My review of chapter 5 of "Misquoting Jesus".

I skipped chapter 4 because chapter 4 deals with the different methods that were introduced to help us get back to the originals.

So here comes chapter 5.

To begin with I am seriously disappointed with Bart Ehrman. All the respect that I had for him as a scholar is going down the drain.

Page after page as I am continuing to read this book (Misquoting Jesus) Bart has seriously lost his credibility in my eyes.

I as a Christian when I get into studying and examining the facts and evidences I enter it with an open and rational mind.

I don't let my faith do the interpretation for me. I let the facts speak for themselves.

However in the 5th chapter of this book under the heading "Mark and an angry Jesus".

Bart applies some of the rules of textual criticism to the passage in Mark 1:41 comparing it with other manuscripts especially with the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke.

Here in Mark 1:41 in some manuscripts including some present day english translation of the NT it says "Jesus was moved with compassion" however in some of the early manuscripts it says "Jesus was indignant".

When we read the same episode recorded in Matthew 8:1-4 and Luke 5:12-16 it seems they both cleverly avoided the confusion by omitting the word [(feeling compassion (Greek: SPLANGNISTHEIS)/becoming angry

(Greek: ORGISTHEIS)] itself so, Matthew and Luke are silent and they don't give us any hint whether Jesus was moved with compassion or He was indignant.  

Bart gave some examples where Mark records Jesus getting angry and Matthew and Luke again omitting the word. Like in Mark 3:5 (Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 6:6-11)Jesus looks around “with anger”

And in Mark 10:14 (Matthew 19:14, Luke 18:16)Jesus is aggravated at his

disciples. 

In the same chapter under the heading "External Evidence" and "Internal Evidence" Bart shows some rules that scholars apply to find whether a passage is correct or a later fabrication (addition/omittion). Under "Internal evidence" Bart lists two tools viz, Intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities.

And according to Transcriptional probability

the idea is "more difficult” reading is more likely to be original. Hence in the NIV they have recorded that "Jesus was Indignant" in Mark 1:41. 

I agree with this conclusion however the whole point of me writing this review is because of what Bart does in another portion of this chapter where it becomes cristal clear that though Bart claims to have abandoned the faith purely based on fact and evidences, but I now know there's something else to that.

With all due respect Bart is not being honest in his conclusion of Luke 22:44 where Luke records "And being in agony he began to pray yet more fervently, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the

ground" this verse is highly disputed and is not found in some of the manuscript however it is included in some of the early manuscripts, and Bart himself mentions that this verse was widely distributed throughout the entire manuscript tradition. plus the writing style is quite similar to that of Luke.

This verse qualifies both the criteria of "Internal Evidence" 

Intrinsic (writing style of the writer)

Transcriptional (difficult reading)

So it's quite obvious that either some scribes added it to the text or deleted it from the text. 

And now we know why "some" scholars are doubting this passage as today we know with the advancement in the medical science which perfectly corroborates the "blood sweat" when in extreme agony.

And this has given the Christian Apologetic fraternity a solid case for Christianity.

And this is cristal clear why they are doubting this passage in Luke.

If we go back in time and try to reason why would ancient scribes add this difficult narrative. It's is absolutely clear why some scribes deleted the passage beacuse it was a difficult reading that would demand an explanation that they didn't have.

As I mentioned in the beginning I take up a study with an open mind but reading this book it is clear that Bart has his own presuppositions.