A Review of Forged by Ehrman

1

A Review Of Forged by Bart Ehrman

David Graieg

Who is Bart Ehrman?

In his book, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not

Who We Think They Are, released March 22, 2011, Bart D. Ehrman argues that 18 of the 27

books of the New Testament were not written by the traditionally recognized authors.1

Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “His work has been featured in Time, the New Yorker,

the Washington Post and other print media, and he has appeared on NBC's Dateline, The Daily

Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, National Geographic, the Discovery

Channel, the BBC, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets.”2 Ehrman has authored over

twenty books, including three New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus (which argues that

New Testament Manuscripts are unreliable and hence, the text of the Bible is inaccurate),3 God's

Problem (which argues that the Bible does not explain why humans suffer) and Jesus Interrupted

(which argues that the Bible is full of contradictions that the Church does not want the public to

know about).4 Ehrman’s works have been translated into several languages and he is having a

large impact on the way people perceive Christianity. Believers need to be ready to give an

answer.

1 New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2011.

2 Bart D. Ehrman. http://www.bartdehrman.com/ (accessed November 6, 2011).

3 For a review see: Daniel B. Wallace, A review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story

Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Bible.org 2006, http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

4 For a review see: Ben Witherington III, Bart Interrupted--- A detailed Analysis of ‘Jesus Interrupted’

Ben Witherington’s Blog. April 7, 2009. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-

bart.html

2

Ehrman grew up in a liberal Episcopal church, but in high school he says that a Youth

for Christ leader took advantage of the loneliness that every teen experiences and led him to be

born again.5 For his undergraduate work Ehrman attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton

College where his studies in New Testament textual criticism began to fuel doubt concerning the

variants in the manuscripts.6 Ehrman went on to pursue doctoral work at Princeton University,

and partly due to an issue concerning the identity of the high priest in Mark 2:26,7 Ehrman went

down the path of agnosticism.8 Today he is one of the most famous critics of Christianity.

What is Forged about?

Forged is eight chapters long, though there is overlap between the chapters, and most

of the content is devoted to forgeries outside the Bible. This makes the book’s subtitle “Writing

in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” a little

misleading. Some of the claims raised in the book have been raised in Ehrman’s other works, and

he has completed a scholarly book on the subject that is yet to be released. Most New Testament

Introductions have previously discussed these concerns.9 In this regard, Ehrman sees himself as

making the public aware of what scholars have known for years.

5 Gary M. Burge, “The Lapsed Evangelical Critic” Christianity Today, June 1, 2006, vol. 50, no. 6.

(accessed November 6, 2011).

6 For those interested in this topic see: The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel

Wallace in Dialogue, ed. Robert D. Stewart (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2011).

7 For those interested in the difficult in Mark 2:26 see: Daniel B. Wallace, Mark 2:26 and the Problem

of Abiathar. A paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society, March 13, 2004.

http://bible.org/article/mark-226-and-problem-abiathar (accessed November 6, 2011).

8 An agnostic is one who either says, “I know that humanity cannot know whether God exists,” or is

one who says “I do not know whether or not there is a God, I am ignorant about the matter and need to further

investigate the evidence.”

9 D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan, 2005); Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois:

Intervarsity Press, 1990).

3

One of Ehrman’s agendas in his book is to dispel the myth that “almost everybody

who goes to seminary or divinity school hears that even though there are pseudepigrapha10 in the

new testament books not really written by the named author, that this was an acceptable practice

in the ancient world and what I show is that this is absolutely wrong, that this was not seen as an

acceptable practice.”11 Being a seminary student myself, I know I have never been taught this. I

asked some of my friends who attend different seminaries across the globe from various

denominations and I was not able to find one person who was taught this. Admittedly, all my

friends attend what would broadly be considered evangelical seminaries so I have to assume

Ehrman is referring to liberal seminaries. As Wallace points out, “In this regard, Ehrman has

aligned himself with the historic evangelical position, though he never acknowledges this.”12

As for the claim of Forged, Ehrman argues that Ephesians, Colossians, 2

Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, James, Jude, and 1–2 Peter were not written by those whose

names are attached to these letters. If these books are deceptive and written by liars, and since

God Himself does not lie, the Church must have been mistaken in thinking these books were

inspired by God. It would follow that these books should be removed from the canon13 of the

10 Pseudepigrapha refers to literature written under a false name. There are also anonymous works in

which the author does not identify himself (such as the gospels), these are a separate category from Pseudepigrapha.

11 Todd Wilken and Bart Ehrman Interview. May 19, 2011.

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/wilken-ehrman-montgomery-forged.mp3 (accessed November 6, 2011)

12 Daniel B. Wallace, “BOOK REVIEW OF BART D. EHRMAN’S FORGED: WRITING IN THE

NAME OF GOD—WHY THE BIBLE’S AUTHORS ARE NOT WHO WE THINK THEY ARE” Parchment & Pen

Blog. July 27, 2011. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/book-review-of-bart-d-ehrman%E2%80%99s-

forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god%E2%80%94why-the-bible%E2%80%99s-authors-are-not-who-we-think-they-

are/ (accessed November 6, 2011)

13 A canon is the “standard” or “rule.” In reference to the New Testament, the canon of Scripture refers

the collection of books the Church recognizes as inspired by God, namely the 27 books of the New Testament (and

of course there is the 39 books of the Old Testament). Protestants understand the Church as recognizing the intrinsic

authority of these books ultimately as being God breathed. It is not that the Church made these books authoritative;

rather it is the other way around, the Church acknowledged the authority that these books innately possessed.

4

Bible.14 However, as we shall see there is good reason to think that these books are not forgeries,

but rather they form a reliable guide to have an abundant life now and into eternity.

Ehrman argues that the Church uses 1 and 2 Timothy to suppress women. For

instance, Ehrman states that 1 Tim 2:15 is used by Christian men to convince women that having

children will save them. Ehrman misunderstands this passage15 and uses his misunderstanding to

support his charge of forgery. This does raise the important question of “what is at stake if these

books were shown to be forgeries?” For the sake of argument, let us grant that Ehrman is right. Is

Christianity now false? Certainly not, for Ehrman still maintains that Romans, 1 and 2

Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon were written by Paul and that

Revelation was written by “someone” named John.16 With even these few books, the death and

resurrection of Jesus is still taught (e.g. in 1 Cor 15), and is the heart of the Christian faith. So

while I do not think Ehrman is right in claiming that there being even one forgery in the New

Testament (as we shall go on to discuss), it is worth keeping this in proper perspective – Christ

still saves and we need to trust him.

Ehrman rightly lists the different motivations that might cause an individual to write a

forgery, including fame, fortune, realizing that no one would read a work written by an unknown

author, and so the author uses a prominent name to get a hearing, and some felt that they were

14 Ehrman however does not suggest that these books should be removed from the canon though he

thinks they are forgeries. From what I can ascertain this is because Ehrman does not consider there to be anything

supernatural in the first place and treats studying the books of the Bible like someone might study any other ancient

work. So for instance, hypothetically if it was discovered that Homer wrote the Iliad but not the Odyssey, Ehrman is

not suggesting that the Odyssey be assigned to the flames but that since they have traditionally been studied

together, people continue to enjoy them as literature but with the recognition that one is a forgery.

15 For an interpretation of this passage see: Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Ascertaining Women's God-

Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 7 (1997): 1-38. A summary is

available at: http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-4/Saved-Through-Childbearing

16 Ehrman writes, “A “homonymous” (literally, “same named”) writing is one that is written by

someone who happens to have the same name as someone else. In the ancient world, the vast majority of people did

not have last names, and a lot of people had the same first names.” Ehrman, Forged, 23.

5

representing the ideas and view point of the their teacher and so credited their teacher with the

work rather than themselves – in all cases this was deception.17

So what evidence does Ehrman present to establish his claims of forgeries?

Ehrman’s Case: Peterine Works

Ehrman argues that Peter could not have written 1 Peter since 1 Pet 5:13 refers to

Babylon, which Ehrman takes as referring to Rome, a concept which Ehrman says was present at

the end of the first century. Since Peter died in the AD 60s he could not have written 1 Peter.18

Most commentators will agree that Babylon here refers to Rome, but that does not necessitate a

date at the end of the first century.19 The practice of describing worldly kingdoms with code

words was already present in the book of Daniel, several centuries before Peter. Further, Rome

being polytheistic and in control of Israel could have already caused Jews (even before the

destruction of the temple in AD 70), to see Rome like Babylon, a former nation that held the

Jews in exile. Further, Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in AD 49 (Acts 18:2).20

Ehrman also argues that Peter could not have written 2 Peter since the early Church

thought Jesus was going to come back soon, but Ehrman argues that 2 Peter states that Jesus is

not coming back soon.21 Ehrman also argues that 2 Peter was written at a time when a collection

of Paul’s letters were circulating; Ehrman states this could not have been during Peter’s

17 Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We

Think They Are (New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2011), chap. 4.

18 Ehrman, Forged, 68.

19 Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Academic Publishing, 2005), 321-323.

20 C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation,

Augmented With the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other Associates, ed. Alexander

Thomson (Medford, MA: Gebbie & Co., 1889), Divus Claudius 25.4.

21 Ehrman., Forged¸70.

6

lifetime.22 However, in the first century when someone wrote a letter, authors generally retained a

copy for themselves. It is likely that Paul kept a copy of all his letters. Hence, if as Ehrman

claims, Paul and Peter both ended up in Rome, then Peter would have had access to a collection

of Paul’s writings.23

Ehrman’s main argument for why Peter could not have written either 1 or 2 Peter is

that few people in the first century were literate. Ehrman thinks that Peter, a fisherman from

Galilee, would surely have been illiterate.24 In support of his conclusion, Ehrman points to Acts

4:13 to demonstrate that that Peter was illiterate, and yet, ironically, Ehrman considers Acts to be

a forgery. Therefore, by Ehrman’s own standard Acts is unlikely to be reliable. Nevertheless, it is

more likely that Acts 4:13 is not necessarily indicating that Peter is illiterate, but that the Jewish

leaders of the day were comparing themselves as having been trained in the best schools of the

day to Peter who lacked such rabbinic education.25 Today in the U.S. it would be like someone

saying “I graduated from Harvard (or Stanford), and you are a drop out from Allen University.”26

Peter’s family’s fishing business was compromised of several boats, nets and men (Luke 5:1-11)

and was located in Capernaum, only a few miles from the extensive Greek cities of Tiberias and

Sepphoris. As a successful merchant, he likely had some knowledge of the Greek language and

22 Ibid.

23 E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and

Collection (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 210-223. Richards defends this position.

24 Ehrman., Forged¸70-77.

25 David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament commentary (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 194.

26 Not that I have anything against Allen University, this was merely for illustrative purposes based on:

Ben Miller and Phuong Ly “College Dropout Factories” Washington Monthly, 2010.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2010/dropout_factories.php (accessed June 29, 2011).

7

basic literacy in order to conduct business.27 Finally, if Peter made use of a secretary as was

common in the first century, then there is no need to insist that 1 & 2 Peter were forgeries.28

Ehrman’s Case: Pauline Works

Scholars generally use two main lines of evidence to determine the likely authorship

of a book. The first is the internal evidence, that is, the information contained within the

document itself. This would include things such as “does the author state his name,” “are there

hints in the document about when and where it was written,” and “does this match what we know

of the life of the author?” For instance, a tourist from Europe said he visited New York during

the summer when it was 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and that he had coffee with a man named

Methuselah – this scenario is not impossible, but is very unlikely.

If one has two letters from the same supposed author, one can compare the style of

the two letters to determine if there is evidence of both being penned by the same author or from

different authors. Do they have a similar vocabulary? Are there many unique words in each of

the documents? Do they use the same figures of speech and expressions? When they used a term,

were they always used in the same way or are they fairly distinct? The audience the person is

writing to will affect the style of the letters. For instance, a medical doctor might write a work-

27 It can also be pointed out that literacy in century Jewish society was likely higher than in other

cultures of the time, see: Marsitella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein, “Jewish Occupational Selection: Education,

Restrictions, or Minorities,” The Journal of Economic History 65 (2005): 922-48. In addition, first century historian

Josephus writes, “It also commands us to bring those children up in learning and to exercise them in the laws”

(Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged trans. William Whiston (Peabody:

Hendrickson, 1996), Against Apion 2.26.204.) Finally, Spolsky points out that Greek was banned from being taught

among Jews in either 116 CE or 70 CE, which implies it was being taught before then (Bernard Spolsky, “Triglossia

and Literacy in Jewish Palestine of the first century” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 42 (1983):

95-109.) Alongside these lines Millard writes, “Jewish tradition required males to be able to read the Torah, and

there were schools throughout Palestine from the first century BCE according to rabbinic sources borne out by

Josephus.” (Alan Millard “Authors, Books, and Readers in the Ancient World” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical

Studies eds. Lieu Judith M. and J. W. Rogerson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 560.)

28 It is unlikely that 1 Per 5:12 is indicating that Silvanus was Peter’s secretary, rather Silvanus was

likely the letter carrier, see: E. R. Richards, “Silvanus Was Not Peter’s Secretary: Theological Bias in Interpreting

διὰ Σιλουανοῦ…ἔγραψα,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 43, no. 3 (September 2000): 417-32.

8

related letter to a fellow oncologist, and on that same day, the doctor might send a personal email

to his wife. Ten years later, that same doctor writes a letter to his friend concerning one of their

hobbies. In all three cases, it is the same individual writing, but there would be three distinct

“feels” to each letter. Furthermore, if the doctor were Australian it would be possible that the

word “dinkum” might appear in all three letters. This is just an introduction to a very

complicated matter that contains both objective and subjective elements.29

29 One area of word statistics studies that does not seem to have received enough attention is what is a

satisfactory word sample size for one to be able to conduct a statistically significance study. It seems the first study

on this is by Yule (G. Udny Yule, The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1944), 2, 281) who stated a sample of 10,000 words was needed to make a proper comparison. This would

mean that since the NT letters of Paul are shorter than this (Romans has 7114 words, Corinthians 6842 words, 2

Corinthians 4488 words, Ephesians 2423 words etc.) they are not of sufficient length to determine whether they are

by Paul or not by Paul. More recent studies on word statistics (R. Harald Baayen, Word Frequency Distributions

(The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001)) have pointed other factors that need to be taken into

consideration, but do not tend give a specific figures on sample sizes. Other recent studies yield interesting results

though not in accord with what Ehrman wants to prove (Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), and K. J. Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the

Light of Stylostatistical Analysis (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990). In regards to the sample size questions it would involve

knowing the total number of Greek words in the first century and the average vocabulary of a first century

individual. Then from this, one could compare any two samples whether they are 100 words long or 100,000 words

long, and one could determine given the sample size with what accuracy one could say the two sources compare.

For illustrative purposes one could do a comparison of the vocabulary and style of Ehrman’s different

books. Imagine if a few thousand years from now someone found a collection of Ehrman’s books and wanted to

know if Ehrman was actually the author of all these books. Perhaps they also found reviews by Ben Witherington

and Darrell Bock stating that Ehrman was the author of these books – that is external evidence. As for internal

evidence, there is an abundance of evidence, with over 20 books possibly being attributed to his name, each book

being of a significant length. For instance, Forged is about 95,000 words, Misquoting Jesus about 80,000 words,

Jesus Interrupted about 95,000 words and God’s Problem about 90,000 words. The larger sample we take, the more

accurate the study will be. Though to make this study more comparative to the New Testament, we shall only

consider the opening chapter of each of these books. The first main chapter of Forged is about 11,000 words,

Misquoting Jesus about 9,000 words, Jesus Interrupted about 6,500 words and God’s Problem about 6,900 words. If

we consider the amount of unique words Forged has about 2,000 words, Misquoting Jesus about 1,650 words, Jesus

Interrupted about 1,380 words and God’s Problem about 1,480 words. In terms of the message of the books, one

would say that God’s Problem seems to be an odd topic for a Ph.D. in Textual Criticism to be writing about. Further,

when one considers that the word “I” is used about 2.14% of the time in God’s Problem but half as much in Jesus

Interrupted (1.25%) and a third of the amount as in Forged (0.67%) and a sixth of the amount as in Misquoting

Jesus (0.37%). One would notice that God’s Problem is of a personal nature, and hence, might explain the first

person references. However, a critic could respond that each of the other three books also contain Ehrman’s personal

testimony, and in those books the emphasis is on Greek variants the led him toward agnosticism, whereas in God’s

Problem that is not the focus. One could consider other words such as “suffering” which is used about 1.12% of the

time in God’s Problem (78 times), a huge 6000% more than in Forged (0.02%), only once in Jesus Interrupted and

not at all in Misquoting Jesus. Similarly, one would find a similar pattern with the words “God,” “people,” “world”

and “problem,” which might be expected in a book with a different audience in view, though of course, the skeptic

would note that if it was such an important topic then one would expect not such a distinct difference. Along these

lines one could point out that the terms “written,” and “scripture” are common in the three works but not in God’s

9

There is also external evidence to consider. This is evidence outside of the letter

itself, where another person might identify the author. For instance, your grandmother might

have a letter that says, “Darlin, Happy Valentine’s Day, from your secret admirer.” Your

grandmother might say that she received this letter from your grandfather 50 years ago when

they were dating, yet there is nothing in the letter that identifies this as coming from your

grandfather. Instead, what we have is the external testimony of a reliable witness. Such evidence

is not conclusive, as your grandmother might be a bit of a romantic who has forgotten who it was

really from, nevertheless, it is more probable than not that she is correct.

Ehrman’s Case: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus

After surveying some generally acknowledged Pauline forgeries such as 3

Corinthians, the Letters of Paul and Seneca, Ehrman turns to the New Testament Pastoral

letters.30 Ehrman points out that some modern scholars since 1807, such as Friedrich

Schleiennacher, have doubted the authenticity of these letters.31 Ehrman points out that this was

due to some scholars thinking that the heresy described is that of second century gnosticism.

Further, Ehrman highlights that 1 and 2 Timothy have unique introductions: “Paul, an apostle of

Christ Jesus ... to Timothy ... grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our

Lord.” 1 and 2 Timothy have unique expressions not found in other letters attributed to Paul such

as “promise of life”; “with a pure conscience”; “from a pure heart”; “guard the deposit (of

faith)”; Paul is an “apostle, herald, and teacher” and so on.32 In response, it can be said that there

is a fair bit of unique vocabulary in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, but since these are letters to

individual friends whereas most of Paul’s other letters are to community groups, this is an

Problem. More reasons could be given, but this merely illustrates that a case could be made for why Ehrman did not

write God’s Problem (I do not think this is the case, but an argument could be made for it).

30 Ehrman, Forged, 88-92.

31 Ibid., 96.

32 Ibid., 97.

10

acceptable variation in writing. Further, these letters contain some traditions, which Paul quotes

such as 1 Tim 3:1, which not having been originally composed by him, would be expected to

have a different style and vocabulary to it.

Ehrman mentions that of the 848 different words in the pastorals, 306 words are

unique to the pastorals and more commonly found in second century writings.33 In regards to the

statistics, Bock writes:

The statistics cited do not stand alone. The New Testament introduction of Don

Carson and Doug Moo notes work by Donald Guthrie on statistics and the Pastorals. 542

words are shared with the other epistles of Paul and of those 50 are uniquely Pauline (Not

used elsewhere in the NT). 306 unique words in the Pastorals represent just over 10% of

the 2,177 words that appear in these letters total. Most of the words found in the Pastorals

that are unique are also first century Greek words, that is, they are also used in the first

century, not alone in the second. Of the 306 unique words in the Pastorals, 127 are only

in 1 Timothy, 81 are only in 2 Timothy, and 45 are only in Titus. Of these 75 words are

only in 1 Timothy, while 52 are elsewhere in the NT. The numbers for 2 Timothy are 48

and 33 respectively, while Titus has 30 and 15. In other words, much of the unique

vocabulary is unique to each book (and remember the claim is that the same author wrote

all three books). These numbers show that whoever the author is of these books, his

vocabulary varies in significant ways from book to book, showing how much vocabulary

is a function of topic and context. What about the numbers on Greek particles? Harrison

argues that 112 particles are unique to these letters. Guthrie responds that 93 other

particles show up in the New Testament and all but 1 are present in the Pastorals and all

but 7 are in Paul's letters. So of 205 particles total, 112 uniquely appear in the Pastorals,

92 are shared. Shared particles in Romans numbers 131, 113 in 2 Corinthians, and 86 in

Philippians. In other words, these distributions are like other books. All of this shows the

statistics are not as one sided as Ehrman suggests.34

Ehrman argues that the terms “faith” and “works” are used differently in the pastorals

than in other letters attributed to Paul.35 It seems that Ehrman is being too black and white, not

33 Ibid., 98.

34 Darrell L. Bock, “Ehrman on Paul part 1 Pastorals and 2 Thessalonians,” Bock’s Blog at Bible.org

April 10, 2011. http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/ehrman_on_paul_part_1_pastorals_and_2_thessalonians

(accessed June 29, 2011).

35 Ehrman writes, “For one thing, sometimes this author uses the same words as Paul, but means

something different by them. The term “faith” was of supreme importance to Paul. In books such as Romans and

Galatians faith refers to the trust a person has in Christ to bring about salvation through his death. In other words, the

term describes a relationship with another; faith is trust “in” Christ. The author of the Pastorals also uses the term

11

allowing for the fact that these letters were written towards the end of Paul’s life from a prison,

suggesting that variation in word usage is standard.36

Ehrman also sees the pastorals as no longer expecting the imminent return of Christ,

but as having an organizational structure of the church with offices, which he contrasts with the

more charismatic approach to leadership in 1 Corinthians.37 Ehrman attempts to place too strong

a dichotomy between passages, when there is not necessarily any conflict between them. For

instance, there is church leadership in Acts 14:23; 20:17-35; Rom 16:1-16; Gal 1:18-19; 2:9, 12;

Phil 1:1; and most of all in 1 Cor 12:28 which Ehrman wanted to juxtapose.

Ehrman’s Case: 2 Thessalonians

Ehrman argues that Paul could not have written 2 Thessalonians since 1

Thessalonians speaks of Christ returning soon, whereas 2 Thessalonians says that certain events

will have to happen first.38 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 does mention that the man of lawlessness must

come first, but the writer of 2 Thessalonians does not necessarily imply that this will be a long

way off, and the writer of 2 Thessalonians states that right after the man of lawlessness appears,

Christ will return. Hence, there is harmony between 1 and 2 Thessalonians; they are not as

contrasting as Ehrman makes them out to be. This is the tension present throughout the New

Testament–that Christ will return soon in conjunction with some major events (Matt 24:33; Luke

21:9).

“faith.” But here it is not about a relationship with Christ; faith now means the body of teaching that makes up the

Christian religion. That is “the faith” (see Titus 1: 13). Same word, different meaning. So too with other key terms,

such as “righteousness.”” Ehrman, Forged, 99.

36 It is true that Ehrman will at times admit there are grey areas, instance he writes, “Everyone, after all,

uses different words on different occasions, and most of us have a much richer stock of vocabulary than shows up in

any given letter or set of letters we write” (Ehrman, Forged, 98).


38 Ibid., 106-107.

12

Ehrman’s Case: Ephesians

Ehrman also argues that Paul could not have written Ephesians as Ephesians has long

sentences (i.e. Eph 1:3-14); whereas Ehrman says, other letters attributed to Paul had short

sentences.39 In response, it can be stated that Ehrman sees Paul as the man who has written letters

that two thousand years later people still read because they find them so inspiring, yet Ehrman

portrays Paul as an uncreative writer who always wrote things the same way. While it is true that

Ephesians does have longer sentences, it is subjective as to how different this is, as there are long

sentences in other writings attributed to Paul, such as Rom 8:28-30, 31-39; 11:33-36; 1 Cor 1:4-

8; Col 1:3-8, 9-11; Tit 3:4-7.

Another reason Ehrman lists as to why Paul did not write Ephesians is that “The book

also has an inordinate number of words that don't otherwise occur in Paul's writings, 116

altogether, well higher than average (50 percent more than Philippians, for example, which is

about the same length).”40 Bock points out that Philippians has 104 verses and Ephesians 155,

making Ephesians 33% longer, which really is not about the same length, hence Ehrman could

be said to be fudging the data.41 Further, Ephesians is a circular letter, and not written to one

particular church. It is reasonable to expect that it would address different topics from Paul’s

other letters. Hoehner points out that Galatians, which Ehrman accepts as Pauline, has more

distinctions to Paul’s other letters then Ephesians.42 Hoehner’s point is not that Galatians is not

39 Ibid., 110.

40 Ibid.

41 Darrell L. Bock, “Ehrman on Paul, Part 2 Ephesians and Colossians” Bock’s Blog at Bible.org April

12, 2011. http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/erhman_on_paul_part_2_ephesians_and_colossians (accessed

June 29, 2011).

42 Harold W. Hoehner, “Did Paul Write Galatians? in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays in

Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th Birthday. ed. Son Sang-Won (Aaron) (New York: T&T Clark International,

2006), 150-169.

13

by Paul, but that scholars are using a double standard and beyond that, some of the methods that

scholars are using to determine inauthenticity are invalid.

Ehrman also states that Eph 2:3 speaks of Paul as being fleshly, but in other letters

attributed to Paul such as Phil 3:4 Paul speaks of himself as blameless.43 However, Eph 2:3 is not

Paul’s personal opinion of himself, but rather a general description of humanity. A parallel

argument can be made for Romans, which Ehrman accepts. Romans 1-3 has a similar description

of the sinfulness of humanity, and depending on how one understands Romans 7, here is a first

person description of sinfulness.

Ehrman thinks that in Ephesians the term “saved” is used with present notations,

whereas in other Pauline letters “saved” is “always used to refer to the future.”44 Finally, Ehrman

points out that Eph 2:5-6 speaks of the believer already being raised, whereas other letters

attributed to Paul such as Rom 6:1-6 says that the believer “will be raised.”45 However, in Rom

6:11 Paul uses the present tense, something Ehrman said Paul never did. Similarly in Gal 2:19-20

it is a present possession and further in 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5 it is used as a past possession (Ehrman

does not accept these books, but perhaps there is reason to reconsider that), nevertheless Rom

8:24 combines past, present and future elements into the one passage. In summary, Ehrman’s

points are not without merit (though he does seem to be a little selective in his evidence), but

when one takes into account the fuller picture this position is less probable.

Ehrman’s Case: Colossians

Ehrman’s argument for Colossians being a forgery is basically the same as Ephesians,

namely differences in writing style and theology. In reference to Col 2:12-13, Ehrman argues

that the author of Colossians teaches, “that Christians have already been ‘raised with Christ’


44 Ibid.

45 Ibid., 111.

14

when they were baptized, despite Paul's insistence that the believers' resurrection was future.”46

As pointed out in regards to the same accusation against Ephesians, Paul does not always use the

future tense but makes use of the present and past tense as in Rom 6:11; 8:24; Gal 2:19-20.

Further, as discussed, Eph 2:5-6 uses the past tense and so if we have good reasons to believe

Paul wrote Ephesians, then we have another good reason to think Paul also wrote Colossians.

On the differences of writing style Ehrman refers to the nearly forty-year-old study by

Bujard,47 and points out some differences in conjunction usage: adversative conjunctions (e.g.,

“although”) in Galatians, 84 times; Philippians, 52 times; Colossians, 8 times; and in 1

Thessalonians, 29 times. Causal conjunctions (e.g., “because”) in Galatians, 45 times;

Philippians, 20 times; Colossians, 9 times; and in 1 Thessalonians, 31 times. Note that the

comparison with Galatians, which is one third longer than Colossians, is not really a fair

comparison.48 Standardizing per 1000 words gives the following more accurate comparison:

adversative conjunctions (e.g., “although”) in Galatians, 26.4 times per 1,000 words; Ephesians

10.3 times; Philippians, 17.7 times; Colossians, 3.2 times; and in 1 Thessalonians, 13.5 times.

Causal conjunctions (e.g., “because”) in Galatians, 0 times per 1,000 words; Ephesians 0 times;

Philippians, 0 times; Colossians, 0 times; and in 1 Thessalonians, 1.3 times.49 From this, it seems

to be that Ehrman’s case is somewhat subjective; a case could be made either way. Ehrman only

considers conjunction usage in his treatment of Colossians, so I shall also limit myself to this. If

46 Ibid., 113.

47 Ehrman, Forged, 113. Referring to: Walter Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum

Kolosserbrief: Als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973).

48 Word count: Galatians, 2,232; Ephesians, 2,428; Philippians, 1634; Colossians, 1584; 1

Thessalonians, 1483. Based on Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed.

Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Number of lines of the following documents: Galatians, 311; Ephesians, 331; Philippians, 221;

Colossians, 215; 1 Thessalonians, 207. Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, 169.

49 Figures from: Albert L. Lukaszewski, and Mark Dubis. The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament,

Logos Bible Software, 2009.

15

we consider the disjunctive conjunctions: Galatians, 5.4 times per 1,000 words; Ephesians 3.3;

Philippians, 1.83; Colossians, 4.4; and 1 Thessalonians, 4.0. From this, it seems that Colossians

is typical of other Pauline letters and hence is by the same author.50

Ehrman’s Case: Jude

Ehrman’s main arguments are that, “it is almost certain that the historical Jude did not

write this book. Its author is living during a later period in the history of the church, when the

churches are already well established, and when false teachers have infiltrated them and need to

be rooted out.”51 Ehrman does not elaborate on what he precisely means by the churches being

well established, yet we do see in the New Testament that the church has spread to many

locations and has structured leadership (Acts 8:3; 14:23; 15:4, 22, 41; 16:5; 20:17-18; Rom 16:1-

16; 1 Cor 4:17; 12:28; 16:1; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:2; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 2:14; Phlm 2). Further, there

are already false teachers at this time (2 Cor 1:13; Gal 2:4; Phil 3:2; 1 John 4:1; Rev 2:2).

Therefore, these are not strong arguments.

In addition, Ehrman takes Jude 17 as indicating that, “the apostles, lived a long time

before,” and verse 18 as contrasting with Jude who lives in these predicted “last days.”52

Christians generally refer to the end time as the period of time from Christ’s ascension after the

resurrection to his second coming, so Ehrman is creating a false dichotomy. The reason Ehrman

takes the Apostles as living “a long time before” is because Jude says to “recall/remember.”

However, that does not necessitate being a long time ago. I could say to my classmates,

“Remember how the professor said …” I might be referring to an event years ago but it could

have also been a recent event. For instance in 1 Thess 3:4, not more than about 3 months later,

50 For more information see: Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The

Pillar New Testament commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008).


52 Ibid., 188.

16

Paul says a similar thing to the Thessalonians. Hence, Ehrman does not have a strong case for

Jude being a forgery.

Ehrman’s Case: James

Ehrman sees James as contradicting Paul in regards to faith and works. Such a

reading does not give justice to Paul who sees works as the fruit of having faith (Rom 2:6-11;

Gal 5:13-26), hence not in contradiction with James 2:14-26. I should also point out that

Ehrman’s argument against James being a forgery depends on Ephesians being a forgery so if

Ephesians is authentic, then Ehrman’s case is weakened if not nullified.53

A General Response

In his introduction, Ehrman begins by stating how as a child he tried to lie and get

away with it. This entertaining story cannot help but make you wonder, is Ehrman trying to get

away with something now? This seems especially so, since Ehrman presents a pragmatic view of

truth, namely that something is “true” for you if it is useful to you. Such a subjective theory of

truth undermines Ehrman’s case for he does not want to conclude that this is merely his opinion

but that this corresponds to the real world facts.54

Guilt by Association

Ehrman’s book is full of examples of ancient forgeries; these are informative and well

written.55 The reader is likely to conclude from this that since Ehrman is careful in his study of

53 Ibid., 196-198.

54 For those interested in theories of truth see: William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical

Foundations of a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 130-153.

55 Witherington insightfully points out that while there were lots of forgeries between the second and

fourth centuries they were all by Gentiles not by Jews, hence Ehrman may not be considering apples with apples.

Ben Witherington III. Forged-Chapter One: A World of Deception and Forgeries. Ben Witherington’s Blog. April 4,

2011. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/04/forged-chapter-one-a-world-of-deception-and-

forgeries/ (accessed November 6, 2011).

17

extrabiblical forgeries it follows that he is likewise probably right about there being forgeries in

the New Testament. None of these ancient extrabiblical forgeries are controversial and Ehrman

does not provide a case for ancient works that are not forgeries – that is, Ehrman does not list a

whole lot of books which are written by the people who claim to have written them. As such

Ehrman’s study is a little one-sided, and there is a kind of “guilt by association.” For instance, he

does not provide evidence why he thinks letters such as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,

Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon were written by Paul, if he were to go into this detail

that would make the book less of a kind of “witch hunt.” Generally speaking Ehrman is very

careful with his work relating to sources outside the Bible. When dealing with the 5th

century BC

historian Thucydides, Ehrman states that Thucydides “simply made up the speeches himself.”56

Bock in his review of Forged points out that this is not an accurate presentation of Thucydides

who in Peloponnesian War 1.22 states:

As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to

begin the war or when they were already engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall

with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself

heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought me reports. Therefore

the speeches are given in the language in which (ta deonta), as it seemed to me, the

several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most

befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to

the general sense (tēs xumpasēs gnōmēs) of what was actually said (tōn alēthōs

lechthentōn). But as to the facts of the occurrences of the war, I have thought it my duty

to give them, not as ascertained from any chance informant nor as seemed to me

probable, but only after investigating with greatest possible accuracy each detail, in the

case both of the events in which I myself participated and of those regarding which I got

my information from others.57

Thucydides claims not that he simply made up the speeches, but rather that he did his

best to accurately reconstruct the speeches. This is not particularly different from how I might


57 Darrell L. Bock, “Issues of Ancient Composition, Thucydides, and Ehrman” Bock’s Blog at

Bible.org April 10, 2011.

http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/issues_of_ancient_composition_thucydides_and_ehrman (accessed

November 6, 2011).

18

say that I had a conversation with a friend and in reporting what we spoke about, you would not

accuse me of lying if I failed to give a verbatim word for word report instead of summarizing the

main points.58

Another example in which Ehrman is a little misleading is where he states, “there

were no imperial decrees leveled against Christianity in its first two hundred years, no

declarations that it was illegal, no attempt throughout the empire to stamp it out. It was not until

the year 249 CE that any Roman emperor—in this case it was the emperor Decius—instituted an

empire-wide persecution of Christians.”59 Consider Tacitus statement around AD 115 concerning

Nero and the burning of Rome in the first century:

Consequently, to get rid of the report [that he was responsible for the fire], Nero

fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their

abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its

origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of

our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for

the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in

Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their

centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded

guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of

the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was

added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and

perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a

nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the

spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in

the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved

extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not,

as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being

destroyed.60

58 Bock points out that several others scholars understand Thucydides this way including: J. Wilson,

“What Does Thucydides Claim for His Speeches?” Phoenix 36 (1982): 95-103; Simon Hornblower, Thucydides

(Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1987), 71; P. J. Rhodes, “In Defence of the Greek

Historians” Greece and Rome vol. 41 (1994): 156-171.


60 Tacitus, Annals 15.4.4 English translation by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb

(1876). Cited in Licona Michael R. “Review of Forged by Ehrman” March 27, 2011

http://www.4truth.net/Review_Forged_Writing_in_the_Name_of_God/

19

Ehrman is correct that there were no “empire-wide” persecutions until the third

century. However, there was wide spread persecution and Ehrman seems to overlook this.61

Presuppositions

It is important to remember that what one believes about other factors will influence

the way one interprets the world. For instance, if one does not think there is a God, then it

follows that one does not think there is both a human and divine author behind the Scriptures,

which is obviously going to influence how one understands these writings. Similarly, Ehrman

does not understand Christianity as beginning because Jesus rose from the dead and his followers

proclaimed his resurrection. Rather, Ehrman sees Jesus as merely an apocalyptic prophet.62 That

is, an individual who proclaimed that God was going to reveal himself in history and overthrow

evil. As such, Ehrman is going to reconstruct Jesus in a different way, passages that speak of

resurrection are understood as later fabrications, and hence writings that refer to the resurrection

are going to be seen as inauthentic.

Further, Ehrman sees modern Christianity as just being one of the various

Christianities that existed in the first century. Ehrman sees the 27 books of the New Testament

representing this modern flavor of Christianity but his point is that many of these 27 books are

forgeries and represent only the group that won the day.63 This means Ehrman is arguing that

people such as Marcion who rejected the Old Testament seeing the God of the Old Testament as

an evil God or Gnostics who saw the physical world as a prison and taught that only men (not

61 For more information see: Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 601-608.

62 Ehrman lays out his view on this in: Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophets of the New

Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). For an evaluation of the different views on Jesus see:

James K. Beilby, and Paul R. Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2009).

63 Ehrman, Forged, 183. For a response to this see: Andreas J. Kostenberger, and Michael J. Kruger,

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our

Understanding of Early Christianity (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossways Books, 2010).

20

women) could be saved through secret knowledge – Ehrman thinks such groups should also be

considered “Christian.” However, one can read The Apostolic Fathers the generation or two

immediately following the Apostles and see that, while on essential Christian beliefs there was

unity, on secondary issues diversity was allowed.64

Secretaries

One of the weak links in Forged is that Ehrman does not seriously consider the role

that a secretary (technically known as an amanuensis) could have upon any of the works.65

Ehrman briefly mentions the earlier work of Richards66 that secretaries had different levels of

involvement in ancient writings, but Ehrman states that it is impossible to know what effect a

secretary would have had on Paul’s writings.67 Ehrman then proceeds, assuming either no

secretarial influence or pure word for word dictation (such that the secretary had no impact upon

the wording of the letter). Such a conclusion is at odds with the work of Richards and so Ehrman

either needs to interact more with Richards, or Ehrman should take the agnostic position, stating

that since one cannot tell what influence a secretary might have had, one cannot be sure one way

or the other whether Paul wrote these letters. If Ehrman is promoting the principle of “the search

for truth takes you where the evidence leads you,”68 then Ehrman should suspend judgment and

state he does not know rather than confidently asserting that millions of people over the last two

thousand years got it wrong. Ehrman himself admits, “Virtually all of the problems with what

64 Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 2008).


66 E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991).

67 Ehrman also dismisses Paul as having used a secretary since Ehrman says only the rich really used

secretaries. But if the rich being educated had to use a secretary, would it not follow on Ehrman’s logic that those

who are not so well educated would need to use a secretary all the more? Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter

Writing, 60-64, 165-169; discusses the cost of secretaries in the first century. From this one could concludes it was

not beyond the reach of even fishermen to utilize the services of a secretary.


21

I’ve been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition

of the early Christian writings.”69 Without a doubt secretaries were involved (Rom 16:22; 1 Cor

16:21; Gal 6:11; Phlm 19), not to mention multiple contributors who would have had at least a

minor impact on the style of at least some sections (so Sosthenes 1 Cor 1:1; Timothy 2 Cor 1:1;

Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; Phlm 1:1; note that Timothy is not always involved

in writing the letter despite being present so Rom 16:21).

The History of the Canon

Another important matter that Ehrman does not really address is the history of how

the church recognized the 27 books of the New Testament canon. It was a gradual process and

there was varying weight of support of the different books of the New Testament.70 For instance,

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340) writes:

At this point it seems reasonable to summarize the writings of the New Testament

which have been quoted. In the first place should be put the holy tetrad of the Gospels.

To them follows the writing of the Acts of the Apostles. After this should be reckoned the

Epistles of Paul. Following them the Epistle of John called the first, and in the same way

should be recognized the Epistle of Peter. In addition to these should be put, if it seem

desirable, the Revelation of John, the arguments concerning which we will expound at

the proper time. These belong to the Recognized Books. Of the Disputed Books which

are nevertheless known to most are the Epistle called of James, that of Jude, the second

Epistle of Peter, and the so-called second and third Epistles of John which may be the

work of the evangelist or of some other with the same name.71

Ehrman does not really consider why the church would have suggested that Luke was

the author of Acts if that were not the case. Since there were many more prominent people that

69 Ibid., 134.

70 Interestingly the only council that has ever pronounced on the Canon was the Council of Trent (AD

1545-1563) and this was only binding for Roman Catholics. At this council, it was declared that all the books in

Jerome’s (AD c. 340-420) Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate were canonical. This included the 39

books of the Old Testament, the 27 of the New Testament and the Apocrypha. For more information see: J. Ed.

Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the

Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2006), 121-166.

71 Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History 3.25, trans. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1925), 1.257.

22

the Church could have fabricated as the author if they were only interested in trying to attach

important names to literary works. Why not Barnabas or Tertius or Aquila? Remember that Luke

is only mentioned in a letter that Ehrman does not even consider authentic. Would the church

really have been so careless to randomly assign a false character? It is far more likely that

tradition is unanimous about Luke because he is the true author.

Ehrman also discusses several anonymous books (the gospel according to Matthew,

Mark, Luke and John, Acts, Hebrews and 1, 2 and 3 John). Since they do not make authorship

claims they cannot be forgeries, but Ehrman takes issue with those to whom the church has

traditionally assigned these books.72 As Wallace states, “Thus, for those who hold the Bible in

high regard, there is still room for debate over the authorship of these books.”73

Ehrman dismisses the gospel known as Mark as having any connection to Peter.74 He

claims that the church was merely trying to attach important figures to these anonymous gospels.

However, if the church were as careless as Ehrman seems to suggest, why would they have not

simply called it the Gospel according to Peter instead of the Gospel according to Mark? Mark,

who abandoned Paul on his first missionary journey (Acts 15:37-38), would seem an

72 Ehrman, Forged, 225; Ehrman writes, “It was about a century after the Gospels had been originally

put in circulation that they were definitely named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This comes, for the first time, in

the writings of the church father and heresiologist Irenaeus, around 180-85 CE.” Licona points out that Papias

writing around the early second century is actually the first source not Ireanaeus. (Licona Michael R. “Review of

Forged by Ehrman” March 27, 2011 http://www.4truth.net/Review_Forged_Writing_in_the_Name_of_God/ See:

Fragments of Papias in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, third ed., Michael W.

Holmes, ed. and transl. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 733-737.)

73 Daniel B. Wallace, “BOOK REVIEW OF BART D. EHRMAN’S FORGED: WRITING IN THE

NAME OF GOD—WHY THE BIBLE’S AUTHORS ARE NOT WHO WE THINK THEY ARE” Parchment & Pen

Blog. July 27, 2011. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/book-review-of-bart-d-ehrman%E2%80%99s-

forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god%E2%80%94why-the-bible%E2%80%99s-authors-are-not-who-we-think-they-

are/ (accessed November 6, 2011).


23

embarrassing individual with whom to connect the gospel unless there were solid reasons for

doing so.75

Ehrman dismisses the letters 1, 2 and 3 John as having been written by the apostle

John in half a paragraph.76 Notice Ehrman writes, “Later Christian writers who accepted the

books as sacred authorities needed to assign them to an apostle, however, and so it made sense to

claim that they, like the Fourth Gospel, had been written by John the son of Zebedee.” This is

key – Ehrman states that Christians had already accepted the books and merely needed to assign

a well-known author to them. We have seen that the early church was careful in selecting which

books went into the canon. Further, there are similarities between 1 John and the Gospel of John,

suggesting they had the same author. Both begin by speaking about “the beginning” (John 1:1; 1

John 1:1) and both emphasize love amongst other things.77

Conclusion

Forged by Ehrman addresses the important topic of how we know which books

belong in the New Testament. While Ehrman provides a good introduction to the subject matter,

his biases greatly affect the way he handles the New Testament letters. We have seen no good

reason to reject, as Ehrman does, that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy,

Titus, James, Jude, and 1–2 Peter were not written by those whose names are attached to these

75 Regarding false attribution that is wrongly attributing a work to an unnamed work, 1 Clement is an

anonymous work outside the Bible that Ehrman doubts Clement actually wrote (pg. 222), but gives little reason for

his position. One would think Ehrman should give some evidence when others defend the authorship of 1 Clement,

“The actual name of the writer is not mentioned in the letter itself: indeed, it clearly claims to be not the letter of a

single person but of a church. Tradition, however, has always ascribed it to Clement, who was, according to the

early episcopal lists, the third or fourth bishop of Rome during the last decades of the first century. There is no

reason for rejecting this tradition, for though it is not supported by any corroborative evidence in its favour there is

nothing whatever against it.” (Pope Clement I, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 ed. Kirsopp Lake, The Loeb classical

library (London; New York: Heinemann; Macmillan, 1912-13), 3).


77 For more information see: Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, The Pillar New Testament

commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000).

24

letters. Rather, there are good reasons to accept these as being authentic letters, not only having

human apostolic witness as their source, but ultimately as being from God. These are letters that

speak of the lifesaving message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The one who died for our sins

and rose again, proclaiming that all who believe in him will have a full life with him, both now

and for all eternity.

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baayen, R. Harald. Word Frequency Distributions. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers. 2001.

Beilby, James K. and Paul R. Eddy. The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Bock, Darrell L. “And a Look at Forged (Chapter 1) by Bart Ehrman.” Bock’s Blog at Bible.org

April 9, 2011.

http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/and_a_look_at_forged_by_bart_ehrman_and_

another_nt_blog_recommendation_ben_witheringtons_site

Carson, D. A. “Pesudonymity and Pseudepigraphy” in Dictionary of New Testament Background

: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Eds. Porter, Stanley E. and

Craig A. Evans. electronic ed. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Chancey, Mark A. “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and First-Century C.E. Galilee: The Limits of

Evidence” in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne. Eds Daly Denton

Margaret. Anne Fitzpatrick McKinley and Zuleika Rodgers. The Netherlands:

Koninklijke Brill NV. 2009.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament commentary. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006.

Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who

We Think They Are. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2011.

Ehrman Project http://www.ehrmanproject.com 2010.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.

Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic Publishing, 2008.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th rev. ed. The master reference collection.

Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Hezser, Catherine. “Private and Public Education” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life

in Roman Palestine. Ed Catherine Hezser. New York: Oxford University Press.

26

Hoehner, Harold W. “Did Paul Write Galatians? in History and Exegesis: New Testament Essays

in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th

Birthday. ed. Son Sang-Won (Aaron). New

York: T&T Clark International. 2006. 150-169.

Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids,

Michigan Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009.

Komoszewski, J. Ed., M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: How

Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Grand Rapids:

Kregel Publications. 2006.

Kostenberger, Andreas J. and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary

Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early

Christianity. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossways Books, 2010.

Licona, Michael R. “Review of Forged by Ehrman” March 27, 2011

http://www.4truth.net/Review_Forged_Writing_in_the_Name_of_God/

Lukaszewski, Albert L. and Mark Dubis. The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament, Logos

Bible Software, 2009.

McCartney, Dan. James, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Academic Publishing, 2009.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority.

Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. 2006.

Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. vol. 46. Word Biblical Commentary. eds. Losie Lynn A.

and Ralph P. Martin. USA: Thomas Nelson. 2000.

Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and

Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2004.

Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991.

Stewart, Robert B. ed. The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace

in Dialogue. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2011.

Tranquillus, C. Suetonius. Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation,

Augmented With the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other

Associates. ed. Thomson, Alexander. Medford, MA: Gebbie & Co., 1889.

Wallace, Daniel B. A review of Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who

Changed the Bible and Why. Bible.org 2006. http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-

bart

27

William, Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman Debate the Question

“Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” College of the Holy Cross,

Worcester, Massachusetts on March 28, 2006.

http://academics.holycross.edu/crec/listenandlearn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk

Witherington, Ben III. Bart Interrupted--- A detailed Analysis of ‘Jesus Interrupted’ Ben

Witherington’s Blog. April 7, 2009.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

Witherington, Ben III. Forged-Chapter One: A World of Deception and Forgeries. Ben

Witherington’s Blog. April 4, 2011.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/04/04/forged-chapter-one-a-world-

of-deception-and-forgeries/

A Review of Forged by Ehrman

Documents

Transcript of A Review of Forged by Ehrman