Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman

This podcast offers insightful views into scripture by one of the best in the field. Bart’s books are great, and this podcast holds to that same high standard. Highly recommend if you are interesting into the historicity of the Bible

One of the most informative and best produced podcasts available. The presenters are both likable and articulate, and together they have great chemistry. The breadth and depth of Doctor Ehrman’s learning and the scope of the topics covered are impressive. But his ability to make the topic comprehensible to and enjoyable for a general audience is what really sets him apart from his peers.

I’ve listened to Bart and read several of his books since I discovered his work two years ago. As a non academic with an interest in historical literature, I find his work accessible and thought provoking. As a former Christian raised in the church, I find his scholarship has enriched my understanding of the Bible, and the subsequent motivations of religious, social and political movements that affect us all. Highly recommended.

This podcast is fantastic. The interview framework of Bart’s and Megan’s banter allows anybody with even the slightest interest in the historicity of the Bible and the New Testament to learn and understand scholarly topics.

I’ve listened to Misquoting Jesus and I have to say, there’s a serious problem with how Ehrman presents himself and his work. While he frames himself as an objective scholar uncovering textual corruption, the podcast often leans into sensationalism, cherry-picking examples, and overstating what the evidence actually shows. The biggest issue is that he portrays debates as settled when they’re not. He frequently misrepresents mythicist arguments, sets up straw men, or ignores contrary scholarship, giving listeners the impression that anyone questioning Jesus’ historicity is “foolish” or uninformed. That’s not honesty—it’s a rhetorical strategy that protects institutional Christianity while appearing critical. In reality, Ehrman has done excellent textual work, but his public persona sometimes crosses into grifting, monetizing controversy and exaggeration rather than presenting the historical debate fairly. Listeners deserve transparency: there are serious scholars and historians who challenge his framework, yet he rarely engages them in depth. If your goal is critical thinking and honest scholarship, Misquoting Jesus should be taken with a huge grain of salt, not as the final word.

I went into this with an open mind, but I have to say, he very much makes a mountain out of a mole hill and raises the alarm where it does not need to be. For example - he admits here and in his writings elsewhere (and I'm paraphrasing since I can't recall the exact quote) that we can pretty much arrive at what the NT writers originally meant with near certainty and none of these "errors" affects core doctrine. One thing to note, is that every variant or "error" mentioned, is actually called out clearly in every Bible I've read. Another example, citing 1 Timothy 3:16 he says that one stroke is the difference between saying Jesus is God and saying "He who..." (which is true) and how that is the difference between Paul believing Jesus is God - which would wreck theology. However, aside from John, Peter, the unnamed writer of Hebrews, and several Old Testament prophecies - Paul himself declares Jesus is God in Titus and Phillipians. In the episode I listened to he fails to mention that we can piece together Christian theology from extrabiblical sources -ex: some Christian like the disciples of some of the Apostles and other early church fathers (polycarp, Justin Martyr), but also non-Christian sources like old historians like Tacitus and Josephus to name a few. Nor does he mention that in ancient Greek, standardization of spelling did not occur until hundreds of years later, so a scribe can spell one word with one extra letter and back then it was not considered incorrect, but if that spelling occurs in 537 manuscripts, then that is considered a textual variant (or error). I think someone like Wes Huff is a much more level headed and honest scholar on this subject. While not a scholar, I really enjoy J Warner Wallace's approach to Christianity and the evidence for God - he put Christianity "on trial" using his cold case detective skills and process as an athiest and ended up become a Christian in the end.