Final thoughts on Misquoting Jesus

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well I was probably the last one to finish this book, but I had a few thoughts to share:

1) I very much enjoyed the book. Bravo to whomever suggested it as the CG book of the month (or whatever we call it). Archaea? Particularly timely given the focus this year on the new testament. As we go through the gospels I keep interrupting to tell my wife and kids stories about alternate translations and textual criticism. I think they are getting a little tired of it.

2) I suppose I never fully appreciated the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. How widely is this belief held? I assume it is primarily a fundamentalist/evangelical belief. Barbara, can you shed any light on this for me?

3) In the "Plus" section that comes with the paperback, Erhman says that he occasionally gets e-mail from folks telling him not to despair, there is a book of scripture out there that is unsullied by translation error. And then they mention either the Koran or the Book of Mormon. Nice.

4) At the end of the book, Ehrman argues that it is innappropriate to merge the four narratives in the gospels into a single narrative (as we often do). He says that the four gospels were written as separate stories with differing emphases and we should keep it that way. While I don't 100% agree (he makes a bit too much of the differences, IMO), I think he makes a decent point. At the least, it is quite interesting to dissect the differences in the four accounts. And I certainly believe that scripture is strongly influenced by humans and is not perfect. I suppose if one believed that the gospel writers were vessels for a word-for-word revelation dictated by God, one would have to explain why there was a need for four different accounts.

Finally, what are we going to read next?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well I was probably the last one to finish this book, but I had a few thoughts to share:

1) I very much enjoyed the book. Bravo to whomever suggested it as the CG book of the month (or whatever we call it). Archaea? Particularly timely given the focus this year on the new testament. As we go through the gospels I keep interrupting to tell my wife and kids stories about alternate translations and textual criticism. I think they are getting a little tired of it.

2) I suppose I never fully appreciated the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. How widely is this belief held? I assume it is primarily a fundamentalist/evangelical belief. Barbara, can you shed any light on this for me?

3) In the "Plus" section that comes with the paperback, Erhman says that he occasionally gets e-mail from folks telling him not to despair, there is a book of scripture out there that is unsullied by translation error. And then they mention either the Koran or the Book of Mormon. Nice.

4) At the end of the book, Ehrman argues that it is innappropriate to merge the four narratives in the gospels into a single narrative (as we often do). He says that the four gospels were written as separate stories with differing emphases and we should keep it that way. While I don't 100% agree (he makes a bit too much of the differences, IMO), I think he makes a decent point. At the least, it is quite interesting to dissect the differences in the four accounts. And I certainly believe that scripture is strongly influenced by humans and is not perfect. I suppose if one believed that the gospel writers were vessels for a word-for-word revelation dictated by God, one would have to explain why there was a need for four different accounts.

Finally, what are we going to read next?

I've made the last several recommendations, so I will defer to other interests.

I have a great book on Q, on Egyptian pharoahs and some other stuff, but whatever others want I will read. Do we want a fiction, something from another part of the world?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well I was probably the last one to finish this book, but I had a few thoughts to share:

1) I very much enjoyed the book. Bravo to whomever suggested it as the CG book of the month (or whatever we call it). Archaea? Particularly timely given the focus this year on the new testament. As we go through the gospels I keep interrupting to tell my wife and kids stories about alternate translations and textual criticism. I think they are getting a little tired of it.

2) I suppose I never fully appreciated the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. How widely is this belief held? I assume it is primarily a fundamentalist/evangelical belief. Barbara, can you shed any light on this for me?

3) In the "Plus" section that comes with the paperback, Erhman says that he occasionally gets e-mail from folks telling him not to despair, there is a book of scripture out there that is unsullied by translation error. And then they mention either the Koran or the Book of Mormon. Nice.

4) At the end of the book, Ehrman argues that it is innappropriate to merge the four narratives in the gospels into a single narrative (as we often do). He says that the four gospels were written as separate stories with differing emphases and we should keep it that way. While I don't 100% agree (he makes a bit too much of the differences, IMO), I think he makes a decent point. At the least, it is quite interesting to dissect the differences in the four accounts. And I certainly believe that scripture is strongly influenced by humans and is not perfect. I suppose if one believed that the gospel writers were vessels for a word-for-word revelation dictated by God, one would have to explain why there was a need for four different accounts.

Finally, what are we going to read next?

I haven't even started it yet, and I still plan to, so let's hold off on "final thoughts" just yet. If I had enough time in non-work hours as I do during work hours to piddle around, I would have had it read a long time ago.