Professor Bart Ehrman has
done something that more than 99 percent of American Christians have
failed to do. He has devoted much of his adult life to a serious study
of the New Testament.
Ehrman commenced his studies at a fundamentalist Bible college, Moody
Bible Institute, before completing his undergraduate education at
Wheaton College. While at Wheaton, Ehrman did what every serious student
of the New Testament must do; he studied Greek. As he explained, “I
took Greek, so that I could read the New Testament in its original
language.” [p. 4]
After graduating from Wheaton, Ehrman went to Princeton Theological
Seminary, where he studied under one of the world’s great experts on the
Greek New Testament, the late Bruce Metzger. Among Metzger’s many
scholarly contributions is his indispensible book, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration,
which identifies the three classes of sources available for
ascertaining the text of the New Testament: Greek manuscripts, ancient
translations into other languages and quotations from the New Testament
made by early ecclesiastical writers, such as Augustine, Eusebius,
Tertullian and Marcion. [pp. 36-89]
Readers of that book would learn, for example, that the oldest known
portion of a New Testament is a few verses from John that were written
during the first half of the second century – or approximately a full
century after the crucifixion of Jesus.
"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed."
- Thomas Paine
Readers also would learn that the two oldest surviving complete New
Testaments are the codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus. Sinaiticus is a
fourth-century Greek Bible discovered in the middle of the nineteenth
century that not only contains the complete New Testament, but also The
Shepard of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, books that were
considered to be part of the New Testament for several centuries.
Vaticanus also is a fourth–century Greek Bible that has been housed in
the Vatican Library at least since 1475.
Because approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of
the New Testament have been identified, textual criticism became a
necessity. As Professor Metzger put it, “The necessity of applying
textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two
circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the
existing copies differ from one another.”
(These are facts to keep in mind whenever some biblical literalist,
presumably incapable of reading Greek, tells you that the New Testament
is inerrant.)
Having studied under Metzger and reading all he could, Ehrman not only
abandoned his early belief that the Bible was inerrant, he also was
compelled to conclude: “the Bible not only contains untruths or
accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would
call lies.” [p. 5] As he asserts in Forged, “Throughout this
book it will become quite clear from the ancient writings themselves
that even though forgery was widely practiced, it was also widely
condemned and treated as a form of lying.” [p. 36].
Given that 84 percent of Americans believe the Bible to be a holy book,
one would think that such people would be concerned to learn that many
of the New Testament books are forgeries. Yet, whenever I have brought
New Testament forgeries, mistakes or contradictions to the attention of a
Bible-believing Christian, he or she invariably falls back to the
excuse: “Well, it’s simply a matter of faith, isn’t it?”
Upon hearing this excuse, I always respond: “No, if it were simply a
matter of faith, I could assert that my cell phone is my savior, and so
could you.” You obviously believe that your faith in Jesus Christ is
superior to my faith in my cell phone, because it is based on nearly
two-thousand years of tradition that was legitimized by the stories told
in the New Testament.” Protestants are even more focused on that book,
because -- ever since Martin Luther -- they’ve been told, Sola scriptura, “by scripture alone.”
What’s worse is the sad fact that few Christians even comprehend the
disturbing paradox: Had Jesus returned as quickly as he predicted,
nobody would need a New Testament.
Remember the biblical passages that suggest Jesus’ imminent return?
“Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here which
shall not taste death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come to
power.” (Mark 9:1)
Or, how about Paul’s expectation that he and some of the Thessalonians
will be alive when the apocalypse occurs. Remember how he contrasts
‘those who have died’ with ‘we who are alive, who are left until the
coming of the Lord?’” (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 17) [The New Testament, Bart D. Ehrman, p.314]
Obviously, either Jesus or Mark got it wrong – and so did Paul.
According to Professor Ehrman, Paul “appears to have no idea that his
words would be discussed after his death, let alone read and studied
some nineteen centuries later.” [Ibid]
Nevertheless, “as hopes of Christ’s imminent return began to fade in the
later first century,…Christians began to realize that they must create
structures which might last at least for a generation or more amid a
world of non-believers. [Diarmaid MacCullough, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, p. 118]
Structures? Yes, Christians attempted to create a universal faith based
upon: (1) an agreed list of authoritative sacred texts, (2) the
formation of creeds and (3) the establishment of an authoritative
ministry (bishop, priest and deacon) [Ibid, pp. 127-137]
Thus, as Ehrman notes, “Christians from the very beginning needed to appeal to authorities for what they believed.” [Forged,
p.7] “The ultimate authority was God, of course. But the majority of
Christians came to think that God did not speak the truth about what to
believe directly to individuals. If he did, there would be enormous
problems, as some would claim divine authority for what they taught and
others would claim divine authority for the completely opposite
teaching. Thus most Christians did not stress personal revelation to
living individuals.” [Ibid]
Yet, it was precisely the need to establish authority that prompted
Christians to forge parts of the New Testament books, as well as entire
books of the New Testament, by falsely claiming that they were written,
for example, by Peter, Paul or Mark.
Consider, for example, the fact that neither of the two oldest complete
New Testaments (codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus) contains the last
twelve verses that we find in Mark today. According to Professor
Metzger, “Since Mark was not responsible for the composition of the last
twelve verses of the generally current form of his Gospel, and since
they undoubtedly had been attached to the Gospel before the Church
recognized the fourfold Gospels as canonical, it follows that the New
Testament contains not four but five evangelic accounts of events
subsequent to the Resurrection of Christ.” [p. 229]
Professor Ehrman is less diplomatic. He simply notes: “Whoever added
the final twelve verses of Mark did not do so by a mere slip of the
pen.” [p. 250] Somebody forged them so they would pass as being written
by Mark.
Ehrman doubts that the letters of 1 Peter and 2 Peter were actually
written by Peter. Through the examination of word usage that didn’t
gain currency until after Peter’s death in 64 CE – such as the word
“Babylon” which was a code word for Rome that came into use near the end
of the first century – scholars have come to believe that the letters
are forgeries. Moreover, “there are excellent grounds for thinking that
Peter could not write.” [p. 70]
Now consider the thirteen letters in the New Testament that claim to
have been written by Paul. According to Ehrman, “Virtually all scholars
agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.”
Six, probably, are forgeries: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians,
Ephesians and Colossians. (Readers who are interested in the evidence
used to categorize them as forgeries should turn to pages 95-114 of Forged.)
Thus, readers might now find it ironic that 2 Timothy 3:16 claims “All
scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” After all, 2
Timothy, as noted above, is one of the Pauline letters now thought to
have been forged.
Equally ironic, and more amusing, is the use of forged New Testament
scripture by the leading proponent of Christian Economics, Gary North.
As reported recently in the New York Times, Mr. North not only
believes that” the Bible is opposed to organized labor, and especially
to organized public employees,” he also believes “that no form of
government assistance ‘will escape the ethical limits’ of the Apostle
Paul’s dictum, in 2 Thessalonians, that ‘if any would not work, neither
should he eat.” Being an evangelical Christian, the poor soul doesn’t
even suspect that 2 Thessalonians is a forgery.
Unwittingly, Mr. North and all Christians who take the New Testament at
face value commit a disastrous procedural mistake. They establish their
Bible-based moral code of right and wrong before ascertaining the true
and the false in that Bible. “Effective virtue, as Socrates pointed out
long ago, is knowledge; and a code of right and wrong must await upon a
perception of the true and the false.” [Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public, p. 20]
Now that Professor Bart Ehrman’s Forged has demonstrated, “from the
first century to the twentieth century, people who have called
themselves Christian have seen fit to fabricate, falsify, and forge
documents, in most instances in order to authorize views that they
wanted others to accept,” today’s Christians have no excuse for their
procedural confusion.
Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer
whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The
Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military
History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is
President of the Russian-American International Studies Association
(RAISA).