CLOSING COMMENTS

In the interest of brevity I have not countenanced every ill-founded proposal in the book. Misquoting Jesus is not so much an introduction to New
Testament textual criticism as it is a skewed defense of Dr. Ehrman's agnosticism and his speculations about "orthodox corruptions" -- a defense which
frequently describes text-critical evidence in a selective and partial way. That is not the stuff of which good introductions to fields of science are made.

If you want to learn about New Testament textual criticism, I don't recommend Misquoting Jesus. I welcome you to read my multi-part essay which
begins at http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TextHistory.html and the much longer book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by F.C. Kenyon,
which can be read online at http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/Contents.htm . You can find links to an abundance of material on the subject, written
from a variety of perspectives, at http://www.bible-researcher.com/links03.html#texts-criticism .

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

On p. 81, the word "Holy" should be included in the quotation of the Vulgate text of First John 5:7.

On page 91, the term "parablepsis" is twice mispelled as "periblepsis."

On page 91, Dr. Ehrman claims that the nomen sacrum for the word "Pneuma" ("Spirit") is PMA, but this is not true, and this destroys the theory he
advocates there.

On p. 159, the reference to Luke 3:23 should be changed to Luke 3:22.

On p. 160, both references to Acts 2:38 should be changed to Acts 2:36. Also, Dr. Ehrman seems to misinterpret this passage, the focus of which is
not Christ's resurrection but His ascension and heavenly enthronement.

The Hebrew text on the cover is rather out-of-place (since the book is about the transmission of the Greek New Testament, not Hebrew texts). It's
upside-down, too.

On p. 133 and 134, the Greek word for "feeling compassionate" should be transliterated as "splanchnistheis," not "splangnistheis."

THE END

The book MISQUOTING JESUS: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,

is Copyrighted (c) 2005 by Bart D. Ehrman. Publisher: HarperCollins, New York.

P.S. - About the difficulty in Mark 2:26 mentioned by Dr. Ehrman: there are at least four potential solutions, which vary in their complexity:

(1) Jesus was alluding to a section of Old Testament text which was colloquially known as "The High Priesthood of Abiathar." In Mark 12:26, the
same sort of thing occurs when Jesus refers to "The Bush."

(2) Jesus and His contemporaries were aware that Abiathar was actually serving as the high priest; Abiathar's father Ahimelech had been disqualified
from active service due to some physical infirmity, in accordance with Leviticus 21:18-23. Priests in this condition were still allowed to eat the sacred
bread.

(3) The designation of Abiathar as high priest was intended to be understood as a retroactively assigned title, like when someone says that President
Lincoln was born in 1809.

(4) Abiathar, like many people in Old Testament times, had two names; he was called Abiathar and was also called Ahimelech. This idea was
mentioned by the early church writer John Chrysostom.