. Jones contends that the thousands of errors in the manuscripts do not prevent Scripture from being the inspired truth.It doesn't matter to Christ-followers, contends Jones, whether Jesus was the "son of a carpenter," as he was first described in Mark 6:3, or was "a carpenter" as some latter scribe wrote it.Jones recognizes that 11 verses (Mark 16:9-20) were added at the end of Mark and were not in the original. Mark 16:18a, for example, contains a strange teaching that "They will take hold of snakes & if they drink something poisonous, it will not hurt them." Jones deprecates this as a "picturesque metaphor" reflecting God's ability to protect. Unfortunately, fundamentalist snake handlers take that verse literally, apparently not recognizing a metaphor when they read it."There are intentional changes in the manuscripts," writes Jones, "that could affect the readers' understanding of a particular text." None of those changes challenges any vital aspect of Christian faith, Jones says.A handful of changes, however, could relate to the role of women in churches today, concedes Jones. It appears that women played a more prominent role in the early church than they did in later eras. "As a result, some scribes in late ancient & medieval times seem to have altered texts that seemed to place women in prominent positions."1Cor 14:34 states "It is a shame for women to speak in church." Ehrman contends this was added to the original. In arguing the words likely were Paul's, Jones points out that all the existing manuscripts contain the words, though in various locations. Jones deprecates the significance of the admonition, while conceding that it has been abused at times to dishonor and subjugate women. Conservative denominations invoke this verse as a justification for not allowing women to preach from the pulpit.Ehrman writes extensively about the struggle between competing doctrines in the early church before one version emerged victorious and was proclaimed "orthodox." Jones admits Ehrman "is partly correct," but predictably, Jones contends the winning understanding about Jesus is the valid one.As far as the authorship of the gospels, "Ehrman may be correct" about Mark and John being illiterate says Jones (pg. 117), though that doesn't preclude eyewitness sources being the source of the Gospels. Jones speculates that the illiterate writers may have employed professional scribes to render their oral accounts into Greek.Ehrman claims the gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses. Jones says that while we can't prove past events happened, we can find high probability based upon the evidence -- "especially reports from eyewitnesses...which provide the strongest evidence that these events did happen."Jones apparently is not familiar with the reliability of evidence in court, where eyewitness testimony is - in fact - less reliable than circumstantial evidence. The public puts too much confidence in eyewitness testimony given the fallibility of memory and incentives to lie. Jones shares this popular but misplaced overconfidence.Another area of disagreement is how and when the canon of the scripture was made official. "For the most part, Ehrman is correct in his description of how the canon of Scripture came together." (pg. 136) From the first century, Jones says, Christians found most credible those books by eyewitnesses and this standard iswhat was used.On the other hand, Jones admits, "God never promised that the process of determining which books represented eyewitness testimony would be without error." (pg. 137) This admission that there could be error in the process of setting the canon is surprising from someone who claims Scriptural infallibility and inerrancy."Difficulties and incongruities remain," concludes Jones. "There are portions of the Gospels that I still struggle to reconcile. Perhaps I always will." (pg. 139)Many Christians, says Jones, believe that their faith "came directly from heaven bound in black leather...They can't handle the idea that the faith they practice was hammered out over centuries by hundreds of people -- and that at least a few of these people possessed motives that weren't particularly pure." (pg. 142)The danger to Christianity is "faith that refuses to deal with tough questions about church history and about Scripture. Ehrman poses an opportunity for believers to become more aware of the beautiful struggles by which God brought us to where we are today. Ehrman created the opportunity to ask difficult questions (such as) what are we actually claiming when we declare the Scripture is without error?" (pg. 143)People like Ehrman lose their faith, writes Jones, because they "inherited a theological system from well-meaning evangelical Christians that allowed little - if any -- space for questions, variations or rough edges. Scripture was assumed to be divine in such a way that no place remained for the human aspects of the Bible's creation, conservation and canonization. Faced with the inescapable humanness of Scripture, he found that the theological categories he inherited no longer worked. So Ehrman abandoned his belief in the inerrancy of Scripture."Ehrman's evangelical faith died due to its black and white categories; this stands as a warning to evangelicals, from whom he inherited that hardening of categories. Jones concludes, "Though there is much I do not know and there are some truths I cannot reconcile, Christian faith is no dead end." (pg. 146) ###

This book was a confirmation.. It's readable- I'm glad he didn't list all the research in the body of the book; it can be found in the back. If you're curious about all the ruckus posed by gnostics, new agers,Bart Ehrman, Dan Brown etc. then this is a nice concise book about why the books of the bible are limited to the 27. There are other supports to his argument and the credibility of scriptures in general, especially a good study of the Hebrew roots or early Christians. Notice the footnotes as you read your bible, they are often references to OT passages. Without knowledge of our roots, it's easy to be confused. This is a fair and good book; I recommend it.

An excellent book explaining the fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus.” He explains in easy to understand language the fallacies in the book. He explains how the experts confirm the textual accuracy of the Bible. Ehrman declares that we can never know what the Bible should say because there are 400,000 differences between the various manuscripts available. What Ehrman does not say are that almost all of the differences are things like misspelled words, word order, the use of definite articles or indefinite articles and some other totally minor variations. Reading the text even a layman can understand which variation is correct. The more recent translations even show the differences so the reader can understand these facts. I found the book an excellent guide to study.

I'm a Christian young man who's been doubting the principles of my religious culture for years. So naturally when I first heard the opinions of Bart Ehrman in an online video I was very intrigued. I purchased his book right away, but to avoid being blindsided by one man's view, I also decided to pick up Dr. Jones' book as well. Now I'm not sure how possible it is to not review both books at the same time because as a direct response, Misquoting Truth and Misquoting Jesus were simply meant to go with each other. Both books are easy to read while highly informative and regardless which side of the discussion you stand, I'm sure both books can be found enlightening. Even down to the faults, both books are nearly identical. Both authors have a bad habit of pushing their own views over the given evidence. Ehrman repeatedly promotes how insecure our renditions of the New Testament are while at the same time stating how possible it is to recreate something similar to its original text. Jones on the other hand expects us to conclude that the fallacies of the New Testament don't affect our Christian lives, despite agreeing that the New Testament originally lacked prime or solitary examples of Christian forgiveness, admittance of the Trinity, and statements of Christ being one with God.So all in all, I can't recommend one book over the other. Any fears of having your faith ripped to shreds, being annoyed by religious ignorance which ignores evidence, or wasting money on two books when one or the other might do, can be put aside. Both authors are firm in their convictions yet compassionate towards where the reader might be standing (Ehrman, surprisingly may be a smidgen less outspoken) and both give you plenty of clear, easy to understand information to consider. Yes there is repetition, but both books have their own contributions to make to the subject. If this is a subject your interested in, Misquoting Truth as well as Misquoting Jesus are both excellent purchases.

Timothy Paul Jones makes a cheerful and valiant attempt to undermine Ehrman's scholarly analysis of the early Christian era. He fails, but as with all good writers, along the way he posits some interesting diversions and insights into this whole business of Christianity. I believe that as a Christian, Jones is unable to articulate a dispassionate and objective appraisal of Ehrman's work because his emotional commitment to his belief system is so strong that it is an inherent bias against scientific objectivity.Ehrman's case put simply is this: The Christianity we have today is just one of many doctrines that existed in the years immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus. Ehrman employs textual analysis of the very earliest Gospels (some of them canonical, some not) to illustrate just how many differing Christological perspectives there were.The "proto-orthodox" credo that now dominates Christian thinking, (primarily because of the adoption of this particular Christian belief system by the dominant western political power in the 4th century), maintains that Jesus was the actual son of God, born of a virgin, died and raised again on the third day and is currently residing in Heaven pending a return to earth for a final reckoning of mankind in which some of us will be consigned to eternal torment while others will live happily for ever in the new kingdom. Ehrman demonstrates that this belief system was just one of many ideas current at the time of Jesus and his Apostles. The "misquoting" cited by Ehrman refers to the changes that have taken place over many centuries in the copying of canonical texts to reinforce this "orthodox" doctrine. The knowledge that Gospel texts have been manipulated lays open the question of the credibility of the "orthodox" canonical Gospel accounts. The idea of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the role of the Jews in Jesus' crucifixion and the Second Coming are just some of the many thorny issues that are still open to debate.Ehrman shows that there were many strong and active Christian churches in the first century who had fundamentally differing perspectives on who Jesus was and what his mission was all about. These other Christians were just as committed and saintly - being prepared to die for their beliefs - as their "proto-orthodox" brothers. They too had a Gospel canons with creeds supported by Apostolic scripture to reinforce their convictions. Ehrman makes a case for these other belief systems being taken into consideration when we reflect on the singular truth - or otherwise - of the "orthodox" Gospel account.Whose word is it anyway; God or Man? This is the issue raised by Ehrman and this is the issue that Jones fails to address because as an "orthodox" Christian, he literally cannot see the point of the question.