New Testament Forged?

Fighting Irish

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/?iref=obnetwork

By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) - A frail man sits in chains inside a dank, cold prison cell. He has escaped death before but now realizes that his execution is drawing near.
“I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come,” the man –the Apostle Paul - says in the Bible's 2 Timothy. “I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”
The passage is one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament. Paul, the most prolific New Testament author, is saying goodbye from a Roman prison cell before being beheaded. His goodbye veers from loneliness to defiance and, finally, to joy.

There’s one just one problem - Paul didn’t write those words. In fact, virtually half the New Testament was written by impostors taking on the names of apostles like Paul. At least according to Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar, who makes the charges in his new book “Forged.”
“There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good,” says Ehrman, an expert on ancient biblical manuscripts.In “Forged,” Ehrman claims that:

* At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.
* The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.
* Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

Ehrman doesn’t confine his critique to Paul’s letters. He challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. He says that none were written by Jesus' disciplies, citing two reasons.

He says none of the earliest gospels revealed the names of its authors, and that their current names were later added by scribes.
Ehrman also says that two of Jesus’ original disciples, John and Peter, could not have written the books attributed to them in the New Testament because they were illiterate.
“According to Acts 4:13, both Peter and his companion John, also a fisherman, were agrammatoi, a Greek word that literally means ‘unlettered,’ that is, ‘illiterate,’ ’’ he writes.

Will the real Paul stand up?

Ehrman reserves most of his scrutiny for the writings of Paul, which make up the bulk of the New Testament. He says that only about half of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul – 7 of 13 - were actually written by him.

Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.
For example, Ehrman says the book of Ephesians doesn’t conform to Paul’s distinctive Greek writing style. He says Paul wrote in short, pointed sentences while Ephesians is full of long Greek sentences (the opening sentence of thanksgiving in Ephesians unfurls a sentence that winds through 12 verses, he says).

“There’s nothing wrong with extremely long sentences in Greek; it just isn’t the way Paul wrote. It’s like Mark Twain and William Faulkner; they both wrote correctly, but you would never mistake the one for the other,” Ehrman writes.

The scholar also points to a famous passage in 1 Corinthians in which Paul is recorded as saying that women should be “silent” in churches and that “if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.”
Only three chapters earlier, in the same book, Paul is urging women who pray and prophesy in church to cover their heads with veils, Ehrman says: “If they were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to speak in chapter 14?”

Why people forged

Forgers often did their work because they were trying to settle early church disputes, Ehrman says. The early church was embroiled in conflict - people argued over the treatment of women, leadership and relations between masters and slaves, he says.

“There was competition among different groups of Christians about what to believe and each of these groups wanted to have authority to back up their views,” he says. “If you were a nobody, you wouldn’t sign your own name to your treatise. You would sign Peter or John.”

So people claiming to be Peter and John - and all sorts of people who claimed to know Jesus - went into publishing overdrive. Ehrman estimates that there were about 100 forgeries created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church.

Witherington concedes that fabrications and forgeries floated around the earliest Christian communities.
But he doesn’t accept the notion that Peter, for example, could not have been literate because he was a fisherman.
“Fisherman had to do business. Guess what? That involves writing, contracts and signed documents,” he said in an interview.
Witherington says people will gravitate toward Ehrman’s work because the media loves sensationalism.

“We live in a Jesus-haunted culture that’s biblically illiterate,” he says. “Almost anything can pass for historical information… A book liked ‘Forged’ can unsettle people who have no third or fourth opinions to draw upon.”
Ehrman, of course, has another point of view.
“Forged” will help people accept something that it took him a long time to accept, says the author, a former fundamentalist who is now an agnostic.

The New Testament wasn’t written by the finger of God, he says – it has human fingerprints all over its pages.
“I’m not saying people should throw it out or it’s not theologically fruitful,” Ehrman says. “I’m saying that by realizing it contains so many forgeries, it shows that it’s a very human book, down to the fact that some authors lied about who they were.”

Soul Winner

Another thing Ehram doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that Paul used secretaries to write for him. He used one for the Roman Epistle for instance (Romans 16:22) which could easily account for the differences in style from his other epistles, and even though this is not specifically pointed out in other Epistles it is proof that he did use them, so who is to say that he didn't use them all the time?

From Wiki:


Saint Paul Writing His Epistles, 16th century painting. Most scholars think Paul actually dictated his letters to a secretary, for example Romans 16:22 cites a scribe named Tertius.

And as for the iliteracy of the disciples. Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a Phyiscian. Professional trained men working in jobs that required them to be able to read and write in more than one or even two languages. And as for Peter and John, eh, what was stopping them from learning how to read and write?


IBTL :pac:

tenchi-fan

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Ehrman also says that two of Jesus’ original disciples, John and Peter, could not have written the books attributed to them in the New Testament because they were illiterate.

Acts 2:1-6:
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

I think it's reasonable to assume that even if they hadn't learned to read and write before Pentecost they would be able to after it!

Seaneh

Almost all Jewish males at the time would have been able to read and write, in Hebrew at least.

the article is a steaming pile of crap, extremely badly researched and even less well argued.

PDN

It's hardly suprising that sophisticated religious leaders in Jerusalem would refer to Galilean fishermen as 'illiterate'. I once referred to Tim Robbins as illiterate - but I would not therefore argue that he was incapable of writing a letter.

The frustrating thing about Ehrman is that he knows better. He studied under Bruce Metzger, so it is really disappointing to see him playing to the gallery with these kind of half-baked arguments and misrepresentations.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

The frustrating thing about Ehrman is that he knows better. He studied under Bruce Metzger, so it is really disappointing to see him playing to the gallery with these kind of half-baked arguments and misrepresentations.

As a journalist friend of mine is wont to say: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!"

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The frustrating thing about Ehrman is that he knows better. He studied under Bruce Metzger, so it is really disappointing to see him playing to the gallery with these kind of half-baked arguments and misrepresentations.

If Ehrman's right -- and having read several of his books (have you?), I think he makes a persuasive, well-argued, intelligent case -- then what he's doing is not "playing to the gallery", but devoting his life to helping people to realize that the bible is not what religious leaders, and those who profit from the sale of religion, claim it is.

The fact that Ehrman has stood on, and understood, both sides of the argument lends his position more credibility than that of the far greater number of people who've acquired a single religious belief, and spend their lives defending it. For it suggests that his primary interest is in unearthing accuracy, rather than the blind defense of a single point of view for political or religious reasons.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

If Ehrman's right -- and having read several of his books (have you?),

Yes, I have. I've read Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted, Lost Christianities, and Lost Scriptures. I've also read key works dealing with the same subject matter from other equally qualified biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger, Ben Witherington III, NT Wright and Craig Blomberg. Have you?

If one is to have an informed opinion, rather than just cherrypicking views to support one's own agenda, it makes sense to study both sides of an argument - wouldn't you agree?

And the 'If' in 'If Ehrman's right' is a huge 'If' indeed.

He has a track record of saying nothing new, but rather misleadingly slanting information. For example, in making a huge song and dance about the number of 'variations' or 'discrepancies' between biblical manuscripts, but failing to mention the rather glaring point that over 99% of these variations are things like a word being mispelt or a missing iota subscript - things that don't make the slightest difference to the meaning of the text.

Just look at the OP, and you see Ehrman making a very silly point about Paul saying women should keep quiet in the churches, whereas 3 chapters earlier he said that women should cover their head when they prophesy.

This leaves us with at least two alternatives:
a) Paul, when saying women should keep quiet in the church, was referring to something other than prophesying. This could refer to a woman preaching and teaching or, as I think more likely, it referred to the early christian practice of seating men and women in different sections of the room - and women were shouting across to their husbands asking what something meant. Therefore paul said the women should keep quiet and ask their husbands questions once they got home.

b) Or else 1 Corinthians is a forgery, by a forger so dumb that he included contradictory instructions without noticing it, and everybody else in the history of the Christian church was too dumb to notice it until along came a guy in North Carolina, who was coincidentally writing a book claiming the New Testament was forged, and managed to spot the contradiction that billions of people had missed for 2000 years.

Rather predictably Ehrman chooses option (b).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Ehrman making a very silly point about Paul saying women should keep quiet in the churches, whereas 3 chapters earlier he said that women should cover their head when they prophesy.

I was going to reply to this, but your mischaracterization of what he is saying is so over the top that there really isn't much point!

PDN wrote: »

For example, in making a huge song and dance about the number of 'variations' or 'discrepancies' between biblical manuscripts, but failing to mention the rather glaring point that over 99% of these variations are things like a word being mispelt or a missing iota subscript - things that don't make the slightest difference to the meaning of the text.

"Misquoting Jesus" does say the following, though it's on page ten:

Bart Ehrman wrote:

[...] it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today [...]

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

The fact that Ehrman has stood on, and understood, both sides of the argument lends his position more credibility than that of the far greater number of people who've acquired a single religious belief,

This is saying is that a person who used to believe and then loses that belief is, in your opinion someone you believe more than someone who did not lose their faith.

Do you apply the same principle to people who had no faith and became believers in God? are they also "more credible" than atheists? Or do you apply double standards and only believe in those who lost their faith. Kind of ironic don't you think?

and spend their lives defending it.

Can you prove God does not exist? No? Can you prove Erhman is right? No? so then you believe he is. Welcome to the world of faith. Feel free to defend what you believe.

For it suggests that his primary interest is in unearthing accuracy, rather than the blind defense of a single point of view for political or religious reasons.

I think this is entirely unfair to academic researchers who happen to have faith in God. It is unfair to dismiss all those people and say their research is tainted and that research by non believers is of a higher standard just because that person believes in no god. Surely the academic quality stands or falls on their work and not on whether they are motivated to defend or attack faith? I know fundamentalist atheists have anti religious beliefs but does that detract from the quality of their writing or research?

Not alone that it also assumes atheists don't support arguments based on belief i.e. don't believe in things they don't know for a fact. This isn't true.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Can you prove God does not exist? No? Can you prove Erhman is right? No? so then you believe he is. Welcome to the world of faith. Feel free to defend what you believe.

Antiskeptic, is that you?

In all fairness, attempting to equate everything with some form of "faith" or "belief" and by doing so, pretending that all points of view are equally valid and equally useful, is really very silly.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Antiskeptic, is that you?

In all fairness, attempting to equate everything with some form of "faith" or "belief" and by doing so, pretending that all points of view are equally valid and equally useful, is really very silly.

What? While I realise you come out in a rash at the merest suggestion that you might incorporate "belief" and "faith" into your worldview, ISAW didn't say what you think he said.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Antiskeptic, is that you?

No. But if I may..

In all fairness, attempting to equate everything with some form of "faith" or "belief" and by doing so, pretending that all points of view are equally valid and equally useful, is really very silly.

When "really, really silly" depends on your special pleading the set of assumptions on which your worldview is built upwards to higher ground then that's .. really, really poor argumentation.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Antiskeptic, is that you?

In all fairness, attempting to equate everything with some form of "faith" or "belief" and by doing so, pretending that all points of view are equally valid and equally useful, is really very silly.

Which is what you were doing! I was only pointing out that while you appealed to "balance" you displayed bias for someone who had lost their faith in god as being "more credible" as a academic . The irony is you only believe they are more credible.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? While I realise you come out in a rash at the merest suggestion that you might incorporate "belief" and "faith" into your worldview, ISAW didn't say what you think he said.

ISAW wrote: »

The irony is you only believe they are more credible

I rest my case

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

I rest my case

Where does that quote from me show I am as you claimed

"pretending that all points of view are equally valid and equally useful"

What I stated was that you have you own bias and are suggesting your biased view or that of another non believer is academically superior to that of a believer in God. specifically on the basis of them not believing because somehow you believe they can see both sides of the argument.

do all gynecologists who are women and who have also given birth have medically superiour
views to male ones who have not given birth? Are men to be treated as secondary opinions on abortion because they are incapable of having abortions?

The point is that one does not have to experience faith or the lack of it to make academically valid points and not having belief in God is not a superior position of "seeing from both sides" .

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

This is saying is that a person who used to believe and then loses that belief is, in your opinion someone you believe more than someone who did not lose their faith.

Do you apply the same principle to people who had no faith and became believers in God? are they also "more credible" than atheists? Or do you apply double standards and only believe in those who lost their faith. Kind of ironic don't you think?

That is a very good point - and if people were guided by logic it would be recognised as such. Many biblical scholars are like myself, we used to think the Bible was a load of old cobblers but have come to believe it to be truth. Therefore, according to Robin's logic, our views should carry more weight since we understand both sides of the argument - and our views carry more credibility than those who have acquired an atheistic view of the Bible and spent their subsequent life deriding it.

Actually, the really scary thing is that a common atheist ploy is to accuse anyone who used to be an atheist of thereby practising a trick!

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned.

So, the fact that Ehrman used to be a Christian and is now an agnostic makes him more credible. But Christian who used to be atheists are not to be trusted at all because they are playing some kind of 'trick'.

This displays the kind of doublethink and crass dishonesty that passes for rational discourse in the new atheism.