In this week's Religion Bookline from Publishers Weekly (scroll down, look for pink text) they've got a preview of an upcoming review of a new title by Bart D. Ehrman. The book is titled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why. The title is scheduled for release in November.

The "sneak peek" is:

In the absence of any original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, how can we be sure that we're getting the intended words and meaning? Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill, has devoted his life to the study of such questions and here offers an engaging and fascinating look at the way scholars try to answer them. Part memoir, part history, and part critical study, he traces the development of the academic discipline called textual criticism, which uses external and internal evidence to evaluate and compare ancient manuscripts in order to find the best readings. Ehrman points out that scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have. His absorbing story, fresh and lively prose, and seasoned insights into the challenges of recreating the texts of the New Testament ensure that readers might never read the Gospels or Paul's letters the same way again. (Nov.)

Sounds like fun reading, no? I'm curious to know what is meant by " ... scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have." Surely scribes didn't copy perfectly, they made numerous inadvertent (and mostly inconsequential) errors. But is the contention that scribes willfully and purposely altered just about anything they produced?

Update (2006-01-12): I've been meaning to get back to this for awhile. Thanks to Pat for the comment below. I've since read comments (sorry, don't recall from where) that Ehrman wanted a different title for the book. Apparently the title sensationalizes a bit, though Ehrman seems to be staking out for himself a position of more frequent and intentional MS changes. Other textual critics I've read don't seem to take a similar line on the frequency of intentional changes. Or is my (admittedly unresearched) conception of Ehrman's position a result of the ensationalism and marketing hype and not reflective of his actual position?