# Half of New Testament Forged - CNN Belief Blog



## Michael (May 13, 2011)

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Well despite the title the article actually goes on to suggest that "at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries" according to "renown biblical scholar" Bart Ehrman. 

The spill is actually a prop for Ehrman's new book Forged. 

Obviously this is no new accusation. But I'd be interested to hear from those who know of Mr. Ehrman's work. Other orthodox defenses of biblical scholarship would be appreciated too. This is an interesting subject for me. The most I've come across is in the introductory chapter(s) of individual commentaries of NT books [by Moo and Bruce in particular]. I've also read a bit of Metzger on the the subject.


----------



## Skyler (May 13, 2011)

I knew he was bad at history, but it's news to me that his math is worse than mine.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (May 13, 2011)

The second I saw the thread title in the 'Latest Posts' feed, I just knew it had to be about Ehrman.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 13, 2011)

Ridiculous assertion.


----------



## Rufus (May 13, 2011)

I don't believe it. Its generally (even among non-believers) never been asserted that people like Paul and Peter didn't write the letters they wrote. Of course, even many "nominal" Christians eat this stuff up. I had an Athiest argue with me that James couldn't have been written by James the Lords brother because Jesus brothers didn't believe in him, which doesn't take into account that (I believe) both Acts and Pauls letters say Jesus brother James was a believer (I guess converstion isn't an option).

I'm waiting for a intelligent Christian response.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 17, 2011)

Rufus said:


> I don't believe it. Its generally (even among non-believers) never been asserted that people like Paul and Peter didn't write the letters they wrote. Of course, even many "nominal" Christians eat this stuff up. I had an Athiest argue with me that James couldn't have been written by James the Lords brother because Jesus brothers didn't believe in him, which doesn't take into account that (I believe) both Acts and Pauls letters say Jesus brother James was a believer (I guess converstion isn't an option).
> 
> I'm waiting for a intelligent Christian response.



Did you mean to write "never been asserted" as you did, or perhaps "often been asserted?" The latter is more accurate. 

A book like 2 Peter is where the men are separated from the boys, with most liberal and even many moderate scholars concluding that Peter did not write the book. The same goes for the Pastoral Epistles. Some OT examples include "Second Isaiah" and the book of Daniel, both of which are consigned to the Maccabean era. This is argued in books authored and/or edited by Metzger, Ehrman's mentor. From 1952 Metzger was the Chairman of the RSV committee (upon which the ESV is based) and later the NRSV committee.


----------



## dudley (May 17, 2011)

Skyler said:


> I knew he was bad at history, but it's news to me that his math is worse than mine.


 
I agree with Jonathan its bad history and utterly ridiculous.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 17, 2011)

Note to Self: Too much Princeton is bad for one's spiritual health. 

When I was in seminary in the 70s, my "evangelical" profs argued that Paul did not write Ephesians or the Pastorals, Peter didn't write 2nd Peter, John did not write Revelation, 2, 3 John, or (possibly) even the Gospel of John, nobody knows who wrote Hebrews, there have always been doubts about Matthew, etc.

Yawn . . . 

I accept the traditional authorship of everything accept Hebrews about which there are some real questions.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 17, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> Note to Self: Too much Princeton is bad for one's spiritual health.



Of course you're referring to the institution after the liberals took it over. (But even then Vos was there for many years afterward.) But can you ever get enough of Old Princeton? I've seen the Fuller types state that inerrancy is an Old Princeton teaching.


----------



## Wayne (May 18, 2011)

Chris: 

See John Woodbridge's book _Biblical Authority_ for a full and complete dismantling of that idea (i.e., the Rogers & McKim thesis).


----------



## Grimmson (May 18, 2011)

Skyler said:


> I knew he was bad at history, but it's news to me that his math is worse than mine.


 
Actually some of his historical work isn’t bad, you just need to watch out in regards to his conclusions. He did do some descent work on Didymus the Blind back in the late 80s. I would like to read his 1993 work, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament which is based on his dissertation. I just have not had the time so far. You have to remember his education was not in the first or second century context of the scriptures, but seems to be more likely in the 4th century. I have looked at his translations in the Loeb series(comparing of course with the Greek), and didn’t see any major issues so far. The guy much more knowledgeable then I think some here may want to give him credit for, therefore I suggest on a case by case basis look at his academic works and then start comparing resources. He would not have gone as far as he did if he was an idiot. So if one disagrees with him then do so with respect and engage his argumentation thoughtfully. Remember he is a byproduct of fundamentalism (particularly in regards to scripture) and to some degree should receive our pity and our prayers. For I see him as still a fundamentalist, just of a liberal kind, which is why we should be praying for him instead of bashing him on a forum like this.


----------



## Elimelek (May 19, 2011)

Hello (David Jolley) Grimmson

I've read Bart D Ehrman's _Forged_ as well as _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. _I think that his books are very important to take note of as he is a scholarly voice packaging Biblical Scholarship in an agnostic package. A lot of people identifies with what he says. 

It is important to note that the difference between _Forged_ and his other popular books are that his previous popular books are based on thorough scholarly work. This is the first book he has written for the popular market that will be followed by scholarly debate. 

He basically says not much that is new in scholarly circles. He differentiate between Paul's true letters, and letters written by people claiming to be Paul. These so-called pseudo-Pauline letters are Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. (I write "so-called," because even if some of these letters might not be written by Paul, some are probably - definitely - written by him, but for Ehrman all these is definitely not written by him.) He also makes an issue of 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2,3 John and Revelation that is according to him not written by the intended authors.

For him it is about Truth, as he was taught at Moody Bible College. By pursuing the Truth he discovered that the book that was the basis of this truth is at least partly false... Although he has a discussion about what Truth is and how complex it can be, he applied truth in a very simple way. His basic premises are: The Bible was not written by the people we thought it was written by. The practice of pseudepigraphy (writing under another person's name) was widely condemned in the ancient world, therefore the (so-called) pseudepigraphical Pauline letters (as listed above) would not have been dealt with so kindly, had they been discovered to be as such by the early Christian Church. While most scholars say that pseudepigraphy was an acceptable practice, he refutes it. He therefore doesn't talk of pseudepigraphy but of plain right forgery.

What I found a bit disturbing was that Luke, or the writer of Luke and Acts, is also made out as someone that lies. Ehrman is of the opinion that when Luke writes in the first person in Acts, he is actually trying to make as if he is someone he is not. The writer of Luke-Acts thus implies to be Luke or Paul's companion, but is not really.

I do think that Ehrman asks important questions, and we as Christians must answer these questions as honestly as possible. I do find that he, like in some of his other works, have already made up his mind and works at certain places VERY selectively with the whole discussion about pseudepigraphy. He doesn't consider other possibilities but that certain books are plain-right forgeries. There is no space left for scribes and how letter writing worked in the ancient world.

I do think that one of his hidden premises are that God would not use a crooked book full of orthodox forgeries to reveal the Truth. I personally think that such a premise is absurd, as God always surprises in whom and what He uses for his purposes. The Bible itself has many examples of how God used crooked sticks to shoot straight. He is thus limiting God. (If you speak about his fundamentalist attitude, you might find it in his hidden premises.)

What I don't like about the book, is its deconstruction of the Bible as book of Truth. Ehrman leaves the reader with a tainted image of Scripture that is open-ended. The reader must make the conclusions about the reliability of Scripture. The only problem is that he has planted the answers to his questions implicitly in the reader's mind. I do think that a book about the Truth must have a more honest and explicit agenda than this work.

It is as if Ehrman is becoming more and more radical.

Kind regards


----------

