The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why - Misquoting Jesus

I like Ehrman's style and perspective ... not so weighty as to be misunderstood, poses more questions than answers, and invites the reading to keep giving thought to the sacred texts and how we engage them in contemporary faith experiences.

This is a no-nonsense, "clear-read" on understanding textual criticism; the author noting his history (how he came to write the book), and the impact/appreciation he gained from studying Greek (and other languages) and applying this knowledge to understanding the New Testament. My journey for truth took a similar path but with prior knowledge that what is written in the Bible is not the original words and that our contemporary views are not to be compared with the views of yesteryears. This is a must read and should be a required text for liberal thinking students and educators. Despite my understanding that the Bible, as past down through numerous centuries, is not without errors, that it does not represent the original language, and that most people don't care to understand these points, I remain fully committed to the faith and unity of there being only one God, who is not and cannot be embodied in one scripture nor contained by the writings or understandings of man.

The author was great at YouTube promotion, but the book itself is actually very thin on scholarships. Great premise, important topic, but the publisher probably convinced the author perhaps, to skim depth, to promote sales of it books. Ehrman shouldn't be a professor, for such poor writing. Think about it, how much depth can he squeeze in 200 pages. He offers several schools of early Christian schools of thoughts, but rarely delve more than several paragraphs, before he jumps to the next speculative theories. First year theology freshman writes better than this.

I read this after reading Jesus, Interrupted, also by Bart D. Ehrman. This book is slightly more technical than the other, and I would recommend reading Jesus, Interrupted first, then this one.

Ehrman begins this book by describing how he was raised as a Christian and was so fascinated by the Bible that he began intently studying it, and I do mean intently. He was so interested in it that he learned Greek, Latin, and some of the ancient languages in order to translate the ancient manuscripts himself rather than just relying on others to tell him what they say.

In my opinion this book and Jesus, Interrupted should both be required reading for anyone who reads the Bible. Why would you not be interested in how this book came to be what it is today? Ehrman describes the many ways that the Bible has been changed in the process of copying. After being hand copied for more than 1500 years, wouldn't you expect that there would be variations? In the first 200 years, these manuscripts weren't even copied by professional scribes. Also, in the early years of Christianity, the literacy rates were very low, and a person might be considered literate if they could just write their name. At one place in the book he describes how a person is copying a manuscript who can't really read and is simply copying it symbol by symbol, not able to even read it!

Ehrman goes over many of the reasons that these variations probably occurred in the Bible - from simple errors to deliberate changes and outright forgery, and the reasons for many of these changes. He also writes about some of the early Christian religions and the conflicts they had establishing their doctrines - for example, whether Jesus was mortal or divine, if Jesus was born of a virgin, the concept of the Trinity, and even if there was one God or many. Some believed there was a god of the Old Testament and a different god of the New Testament. They believed that the Old Testament god was wrathful and vengeful, and the New Testament god was kind and benevolent. Many of us aren't aware that the early Christian churches didn't all agree on this, and what we have today is the doctrine that persevered over the others. A statement he made that stands out in my mind is that there are more variants in the Bible than there are words in the New Testament and that there are more than 30,000 variants.

A recommended read for those who are able to be open-minded about a book considered sacred and inerrant by many.

Rendezvous Rock

Bart D. Ehrman obviously believes the Bible is such a popular book because most buyers feel it contains God's own inspired words. Many foolish or simple-minded people would even go so far as to declare that every word in the Bible is inspired by God. The problem with this latter viewpoint, as Ehrman most insightfully points out, as that we no longer have access to the original, "inspired" words. The New Testament's were lost nearly 2,000 years ago. I always ask people who stand on the rock of the Bible's inerrancy, "What Bible?" The majority cite the King James version. A few brave souls claim that all Bibles are the same. So I ask what version they use. Good old King James usually surfaces again in most cases, although a few will prefer the Revised Standard. What it boils down to, as Ehrman states in his concluding chapter, is that many Fundamentalists believe that God inspired the King James translators, rather than the Bible's original authors. Yes, many people honestly feel that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter often misunderstood the Holy Spirit and got God's words wrong. And that being the super-patient, super-tolerant God that He is, He then waited 1,600 years to correct Paul and company's idiotic mistakes!

What can you do when faced with these problems? One solution is to attempt to reconstruct the original texts, as I have done with Mark's Gospel in More Bible Wisdom for Modern Times: Selections from the Early New Testament and with John's Gospel in Essential Bible Wisdom: GOOD NEWS by John, the Beloved Disciple, and John, the Elder.

Once again, Dr. Ehrman delivers a very interesting biblical work. As with all of his other works, there is not a lot of technical jargon, making it easy to comprehend for even casual readers (not a scholarly book).

Demonstrates the fallacies behind the book that most Christians take as absolute truth and history. Face it, Jesus did not have a stenographer follow him around to record what he did and said (i.e. who knows what the conversation between Jesus and Pilot consisted of, if, indeed, one ever occurred. Bible was written at least 100 years after Jesus lived and written by no one who actually knew him.

Some of the information regarding the Bible, the timing, its authors, etc was already known to me but it was still a great read. I tried to go into the book with an open mind but lets face it, we all bring our own baggage when it comes to books like this.

I found Ehran and his theories very credible. He really made me think about what it is we were taught and what we believe. I don't feel as if he changed my opinion but I do feel like I have more information and a better understanding of the Bible in a historical context.

For disclosure purposes I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic School from K-College.

Excellent book on textural criticism and biblical documents. When I was in a christian church we were taught that all of the biblical texts were basically all in agreement and that the bible was accurately copied from generation to generation. What an eye-opener!!!

Excellent book with lots of insights into the evolution of scripture and the impact by those who touched it along the way. That God's message still comes through loud and clear is a testament to God's ability to work God's grand plan, in spite of the flaws and failures of those involved in the process!

This book gives a thorough, extremely well documented explanation of the evolution of the modern versions of the New Testament of the Bible. It shows how the fragments of precursor documents, the writing style changes from one chapter or verse to another, the logical flow or lack thereof, and the context of the historical battles between various religions and factions within religions over the centuries all consistently point to the Bible being a human document modified to suit the propaganda needs of the writers of each century. Together with the copious notes, this book proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no way an omniscient, or indeed omni-anything God could have written or inspired the Bible or its precursor documents. This is a must read for intellectually honest Christian apologists.

Great book. This book really explores some of the mistakes made by scribes, and the reasons behind why certain passages of the bible might have been altered on purpose, or by accident. Excellent read.

Excellent book from an historical viewpoint. Gives greater understanding to some Scripture and is written in an easy to understand manner. I recommend it to those who read beyond the usual Bible studies.

This book is a scholarly work that is tweaked for the rest of us to comprehend.

Ehrman's arguments make sense, although I am not in a position to verify his claims about manuscripts from the past.

However, Ehrman says with precision what I have believed in general for a long time.

This is a remarkable book that honest religionists/believers would do well to read and study so as to broaden their own understanding of everything that is not seriously questioned once one has faith. The Trinity cannot be the answer to everything, and Ehrman is one scholar among many who is positioned to educate the rest of us on the actual materials that the Bible was crafted out of.

As a practicing Christian this was an eye opening book having read scripture most of my life I finally have found a source that follows my interpretation of the Bible based on history not just blind this is all there is just believe.

This is an interesting if tedious book for anyone who wants to learn about the actual nature of the New Testament. Ehrman gives a thorough analysis of the history behind the New Testament writings including the limitations of the writers and scribes, as well as the historical, religious and social context of those involved. He approaches the topic purely from the perspective of a historian. While I did get bogged down in some of the details regarding biblical scholarship, I was glad I took the time. There are some who will vehemently disagree with him based on religious beliefs but his purpose is to accurately inform his readers of the who, what, where, and why the scriptures were written. He is not against any particular religious belief. He clearly shows that the New Testament is a very human work. A worthwhile read for anyone who thinks they know scripture.

Bart Ehrman combines his scholarly erudition with notes of his personal struggle out of ignorance in this excellent work on the Gospels. You never get the sense that Ehrman is lecturing you, or levelling his intellect to condescend; he, better than anyone, understands the sort of anguish that this sort of prying into the dark can bring.

But that anguish is indeed the point of the book. It's clear that Ehrman loves the Gospels, and has a certain affinity for their many, many writers and contributors. But it is clear too that to truly understand the Gospels, we have to know where they came from, and their all too human origins shouldn't be hidden for fear that it may crush the worldview of so many.

I get the sense that the more devout believers among us may resent this work, and probably fear to crack its cover; but those are the sort that have always felt that way about new knowledge, and we shouldn't be too surprised to see them react much the same as they always have.

But this work brings a sense of hope with it, as we follow the author's journey from faith to understanding. We see that blind faith and ignorance can always be cured with knowledge, and Ehrman and his book are shining examples of it.

Very interesting and recommended, though a little dry and times and a bit repetitious across chapters, but glad I picked this one up. It is a pretty quick read too considering the topic and number of writings covered, he author doesn't dig too deeply into the weeds for layman to follow along.

Bart Ehrman is a tragic case, a fundamentalist who lost his faith. Bart Ehrman became a born again believer as a teenager, with a fundamentalist's understanding of the Inspiration of Scripture, with the idea that to be inspired, Scripture had to be inerrant in the original manuscripts, and without error on any of the historical or scientific matters it touches on. Ehrman discovered to his dismay that the Bible wasn't what he had been told it was, and without an alternative view of Inspiration that made allowances for the problems in the Bible, he lost his faith entirely. He holds on to his fundamentalist understanding of inspiration, which informs his research and his writings. I consider this be be one of his better popular works. I don't agree with his conclusions, as they are informed by someone with a faulty understanding of the Bible, but I appreciate the effort he makes to get his facts correct.

Polite enough to be gifted to hardcore Christians, yet honest, in depth, and thorough. This book is a must read for evangelicals and those recovering from religion - anyone who has lingering doubts about the "inspired" nature of Scripture needs to look at this book.

Balanced and fair writing that doesn't "bash" religion, but simply cites discrepencies, and traces the multitude of changes each part of the new testament has gone through. Fascinating and well written. big thumbs up.

The author's motivation for this book was to give normal people a look at textual criticism and the process by which sacred texts have been passed on, translated and copied, specifically pertaining to the New Testament. The book can get a little slow at parts but overall was an enjoyable read. Ehrnam, more than qualified, argues his points on why the bible was changed to enhance Jesus' story, down play the role of women in the church and to promote antisemitism. Ehrnam's tone is nevery accusatory and there never seemed to be an underlying agenda to undermine the Christian religion. I found it fascinating and would reccomend it to anyone with a curiosity about the origins of the New Testament.

This open-minded research by a sincere student of the bible (note the lower case) should prompt serious thought by those of us willing to go to war or deprive our neighbors of justice and opportunity because we base our justifications on the Word of God, as reported and edited by biased and gravely uninformed humans. If we read only those quotes directly attributed to Jesus, -- Christ or not, according to an individual's personal faith -- we can see that our government, corporate and community leaders seldom support the message of peace and social justice that The Great Teacher gave to us. It has been said that God moves in mysterious ways, or some such rhetoric, but perhaps what has been written in our hearts by our all-wise Creator is what should guide our decisions and behavior. Listen to our own inner spirit rather than the "fair and balanced" view of a few.
Good job Mr. Ehrman.

Excellent scholarship! This book is very educational. One may choose to agree or disagree with the author on some conclusions but this insight into what makes up the New Testament is very enlightening and in some cases disturbing. As the author says, the variances in the texts outnumber the words in the text, and 95% of those don't change the meaning. The ones that do are doozies! I found the information on various debates in the early Church to be very enlightening. For example, we take the divinity of The Christ as a given today, but apparantly in the early Church that was hotly debated.

I was amazed at the number of mistakes, purposeful revisions, and outright forgeries that occurred in the early transcriptions of the ancient texts written about Jesus and his teachings. The renowned historian Bart Ehrman has fastidiously documented many inconsistencies within and between the early gospels, letters, and other writings that are incorporated in the New Testament canon. He also describes the various research methods used to establish the authenticity of the ancient texts, and which of the writings take precedence over the others. With all the variety of translations, personal agendas of the copyists, popularity of the wrong stories among uneducated believers, and opinionated forgeries, it's difficult to hold to the current traditional view of the New Testament canon as the true source of God's word.

Bard D Ehrman is a bit long-winded and repetitious in this book. However, he gets high marks for presenting a multitude of well-sourced documentation in support of his claims, and he avoids falling back on any favored theological exegesis, which is an uncommon enough and a welcome breath of fresh air in a text concerned with Biblical criticism. He is not presenting any kind of crank or crackpot theory here: he merely presents the facts that his years of scholarship in the field have uncovered. The reader is free to agree or disagree with him, or to meet him part way, and Ehrman seems content with that in the proselytisation-free-zone that occupies the space between this small volume's covers. His arguments are compelling, if not always completely convincing, and they motivate follow-up investigation.

I thouroughly enjoyed the author's discussion of development in biblical criticism. His journey from a position of inerrancy to his acceptance of the human frailties of the authors and the transcribers and redacters is enjoyable. While an uninformed person would think that his conclusions are shocking, most of what he says about the composition of the new testament checks out with authorities such as the New Jerome Commentary.

This is an absolutely fascinating analysis of changes over the years in what we know of as the "original" text of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is an excellent writer and lecturer. I have several of his Teaching Company lecture courses also and have enjoyed every one of them.

I actually first noticed a problem with the New Testament through an ex-roommate who pointed out a discrepancy questioning who was responsible for the death of Christ. Was it the Jewish people, as Matthew 27:25 teaches, where the the text says "'All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!" Or was no one responsible for the death of Christ. Jesus exonerates all humanity for his death in John 10:17-18, saying, "17'The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life''--only to take it up again. 18'No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.'' I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." I stress v 18a: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."

Misquoting Jesus is really a book for evangelical Christians who were spiritually raised on the doctrine of inerrancy, but have since found such Biblical obedience to be problematic. By discrediting the Bible, Prof. Ehrman demonstrates why he believes the Bible is not verbally inspired. Note that he only focuses on the New Testament in his book but extends his thesis to the entire Bible, OT and NT. I'll leave his reasoning out for you to buy the book and find out why.

His methodology is based on textual criticism which sifts through all available manuscripts of the NT, portions, fragments and quotations from later writers to determine what the original manuscripts probably said. There are a variety of principles employed to determine when one quotation should be selected as opposed to another. He describes those principles in reasonable detail.

I enjoyed Misquoting Jesus very much. Prof Ehrman writes candidly and unpacks some dense material so that it has a sense of being illuminated. I read the entire book rather quickly without getting bogged down and enjoyed it. Recommended.

This book is a very good introduction to the history of the development of NT canonical text. Ehrman, a historian, provides a historian's rigor and standards to this publication while presenting his findings in a very readable narrative style. "Misquoting Jesus" is a short, fast read which intentionally doesn't attempt to cover all the questions scholars actively research and analyze between historical reality and the versions of manuscripts current laymen read. Instead, Ehrman provides a pleasant wade, especially for those readers unfamiliar with output by credentialed scholars such as Ehrman. He provides a perfect start to a journey towards an intellectual understanding of early Christianity.

Ehrman stays away from theological arguments and exegesis of some of the more topical controversies (e.g., Paul's perception of the life of Christ prior to his crucifixion is not covered, nor are textual criticism methods to test the veracity of claims covered, like the criterion of dissimilarity test that would dismiss the Jesus counting fishes miracle since it's the same story as a much earlier Pythagoras story - even down to the fish count). Instead Ehrman focuses on what the manuscripts say, and how we know that some parts have changed over time by comparing texts. Ehrman does cover theories on why they were changed though he does so briefly without getting bogged down in any dense analysis to prove his point.

Another reason this is a good introduction to the study of early Christianity is that Ehrman avoids most of the controversies within scholarly circles regarding the divinity of Jesus. I assume this is because to many conservative Christians who appear to be one of Ehrman's primary target audiences, discovering the ease at which scholars have proven the Bible is errant as reported in this book will be contrary to what they've been indoctrinated into by many churches; with that being enough provocation to deal with in an introductory book. My assumption is based on Ehrman's introduction, a short memoir of his own intellectual journey from being an ignorant evangelical to enlightened historian, a "hey, if I can take this journey, so can you" essay I believe would have been more appropriate as an appendix.

I don't believe Ehrman is dishonest by avoiding the historical veracity of NT claims for a divine Jesus; most of those controversies require that readers have some foreknowledge of what we know regarding early manuscripts well beyond the scope of an introductory book along with some skills in exegesis to understand the theories presented that challenge a literal reading. However, due to the relative shortness of this book and Ehrman's narrative skills, I believe Ehrman had plenty of room to include some of the easier conceptual contradictions between manuscripts and outside source material, e.g., the corruption of the Josephus texts or some of the miracle stories and how they compared to earlier non-Christian texts. This is my one major criticism of this book; Ehrman would have made a more powerful presentation by adding additional case studies that are conceptually easy to understand for even casual readers.

Regarding the claims by some readers who were put off by this book and accuse Ehrman of bias for not better representing the fundamentalist dogma they support. There are very few instances in this book where Ehrman wades into waters where there isn't a peer-accepted theory. Those instances are ones in which Ehrman presents earlier manuscripts with less corruption of text as closer to the original author's version, but these Byzantine texts also challenge current conservative Christian beliefs which use later, more corrupt manuscripts, like the Middle Ages' Textus Receptus. Ehrman does an adequate job in this book of providing a small portion of the empirical evidence available to destroy any notion that this particular manuscript is a trust-worthy source given the lack of source material used along with the suspect quality of source material to develop the Textus Receptus, which was the subsequent primary source for the King James Version. All areas of study have their flat-earthers; ignoring the apologists who are unable or unwilling to use the scientific method as Ehrman does do not deserve attention when one is seeking truth. In fact, I would argue Ehrman bent over backwards by not delving into the more radical claims which do have some empirical evidence supporting them and are reasonable claims (Robert Price's deconstruction of Jesus or Earl Doherty's construction of Jesus from Paul's Christ being two examples).

Ehrman's objective with this book is to kick-start an intellectual journey for laymen to bring some intellectual knowledge to their beliefs beyond the traditional paradigm of indoctrination, I can't imagine anyone not appreciating the information Ehrman provides to his readers, even the flat-earthers themselves. While I appreciate his effort, I'm still waiting for Ehrman, due to his talent and skill as a writer, to let us have it with both barrels by writing a more comprehensive analysis of the status of textual criticism of the early Christian manuscripts.

Another but more tedious, academic walkthrough of known research into the obvious that we in the 21st century cannot possibly declare what we read today as Judeo -Christian writing can be declared the “truth” or the undeniable so-called “Word of God.” If you believe that Jesus is the son of god and your savior I encourage that level of faith for you, but be careful to use layer upon layer of human editing over hundreds of years as your source. This may be his point but nothing new is on offer.

This book answered many of the questions Christians have about some apparent discrepancies in the Bible. The author has an extensive education on the original languages of the Bible, making it possible for him to do research most of us are incapable of. He also has a ministerial education, and therefore is qualified to draw informed theological conclusions regarding scriptural texts. This book gives me a new view on reading and understanding scriptures. Makes me want to read the Bible again, possibly with a better understanding.

"Misquoting Jesus" is basically a NT textual analysis 101 course. It contains little that has not been common knowledge among experts in the field for the past 30 or so years, but Ehman was most probably the first to publish it in book form in 2005. He expounds the course with mastery, humour, and intellectual rigour. He manages to convey the excitement of something new to the student because clearly for him, this is fascinating material no matter how many times he has revisited it himself. The hallmark of a great teacher.

Is the New Testament inerrant? This question should only bother us if we assume that (1) the NT is a sort of Agatha Christie who-dunnit novel to be taken literally, word for word; and (2) there was, somewhere, an original divinely-inspired text of each of the 27 books (which has got lost and corrupted.) As Ehrman shows with clear and concise examples, we cannot assert inerrancy in terms of coherency (does the text always make sense), internal consistency (does the text agree with itself) or external consistency (does the text agree with other sources to hand.) Ehrman shies away from a multiple-source theory of origins, but by using the textual analysis methods he speaks of, we can begin to understand how each of the texts we have were created out of combining different sources.

What comes out very strongly from Ehrman's analysis, however, is the passion and care with which readers and writers over the past 2,000-odd years have sought to improve the imperfect texts which they have received -- and passed on. The Nestles and Kurt Aland are, in this sense, within a long and impressive tradition of scholars who have worked hard to enable us to hear more clearly. Bart Ehrman also deserves a place in this pantheon, as one who has contributed much to make the word of God more accessible and understandable.

Having been an ardent Bible scholar since Sunday school days, I had no idea how the Bible was made available in the pyparus era & now, why different versions appear and how accurate these translations are? Professor Bart D. Ehrman answers these questions systematically & more : how the Scriptures get changed, added or edited and sometimes, professor Bart D. Ehrman explains even mistakes (human error) does even occur.These can explain e.g.why the original book of Mark ends with an empty tomb & scribes later added Mark 16:9-20. It is also revealing that the general held view of number 666 as the number of the beast (Devil/Satan) is incorrect. The correct number is actually 616 and refers to the then presiding Roman Empire at the time of writing of the gospel book of "Revelation"! This is an excellent book for all Bible scholars to understand what one is eventually & actually studying! A highly recommended reading!

Excellent review of the hazards and potential errors of the early transcription process. Erhman provides a surprisingly unbiased account of the reasons for transcription errors, both accidental and intentional, without imposing his own personal and theological judgement. Wonderful illustrative arguements are documented to support all aspects of transcription modifications. The reader is left to draw his/her own theological decisions, but now with a more open and more complete understanding of how the original words of the New Testament can never be fully known. Easy for the uninitiated in textual criticism to follow.

This book is an interesting read and provides some excellent details/theories behind the reason some biblical passages were deliberately changed or mis-translated. It should be included in any 'serious' biblical studies and may provide some answers to one's questions about some biblical passages that just don't seem to fit.

Written by an author who learned ancient Greek and Hebrew so he could read the earliest bibles, he shows conclusively that the book is hardly the "word of god." It is a bunch of tales passed from person to person orally until finally written down. Then those stories have undergone quite a lot of changes before becoming the book of fantasy it now is.

Thoroughly enjoyed this book, even if the subject matter and lengthy, but necessary explanations of evidence made for dry and intense reading at times, the author has done a remarkable job in presenting the research, evidence, personal findings and experience together in one fascinating book. Concise, frank, and mostly objective. Very readable!

The focus was not on discrediting Jesus but the failure of the transcription of the letters and records of the life and times of the subject. The textural criticism of the scriptures is research to "find" the original intent of the letters. The investigation into the way documents were transcribed by hand and the various ways that "scripture" would be changed by mistake and/or by the scribes own variants of thought change the meaning and intent. Mr. Ehrman has a solid background and the methods used to research are excellent.

Textual analysis and historical criticism of the Bible has been a respected scholarly pursuit since the 1700s, but the general public has remained ignorant of its findings, although they are well-known in the narrow circle of Biblical scholars. Bart D. Ehrman has done a great service by producing this popular, readable account. It gives a good introduction to the methods of Biblical scholarship and analysis. It introduces the reader to the historical facts -- long known to scholars, obvious to common sense, yet potentially shocking to the believer who's never thought about it -- that for its first centuries, the only possible means of transmitting any book of the New Testament to a new congregation was to hand-copy it, a task often done by amateurs, often barely-literate, often people who had a doctrinal axe to grind and a desire not to let new readers be deceived by apparent oversights or errors in the original being copied.

After explaining in convincing detail all the potential sources of scribal errors, and how, step-by-step over centuries, scholars documented the thousands of differences these errors created between one text and another, Ehrman lays out a few of the most significant points where the modern text as we receive it very probably differs from what the original writer said -- and how we know that; and how it probably happened. This part of the book is as fun to read as a good detective novel or puzzle. The methods of the scholars are ingenious (but must be incredibly tedious to apply).

In the end Ehrman never (that I noticed) dismisses or denigrates the Bible as a prop for anyone's faith. The only believers who should be even mildly upset by this book are those in that minority (a distressingly large minority, in the US) who insist on absolute, literal, word-for-word inerrancy as an article of faith. This book tends to undermine that naive credo because it shows in detail how the Bible is first of all, a human artifact. Any affront to faith not Ehrman's fault; it's the work of those generations of scholars and historians on which he honestly and clearly reports. Anger at this news is as unbecoming to believers as is the occasional glee expressed by unbelievers. What Ehrman has to tell ought not to make the Bible any less useful to the faithful or any less useless to the unbelievers.

We should all be pleased that, through some chance alignment of the planets (or more likely, the popularity of The DaVinci Code), this book -- which is no more than a good, workmanlike job of technical reportage -- has sold its way onto the best-seller lists.

Bart Ehrman is an excellent writer for lay people interested in the writing of the Bible. His work is well-researched and very informative. He presents confusing and complex information in a clear, simple and well-organized manner. This book demonstrates the fallacies involved in reading the Bible literally.

Over the past two years I have undergone a deconversion from the Christian faith. The initial catalyst involved my enability to reconcile the modern cosmological picture with the creation story. If the creation and fall of Adam in the garden are not literal events, then the rest of the Bible is pointless as a literal guide to heaven and instruction manuel to avoid hell. Bart Erhman has helped me to see that the weakness of the New Testament as a guide only underscores my decision to leave Christianity. If the Bible was inspired by an all powerful Creator one would think that he could preserve his Word in its original form rather than a jumbled mess of errors. At one point Erhman states that there are more discrepant readings in the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Huh! Who can trust whether you are following the words of God or the words of man? I'll take my chances and live my life the way I choose.

Having read other of Ehrman's well researched and absorbing books, I wanted to read further into his observations on that "sacred" book which so many hold as "the word of God." Clearly, it is nothing of the sort and Ehrman sets forth a wealth of evidence that the book, opposed to being divinely inspired, evolved over hundreds of years. During much of this time copies were made by scribes who were often not even literate and were certainly prone to introducing errors and changes in their handiwork.