On "Misquoting Jesus"

[All-American]

I bought Erhman's Misquoting Jesus on Wednesday. It is indeed a quick read-- I brushed through the first third of it in less than an hour. By the time I finished with that third, I was so dissapointed that I had spent twenty five American dollars on it that I returned it the next day.

My overall impression is one of dissapointment. I had hoped for a more solid academic work than this one, which was toned down considerably in order to appeal to a more general audience. I can't speak for everybody else, of course, but the result for me was a book with considerably less intellectual muscle. What kind of a book claims to evaluate the claims and objects of New Testament textual criticism and has not so much as a iota of Greek in it?

There were also some minor details that weren't quite accurate-- largely, they were ones that were outside of the scope of his main focus, and thus much less relevant to the overall book, but their presence was dissapointing nonetheless. The bottom line for me was this: there has been nothing in the book that one will not hear while attending Religion 211 with Thomas E. Wayment at BYU. I will order a copy of the book from Amazon, where the price I pay will more accurately reflect its value, and finish it soon, but so far, I don't feel that Erhman has said anything truly substantial.

I get a feel for the ultimate claims he is going to try to make, though. My prediction is that he either doesn't get to them, and contents himself with demonstrating the fallacy of considering the Bible inerrent; he makes a flying leap of judgement in saying that since the Bible is inerrent, it is entirely unreliable and good for nothing but to be trodden under the foot of men; or he pulls off a literary marvel by masterfully composing the remainder of the work. My money is on the second one, unfortunately.

[BarbaraGordon]

Do you think you would have liked the original work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, better? I understand that this is the more scholarly version of the book.

Or were you so disappointed with the arguments of the book that you wouldn't want to pursue them in depth anyway?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by All-American

I bought Erhman's Misquoting Jesus on Wednesday. It is indeed a quick read-- I brushed through the first third of it in less than an hour. By the time I finished with that third, I was so dissapointed that I had spent twenty five American dollars on it that I returned it the next day.

My overall impression is one of dissapointment. I had hoped for a more solid academic work than this one, which was toned down considerably in order to appeal to a more general audience. I can't speak for everybody else, of course, but the result for me was a book with considerably less intellectual muscle. What kind of a book claims to evaluate the claims and objects of New Testament textual criticism and has not so much as a iota of Greek in it?

There were also some minor details that weren't quite accurate-- largely, they were ones that were outside of the scope of his main focus, and thus much less relevant to the overall book, but their presence was dissapointing nonetheless. The bottom line for me was this: there has been nothing in the book that one will not hear while attending Religion 211 with Thomas E. Wayment at BYU. I will order a copy of the book from Amazon, where the price I pay will more accurately reflect its value, and finish it soon, but so far, I don't feel that Erhman has said anything truly substantial.

I get a feel for the ultimate claims he is going to try to make, though. My prediction is that he either doesn't get to them, and contents himself with demonstrating the fallacy of considering the Bible inerrent; he makes a flying leap of judgement in saying that since the Bible is inerrent, it is entirely unreliable and good for nothing but to be trodden under the foot of men; or he pulls off a literary marvel by masterfully composing the remainder of the work. My money is on the second one, unfortunately.

I understand where you're coming from, but one of the great things about the Misquoting book is it will give many on CG enough of a background to have the kinds of conversations you'd like to. The Orthodox Corruption book is alot beefier, it addresses many of the same issues with greater complexity.

[Dan]

... will give you plenty of real scholastic filling.

[All-American]

Thanks for the tip, all. I'll get it from the library on Monday.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I bought Erhman's Misquoting Jesus on Wednesday. It is indeed a quick read-- I brushed through the first third of it in less than an hour. By the time I finished with that third, I was so dissapointed that I had spent twenty five American dollars on it that I returned it the next day.

My overall impression is one of dissapointment. I had hoped for a more solid academic work than this one, which was toned down considerably in order to appeal to a more general audience. I can't speak for everybody else, of course, but the result for me was a book with considerably less intellectual muscle. What kind of a book claims to evaluate the claims and objects of New Testament textual criticism and has not so much as a iota of Greek in it?

There were also some minor details that weren't quite accurate-- largely, they were ones that were outside of the scope of his main focus, and thus much less relevant to the overall book, but their presence was dissapointing nonetheless. The bottom line for me was this: there has been nothing in the book that one will not hear while attending Religion 211 with Thomas E. Wayment at BYU. I will order a copy of the book from Amazon, where the price I pay will more accurately reflect its value, and finish it soon, but so far, I don't feel that Erhman has said anything truly substantial.

I get a feel for the ultimate claims he is going to try to make, though. My prediction is that he either doesn't get to them, and contents himself with demonstrating the fallacy of considering the Bible inerrent; he makes a flying leap of judgement in saying that since the Bible is inerrent, it is entirely unreliable and good for nothing but to be trodden under the foot of men; or he pulls off a literary marvel by masterfully composing the remainder of the work. My money is on the second one, unfortunately.

This is unfortunate. It's too bad you didn't just read the *last* third of the book. Your predictions would not have come true. The first half to 2/3 of the book is just a rehash of common textual criticism pedagogy. While he points out from time to time that what we know about textual criticism refutes common assumptions about the bible, it is the material covered in his last 3 chapters that has made him revolutionary in the field of textual criticism, and to which scholars across the world are catching on. In a nutshell, it is the fact that TC can tell us things about the social history of early Christianity. TC as a window to history is something that has placed Bart on the cutting edge of TC for some time now. THAT is the heart of his book and something he is trying to get out to the public, namely, that TC isn't all about modern theology...it is about ancient Christian history.

Also, what details does he get wrong, I'm just curious? (BTW, I just thumbed through it, and he has plenty of Greek in here, mainly in his discussion of textual variants, exactly where you would expect it. I'm not sure what you were expecting, in his very broad discussions in the portion of the book you read.) All I know is that he is America's premiere TC scholar (and one of the top few in the world, maybe the top), so I would hesistate to call him on things without specific reasons. I don't say this just because of who he is, but because of how careful and conservative he is in drawing historical and even textual conclusions.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

This is unfortunate. It's too bad you didn't just read the *last* third of the book. Your predictions would not have come true. The first half to 2/3 of the book is just a rehash of common textual criticism pedagogy. While he points out from time to time that what we know about textual criticism refutes common assumptions about the bible, it is the material covered in his last 3 chapters that has made him revolutionary in the field of textual criticism, and to which scholars across the world are catching on. In a nutshell, it is the fact that TC can tell us things about the social history of early Christianity. TC as a window to history is something that has placed Bart on the cutting edge of TC for some time now. THAT is the heart of his book and something he is trying to get out to the public, namely, that TC isn't all about modern theology...it is about ancient Christian history.

Also, what details does he get wrong, I'm just curious? (BTW, I just thumbed through it, and he has plenty of Greek in here, mainly in his discussion of textual variants, exactly where you would expect it. I'm not sure what you were expecting, in his very broad discussions in the portion of the book you read.) All I know is that he is America's premiere TC scholar (and one of the top few in the world, maybe the top), so I would hesistate to call him on things without specific reasons. I don't say this just because of who he is, but because of how careful and conservative he is in drawing historical and even textual conclusions.

I wasn't going to mention it because it really is a very minor point with little to no relevance regarding his main point. He says that the Jews had only one temple at Jerusalem-- which is not precisely true. Archaeologists in the near east are finding several examples of jewish temples with the same basic floorplan and apparent purposes of the temple at Jerusalem. One example is at Elephantine-- built by Jews who fled Jerusalem during its destruction by the Babylonians, and with the approval of the main body of the Jews. The idea that a temple could exist at THAT site in Jerusalem alone came about years afterward.

Like I said, VERY minor point wherein he is not EXACTLY correct-- so yes, I likewise hesitate to call him out on things.

And he has some greek words transliterated into the Latin alphabet, but no Greek script. Unless I missed it.

And I will finish the book, worry you not; I'm just going to wait until a cheaper version arrives in the mail.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I wasn't going to mention it because it really is a very minor point with little to no relevance regarding his main point. He says that the Jews had only one temple at Jerusalem-- which is not precisely true. Archaeologists in the near east are finding several examples of jewish temples with the same basic floorplan and apparent purposes of the temple at Jerusalem. One example is at Elephantine-- built by Jews who fled Jerusalem during its destruction by the Babylonians, and with the approval of the main body of the Jews. The idea that a temple could exist at THAT site in Jerusalem alone came about years afterward.

Like I said, VERY minor point wherein he is not EXACTLY correct-- so yes, I likewise hesitate to call him out on things.

And he has some greek words transliterated into the Latin alphabet, but no Greek script. Unless I missed it.

And I will finish the book, worry you not; I'm just going to wait until a cheaper version arrives in the mail.

Okay, yes, this is a good point. But remember, Ehrman is talking about "the Judaism from which Christianity sprang" (p. 17). He is talking about post-Hellenistic Judaism, where this *was* the case. In the Assyrian, Babylonian, and maybe even Persian period (the period of Elephantine), there could be discussion not only to how many Jewish temples there were, but how many *Gods* the Israelite people (well, okay, probably more the elites, which were responsible for Hebrew literature, after all) worshipped. So yes, Judaism was a very diverse phenomenon, just like Christianity, but given what Jesus taught (an apocalyptic form of Judaism), it was based on a very centralized, obviously monotheistic strand of Judaism, probably not unlike what the Pharisees thought in many respects, but with a decidedly apocalyptic flavor.

[Archaea]

The last three chapters are the best.

The book is a good overview, for those of us, who are not scholars in the antiquities. It is not scholarly, as I suppose the Orthodox book is, but that is not its intended audience.

I appreciated the read, but look forward to a more scholarly approach, with more meat and potatoes.