What? Bart Ehrman has a new book out already? He’s now writing in definitive language about how the Bible was forged? He’s no longer uncertain about these issues and is no longer pretending to have humble skepticism?
Well, I don’t believe it for a second.
I highly doubt that the author of this book is Bart Ehrman. Consider the clear and inescapable facts:
1. The vocabulary of the introduction is highly different than the vocabulary in chapters 1-8, clearly indicating a different author. So which part of Forged did Ehrman write?
2. Note the names of the chapters, which clearly points to a hidden meaning:
Chapter 1 – A World of Deceptions and Forgeries
Chapter 2 – Forgeries in the name of Peter
Chapter 3 – Forgeries in the name of Paul
Chapter 4 – Alternatives to Lies and Deceptions
Chapter 5 – Forgeries in Conflicts with Jews and Pagans
Chapter 6 – Forgeries in Conflicts with False Teachers.
Chapter 7 – False Attributations, Fabrications and Falsifications: Phenomena related to Forgery.
Chapter 8 – Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament.
Notice the first letters of the chapters – AFF & AFFFF. That’s interesting.
The A.F.F. is the American Family Foundation, which is a counter-cult organization that produces a large amount of cult information on numerous cults. Strange that there’s a clear reference to the A.F.F. in the “table of contents”.
Then, there’s a reference to “A.F.F.F.F”, which is obviously referencing Asymmetrical Flow Field-Flow Fractionation, a cutting edge technique for chemical engineering and synthesizing advanced chemical compounds. Now why would “Ehrman” be referencing a cult watch group and cutting edge chromatography techniques used in making highly advanced synthetic chemical compounds (i.e. advanced mind control drugs)? Why indeed. I dare you to try and sleep at night now.
3. The number of chapters (8) suggests a preoccupation with symmetry and order, indicating that the author is not a skeptic at all and is instead a fundamentalist writing under a pseudonym in an effort to discredit Ehrman.
4. Note the clear and obvious symbolism of the number “8”. If “7” is the number of perfection, the pseudonymous author has the audacity to think he’s “one better than perfection”. Clearly there’s more going on here than meets the eye.
5. It seems a little too convenient that his name is on the cover; this is clearly someone else pretending to be Ehrman. If it was actually Ehrman, why does he need to blast this “obvious” fact all over the cover of the book? Beyond that, I’ve never met anyone who knows for sure whether or not it was Ehrman. I find his own claims of authorship to only point to the blatant coverup of the true authorship of the book, and I suspect this conspiracy goes all the way to the top!
If that kind of “reasoning” sounds like idiocy to you, I have only 5 words for you:
Welcome to Accademic Biblical Studies.
I’d recommend that my readers consider this, a recent podcast of Issues Etc. where John Warwick Montgomery takes on Ehrman and reveals what I’ve come to call the “liberal lobotomy”.
Warwick Montgomery makes some great observations, like commenting on Cyrus H. Gordon’s announcement at the utter uselessness of higher critical theory in determining authorship of ancient literary works. (check out Cyrus H. Gordon, “Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit”, Christianity Today, November 23, 1959). Interestingly, Gordon wasn’t a Christian at all and had no interest in defending the historicity of the Bible whatsoever.
He also makes the interesting point that higher critical theory has been abandoned in every other field of the study of ancient literature, and yet somehow survives in Biblical studies long after it’s been revealed to be utterly useless.
Plenty of good comments are made by Montgomery, especially the comments on the nature of forgery, and it’s worth a listen more than once.
Ehrman also says, with complete certainty, that 2 Peter was clearly not written by Peter. You may want to read the article I wrote on the authorship of 2 Peter. The arguments against Petrine authorship are as moronic as the arguments I wrote above and rely, as General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett says, on “a pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face”.
Until Next Time,
Lyndon “I dare you to prove that I wrote this blog” Unger