Loading...Nothing is more frustrating than writing a book and having people — friends and foes — misread and misunderstand it and think it’s about something it’s not. (OK, I think I just lied. There are more frustrating things. It was more frustrating when the the “f” and “b” keys on the keyboard on my laptop stopped working. I had to copy and paste the letters in for weeks) (Well, actually, now that I think about it, there are lots more frustrating things. But still…)
That’s the topic of my post done in April 2020, which I give here as one of my favorites, Anniversary Post #9, on misunderstandings of my book Misquoting Jesus
******************************
Misquoting Jesus is my most widely read book. And I continue to be a bit amazed and dismayed at how widely it is misunderstood. The book was meant to deal with one very specific issue connected with the New Testament, and people who have read it – let alone the people who have not – often assume it’s about some *other* issue, or rather, some other very broad issue, normally something that it is decidedly not about.
One of the problems is that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I was watching your podcast about the Rapture this morning, and I’m still confused about the context of the passages you were talking about in1 Thess. 4 and Matthew 24. In 1 Thess, Paul said that the dead in Christ will rise first then those who are alive will meet him in the air. They’ll be with the Lord forever after that. You said in the video that it’s a king coming to gather his delegates to begin destruction, but Paul doesn’t indicate that those in the air are part of the destruction. They are saved from it. There doesn’t seem to be a tribulation for those that are saved.
Matthew 24 is a confusing passage because it says the Lord’s elect will die for him, so there is no escaping the tribulation (Is there a tribulation in Matthew?). The Lord will gather his Elect from the four winds, so I can see how “one will be taken and one will be left” seems to agree with Paul.
Is there a Tribulation at all in Revelation or any of the end times scriptures?
There’s no tribulation in the Bible anywhere if by that we mean a period of suffering on earth between the time the faithful are removed and those who remain experience horrible suffering before the final end comes.
To continue what I was saying, the problem I have with books about the Rapture are that they don’t pull the picture of the end together. It’s so fragmented that I can’t mentally grasp it, and I know others have the same problem as well. If there was some kind of a comparison chart or graph about it to understand it better would be very helpful. I know every scholarly author does their best to explain it, but it’s still very messy to comprehend fully.
I wish some smart person on the blog could talk to you about this and make a chart for us. 🙂
The late Dr. Walter Martin taught me how to simplify this subject. 1st Thessalonians 4:13 attempts to clear up a misconception concerning the resurrection of believers. It goes on in verses 16 and 17 to make specific points about the resurrection. Dr. Martin taught me that if I understand the passages about the resurrection of the just in the rest of the Bible it will eliminate confusion about the timing of the rapture, because the rapture is merely a part of the resurrection of the believers (see vs. 16, 17 again; caught up together with the dead in Christ).
The resurrection of those justified by faith was considered a foundational teaching in orthodox faith (Hebrews 6:1,2) and was unanimously understood by Christian writers of the first centuries. The teaching that’s circulated today about a pre-tribulational rapture didn’t exist until 1830 When J.N.Darby advanced his misunderstanding of Revelation 12. I hope that helps calibrate your compass.
I just signed up for your blog and am looking forward to reading it! I can understand how frustrating it must be to have people misunderstand Misquoting Jesus. I do think that it goes beyond people not understanding the nuances of expertise in a field they’re not professionals in. You have some sort of force field around you that makes Christians (at least the ones I know) go haywire. I knew this Christian woman who was quite sensible and open about many things, so I asked her what she thought of your work and I got quite a shutdown from her! In fact, she stopped talking to me! But that’s okay. I just listened to your interview with Megan Lewis about The Rapture. I grew up in SoCal while Calvary Chapel was evolving, so I know people who believe in The Rapture. I may be completely wrong about this — and may sound like one of those lay people at a cocktail party you wrote about — but I find the Woke Left and the Rapture Right very similar in the way they think.
Welcome to the blog!
I have read Misquoting Jesus and loved it. What of the other scholarly books you said have been around for centuries would you recommend most?
On that topic? The best is still Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament.
I was listening to a podcast a couple of weeks ago by two Evangelical Christians who actually made that point about Misquoting Jesus. They said you were misunderstood. However, they weren’t exactly fans of yours.
On a separate issue, did you ever get any blowback while you were teaching at UNC about your beliefs that came from outside the University? I’m curious. Teaching in the South; I would think in this political and social environment some parents or churches might actually contacted the University or even yourself to complain.
The deans got some, but they simply took them in stride. I personally got almost Zero.
Dr Ehrman, not too long ago I saw some crank on Youtube stating that you were a “Bible deconstructor” who was “promoting atheism.” I’ve seen and read a lot of your material but have never encountered such a message. If anything you’ve steered clear of explicitly evangelizing for atheism.
(Not to mention, as far as I know, you aren’t even an atheist yourself, you’re an agnostic, I believe.)
A lot of this has more to do with the corollary implications of what you actually do say, rather than your own words. People have a way of interpreting the message in terms that go beyond what you’ve actually said. As if they’ve somehow telescoped them out to something far different.
It’s unfortunate that people’s religiosity causes them to do this, and lie about you in the process, but they do it. More’s the pity.
Thanks. I”m actually an “atheist” about what I believe (or rather, don’t believe: I don’t believe in any divine force in the universe that is beyond the realm of nature) and and “agnostic” about what I claim to know (I don’t KNOW that there’s not; but I certainly don’t believe it…)
It seems to me that the emotional responses people sometimes have to your study may be related to cognitive dissonance or other non-rational elements in human thinking. At the same time, I wonder whether such processes have also played a role in the development of theology itself, as your research often highlights the ways traditions evolve and are reshaped over time.
In this sense, Matthew could be seen as a significant re-interpreter of Mark (setting aside the later addition of the longer ending), reshaping the portrayal of Jesus in ways that reflected other traditions or the expectations of his community.
This raises another question. In some religious traditions, such as Buddhism, there are vast numbers of scriptures—tens of thousands in some traditions—without the same level of concern for preserving exact wording; indeed, it is sometimes suggested that only a small portion may go back to what the Buddha actually said. In Shinto, there is not even the doctrine.
By contrast, Christianity has tended to place a strong emphasis on texts and wording. I wonder whether this difference might help explain why discussions about textual transmission, such as those you address here, often become more emotionally charged rather than purely analytical.
Yes, I’d say absolutely so.
I recently published a book titled, “Misquoting Ehrman.” The reason I wrote it was to address the Islamic attempt to invalidate the gospel by cherry picking your work and misquoting Misquoting Jesus. In it I have many quotes from you that you have given me from our blog, thank-you.
Yesterday while speaking with a group of Muslims one of them showed me your book cover and pointed out the sub title, “The story behind who changed the Bible and why.” They said “see, Bart says the Bible has been changed/corrupted and the passages in the New Testament that say Jesus is the Son of God, and that he was crucified, were things added by heretics to the original gospel that once read like the Quran.”
I know you didn’t say this, but this is their ‘proof.’ So how can I/we address the “Who changed the Bible” in your book’s subtitle? You have at times stated that we can be fairly certain what the actual gospel narrative is, but other times said that the gospel record is historically unreliable. So, can you give me a paragraph for my Muslim debaters clarifying what you mean when you say CHANGED? Thanx
CONTINUE:
I was thinking of using the following snippet from this post:
“I am *not* saying that ‘we have no idea what the authors of the New Testament wrote.’ I’ve never said that. The book[Misquoting Jesus] doesn’t say that. The book is not attacking the Bible and it is not a wild claim that we have no clues about what Jesus and his followers and the later writers of the New Testament thought and said. We do indeed have clues. In most cases we have pretty good ideas.”-BDE
And this too:
“In other words, I meant for the book to be an *entry-way* into asking questions about the New Testament. But instead people–both fans and critics–have often taken it as a description of the *outcome* of taking the path, a kind of statement that we can now throw the Bible away. It is not that.”-BDE
I know you have addressed this in the past, but anything you can give me to share, and clarify your position with my Muslim debaters will be extremely helpful and greatly appreciated.
YOu might also point out that I NEVER say that the Bible did not originally call Jesus the Son of God or indicate he was never crucified. I am 100% certain the New Testament emphasize both things repeatedly. Scribes *did* change their texts, sometimes in significant ways; but they never got rid of core doctrines like this (as I say in the book and have said repeatedly over the years)
Thank-you again for your help. I took your course “The Bible and the Quran.” I was hoping that maybe you could get me a statement or quotes from Dr. Hashmi saying that the Quran suffers from the same type of problems as the New Testament under critical examination. Could he comment on the 209 missing verses from Surah 33? Could he comment on the plethora of contradictions between just the Warsh and the Hafs versions? And could he comment on the difference between the 7th century Arabic alphabet of 16 letters and the 9th century alphabet of 28, and how impossible it would have been for perfect transmission considering this and that na, ta, tha, ba, and ya didn’t exist until the beginning of the 9th century?
I would be grateful for your help in attaining a quote from Dr. Hashmi because he is the person you had confidence in to teach the Islamic half of our course.
I’d suggest you write to him directly.
I’m glad you posted this. MIsquoting Jesus was the first of your books I read early in my “deconstruction” and it was gratifying to know that I read it as intended. I’m not a scholar but I was a minister for 30 years and started listening to your debates during the COVID lockdown. Since then I have attended many of your online courses and read most of your books (including the latest). I love the dynamics of the MJ Podcast with you and Megan. Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Misquoting Jesus, like all your books and courses certainly help those that prefer education instead of indoctrination. I’m so glad that when looking through The Great Courses fifteen years ago I spotted The Historical Jesus course and decided to purchase. I’ve been learning from you ever since. Thanks.
Thank you for completing the book dispite any reluctance you may have had. I’ve read it a couple times and it’s completely transformed how I see the Bible. I find the Bible far more interesting now than I did when I believed it to be the literal word of God as a devout Mormon.
Some Christians don’t believe the Rapture either. Pat Robertson, who founded the 700 Club, did not believe in the Rapture. He said during several of his programs that the Rapture is just bad theology.
Also, the part in Matthew where one is taken and one is left does not refer to the Rapture according to several church sermons I’ve heard over the years. So those Pastors agree with you.
Thanks sincerely for all the thought provoking work that you do.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
I read this post with recognition. You say Misquoting Jesus was meant as an entry-way, not an outcome, and that both critics and fans often misread it as the latter.
I am not a scholar, but I spent time reading the book carefully, chapter by chapter, using a structured epistemological framework. Your textual-critical data hold. But I wonder whether the entry-way is as neutral as the blog post suggests.
The question you leave open, how we can say the Bible contains the very words of God if we do not always know what those words are, seems to rest on an implicit assumption you share with the fundamentalists you critique: that theological confidence requires textual perfection. That assumption is never argued for in the book. It is presupposed. And it may be precisely what drives many readers toward the outcome you say the book does not intend. And I could not find enough safeguards to prevent them.
My question reading the book was whether the framing leads readers from valid textual-critical facts toward a broader conclusion that still needs a separate argument.
Respectfully,
Tjalling
Possibly. But if your (someone’s) theology is indeed rooted in the specific words used by a biblical author, and you can’t know with complete certainty what those words are, then you can’t know with complete certainly what the meaning of the words are. If that’s the case you can still be confident in your theology for osme other reason, but if your theology really is built on knowing the precise words (as is true for fundamentalists and almost no one else) then it’s just the reality of the situation — I don’t know any way around it. (So I’m not sure what other argument is needed?)
Thank you. Your answer helps clarify the issue for me.
You say the problem applies especially to those whose theology is built on knowing the precise words, fundamentalists, and almost no one else. That distinction is important. My concern is that the book itself does not make that restriction explicit. The question you pose is framed broadly enough that any reader who takes biblical language seriously may feel addressed by it.
The separate argument that seems needed is therefore not against your textual-critical conclusions. It is an argument for why the implicit premise (that theological confidence requires textual precision) applies to the wider readership the book actually reaches. So when readers take the book as an outcome rather than an entry-way, I wonder whether part of that may come from the framing itself, not only from misunderstanding the facts.
Respectfully,
Tjalling
You may be right. I’ve had a lot of mainline Christians, though, tell me that it’s all interesting and important, but doesn’t affect their faith at all; and I think that’s true.
Thank you. That is helpful, and I agree that many mainline Christians, including me, can read the book as important without feeling their faith is threatened. Still, that does not make the book easy to place.
My remaining concern is with readers in between: neither fundamentalists nor settled mainline Christians. I know people in that category, intelligent, theologically serious, non-fundamentalist Christians, for whom this book became a major part of a larger loss of faith.
That is why I keep wondering whether the framing does more work than the textual-critical evidence alone justifies. The facts matter, but so does the implied reader to whom those facts are addressed.
Respectfully,
Tjalling
Yeah, I’ve never understood someone losing their faith over the existence of textrual variants. I suppose I didn’t address the issue direcdtly because it didn’t occur to me it would be a big problem. My target for the claims were really fundamentalists, and leaving off the view of inerrancy surely shouldn’t lead to someone not believing in God. (!) (If there’s a mistake in the Bible then God doesn’t exist?? What kind of logic is that??)