Thread: "At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries."

Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible - CNN.com

"In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes:

Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian."

-Here we go again!

Nothing new under the sun

All anyone has to do is write a book showing that the New Testament is reliable, and then go get rich on all the talk shows! I mean, look at all the networks that are giving free air time to conservative Christian scholars these days!

Sheesh.

Well get at it brother

I think the key phrase here is "former fudamentalist." I used to be a fundamentalist too and then I became an atheist in college. I believe that fundamentalists who have not come to know the Christ of the Bible end up becoming atheists or agnostics (like Ehrman) if they ever decide to turn against the fundamentalist mindset. I thank God that He regenerated me for I would probably have ended up like Ehrman, battling Christianity by trying to debunk its major tenets.

I thought it was Dan Barker who was using the phrase "former fundamentalist" while Ehrman was a "former evangelical." CNN needs to get its names straight.

I know they're forgeries. I wrote them myself. And it's 24 not 19 that I forged, so he's wrong on that point. I can fool some of them some of the time...

Theognome

You really are a theo Gnome aren't you?

I was a sort of fringe fundy, but somehow pulled away from that. In my case it was more gradual, except for the huge shaking I got when I realized my legalistic KJVOnly nonsense. Of course, God used that to help me look at all my positions, which was when I realized I was Calvinistic in my soteriology. Heh, now that was exciting. I wonder if I could write a book about that!

Originally Posted by Wannabee

You really are a theo Gnome aren't you?

Yup.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I was a sort of fringe fundy, but somehow pulled away from that. In my case it was more gradual, except for the huge shaking I got when I realized my legalistic KJVOnly nonsense. Of course, God used that to help me look at all my positions, which was when I realized I was Calvinistic in my soteriology. Heh, now that was exciting. I wonder if I could write a book about that!

I'd buy it.

Theognome

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible - CNN.com

"In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes:

Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian."

-Here we go again!

I don't think I could be less concerned. The guy's a fool and clearly an unbeliever. Let the press say what it will.

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by Wannabee

You really are a theo Gnome aren't you?

Yup.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I was a sort of fringe fundy, but somehow pulled away from that. In my case it was more gradual, except for the huge shaking I got when I realized my legalistic KJVOnly nonsense. Of course, God used that to help me look at all my positions, which was when I realized I was Calvinistic in my soteriology. Heh, now that was exciting. I wonder if I could write a book about that!

I'd buy it.

Theognome

Me to

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by Wannabee

You really are a theo Gnome aren't you?

Yup.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I was a sort of fringe fundy, but somehow pulled away from that. In my case it was more gradual, except for the huge shaking I got when I realized my legalistic KJVOnly nonsense. Of course, God used that to help me look at all my positions, which was when I realized I was Calvinistic in my soteriology. Heh, now that was exciting. I wonder if I could write a book about that!

I'd buy it.

Theognome

You guys are way too much fun.

A fool airing his folly.

Who were the forgers of these 19 books? The writers of these divine words deserve our everlasting gratitude and for their names to be remembered to posterity. They're also brilliant forgers.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Who were the forgers of these 19 books? The writers of these divine words deserve our everlasting gratitude and for their names to be remembered to posterity. They're also brilliant forgers.

Yes, they do deserve thanks, to God be the glory.

Ehrman's just following along the path already trod by hundreds of deceived ones, led by the nose by the enemy. His teaching is no different than that of the bumbling Jesus Seminar, or any other liberal buffoon teaching at the nation's secularized divinity schools. The sad truth is that he will, by his degree status, and his presence at a well-reputed institution, lead some astray (not without God's decreeing it to be so, of course). We should pause to give thanks that God has not left us in such a state as to be swayed by this unregenerate idiot. He is, though, yet alive, and there is, therefore, yet hope for his soul, should God choose to strip the veil from his eyes.

Ehrman is a VERY sad case study. Educated at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he reportedly "lost his faith" at Princeton studying under Bruce Metzger. The arguments in favor of the critical text overwhelmed him, convincing him that inerrancy was impossible if the Alexandrian texts were the "earliest and most reliable" manuscripts. Add to that some existential crises with the problem of evil and you have a recipe for full-blown agnosticism (i.e., apostasy).

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

... he reportedly "lost his faith" at Princeton studying under Bruce Metzger.

That'll do it.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

The arguments in favor of the critical text overwhelmed him, convincing him that inerrancy was impossible if the Alexandrian texts were the "earliest and most reliable" manuscripts.

Yes, that is a "fundamental" problem.

Are there any reviews and responses to the claims made in the book somewhere on the internet? Or perhaps some of you more knowledgeable folk can respond to some of his claims, too?

Timothy George has a good book entitled Misquoting Truth. In addition, James White debated Ehrman recently; you can find some of his material (including commentary before and after the debate) by going here.

A number of evangelical authors have gone into print with books disputing Ehrman's revisionist reading of the NT.

Ben Witherington does a credible detailed analysis of Bart's latest. "Ben Witherington: Bart Interrupted--- A detailed Analysis of 'Jesus Interrupted'"
Part 1: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...alysis-of.html
Part 2: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_08.html
Part 3: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_13.html.
Part 4: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...part-four.html.
Part 5: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_16.html.
Coda: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/...sis-of_20.html.

Timothy George's Misquoting Truth IVP: 2007. 0830834478 (isbn13: 9780830834471).
Denver's Craig Blomberg analyzes the book too: http://www.denverseminary.edu/articl...bible-and-why/.
D. Bock reponds to Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus in his blog: Ehrman's Newest Entry March 16, 09 (revised April 5) | Bock's Blog.
Ben Witherington's response to Ehrman: Ben Witherington: Misanalyzing Text Criticism--Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'.

Daniel B. Wallace, "Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2006.

Here is a blog about an interesting exchange between Ehrman and Wallace: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...r-heard-forum/.

Dennis, those are some fantastic links. It will serve me well as I am meeting with a pea brained genius boy on Tuesday to discuss the brilliant Ehrman. I don't know who I tire more of: Ehrman, or Hitchins. Probably Ehrman. He is masquerading as a Christian. At least Hitchens doesn't claim that.

Actually, I think it is more accurate to say that Ehrman is the particular type of worm who writes from the outside as one claiming to have been an insider.

"Apostate" fits more than "heretic."

In his interviews, Ehrman is careful to point out that he is NOT a Christian or a person of faith in ANY sense today.

I don't know how serious one should take a person who goes on Colbert to discuss his work. And then gets humiliated.

Erhman's underlying presupposition which he states repeatedly in his debates and books is that is God miracuously inspired the the text, then He would have miraculously preserved them (i.e. without textual variation in the manuscript tradition). The presence of textual variation in the manuscript tradition and the difficulty of discerning which of the variant readings is the 'original' is therefore proof to him that it was never inspired in the first place. He makes this very clear in his debates with James White and Dan Wallace, challenging them to show him with absolute certainty which reading is the original and to explain how they know which is which. What I have been struck by is his utter inability to see that his underlying presupposition is a theological presupposition and is not a logical necessity (though he repeatedly claims he is 'just a historian'). Dr. White got him to admit that by his own standards, we can't really know anything any ancient writer really said.

His 'former evangelical' claim is often brought up as a Damascus Road conversion story which he uses to gain credibility with Christians. "I used to believe the same thing you did." He also claims that Christian scholars are 'hiding the facts' and trying to 'lull' people into thinking that the Bible is just fine, don't listen to those historians over there!

On that note, I know James White is in the process of writing a book refuting Dr. Ehrman. I donot know when this is to be published but I know it is is in the works. I look forward to it myself.

Like Christopher Hitchens, Ehrman is a winsome communicator who is very smart and witty. But, unlike some of the pure academics, Ehrman has recognized that there is a huge gap between the academy and the pew. He has set it upon himself to exploit that information gap by popularizing what has been known in the academy for generations. Young non-Christians seize up this expertise and use it to justify their rejection of the faith. Lay people are vulnerable to wondering if their preachers have been lying to them all along.

Unfortunately, as any good presuppositionalist knows, we all have the same facts at our disposal. Where we differ is in the presuppositions we bring to the analysis. As Joseph points out, Ehrman uses the very fact of textual variation as a club with which to pound the doctrine of inspiration generally.

Regardless of whether we are CT or TR in our approach, it behooves us to have a doctrine of inspiration sophisticated enough to defang Ehrman and his ilk. For example, evangelicals typically argue that most variants deal with non-translatable differences (e.g., spelling and the like). And, even the variants that do impact translation do not change one single doctrine.

But, this is more complex than we make it out to be. As Ehrman opines, you could "lose" half of the Pauline corpus, most of the general epistles, and even a couple of Gospels and it still would not endanger a single doctrine. But, who would be foolish enough to say that it wouldn't "matter"???

Look at a specific example, Mark 1:41.

TEXT: "And moved with pity, he stretched out [his] hand"
EVIDENCE: S A B C K L W Delta Theta Pi 090 f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect most lat vg syr cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NKJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEBn TEV HCSB ESV
RANK: D
NOTES: "And being angry, he stretched out [his] hand"
EVIDENCE: D four lat
TRANSLATIONS: NEB TEVn

Wallace argues that since Jesus is spoken of as "angry" in other passages it doesn't matter whether the original says that he was ticked or compassionate. Ehrman, beginning with his presupposition that the bare existence of textual variation is "proof" against divine inspiration argues that it not only matters but "proves" that the Bible is not inspired.

Better and more sophisticated answers are required to silence the foolishness of Ehrman and his ilk and removing unnecessary cognitive dissonance from the faithful. I would love to see some of our brilliant young theologs (hint hint some of you who are looking for a suitable PhD topic] tackle the issue of inspiration in light of the Bart Ehrman critique and formulate a defense of the doctrine that takes cognizance of textual variation without yielding ground to Ehrman.

[BTW, the cool analysis of textual variants is available as a free e-Sword module
Version 9 ONLY - http://e-sword-users.org/users/node/2111
Version 8 AND BELOW - http://e-sword-users.org/users/node/255]

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Ehrman, beginning with his presupposition that the bare existence of textual variation is "proof" against divine inspiration argues that it not only matters but "proves" that the Bible is not inspired.

This is an induction rather than a presupposition. His presupposition is empiricism over fideism. He manifests the consistent outcome of this approach. If the Bible is inspired then it is preserved; if it is not preserved then it is not inspired. Both inspiration and preservation are received by faith in the testimony of God regardless of material evidence which may appear to the contrary. The empiricist rejects this claim and maintains that the only way to know what was written is to look at the material evidence, and the material evidence indicates that we cannot know with certainty what was written. The fideist states with Spirit-enlightened persuasion that Jesus and the apostles referred to the written word as the word of God despite the fact that it may have been written upwards of 1400 years earlier, thus validating the claim that the written word is a preserved word. Textual critics must choose whom they will serve.