Jim Chabot
April 12th, 2011, 08:07 AM
Forged Bart D. Ehrman
Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.
In this book Dr. Ehrman sets forth his purpose as follows:
The book I’m writing now – what is it’s purpose? In fact there are multiple purposes. I want to inform my readers about an important ancient literary phenomenon. I want to correct mistakes that other scholars have made in discussing that phenomenon. I want readers to think more deeply about the role of lies and deception in the history of the Christian religion. I want to show the irony in the fact that lies and deception have historically been used to establish the “truth.” I want my readers to see that there may be forgeries in the New Testament. I want to tell interesting stories about intriguing and relatively unknown writings from antiquity. I want to entertain my readers. In fact, I want to accomplish lots of things.
This “phenomenon” that he seeks to explain is the frequency, purpose and treatment of pseudonymous, pseudepigraphal texts and how they were viewed and treated in the ancient world.
He devotes the first chapter to the description of how texts of this type were treated in the period surrounding the New Testament. He is quite thorough, producing several examples of such work and how they were treated once exposed. Also explored were the differences between anonymously authored texts and those which were truly false named. He also explores possible motivations, techniques and possible justifications for these forgeries. His case is in my opinion quite compelling, however predictably does not posit much information from the competing view.
The next two chapters are dedicated to exploring forgeries written in the names of Peter and Paul. At this point he has made his case and he insists upon the term “forgery” as he moves forward. Here things start to get dicey as he freely mixes non-canonical texts with those which are accepted. He gives good concise summations of the non-canonical books along with a brief history and the motivations for each, this makes for interesting reading. Almost interesting enough that one would be tempted to throw the accepted books into the mix. Almost isn’t good enough, he is truly mixing apples with cranberries, however he isn’t ocean spray so no deal. His argument here is build upon pshchology he explores undisputed forgeries alongside disputed texts in the hope that the reader will be lulled into thinking that they are in fact the same. But a sheep in a herd of goats is still a sheep regardless of how one views the goats.
The fourth chapter deals with possible alternative explanations to the charges of forgery against the accepted books. He briefly touches upon the view that this was commonplace and accepted. Very briefly because he has spent the entire first chapter debunking this theory. He spends a little time with the theories which suppose either philosophical schools or a reactualizing of the tradition. He clearly explains the differences between these Old Testament practices and the New Testament reality when they were written. Again his case is concise and compelling. Finally he explores the theory that secretaries were used. Here he is weak, using assumption to make a case that really doesn’t work out for him. In the first chapter he makes the case whereby scholars have been lax, relying upon circular reasoning and peer review to reach conclusions. Here as he deals with the possibility of secretaries he falls back upon the method that he had earlier derided.
The next three chapters were very enjoyable. Here he delves into the motivations regarding non-canonical writings and their interaction with Jews and false teachers. He does a decent job of summarizing the religious politics of the day. He also delves into the differences between false attribution, fabrication and falsification in these texts and the motivations in play. Sadly he attributes the canon as spoils of a political war. I wouldn’t say that he is entirely wrong here, just that it is a sad and sobering thought to contemplate.
Emboldened now by his case against forgery and the now muddied mess made when non-canonical texts are freely compared to the accepted canon, he now sets out to show that Acts and James are also forgeries. He does this by throwing in 2 Peter and arraying the lot against a single verse in Galatians. He points out supposed errors and contradictions in these texts as well. His case falls short of compelling.
The last chapter is a recreational break as he delves into fanciful tales regarding the lost years of Jesus life. Brahmans are insulted and clay pigeons come to life as he seeks to paint these tails in a similar light with the New Testament. It was an enjoyable exercise to read about where these tales originated.
In the end I think that he does make the case that we cannot be in the middle. The Canon texts are either genuine or they are forgeries, there is no middle ground. The problem is that his motivation appears to be toward debunking Christianity. This man is not a friend.
Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.
In this book Dr. Ehrman sets forth his purpose as follows:
The book I’m writing now – what is it’s purpose? In fact there are multiple purposes. I want to inform my readers about an important ancient literary phenomenon. I want to correct mistakes that other scholars have made in discussing that phenomenon. I want readers to think more deeply about the role of lies and deception in the history of the Christian religion. I want to show the irony in the fact that lies and deception have historically been used to establish the “truth.” I want my readers to see that there may be forgeries in the New Testament. I want to tell interesting stories about intriguing and relatively unknown writings from antiquity. I want to entertain my readers. In fact, I want to accomplish lots of things.
This “phenomenon” that he seeks to explain is the frequency, purpose and treatment of pseudonymous, pseudepigraphal texts and how they were viewed and treated in the ancient world.
He devotes the first chapter to the description of how texts of this type were treated in the period surrounding the New Testament. He is quite thorough, producing several examples of such work and how they were treated once exposed. Also explored were the differences between anonymously authored texts and those which were truly false named. He also explores possible motivations, techniques and possible justifications for these forgeries. His case is in my opinion quite compelling, however predictably does not posit much information from the competing view.
The next two chapters are dedicated to exploring forgeries written in the names of Peter and Paul. At this point he has made his case and he insists upon the term “forgery” as he moves forward. Here things start to get dicey as he freely mixes non-canonical texts with those which are accepted. He gives good concise summations of the non-canonical books along with a brief history and the motivations for each, this makes for interesting reading. Almost interesting enough that one would be tempted to throw the accepted books into the mix. Almost isn’t good enough, he is truly mixing apples with cranberries, however he isn’t ocean spray so no deal. His argument here is build upon pshchology he explores undisputed forgeries alongside disputed texts in the hope that the reader will be lulled into thinking that they are in fact the same. But a sheep in a herd of goats is still a sheep regardless of how one views the goats.
The fourth chapter deals with possible alternative explanations to the charges of forgery against the accepted books. He briefly touches upon the view that this was commonplace and accepted. Very briefly because he has spent the entire first chapter debunking this theory. He spends a little time with the theories which suppose either philosophical schools or a reactualizing of the tradition. He clearly explains the differences between these Old Testament practices and the New Testament reality when they were written. Again his case is concise and compelling. Finally he explores the theory that secretaries were used. Here he is weak, using assumption to make a case that really doesn’t work out for him. In the first chapter he makes the case whereby scholars have been lax, relying upon circular reasoning and peer review to reach conclusions. Here as he deals with the possibility of secretaries he falls back upon the method that he had earlier derided.
The next three chapters were very enjoyable. Here he delves into the motivations regarding non-canonical writings and their interaction with Jews and false teachers. He does a decent job of summarizing the religious politics of the day. He also delves into the differences between false attribution, fabrication and falsification in these texts and the motivations in play. Sadly he attributes the canon as spoils of a political war. I wouldn’t say that he is entirely wrong here, just that it is a sad and sobering thought to contemplate.
Emboldened now by his case against forgery and the now muddied mess made when non-canonical texts are freely compared to the accepted canon, he now sets out to show that Acts and James are also forgeries. He does this by throwing in 2 Peter and arraying the lot against a single verse in Galatians. He points out supposed errors and contradictions in these texts as well. His case falls short of compelling.
The last chapter is a recreational break as he delves into fanciful tales regarding the lost years of Jesus life. Brahmans are insulted and clay pigeons come to life as he seeks to paint these tails in a similar light with the New Testament. It was an enjoyable exercise to read about where these tales originated.
In the end I think that he does make the case that we cannot be in the middle. The Canon texts are either genuine or they are forgeries, there is no middle ground. The problem is that his motivation appears to be toward debunking Christianity. This man is not a friend.