GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BART: A REVIEW ARTICLE OF MISQUOTING JESUS BY BART EHRMAN, THE

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

For most students of the NT, a book on textual criticism is a real yawn. The tedious details are not the stuff of a bestseller. But since its publication on November 1, 2005, Misquoting Jesus has been circling higher and higher toward the Amazon peak.1 And since Bart Ehrman, one of North America's leading textual critics, appeared on two of NPR's programs (the Diane Rehm Show and Fresh Air with Terry Gross)-both within the space of one weekit has been in the top fifty sellers at Amazon. Within three months, more than 100,000 copies were sold. When Neely Tucker's interview of Ehrman in The Washington Post appeared on March 5 of this year, the sales of Ehrman's book shot up still higher. Mr. Tucker spoke of Ehrman as a "fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether."2 Nine days later, Ehrman was the guest celebrity on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. Stewart said that seeing the Bible as something that was deliberately corrupted by orthodox scribes made the Bible "more interesting .. . almost more godly in some respects." Stewart concluded the interview by stating, "I really congratulate you. It's a helluva book!" Within 48 hours, Misquoting Jesus was perched on top of Amazon, if only for a moment. Two months later and it is still flying high, staying in the top 25 or so books. It "has become one of the unlikeliest bestsellers of the year."3 Not bad for an academic tome on a "boring" topic!

Why all the hoopla? Well, for one thing, Jesus sells. But not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that sells is the one that is palatable to postmodern man. And with a book entitled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, a ready audience was created via the hope that there would be fresh evidence that the biblical Jesus is a figment. Ironically, almost none of the variants that Ehrman discusses involve sayings of Jesus. The book simply does not deliver what the title promises. Ehrman preferred Lost in Transmission, but the publisher thought such a book might be perceived by the Barnes and Noble crowd as dealing with stock car racing! Even though Ehrman did not choose his resultant title, it has been a publishing coup.

More importantly, this book sells because it appeals to the skeptic who wants reasons not to believe, who considers the Bible a book of myths. It is one thing to say that the stories in the Bible are legend; it is quite another to say that many of them were added centuries later. Although Ehrman does not quite say this, he leaves the impression that the original form of the NT was rather different from what the manuscripts now read.

According to Ehrman, this is the first book written on NT textual criticism-a discipline that has been around for nearly 300 years-for a lay audience.4 Apparently he does not count the several books written by KJV Only advocates, or the books that interact with them. It seems that Ehrman means that his is the first book on the general discipline of NT textual criticism written by a bona fide textual critic for a lay readership. This is most likely true.

I. TEXTUAL CRITICISM 101

Misquoting Jesus for the most part is simply NT textual criticism 101. There are seven chapters with an introduction and conclusion. Most of the book (chs. 1-4) is basically a popular introduction to the field, and a very good one at that. It introduces readers to the fascinating world of scribal activity, the process of canonization, and printed texts of the Greek NT. It discusses the basic method of reasoned eclecticism. All through these four chapters, various snippets-variant readings, quotations from Fathers, debates between Protestants and Catholics-are discussed, acquainting the reader with some of the challenges of the arcane field of textual criticism.

Chapter 1, "The Beginnings of Christian Scripture," addresses why the NT books were written, how they were received, and when they were accepted as Scripture.

Chapter 2, "The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings," deals with scribal changes to the text, both intentional and unintentional. Here Ehrman mixes standard text-critical information with his own interpretation, an interpretation that is by no means shared by all textual critics, nor even most of them. In essence, he paints a very bleak picture of scribal activity,5 leaving the unwary reader to assume that we have no chance of recovering the original wording of the NT.

Chapter 3, "Texts of the New Testament," and chapter 4, "The Quest for Origins," take us from Erasmus and the first published Greek NT to the text of Westcott and Hort. Discussed are the major scholars from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century. This is the most objective material in the book and makes for fascinating reading. But even here, Ehrman injects his own viewpoint by his selection of material. For example, in discussing the role that Bengel played in the history of textual criticism (pp. 109-12), Ehrman gives this pious German conservative high praise as a scholar: he was an "extremely careful interpreter of the biblical text" (p. 109); "Bengel studied everything intensely" (p. 111). Ehrman speaks about Bengel's breakthroughs in textual criticism (pp. 111-12), but does not mention that he was the first important scholar to articulate the doctrine of the orthodoxy of the variants. This is a curious omission because, on the one hand, Ehrman is well aware of this fact, for in the fourth edition of The Text of the New Testament, now by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman,6 which appeared just months before Misquoting Jesus, the authors note, "With characteristic energy and perseverance, [Bengel] procured all the editions, manuscripts, and early translations available to him. After extended study, he came to the conclusions that the variant readings were fewer in number than might have been expected and that they did not shake any article of evangelic doctrine."1 On the other hand, Ehrman instead mentions J. J. Wettstein, a contemporary of Bengel, who, at the tender age of twenty, assumed that these variants "can have no weakening effect on the trustworthiness or integrity of the Scriptures,"8 but years later, after careful study of the text, Wettstein changed his views after he "began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions."9 One is tempted to think that Ehrman may see a parallel between himself and Wettstein: like Wettstein, Ehrman started out as an evangelical when in college, but changed his views on the text and theology in his more mature years.10 But the model that Bengel supplies-a sober scholar who arrives at quite different conclusions-is quietly passed over.