Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"

by Timothy Paul Jones

"What good does it do to say that the words [of the Bible] are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language? . . . How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired? . . . We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals." So contends Bart D. Ehrman in his bestselling Misquoting Jesus. If altogether true, we have little reason to put our confidence in Scripture. Add to this Ehrman's contention that what we read in the New Testament represents the winners' version of events, twisted to suit their own purposes and not at all a faithful recounting of what really happened, and the case for skepticism and unbelief gives every appearance of being on solid footing. But are things really so bad off? Were the New Testament documents widely distorted by copyists? Can we in fact have no idea what was in the originals? Do we have no hope of knowing what eyewitnesses said and thought? Are other documents left out of the New Testament better sources for understanding early Christianity? While readily conceding that Ehrman has many of his facts straight, pastor and researcher Timothy Paul Jones argues that Ehrman is far too quick to jump to false and unnecessary conclusions. In clear, straightforward prose, Jones explores and explains the ins and outs of copying the New Testament, why lost Christianities were lost, and why the Christian message still rings true today.

Genres: Religion, Theology, Christianity, History, Nonfiction, Christian, Philosophy

176 pages, Paperback

First published June 8, 2007

About the author

Timothy Paul Jones is an American evangelical scholar known for his work in apologetics and family ministry. He serves as the C. Edwin Gheens Professor of Christian Family Ministry at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Jones has authored influential texts defending the historical reliability of the New Testament and has promoted a model of “family-equipping ministry,” which balances family discipleship with age-specific church programs. His apologetics have evolved from evidential to presuppositional approaches, emphasizing the role of the church’s moral witness and care for the marginalized. He has been recognized for books such as Misquoting Truth, How We Got the Bible, and In Church as It Is in Heaven, the latter promoting multiethnic church communities. Jones is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and has been praised as a leading voice in engaging both secular critics and intra-faith debates. He and his wife Rayann have four adopted children.

Reviews

[Andrea Olsen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was really disappointed in this book. I read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and hoped to get a good counter view in Misquoting Truth, but the author just talked about all the so called "fallacies" and gave no real response to anything except by saying "well, we know the truth, don't we. (wink wink)".
I gave the author a chance time and again but was disappointed in every chapter. I know faith is important, but if I have to totally ignore everything my brain tells me then "the truth" is not going to work for me.
If anything, this book did exactly the opposite of what it attempts to. It makes me seriously question the bible's truth.

[Skylar Burris · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first part of this book is a response to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, the second to his Lost Christianities. The book, however, is no polemic railing against Ehrman. Ehrman, Jones says, provides "an opportunity for believers to become more aware of the beautiful struggle by which God brought us to where we are today." Both Jones and Ehrman originally come from "born-again" backgrounds; both initially held simplistic views of the Bible, and both, in the course of their educations, were confronted with information that made them question their faith in the reliability of the Bible. Both then threw themselves into study on the issue, but they came to different conclusions: Ehrman rejected his faith not only in the Bible but in orthodox Christianity, becoming a "happy agnostic," while Jones arrived at a more mature, more informed, yet continued faith in Christ and the inspiration of the Bible.

While Jones concedes that Ehrman is correct about the existence of textual variations and additions, he argues that such changes are insignificant and have no bearing on orthodox doctrine. He's not really "correcting" Ehrman or exposing much in the way of "fallacies" (the book's subtitle notwithstanding), he's just showing how much Ehrman skews the presentation of the information to push the reader toward certain unnecessary conclusions. Jones's central argument—and it's a persuasive one—is that any time there are two variations of a verse, neither variant contradicts orthodox doctrine, and both variants are supported elsewhere in the New Testament, and therefore it does not much matter which was the original—both are true. He takes all of the changes Ehrman claims to be "significant" and argues, point by point, why they're not at all.

I would recommend this book to any evangelical Christian who has ever mistakenly believed that the Bible somehow sprang full-formed like Athena from Zeus's head, or who believes that faith in Biblical inspiration must be tied to belief in a word-for-word correlation of accounts or a never-altered text. In evangelical Christianity, there is a tendency to make almost an idol of the Bible, and so, unfortunately, when faith in misguided notions about its consistency, origins, and transmission is undermined, all too often faith in God Himself is undermined. This is unfortunate indeed, and Jones seems to hope that Christians will arrive at a more complete and mature understanding of what "infallible" really means. He believes that "the real danger" to the Christian faith "is our own ignorance of how Christianity as we know it came into existence." He knows of thousands of Christians "who assume the Christian faith…as they know it…came directly from heaven bound in black leather." These Christians desperately need a more informed faith about the origins of Christianity and the Bible, lest the least hint of history rupture all the faith they have. Ehrman, Jones suggests, may have lost his own faith because "he inherited a theological system from well-meaning evangelical Christians that allowed little, if any, space for questions, variations, or rough edges."

Jones is clearly writing to a lower-level reader than Ehrman. This has the advantage of making his arguments very orderly and easy to follow. He goes through the altered scriptures directly one by one, which was something I wanted Ehrman to do (instead, Ehrman kept circling back to the same scriptures, adding a bit to his argument upon each re-visit). On the other hand, Jones's writing style---with its cute analogies, occasionally embarrassing attempts at humor, over exuberant use of the exclamation mark, and distracting, bold side bars sometimes left me with the impression that I was being talked down to.

[Emily Jane · Rating 2 out of 5]

Way too fundamentalist for my taste ...

Essentially, Jones tries to engage Ehrman in debate. Yet the trouble here is that instead of starting from the scientific perspective of, "I don't know the answer; let the evidence convince me one way or another" as Ehrman does, Jones instead starts from the assumption that "I know the answer; let the evidence back me up." Thus, the book is flawed from the get-go.

I do, however, recommend reading it as a follow-up to Ehrman's far more convincing text, as it is my own philosophy that one should understand both (all?) sides of an argument before choosing one or another to get behind.

[Donmoore · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't even finish it. His arguments ran from faulty to irrational. He admits that the bible is inconsistent, self contradictory, poorly translated and likely partially fictionalized but says that since it passes the tests for being reasonably good oral history that makes it the unerring word of god. I can only assume his definition of god is much more lax than mine.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a great little book responding to the arguments Bart Ehrman lays out in his book, Misquoting Jesus. But, it doesn't matter if you've read Ehrman or not. Timothy Paul Jones (TPJ) offers a nice introduction to New Testament textual criticism, as well as the historical situation the Gospel writing took place in. Given both of these introductions, you should be able to address many of the Ehrman-esk critiques floating around today. Ehrman simply re-packages (for the most part), at a popular and winsome level, arguments already familiar to the New Testament scholar. The Christian in the pew will find the arguments addressed in Misquoting Jesus in many other places besides Ehrman, say, from your co-worker.

I think that the main benefit from reading this book is its introduction to the general reliability of the New Testament. Sure, you could read Bauckham, Blomberg, Bock, or Bruce (just to stay in the B's), but if you're looking for a fun (there are even some pictures!) introduction to the reliability of the New Testament, that is also extremely short (well, so is Bruce's, but it's not as fun), then TPJ is your man and Misquoting Truth is your book. Since Ehrman has reached the popular, lay agnostic, then the Christian in the pew needs to know how to articulate his belief in the reliability of the New Testament because s/he will surely be running into more and more hostile critics.

TPJ fills his book with hi-lighted "facts sheets," "look it up" definitions, "think it out" questions and exercises, and "know more" hints for further knowledge and study . This constant reinforcement is valuable for the student. When you finish this book, not only will you be able to define and explain such terms as: textual criticism, inerrancy, codex, papyrus, vellum, and Septuagint, you will also be able to intelligently discuss the popular arguments against the Bible that are being paraded out today in popular form (e.g., Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code), and defend the Church's trust in the Word of God.

[B Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a grave disappointment. Rather than actually countering any of Ehrman's arguements, Jones simple restate a fundamentalist point of view and claims it is true because he has faith that it is true. That ain't how it works, buddy.

Faith is NOT a rational path to truth.

[Alisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a nice overview of the problems in Ehrmann's book, however I felt it's rather short and doesn't go into details.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong refutation of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. It's well-written and easy to understand. Jones is winsome and friendly, yet not afraid to address tough questions. This book has a broader use than as a response to Misquoting Jesus, and is useful even if you haven't read that book, because it deals with issues of textual criticism of the Bible. It's not as deep as other books on the topic, but Jones wrote it for average people.

Notes
Introduction
Authors of Gospels weren't recording myths or legends; they were intentionally writing historical documents. Though they were writing theology, it was rooted in real events. See F. F. Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?.

Despite hundreds of thousands of variants in Greek New Testament (NT), it's almost always possible to determine the original reading of the text. No points of textual uncertainty undermine any crucial element of Christianity. See Bruce Metzger's works, especially The Text of the New Testament and The Canon of the New Testament

Truth About "The Originals That Matter"

The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearance, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.

"In times of antiquity it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out."

The question isn't, "Do all the biblical manuscripts agree word-for-word?" but "Do the available biblical texts provide a sufficient testimony for us to understand God's inspired truth?" Ancient manuscripts weren't copied perfectly, but were copied accurately enough for us to understand what original authors intended.

Truth About the Copyists
3 significant facts about differences in manuscripts
1. Vast majority of changes in NT documents aren't noticeable when text is translated into other languages.
2. It's almost always possible to use textual criticism to compare manuscripts and discover where and when changes were made.
3. Copyists were more concerned with preserving word of Scripture than promoting their own theological agendas.

Most of the 400,000 variations in NT manuscripts stem from differences in spelling, word order, or relationships between nouns and definite articles. These variants are easily recognizable. Over 99% are virtually unnoticeable in translations. Of the remaining ~1%, only a few have any importance for interpreting biblical text, and none affect any central element of Christianity.

I continue to think that even if we cannot be 100 percent certain about what we can attain to … that it is at least possible to get back to the oldest and earliest stage of the manuscript tradition for each of the books of the New Testament. … The more manuscripts one discovers, the more the variant readings; but also the more the likelihood that somewhere among those variant readings one will be able to uncover the original text. Therefore the thirty thousand variants … do not detract from the integrity of the New Testament; they simply provide the data scholars need to work on to establish the text. — Ehrman

God gave the Bible through human means, so we shouldn't be surprised that textual criticism is necessary.

Truth About "Significant Changes" in the New Testament
Differences between manuscripts aren't significant. In every case in which 2 or more options remain possible, every possible option simply reinforces truths that are already clearly present in the writings of that author and the NT as a whole. No possible option requires rethinking an essential belief about Jesus or doubting the historical integrity of the NT.

Many noticeable changes in NT documents stem from overzealous copyists wanting to clarify concepts that texts already taught. Sometimes they incorporated other well-known Scriptures into certain texts.

End of Lord's Prayer ("For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.") was probably added from 1 Chron 29:11 to Matt 6:13 in late 1st or early 2nd century, and later added to Luke 11.

Some changes are from copyists supplementing the text with their own knowledge (e.g., clauses around John 5:3-4).

Woman caught in adultery (John 7:53 - 8:11) isn't original; it's missing from early manuscripts such as 3rd-century papyri, P 75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus codices.

Mark 16:9-20 probably isn't original, but does represent an authentic tradition.

Truth About "Misquoting Jesus"
Many of most ancient surviving texts (including P 66, P 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) came from Alexandrian text family.

Most Greek manuscripts of NT are Byzantine, so Byzantine text is also called Majority Text. Most scholars consider Byzantine manuscripts to be later and less reliable than Alexandrian. Erasmus collated Textus Receptus from only Byzantine manuscripts.

Despite the sensational title of Misquoting Jesus, I find only a half-dozen times when Jesus might have been misquoted, and most of these supposed changes simply echo ideas that are found elsewhere in Scripture.

Truth About Oral History
In ancient world, especially among Jews, important teachings were told and retold in rhythmic, repetitive patterns so students could memorize key truths. A rabbi's oral teaching could pass amazingly consistently from one generation to the next. Jesus used rabbinic patterns of rhythm and repetition.

Oral accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection circulated in same way as accounts of His teachings. A consistent oral account emerged within months of His death, and remained relatively unchanged over next 20 years. Crucial facts remained remarkably consistent as they spread across hundreds of cultures and social contexts.

Truth About the Authors of the Gospels
Identification of author of each Gospel never varies in any NT fragment or manuscript that bears a title, only the precise form of the title.

If early church simply ascribed apostolic names to each Gospel to make anonymous writings seem authoritative, we'd expect different churches to choose different authors, but that's not what we find.

Papias shows that oral histories of the Gospels' origins existed in teh final years of the 1st century, probably earlier. Irenaeus (mid-2nd century) reported similar traditions that included all 4 Gospels, and he received his info from Polycarp, who received it from eyewitnesses of Jesus. Papias and Irenaeus, separated by decades and hundreds of miles, reported nearly identical traditions about Matthew and Mark.

Truth About Eyewitness Testimony
Matthew (tax collector) and Luke (physician) almost certainly had ability to write. Mark and John may have been illiterate, but professional scribes were readily available.

Truth About How the Books Were Chosen
Already in 1st century, Christians had decided that canonicity required a writing to be connected to eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus.

At least as early as 2nd century there were ~20 NT books of unquestioned canonicity.

By end of 4th century there was widespread agreement on canonicity of 27 NT books.

Appendix: How Valuable Is the Testimony of Papias?
Papias' testimony shows that the traditions connecting the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were at least as ancient as the late 1st or early 2nd century. He recorded oral traditions about Gospels that were in circulation fewer than 20 years after last of Gospels were written.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book can be summed in one word: maybe.

maybe most of the bible is true. maybe it's not. but this leads to the book's hidden point: choice.

it takes til the end of the book to really spell this out, but jones makes clear that belief in the bible - as truth - is a choice. i was glad for some honesty there because up until then, i felt some of his conclusions as to what was right, or most true, were a little questionable in their foundation.

fact is, i felt the same way about some of ehrman's conclusions, so i suppose it's not surprising i felt the same about jones. a mix of balanced and not, and thus, 3 stars.

on a more personal note, the ending quote from ehrman's wife is incredibly sad. i hope at some point the two of them find a happy medium of faith. i think i'm somewhere in the middle, so i know it's possible. ;-)

[Ethan Cash · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well I had to read this since I read Misquoting Jesus earlier this year.

I think Timothy Paul Jones gives an alright rebuttal to Bart Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus. But I think it still falls short in a few instances. That being said, he calls out Bart on a couple of valid points. I also enjoyed the FACT SHEET or THINK IT OUT or KNOW MORE sections of the book that give you more info on topics just addressed. But they can be quite distracting and awkward due to their placement

In total, I’ve just been having a great time reading Christian/religious orientated literature!

[Jonathan Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear and concise response to Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".

From the book: "Though I mourn the death of Ehrman's faith, I must admit that he has raised many fruitful questions--questions that cannot be blithely ignored."

Jones understands the need to have answers to questions. We don't simply accept Ehrman's ideas, and we don't simply accept Jones'. Instead, we read both and come to a logical conclusion based on looking deeper at the questions and studying their answers.

[Andy Febrico Bintoro · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a hardcore Christian, this book could be a good apologetics on some issues on Misquoting Jesus, but the arguments here basically not that strong to counter Misquoting Jesus.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just ok. Timothy Paul Jones (TPJ) gives us some snippets of Erhman’s work on Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities. Having read those books by Ehrman, I don’t know how one could get the full thrust of TPJ’s argument without having already read these two books by Ehrman. The references and quotes that TPJ uses are certainly pulled with intent and while I ultimately agree with TPJ on this issue, it comes across as cherry picking. One of the larger issues I had with the work is that the author is in full agreement with Ehrman when it comes to the critical text position. It seems quite clear that to defeat the Ehrman types is to begin by rejecting his presuppositions. But what we have here (and in others like James White) is akin to a man scooping water from the front of his boat and pouring it in the back of the boat. There is more to say there, but I do think this book assumes you either have read or retain a working understanding of Ehrman and his works. That is either helpful or unhelpful, depending.

Some links on Providential Preservation:

Providential Preservation

Erasmian Myths Pertaining to Providential Preservation

Further Thoughts on Providential Preservation

[Justin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unconvincing. Dr. Jones missed the point entirely. He missed the forest for the trees. The point is not rooted in the logical conclusions that Dr. Ehrman develops based on the individual points, but in the overall consistency in the problem of being unable to know for sure who wrote what and whether or not any of it is actually true. If we are to believe that God is all powerful and all knowing, then there is zero reason for there to be any level of inconsistency or disagreement in the scripture. It should be perfect, and it’s not.

Additionally, Dr. Jones has grossly mischaracterized Dr. Ehrman’s deconstruction of his faith. He has repeatedly discussed his reason for leaving Christianity and it is not because of these inconsistencies and issues with the Biblical texts. It is the problem of evil that moved Dr. Ehrman away from Christianity. Even the problematic scriptures we have can’t provide a logical explanation for why evil exists in the world. As long as kids keep dying of cancer and natural disasters kill thousands of people every year, it’s hard to believe that there is an all powerful, all knowing, all good God that intervenes in this world. There is zero reason why he should have had to come to earth in human form and sacrifice himself through such torture. For if God is all powerful, he could save everyone without such a brutal human death.

[Derek Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

The question of whether or not we can trust the textual accuracy of our Bibles is an essential question for our spiritual lives. Unattended doubts regarding the certainty of the Bible's textual integrity will greatly hinder spiritual growth and rob one of joy, assurance, and moral decisiveness. If we are not sure that God's Word has been accurately transmitted throughout the centuries, it will be difficult to place whole-hearted trust in the words of Scripture.

Bart Ehrman, department chair of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, recently wrote a book entitled, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why that claims that we only have "error-ridden" copies of the original Scripture and therefore "no access" to God's actual words. During his masters studies, Ehrman bumped up against some troubling doubts regarding the transmission of the Biblical manuscripts and the reconciliation of some Bible passages. His wrestling with these issues, however, did not result in a deepened faith; rather, Erhman--despite and alleged conversion experience during his sophomore year of high school--is now a "happy agnostic," who considers faith a "dead end."

Timothy Paul Jones was confronted by similar doubts during his college years. As he questioned the truth of Christianity and the trustworthiness the Bible, Jones was propelled into research. He read and read. Finally,

"Faith reemerged...It wasn't the same sort of faith that I had possessed when the semester began. In truth, my faith had grown in the darkness. Now it was far deeper, far richer and far better equipped to understand what it means to embrace the Bible as God's Word. After seven months of seeking truth, truth finally found me" (20).

Jones remembers the bitterness of doubt and the "aching emptiness" of the deep lack of assurance regarding the integrity of God's Word. But he also cannot forget the surge of joy he felt when things came together "as a pattern of thoughtful trust replaced the blind faith that I had embraced for far too long." Jones wants us to experience that joy too.

Misquoting Truth is a response to Ehrman's book that seeks to demonstrate that our Bibles can in fact be trusted and that we can have certainty about the text of Scripture. We can know what the original Scripture said through a discipline called textual criticism. Textual criticism takes all the existing copies of Scripture we currently have and by comparing them with each other, and by applying specific principles, is able to reconstruct, with exceptional accuracy (up to 99%), the original reading of Scripture. However, you do not need to read Ehrman's book to receive great benefit from Misquoting Truth. On its own, this book is a highly accessible, easy-to-read guide to understanding the transmission of our Bibles and why we can, with the utmost confidence, embrace our Bibles as trustworthy copies of God's Word.

I recommend this book to any one who has questions about why we can trust the Bible, and who desires to better understand how the Scripture was copied and transmitted through the ages. Having waded through the dark and (at times) seemingly endless waters of doubt myself, I can say ignoring such doubts will probably not, in the long run, benefit you spiritually. Reading good books while keeping one's heart soft to the truth, however, does help, and I commend this particular book to you.

[Kevin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would give this zero stars if I could. Jones' book is difficult to read, plagiarizes from another author to cloud the meaning of a word, and misrepresents Ehrman's case.

For those expounding on how easy it is to read, I found this book maddening. It's only easy to read if you uncritically accept everything Jones has to say. First off, the formatting of the "look it up" and "know more" makes it appear in the middle of paragraphs. The reader, in the midst of a paragraph, turns the page to find one of these boxes. This appears to be either a strategy to distract anyone used to critically reading something by making the book incredibly difficult to follow, a cheap ploy to lengthen the book, a bad attempt at doing what textbooks do, or multiple/all of the above. These boxes lead him to another, more substantial, issue.

Next, he attempts redefine several terms in his "look it up" boxes, notably inerrancy on page thirty. The definition he substitutes is specifically an evangelical Christian one, so he's essentially whining that Ehrman didn't use the definition most amenable to his position. Where is this definition from? Well, it's plagiarized form Charles C. Ryrie's What You Should Know About Inerrancy. Yes, plagiarized, from Merriam-Webster's website, "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source." He copied it and does not cite it. Some of you may find this petty, but at minimum, it's evidence of the book's sloppiness. His sloppiness continues in much of the content.

For a book claiming to reveal fallacies, Jones largely just tries to make Ehrman's points seem less significant (something I've noticed even Christians complaining about here). Does he prove anything Ehrman said false? The best he has is overstatement. Worse, Jones often misrepresents what Ehrman said. For instance, on page 47, he states that Ehrman "affirm[ed] it is possible to recover the most ancient form of manuscripts" (emphasis original). However, on none of the pages he cites does Ehrman make this claim. On page 211 of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Ehrman notes that when he was younger, he realized that the original Bible would have been as flawed and human as the one we have, but that's different from stating that we can reconstruct the original as Jones implies. It's a goal, not a certainty.

I would go on, but feel like I've already put more thought into this review than Jones did in his book. I've literally been putting off this review because of how awful this book was to try to read critically. It should not be help up as a counter-tome to Ehrman's books, and it should be dismissed by anyone hoping to find a critical examination.

[Paul Froehlich · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conservative Christians hoping for a point-by-point refutation of scholar Bart Ehrman will be disappointed with this book. Despite Timothy Jones’ intention to expose fallacies, he actually agrees with Ehrman about a surprising number of things:

• One is that Ehrman's concepts have been current among scholars for decades.
• Jones also concedes Ehrman’s point that the earliest manuscripts of the gospels don't mention any authors.
• Jones also agrees that such issues "really do matter," and he thanks Ehrman for showing that to readers.
• The two authors agree about the massive number of errors in the copies of the original lost New Testament books, and that almost all of those discrepancies are insignificant.

Of course Jones disagrees on many matters as well. One if them has to do with a key part of evangelical doctrine – the inerrancy of Scripture. While Ehrman depicts Scripture as fully human, Jones says they are both human and divine. Ehrman contends the massive error in extant copies of original New Testament books suggests the New Testament cannot be the inerrant word of God.

A way Jones (and other evangelicals) reconciles thousands of errors with the belief in the “inerrancy" of the Bible is by redefining the term. The dictionary defines “inerrant” as infallible and without error. Defenders of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, however, define it to mean that the Bible tells the truth despite approximations and variations.

Jones recognizes that believers in the pews typically embrace the dictionary definition and therefore can't accept discrepancies as real despite the evidence. Jones contends that the thousands of errors in the manuscripts do not prevent Scripture from being the inspired truth.

Jones recognizes that Mark 16:9-20 were added at the end of the gospel and were not in the original. Mark 16:18a, for example, contains a strange teaching that "They will take hold of snakes & if they drink something poisonous, it will not hurt them." Jones deprecates this as a "picturesque metaphor" reflecting God's ability to protect. Unfortunately, some fundamentalists take that verse literally, apparently not recognizing a metaphor when they read it.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Enjoyable Counter-Argument

Timothy Paul Jones' Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is a reasoned, polite yet firm response to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why , a best-selling book that disputes the authenticity of the New Testament by noting that there have been numerous errors in translation and copying over the years, especially in the first 200-300 years of the Christian movement.

Jones starts by addressing Ehrman's criticisms directly. He acknowledges that there have indeed been a great number of errors, most in spelling, some in grammar and some were simple re-copying of lines of text or skipping a line of text. He notes that while there are a lot of them, most make no difference, such as my use of commas in this sentence (if I had left them out, the meaning of the text would not have changed). To use my own English example, they might be as simple as using the word "house" rather than "home" in a sentence - a different word but not a different meaning.

This addresses more than 90% of Ehrman's citations of error, which makes me wonder why Ehrman brought them up to begin with...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tim Jones provides a apologetic work that is a clear and straightforward in answering the challenges brought up by Bart Eherman. Key questions deal with the original authorship of the Gospels, the selection and confirmation of the canon of Scripture, and the reliability of the oral traditions and manuscripts prior to the settlement of the Biblical canon. Jones' apologetic arguments are kind, yet firm, answers to Eherman's questions, and they are based on a clearly extensive knowledge of the patristic writings- and many of these are footnoted. I find that Jones was careful in quoting Eherman to honestly understand his point, and then answers very discerningly.

Jones' personality comes out in his books, and his writing style is down-to-earth and accessible for the average reader while showing his clear expertise and scholarship in the subjectmatter. I'd highly recommend this book to anyone who is dealing with Bart Eherman's teachings, or anyone who has similar questions for Christianity as they wrestle with their faith.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jones does a fine job interacting with Ehrman's views. Rather than written at a scholarly level, which he has the credentials to do, Jones addresses the layperson in the pew, helping them understand Ehrman and giving an alternative understanding. He treats Bart fairly, even acknowledging where he makes sound points, but is clear where Ehrman doesn't represent the facts fairly or accurately. What I really appreciate is his encouragement for Christians to ask questions and to dig deeper than surface-level understanding of the origins of Scripture. A well-prepared Christian should have nothing to fear by the arguments from Ehrman or any other so-called higher critics. Most of the negative reviewers seem to have a decided bias against the orthodox understanding of Scripture. Rather than pointing out specific flaws in Jones' arguments, they dismiss flatly.

[Jerry Blackerby · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book explaining the fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus.” He explains in easy to understand language the fallacies in the book. He explains how the experts confirm the textual accuracy of the Bible. Ehrman declares that we can never know what the Bible should say because there are 400,000 differences between the various manuscripts available. What Ehrman does not say are that almost all of the differences are things like misspelled words, word order, the use of definite articles or indefinite articles and some other totally minor variations. Reading the text even a layman can understand which variation is correct. The more recent translations even show the differences so the reader can understand these facts. I found the book an excellent guide to study.

[Yanxi · Rating 4 out of 5]

So what if 2% of NT got changed over time? Does that discredit the whole NT? So what if Jesus was an angry man? Does that change the fact that he died on the cross and rose again? By writing this book the author simply says this:"hang on a minute, Dr. Ehrman, you are jumping to conclusions a little bit too fast!".
Those of you who are expceting Jones to lay out evidence that proves NT is 100% correct, or to show Ehrman's reasoning is 100% wrong, you are going to get disappointed. Jones merely offered another way of looking at those evidence, and to me it's already light at the end of the tunnel.

[Austin Wright · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked this book up almost instantly when it came out, because I wanted to see a more reserved side of textual criticism. I was sorely disappointed as this book, basically, agrees with everything Bart Erhman says, but then says "it really doesn't matter" or "this doesn't chance core beliefs of scripture", etc, etc.

After rereading "Misquoting Jesus" recently, I also decided to reread this book as well. I'd like to ask the author some direct questions about Ehrman's claims, seeing as he skirts around everything in the book.

[Anton Dubrovskiy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A nice short book where Dr. Timothy Jones gives a simple-to-read explanation of how the Bible was put together and why the books of the New Testament that we have today in our translations can be trusted. I enjoyed and never got bored reading this book. I underestimated the value of eyewitness testimonies, specially in the context of first centuries A.D., before I have read this book. The book is written as an answer to agnostic Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus".

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite its belligerent title, not a particularly belligerent book. Jones concedes most of Ehrman's points about the manuscript history of the Bible, but he disputes that any of the differences among manuscripts really force a fundamental change in our understanding of Jesus. The gospels differ among themselves in their depictions and interpretations of Jesus; why should additional small differences matter much?

[Beshoy Safwat · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book responds to the questions that Bart Ehrman had in the book. Rather, it simply concludes that even if the writers of the Gospels were unknown, can we not give it to them that there are no sources of historical information about Jesus to believe that the Bible It is the word of God, not only from the emotional aspect, but it stands on solid ground with things that prove its credibility. I liked Paul Jones’ writing style. It was simple and not boring.

[Corin Wenger · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd recommend this book. It is such a solid and approachable layout to what new Testament scripture is, where it came from, how it has been preserved, and why it has authority. The author really goes into a lot of answers to common questions that come up, that I think a lot of the church doesn't do a good job of teaching about. It's not a huge commitment to sit down and read this book, yet it is so rewarding and enriching.

[Ben Pinkston · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’d recommend this book to anyone who would like to explore the reasonableness of trusting the New Testament, regardless of their exposure to Ehrman’s work. I’m thankful for the posture of critical (in the positive, seeking sense) faith that Jones represents and employs. If the Gospel of Jesus is true, it can stand up to our questions. I certainly believe that it does.

[Clare · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is slightly patronising in tone, but is a fairly convincing rebuttal of the points raised in "Misquoting Jesus".

[Nicolas Hoffmann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Trash from someone who doesn't understand history.