A Review of Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman

In the last fifteen years the New Testament documents have come under great criticism.  Much of this has been portrayed as a search for the historical Jesus.  For example, the late nineties saw the Jesus Seminar gain great prominence in the mainstream media.  This group of scholars became famous for putting forth a multicolored bible with the different colors representing the confidence with which certain verses could be trusted as accurate.  Much of what conservative or orthodox Christians have trusted for years was tossed out as probably not true about Jesus.  More recently, in The Da Vinci Code[1] by Dan Brown popular culture was introduced to the idea that the New Testament we read was put together to hide a secret about Jesus.  It supposed that this secret was uncovered by looking at art work and other ancient gospel stories excluded form the Bible.  This book was then made into a movie which saw wide distribution.  Also, the Discovery Channel showed a documentary on the Gospel of Judas, a late second century text which portrays Jesus in a different manner then the canonical Gospels.  Many involved with the documentary hinted at the question, “Why should this and other gospels be excluded from consideration in the story of Jesus?”  This documentary undermined the orthodox view of Jesus.  All of these works assert that the divinity of Jesus was a fabrication of the early church, and therefore the doctrine of inspiration is also denied as a result.

Into this environment comes a book by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus.[2]  In this book Ehrman makes a case against the idea of inspiration of the New Testament.  His general premise is based on the fact that the manuscripts of the New Testament contain such a vast amount of variations that it would be impossible (1) to know what the original documents contain, (2) for Christians to speak of these documents as inerrant or inspired by God, or (3) for us to have any confidence in doctrines or beliefs derived from these documents.  In this paper I will explore the good, the bad, and the ugly of what Dr. Ehrman argues to see if his case is logical and plausible.

Ehrman starts his book by speaking of his early days as a conservative Christian.  At that time, he believed that the Bible was God’s inspired word and inerrant.  It is interesting to see how he describes his learning of inerrancy. “Some, I suppose, would call this brainwashing.”[3]  What does Ehrman mean by “brainwashing?” Does he mean that any for a Christian to hold to the doctrine of inerrancy they must be brainwashed?  Are there no good arguments for a belief inerrancy?  This would appear to be an inflammatory comment to hint that there are no such valid arguments.  This is not the only time in his life Ehrman appears to have a low opinion of those who hold orthodox views.  On page 15 he hints that there is wide spread ignorance in the church about the variations in the text through this statement:  “…most readers…know almost nothing about textual criticism….there is scarcely a single book written about it for the lay audience-that is, for those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for in-depth study of it, who do not even realize there is a “problem” with the text, but who would be intrigued to learn what the problems are and how scholars have set about dealing with them” [4]  How does he know that most readers know almost nothing?  By saying that there are no books written for the lay audience he is able to avoid several books which deal with criticism and the biblical texts, yet do not hold Ehrman’s view.  Two of these being Jesus Under Fire[5] and The Case For Christ.[6]  Both of these books deal with textual criticism and its misuses by some in the critical community.  By not addressing these and other texts Ehrman makes his own case appear stronger.

The Beginnings of Christian Scripture

In the chapter titled “The Beginnings of Christian Scripture,” Ehrman does a good job of presenting the lack of literacy in the early church.  This is not a concept understood by most people in our highly literate culture.  Yet, it is insightful to see how “Judaism was unique…”[7]  in its recording of laws and its veneration of these writings called Scriptures.  While a large number of believers were illiterate, the same appreciation of the written scriptures is applied to early Christians.  Ehrman is very good at bring all of these cultural situations in to context. 

Yet, there are a few glaring problems in this chapter.  In describing the circulation of letters, Ehrman shows his bias in the dating of some of the New Testament documents.  He states, in an apparently off handed way, that the first gospels were written after 70 AD.  While there are a large number of scholars who would agree, there are some who would argue that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written before the destruction of Jerusalem.  Would Matthew, a Jewish Christian, who quoted the Old Testament more than any other NT writer, have failed to mention the destruction of the temple?  In Acts 11:28 the writer states, “One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world and this took place in the reign of Claudius.”[8] A prophecy was made and confirmed in the same passage to give credence to the prophecy.  Yet, this same writer in Luke 21: 5,6 writes,  “And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."[9] No mention is made of this prophecy of Jesus being fulfilled. Why would the writer mention Agabus fulfilled prophecy, but not Jesus’?  It would make sense if the event had not yet happened. 

On page 23 he mentions that, “Scholars have long suspected that some of the letters found in the New Testament under Paul’s name were in fact written by his latter followers, pseudonymously.”[10]  How many scholars have this suspicion?  Are there any scholars who challenge this notion?  While I understand that Ehrman is trying to make a point about apostolic authority, yet by making a suspicion seem to be unanimous he undermines the very idea of the canon.  In saying this Ehrman commits the Genetic Fallacy because he makes the scholars and not the scholarship his justification.  This same selective summary shows up in his discussion of the many other gospels on page 24.  He does not speak at all about the criteria used in canonization.  He also fails to mention the fact that most of these gospels were written over one hundred years after the canonical Gospels.  This gives the impression that the New Testament was put together willy-nilly. 

Ehrman also shows a distain for Christians who hold to views of inerrancy.  On page 36 he writes, “Many Christians today may think that the canon of the New Testament simply appeared on the scene one day soon after the death of Jesus, but nothing could be further from the truth.”[11]  He gives no justification for this statement.    Which Christians is he referring to?  What percentages of Christians believe this?  He makes no effort in this book to deal with the arguments of scholars who disagree with him, but he will attack the views of anonymous Christians whom he caricatures without citation.

The Copyists of Early Christian Writings

Secondly, in his chapter titled “The Copyists of Early Christian Writings,” Ehrman does a great job of spelling out how errors have worked their way into ancient texts.  He makes some very good points about the copyists in the early church not being professionals.  However, there is a major weakness in one of his arguments.  If the copyists were non-professionals (some of whom could barely be called literate), then it would make sense that most of their errors would in fact be transcriptional in nature, which Ehrman states on page 51.  Yet, on page 53 he writes that the early church scribes changed words to make better orthodox translation.  He fails to state the proportions of either.  To make an honest case Ehrman should list how many passages contain errors in transcription verses errors in editing. 

If we can tell that a text was changed, it would seem to be possible to reconstruct the original, otherwise how could Ehrman state confidently that we know a passage was indeed altered.  Ehrman addresses this idea on page 58, saying, “…a number of textual critics have started to claim that we may as well suspend any discussion of the ‘original’ text, because it is inaccessible to us.  This maybe going to far….”[12]   If he thinks that statement is going to far then why write that statement?  How many critical scholars actually hold this view?   How would those who disagree address these arguments?  Ehrman doesn’t address these issues.

The chapter is finished by two flawed arguments.  He first mentions two passages which most scholars believe are additions to the texts: John 7: 53 - 8:12 (the woman at the well) and the last twelve verses of Mark, Mark 16: 9-20 (the resurrected appearance of Jesus).  Most translations clearly state that these are possible additions.  Therefore, Ehrman’s argument comes to be much ado about nothing in these passages.  If we consider the stories traditional, but remove them from the Scriptures, then there is no issue because our understanding of Christ is not changed by their omission.  Yet, he adds a hypothetical argument which is, at best, misleading.  On page 68 Ehrman writes, “Maybe, in fact, they [the disciples] never did come to understand [Jesus’ resurrection].”[13]  To bases this idea off the missing ending of Mark is misleading.  We have mountains of evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, that the disciples did “get it.”  The other three Gospels mention Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Paul (in a critically approved passage) states an early creed which testifies to this fact.  Ehrman’s statement is more akin to propaganda than scholarship at this point.   He would also have to explain the origin of the resurrection narrative if the disciples never “got it”.

Texts of the New Testament

I found the majority Ehrman’s chapter on the history of the different editions of the New Testament to be excellent.  I especially appreciate the context he provides to the process of reconstructing text which starts in the fourth century and finishes in the modern age.  However, on page 89 Ehrman makes an alarming statement.  “…some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more … There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” [14] This is a grossly misleading statement.  He fails to mention how variations are counted.  He also fails to mention how many of these variations are recognized as typos or misspellings.  Most importantly he never discusses how many of these variations threaten doctrines or cause major interpretive difficulties.

He makes another weak assertion on page 95.  “In other cases scribes changed a text not because they thought that it contained a mistake but because they wanted to circumvent a misunderstanding of it.” [15] If we cannot know what was written in the originals, then how is Ehrman able to talk about the motives of these scribes?  What is greatly lacking from this discussion is how much of the New Testament we can be confident about.  How much is truly in dispute?  While there is little doubt that changes and additions have been made, Ehrman would do well to be clear on what is actually in question.

The Quest for Originals

Ehrman’s chapter titled “The Quest for Originals” gives good background on the history of textual criticism.  He does a great job of bringing to life some of the people who engaged in this quest. There is one question I wish he had addressed, though.  How does the Bible and its manuscript evidence match up to other documents from antiquity?  How does the Bible stack up to Plato, The Iliad, Tacitus, Euclid, or any other writer or document?  While addressing these questions would add great context to the book, I fear it would undermine the point of view Ehrman is putting forth.

Originals That Matter

Ehrman shows himself to be a very good teacher in his explanation of the techniques of textual criticism.  He explains external and internal evidence very clearly.  On page 127 he gives a good analogy as to why the volume of a particular family of manuscripts does not make them more accurate.  Several questions must be raised.  What is the geographic range of the family?  How much agreement do different family groups have?  What is the likely reading of a passage?  What is a person of that time period likely to write, and what might a scribe likely write?  

In the midst of this discussion Ehrman makes a startling admission.  “…different scholars come to different conclusions-not only about minor matters that have no bearing on the meaning of a passage, but also about matters of major importance, matters that affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”[16]  In contrast to this statement, though, Ehrman has not once mentioned a scholar whose opinion differed with his.  No where has he shown how his argument matches against the argument of other scholars.  On page 133 Ehrman points out an alternate translation for Mark 1:41.  How many scholars disagree with him?  Who has the stronger arguments?  We cannot know from reading this text.  Another question which needs to be asked is: Would changing this passage change any major theological ideas held by orthodox churches today? 

The same questions could be asked about his concerns about Luke 22: 39-46.  Ehrman concludes that, in this passage, Jesus extremely emotional for the first time in this gospel.  “Only here does Jesus agonize over his coming fate; only here does he appear out of control, unable to bear the burden of his destiny.”[17]  While Ehrman may have a point, it could also be possible that this was the place where Jesus would be most aware of the coming crucifixion.  This would be the place a person, even one as strong as Jesus, would most likely become distraught over the coming event. 

Ehrman points out the differences between the gospels of Mark and Luke in their portrayal of Jesus.  He concludes that Luke took Mark’s gospel and made dramatic changes.  Yet, these could changes have been the result of Luke’s investigation of the story verses Mark’s portrayal of Peter’s narrative.  The fact that they were writing to different audiences have might brought about differences.  These possibilities, though taught in many classes on hermeneutics, are never mentioned.  In the end, even if each of these passages should be interpreted in the way Ehrman suggests, they might condemn a caricature of Christianity, but not orthodox Christianity.

Conclusions

Upon completion of reading this book, several conclusions can be drawn.  Ehrman has done a very good job at providing a history behind the texts of the New Testament.  He also does an admirable job teaching some of the techniques behind textual criticism.  He also asks some fair questions about some questionable passages.  Yet, throughout this book it is easy to see that Ehrman uses a one sided approach to make his case.  While he often writes of the many variations in the manuscripts, he never mentions which fraction of these variations are typographical verses editorial.  He never discusses how much of the New Testament is actually in question because of these errors, except to say that the Bible we have is not trustworthy.  In the midst of this discussion he never discusses the views of his opponents.  Not once does he quote a scholar who disagrees with him on any point.  Nor does Ehrman ever place his point of view alongside others to allow his audience to judge these juxtaposed ideas.

Not only does the book lack any diversity in opinions, but Ehrman portrays Christians in a disingenuous light.  For example, “It’s no wonder that some Bible-believing Christians prefer to pretend there’s never been a problem, since God inspired the King James Bible instead of the original Greek!”[18]  This is Ehrman’s caricature of Christianity.  This idea, while present in the church, is not mainstream or a part of conservative scholarship.  Dr. Ehrman seems to be writing this book to the misrepresentation of the church.  He and his audience would be much better served if he gave more space to debate and less to ad hominine.  While I learned much about textual criticism and history through Misquoting Jesus, I am not at all persuaded by Dr. Ehrman’s arguments in it.