Book Review: Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible's Authors Are Not who We Think They Are

Abstract

Forged: Writing in the Name of God-Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. By Bart D. Ehrman. New York: HarperOne, 2011. 307 pp. $15.99 (paper).Bart Ehrman's book on biblical authorship is not titled Pseudonymous Writings in the New Testament, but, rather, Forged. And therein lies his central contention. The book is not about half-truths, or mistaken authorial attribution, but about intentional lies involved in the genesis of biblical writings.Ehrman does not offer much new to the historical data on authorial discrepancies. After all, he says, scholars have for over hundred years known that ancient authors were not always who they claimed to be, even when it comes to the Bible. Ehrman spends portion of the book surveying this evidence. Chapter 2 offers reasons against Peter's authorship of 1 and 2 Peter, such as the references to historical events occurring after the historical Peters death, and the probability that Peter could not even write (p. 70). Chapter 3 provides evidence to reject Paul's authorship of six letters: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians. There is nothing groundbreaking in claims, though of course they continue to be debated.What Ehrman is offering is negative moral evaluation of this authorial practice. In chapter 4 he asks, Is forgery deceitful? and identifies as a mistaken scholarly commonplace the widespread assumption that these forgeries were never meant to deceive anyone (p. 119). Ehrman addresses three proposals that would justify as an acceptable practice in antiquity. The proposals are: (1) pseudepigraphy in the Spirit, suggesting the author was inspired by the Spirit to write in the name of an early Christian authority, as argued by Kurt Aland (pp. 123-125); (2) reactualizing the tradition, which suggests that later author developed or re-presented points of an older authority, as argued by David Meade (pp. 125-129); and (3) the hypothesis, suggesting that the author dictated to secretary (pp. 133-139).Ehrman finds all three unconvincing. The first does not explain why the author falsely claimed different name. The second lacks historical evidence and does not explain why authors, say of 2 Peter, claimed to be Peter. The secretary hypothesis also fails in similar ways, and if, for example, Peter was in fact illiterate he would not have possessed literary skills to dictate to secretary.Ehrman then offers couple of chapters on the polemical purpose of forged writings. He focuses on three historical contexts in which early Christians found themselves: disputes with Jewish neighbors, attacks by pagans, and internal teaching disparities within the Christian community. …