Editing Misquoting Jesus (section)

== Reviews and reception ==
[[Alex Beam]] of ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' wrote that the book was "a series of dramatic revelations for the ignorant", and that "Ehrman notes that there have been a lot of changes to the Bible in the past 2,000 years. I don't want to come between Mr. Ehrman and his payday, but this point has been made much more eloquently by... others."

Jeffrey Weiss of ''[[The Dallas Morning News]]'' wrote, "Whichever side you sit on regarding Biblical inerrancy, this is a rewarding read." The [[American Library Association]] wrote, "To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to non-specialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants."

Charles Seymour of the [[Wayland Baptist University]] in [[Plainview, Texas]], wrote, "Ehrman convincingly argues that even some generally received passages are late additions, which is particularly interesting in the case of those verses with import for doctrinal issues such as women's ordination or the Atonement."

Neely Tucker of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' wrote that the book is "an exploration into how the 27 books of the New Testament came to be cobbled together, a history rich with ecclesiastical politics, incompetent scribes and the difficulties of rendering oral traditions into a written text."

[[Craig Blomberg]], of [[Denver Seminary]] in [[Colorado]], wrote on the ''[[Denver Journal]]'' that "Most of ''Misquoting Jesus'' is actually a very readable, accurate distillation of many of the most important facts about the nature and history of textual criticism, presented in a lively and interesting narrative that will keep scholarly and lay interest alike." Blomberg also wrote that Ehrman "has rejected his evangelicalism and whether he is writing on the history of the transmission of the biblical text, focusing on all the changes that scribes made over the centuries, or on the so-called 'lost gospels' and 'lost Christianities,' trying to rehabilitate our appreciation for [[Gnosticism]], it is clear that he has an axe to grind."

In 2007, [[Timothy Paul Jones]] wrote a book-length response to ''Misquoting Jesus'', called ''Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"''. It was published by [[InterVarsity Press]]. ''[[Novum Testamentum]]'' suggested that ''Misquoting Truth'' was a useful example of how conservative readers have engaged Ehrman's arguments.

In 2008, evangelical biblical scholar [[Craig A. Evans]] wrote ''Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels'', which responded to Ehrman's work among others. The book critiques several scholars of the [[historical Jesus]], including the [[Jesus Seminar]], [[Robert Eisenman]], [[Morton Smith]], [[James Tabor]], [[Michael Baigent]], [[Elaine Pagels]], and Ehrman himself. Evans argues that these scholars present what he considers inaccurate portrayals of Jesus and questions the historical reliability of [[New Testament apocrypha]].

In 2014, evangelical biblical scholar Craig Blomberg published ''Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions'', which includes a response to ''Misquoting Jesus''. Blomberg argues that the textual variants discussed by Ehrman are already well-known among biblical scholars and are typically noted in modern Bible editions. He contends that these textual variations do not affect core Christian doctrines.