I recently read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. It was very well written. I think the title perhaps written by the publisher, a misnomer, but a good marketing ploy. In the introduction Dr. Ehrman explains that the book is somewhat of a textual-criticism for lay readers. Textual-criticism he explains has long been the concern of very specialized scriptural scholars but the average person doesn't understand the archaeological scriptural discoveries that have recently been made. So he is writing to you and me, the average person, who needs to know (assuming you the reader is not a textual scriptural scholar).

Ehrman does a good job of making the book readable and enjoyable. He has come down on the side of accepting that the book we now have and consider as the bible is full of errors and textual changes. He says the purpose of scriptural-criticism is to try to recover the original manuscript. While I agree with some of his observations, I think his position is contrary to his own mentor and former Princeton theological professor, Dr. Bruce Metzger. Dr. Metzger has been quoted as saying that the vast majority of variation in scripture is insignificant when compared to the number of passages that have been transmitted correctly. See The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

I liked the final four chapters of Ehrman’s book, where he characterizes the early church and some of the theological conflicts that were taking place in the church. I was particularly interested in the discussion of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians chapter 14: 13-14 where he admonishes women to remain silent in church. Ehrman adroitly show’s that this passage is very contrary to Paul’s aknowledgement of women leaders in the churches and also how in Galatians he states “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” He shows that this passage may be spurious and shows that if you remove those two verses, the passage actually seems to make more sense, where Paul is talking about prophecy and orderliness in the church. He relates that at the time this passage may have made its way into our scripture, there was some conflict and an effort was being waged to keep women out of the priesthood. I find the argument compelling that there may have been a variant introduced here that may not have been in the original manuscript. But also, this shows the title isn't completely accurate, as he is discussing what Paul wrote here and not what Jesus said.

Ehrman’s view toward the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11) is consistent with other scriptural scholars. Those passages are not found in our earliest manuscripts. I found it interesting that he tells us that perhaps the story was part of an early oral tradition. One scribe may have added it to a margin as possibly occurring here in the story. Then a later scribe perhaps inserted it as being an actual part of scripture.

If you are a Christian and believe the bible is the infallible word of God, this may challenge your belief. I am of the opinion that the bible is in fact God's authoritative word, albeit some error certainly has made it's way into some of our translations, and should be studied carefully from many views, not only the one we feel comfortable with. I would recommend the book. But I would also say to read F.F. Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture, Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance and Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity for a balanced view on the reliability of scripture.

Ehrman seems to lean toward the Arian view that Jesus wasn't divine, but a remarkable human. For me, regardless, if you take all the passages mentioned in Ehrman’s book and remove them from scripture, I think you’ll still have a picture of Christ Jesus who is a divine savior of the world. Let’s get as close to the truth as we can. After all Jesus said, he was the truth.