Forged - Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think The

[Kamran]

Forged - Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

By Bart D. Ehrman
Publisher: HarperOne Publishers
Publication Date: March 22, 2011
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0062012614
ISBN-13: 9780062012616
Format: Hardcover, 320pp
Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.3 x 1.3 inches
Page Previews: TBA
purchase from







Library Journal

"Ehrman provides evidence here that the ancient world, in fact, generally condemned forgeries as much as the modern world does. He then goes on to discuss works that were wrongly claimed to have been written by Peter or by Paul as well as other forgeries, including some in the last two centuries. He distinguishes between the use of a pen name to hide the writer's identity and a forgery that claims to be the work of someone else. Most of the forgeries Ehrman discusses served Christian anti-Jewish propaganda, although some were antipagan, while the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus was an attempt to correct the very anti-Christian Acts of Pilate. Ehrman uses other forgeries as well to support his conclusion that "Christians intent on establishing what was right to believe did so by telling lies."

VERDICT Ehrman reveals for ordinary readers what most mainstream biblical scholars accept, but he then attributes motives to the writers, which are more speculative, ending his book with a discussion of a few justifiable lies or forgeries and those not justified (all the rest). Recommended for sophisticated readers who will come to their own conclusions about Ehrman's opinions. —Carolyn M. Craft, emerita, Longwood Univ., Farmville, VA

Book Cover Description

“We may never know what drove these people . . .to hide their own identity and to claim, deceitfully, that they were someone else. Their readers, had they known, would probably have called them liars and condemned what they did. But in their own eyes, their conscience may have been free from blame, and their motives may have been as pure as the driven snow. They had a truth to convey, and they were happy to lie in order to proclaim it.”—from Forged

It is often said, even by critical scholars who should know better, that “writing in the name of another” was widely accepted in antiquity. But New York Times bestselling author Bart D. Ehrman dares to call it what it was: literary forgery, a practice that was as scandalous then as it is today. In Forged, Ehrman’s fresh and original research takes readers back to the ancient world, where forgeries were used as weapons by unknown authors to fend off attacks to their faith and establish their church. So, if many of the books in the Bible were not in fact written by Jesus’s inner circle—but by writers living decades later, with differing agendas in rival communities—what does that do to the authority of Scripture?

Ehrman investigates ancient sources to:

• Reveal which New Testament books were outright forgeries.
• Explain how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how strongly it was
condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.
• Expose the deception in the history of the Christian religion.

Ehrman’s fascinating story of fraud and deceit is essential reading for anyone interested in the truth about the Bible and the dubious origins of Christianity’s sacred texts.

http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/forged.htm

[Algebra]

Forged - Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

Ehrman is not a serious scholar, he is to scholarship as "Yanni" is to classical music.

VERDICT Ehrman reveals for ordinary readers what most mainstream biblical scholars accept, but he then attributes motives to the writers, which are more speculative, ending his book with a discussion of a few justifiable lies or forgeries and those not justified (all the rest). Recommended for sophisticated readers who will come to their own conclusions about Ehrman's opinions. —Carolyn M. Craft, emerita, Longwood Univ., Farmville, VA

This is the most telling comment, she says generously that whatever Ehrman is writing is already known i.e. nothing path breaking in terms of new information.

What he does add is "speculative".

The final nail in the coffin, "Recommended for sophisticated readers who will come to their own conclusions about Ehrman's opinions." in other words - This is fiction, make what you will of his "opinions".

[Kamran]

what the bliming hell you talkin? the book isn't out yet.

[Algebra]

what the bliming hell you talkin? the book isn't out yet.

And your point is?

Its obviously already been "reviewed", they have possibly chosen the most "glowing" review to market the book, considering that no one with a serious academic background would give him "ehrman" even the time of day.

Problem is, even the "glowing" review, as subtly as it is worded, is actually a complete "dis" of the work.

[ihsan]

How is Bart Ehrman not a serous scholar, considering he fulfills all the criteria for one, including serving as a Chair for the Department of Religious Studies at UNC? How does one who earns his PhD from Princeton Universiy's tehological seminary and publish many scholarly works in peer-reviewed journals, not qualify as scholarly? Add this to the collection of BS spouted by Algebra, along with the collection of "make things up depending upon the thread" pile of garbage.

[Algebra]

Now I am not christian.

But for me when Ehrman could no longer disguise his obvious bias against that faith was the time that I wrote him off.

Since then he has gotten progressively worse, delving into wild speculation akin to patricia crones work on islam.

Just as her work is often picked up by missionaries, ehrmans work is lapped up by da'ees.

The whole thing is rather sad, because the only people that gain from this are the authors and the publishing houses.

[Algebra]

How is Bart Ehrman not a serous scholar, considering he fulfills all the criteria for one, including serving as a Chair for the Department of Religious Studies at UNC? How does one who earns his PhD from Princeton Universiy's tehological seminary and publish many scholarly works in peer-reviewed journals, not qualify as scholarly? Add this to the collection of BS spouted by Algebra, along with the collection of "make things up depending upon the thread" pile of garbage.

The same way that patricia crone and michael cook, with equally impressive credentials wouldnt.

LOL.

Dude have you studied at the post graduate level? I have, I can tell you many of the people you meet are complete morons.

Academia is filled with sycophantic losers who cant "do", so they "teach".

[ihsan]

Yes, I am quite sure post-graduate morons abound, as is evidenced by you... What I stated is not only does he possess a phD, it is a phD from one of the most highly accredited Universities in the world, let alone the United States, he serves or has served as Chair of Religious Studies at various accredited Universities, he serves on countless boards for various scholarly editorial papers, and is published as well in peer-reviewed journals. His views on biblical authenticity are accepted bya a large portion of the scholarly world.

Ehrman is nothing like Crook and Crone, who have been thoroughly refuted in the scholarly circles and publications abound in scholarly works criticizing them. Even then, they aren't considered non-academics, but actual academics, thus the scholarly rebutals.

And Ehrman is not 'lapped up' by da'ees and very rarely is even mentioned, in fact, I have never encountered him being mentioned. Da'ees usually lap up works from learned folk like Jamal Badawai, or Ahmed Deedat.

It is like one made-up concoction after another.

[Algebra]

I could refute all the gibberish you put out there, but i am not going to because it would detract from the "review" piece that I happily took apart for the readers.

Basically Ehrman handed the Library Journal a final manuscript.

They heaped steaming poop on it and handed back to him. Just read the verdict - it basically says its a work of fiction.

[ihsan]

I could refute all the gibberish you put out there, but i am not going to because it would detract from the "review" piece that I happily took apart for the readers.

Basically Ehrman handed the Library Journal a final manuscript.

They heaped steaming poop on it and handed back to him. Just read the verdict - it basically says its a work of fiction.

Talk about exxagerated pronouncements and reading into texts what is not there. Saying a book if for sophisticated readers and that Ehrmann's views regarding TEXTUAL integrity of the scriptures is what mainstream scholars ACCEPT and that it is left to the readers to judge Ehrmann's conclusions is anything but 'calling it trash', as you would liek to present.
In fact, one can find countless reviews of several scholarly publications, which do little to detract from the scholarly nature of the article. A typical example of this in the movie industry is that one can find 'poor reviews', though this one hardly qualifies as 'poor' for Oscar winning movies.

You just continue like a broken record. You can't refute any of it at all.

[Algebra]

Talk about exxagerated pronouncements and reading into texts what is not there. Saying a book if for sophisticated readers and that Ehrmann's views regarding TEXTUAL integrity of the scriptures is what mainstream scholars ACCEPT and that it is left to the readers to judge Ehrmann's conclusions is anything but 'calling it trash', as you would liek to present.
In fact, one can find countless reviews of several scholarly publications, which do little to detract from the scholarly nature of the article. A typical example of this in the movie industry is that one can find 'poor reviews', though this one hardly qualifies as 'poor' for Oscar winning movies.

You just continue like a broken record. You can't refute any of it at all.

Dude??? Have you ever read a peer review commentary???

They are being professional here, but in academic circles this kind of review is tantamount to heaping steaming poop all over the paper.

Sophisticated because they can "discern" the junk from fact and come to their own conclusions. And remember the reviewer says plainly that there is nothing new here.

For the longest time scholarship has questioned much of the textual integrity of christian scripture this is not path breaking or new, what is new is his "opinion" on why they wrote what they wrote.

Wow, that sounds like a work of fiction....because it is a work of fiction.

When an academic goes over the edge like this (and they do this for many reasons, mostly financial) they lose all credibility. Now you are free to read and pay for Mr Ehrmans junk, but dont expect anyone with any intelligence to give it due consideration.

[ihsan]

Dude??? Have you ever read a peer review commentary???

I am quite familiar with peer review commentaries and so are you, and as I stated before your spewing forth nothing but hot-air, andyou very well know it. As I said, you simply make-up things as you go along.

ANd further, your argument is rooted in the assumption that Caroyln M. Craft is the 'authority' as the presentative of all biblical scholarship, meaning her word is authoritative and if she supposedly said, for the sake of argument, Ehrmann is a "fringe loon", that it must be true and representative of the whole Biblical community.

Further, Ehrmann is writing a book that is targetted to a wide-range of audiences, meaning it isn't an article that necessary qualifies as an article aimed directly at Biblical scholars.

Craft's review is an opinion, just like any other reviewer is, whether it is movies or the like. The necessary implication is that it has no bearing on the question of whether or not Ehrmann is a serious Biblical scholar.

Like I said, keep your melo-dramatic nonsensically, over-dramatic hyperbole to yourself...