Was the Bible forged? Author claims some New Testament books were written by 'people pretending to

Source

Parts of the Bible were written by people who lied about their identity, an author has claimed.

Bart D Ehrman claims many books of the New Testament were forged by people pretending to be the apostles Peter, Paul or James.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Professor Ehrman, best selling author of Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, said religious scholars were well aware of the 'lies' of the Bible.

While some were happy to acknowledge them others refer to them as pseudepigrapha - meaning a falsely attributed work -, he wrote.

In his new book , Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, Professor Ehrman claims The Second Epistle of Peter - or 2 Peter - was forged.

For all of you that have not heard of this man I recommend you go out and read his books. I have heard this argument put forth by many authors and was wondering how the community of ATS thought about it.

I am happy intelligent people are chipping away at the Buy-bull and religion in and of itself. It will be a great day for humanity as a whole when we release the grip it has on our people.

I think the buy-bull is fully fictional, but on the off chance it is not, I would not want to be close to any god that acts the way this one does.

What a jealous and angry SOB.

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


Even if this is proven to be true, it might not matter. Some people don't know or won't admit that they're burning even when their hair is on fire.

Think about it: People don't like to be wrong - especially in a public way. It's the ego.

I wonder how many people know that their religion is BS but still follow it because they're scared to admit they're wrong or could be wrong.

Damned ego...

I know because I have one (we ALL have one), and I used to be a Christian and when people told me the deal with religions and Christianity, I would fight them tooth and nail - even when I knew it was BS; I still peddled it.

Watch how many people will talk about Heptadic structure in this thread...

Is anyone a mathmatician?

The claim is that the Bible is the "Word of God".

Since there is no god, the whole thing is a forgery.

if you believe the bible is "gospel" ar 1005 true you are an complete gullible rube. seriously lacking a functioning mind. here is why as simple as I can explain.

Jesus, if you believe in him which is a stretch, supposedly was going against the "church", whose leaders had 1,000 times the followers, 10,000 times the wealth, 100,000 times the authority, 1,000,000 times the scribes. So, how can anyone believe that the people he was against, the ones who wrote the bible, would write the way Jesus wanted. No, they wouldn't, they would write about Jesus in their own way. History is writted by the victors is the easy way to explain my point. think about it. who wrote the bible? a couple "rogue" disciples, prostitutes, and outcasts? Or the church jumped on the opportunity to sway the opinions of all that was written.

reply to post by predator0187
I am not sure how to reply or if replying is a good thing...... "Parts of the Bible were written by people who lied about their identity" I agree ..Abraham got his wife to lie about who she was ........ "Bart D Ehrman claims many books of the New Testament were forged by people pretending to be the apostles Peter, Paul or James." ....Paul did write one of his books with his own hand but mostly he did get someone else to write them .....I am not sure how he would know about James as there seems to be only one book with his name attributed to him ...Hard to compare on that one .... "While some were happy to acknowledge them others refer to them as pseudepigrapha - meaning a falsely attributed work -, he wrote." I am not sure you could find any group of students on any subject to agree 100% ....He writes books ,and sells books ...The more controversial the better for the sales ........peace

It's well understood that most, if not all of the bible was written by followers of those for whom the Gospels are credited. It is also well known that the Church(es), Kings and Queens and various "Heretical" religious groups have added, subtracted and edited the contents of their bibles since such a thing existed.

For purity, there is undoubtedly no script in human history that is so unreliable...

Much like the concept of god(s) the bible is wholey and completely a fabrication of the human mind and all of our fear and guilt and hope and nobility.

Hey, certain aspects of the worlds religions make great principles for a philosophy of good living..

We should really lose the absolutism of god(s) though.. it murders, rapes and segregates our species like no other concept humanity has ever invented.

reply to post by predator0187


Bart Ehrman is a professor at UNC, the name Bart Ehrman is actually a pseudonym for the professor... I have the book on the shelf behind me but it's so far away... Anyway it's very interesting the points he brings up. I recommending reading The History of the New Testament by Bart Ehrman.

Originally posted by notsofunnyguy

Since there is no god, the whole thing is a forgery.

there is too. nuh-uh.

Peace

Reply to post by totalmetal

Oh the irony.


And this "professor" is wrong on many different levels, and his past works have been proven false by many. Google it.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by predator0187


I've read Ehrman, and unlike a lot of Christians, I like him, but have a few issues with him. One is his tendency to make assumptions and leaps in logic that are somewhat unmerited. He is a good historian, but I think that his textual criticism leans towards assumptions that are reasonable in the 21st Century, but less likely to be true for a document written in the 1st Century.

That said, what is being reported here is a) nothing new -- many modern New Testament scholars doubt that the Apostle Peter wrote the two epistles in his name, and several of the Pauline letters are also questioned and b) inaccurate -- James cannot be a forgery, because the author makes no claim as to who he is, apart from someone named James. The belief that he is James, the brother of Jesus, is just that -- a belief.

There are compelling arguments that Peter was, indeed, responsible for those two books, and Paul, for all letters credited to him, not the least of which is that the Church Fathers of the 2nd Century believed that, and they likely had reasons to do so that have been lost to time, while the modern criticism is, as I noted, based around linguistic analysis that may or may not be accurate when applied to 1,900 year old documents that have been translated and transcribed many times.

Regardless, there is nothing in Ehrman's or other scholars' claims that would lend credence to the more unlikely claims about the Bible -- no academic or credible historian that I'm aware of believes that the text was written past the early 2nd Century, as opposed to baseless claims that it was originated in the 4th Century established Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus Christ did walk the earth and His true life message and divinity can never be annuled from written books or from history regardless of who writes about him

Originally posted by shroudnews77
Jesus Christ did walk the earth and His true life message and divinity can never be annuled from written books or from history regardless of who writes about him

What?

We are talking about whether the books were foreged not the man, that's a whole other conversation. Whether "Peter" wrote "peter's" gospels is important, especially if you follow the works...

Pred...

If you understand the proper flow of the TN you will see that none of this guys rantings matter very much. If flow and continuity matches you can pretty much assume it's the same writer. All those books he claims was written by someone else are lesser books.

The main flow comes from understanding Matthew Mark Luke John and the ending of those books where Jesus tells his followers to go out and convert others. The next book, the book of Acts shows where and how those followers carried out those commandments of Jesus. The rest of the books were letters written to the churches to address certain issues each church was having at the time. They are by no means a definitive work on Christian belief, only what was chosen by man to be included in the Bible.

Bart makes a big deal about how women was treated in 1 Timothy


~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Professor Ehrman also claims the author of the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul but in actual fact was someone living after Paul had died.The author then used the apostle's name to address a problem he saw in church, according to Professor Ehrman. 'Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop,' he writes.Oppression: Professor Erhman claims whoever wrote 1 Timothy was trying to put women in their place and cited the garden of Eden as an example of what can happen when women are in charge

Agenda: Professor Erhman claims whoever wrote 1 Timothy was trying to put women in their place by citing the garden of Eden as an example of what can happen when women are in charge 'The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. 'No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).'

'And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women,' writes Professor Ehrman.

'Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak?

'In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant.

'Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~END QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bart's assumptions here fall down with a little logic and research. Paul ( formally Saul a devout Jew) knew the teachings of the Old Testament. Paul knew that those teachings were still valid - Christianity is Not a separate religion from the Hebrew Judaism, but an extension of it - Jesus admonished his followers to study and know the old scriptures so they could know the mind of God and his teachings.

Women in the Old Testament were treated just as the writer of 1st Timothy suggests.

~~~~~~~~~~QUOTE~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without permission.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband, without permission.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes
~~~~~~~~END QUOTE~~~~~~~~~~

Source here with the biblical scriptures printed to back them up: www.religioustolerance.org...

Paul would have certainly known these things. Paul was in a very good position to teach this to the new churches because many of the churches were made up of gentiles who had no knowledge of these scriptures. Jesus's teachings were first for the Jews, then allowed to be for the gentiles. Someone, The Christian Jews, Had to be the ones to teach these gentiles the scripture they had at the time - The Old Testament.

We have to remember also that these letters to the churches were responses FROM the Apostles TO the churches - We do not have the letters FROM the churches TO the Apostles that explains the problems they had in detail. We have to try to infer the problems the churches were having from the Apostles answers. At times this is not very clear.

I remember reading somewhere how many scholars had agreed the Gospels were written some 150 years after Jesus death.

Not to mention the conspiracy theories surrounding the Council of Nicaea.

The finishing book was a choice from two books, one by John and one by Peter. If peter's book was not worthy then what else isn't.

When emperor Constantine forged one religion from countless of Christian sekts, one of his methods was by illegalizing a number of hole scriptures that were either against a merger or spoke in ways that didn't benefit the churge. The council of Nicea was an event where they got together and discussed the stuff. Actual ltering of the bible went on until the 14th century. Paul probably is the biggest con man that has ever lived.History is different from what we are told.Way different...

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
I remember reading somewhere how many scholars had agreed the Gospels were written some 150 years after Jesus death.

Not to mention the conspiracy theories surrounding the Council of Nicaea.

Your right. Those Gospels and letters to the churches were not original. They were copied many times to preserve the knowledge. Remember the portion of the new Christian church that was not Jewish didn't know the OT scriptures or understand them like the Jews did. Each church took the letters written for them and held on to it for years - it's all they had. In a 150 years time some copies may have changed slightly to accommodate for changes in language just as English hasn't stayed the same over the last 150 years. Some words may have lost meaning while others took on different meanings or were replaced with new words or concepts to try to make the letters more understandable to the people of that time period.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Paul probably is the biggest con man that has ever lived.History is different from what we are told.Way different...

Would you care to qualify that statement?

Paul was an Apostle. The difference between the disciples and Apostles is after the out pouring of the Holy Spirit came on the people, Jews and gentiles alike in Acts ch 2,( where we see the disciples carrying out the commandments of Jesus) They were empowered by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth to carry out Jesus's commands. This is the moment they became Apostles. Suddenly the disciples had Power to cast out demons, heal the sick and other miracles - this all through the Holy Spirit.

Matt, Mark Luke and John recorded Jesus's words saying this would happen. It's part of the flow I talked about in my post above.

The Holy Spirit cannot lie or deceive. His job is to teach a person spiritual truths from God and work through them for God's will.

Now Paul lived a little later than these original apostles, but his conversion was the same and it's recorded he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

How then could Paul be a con artist?

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
I remember reading somewhere how many scholars had agreed the Gospels were written some 150 years after Jesus death.

As noted earlier, there are no credible scholars who date the writings of the Bible after very early 2nd Century (thus, less than 100 years from Christ's death) and those are the minority -- most date the writings from 50AD - 90AD or so (Gospel of John and Revelation of John the last two written.)

Not to mention the conspiracy theories surrounding the Council of Nicaea.

.. and ..

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
When emperor Constantine forged one religion from countless of Christian sekts, one of his methods was by illegalizing a number of hole scriptures that were either against a merger or spoke in ways that didn't benefit the churge. The council of Nicea was an event where they got together and discussed the stuff.

Sigh. It gets so tiresome to keep pointing this out, but I guess correcting ignorance is the price that we pay for Dan Brown's popularity. Or something. Maybe we will get it back in karma some day.

The Council of Nicaea had nothing, zero, zilch, nada, to do with the content of the Christian Bible. Not a thing, at all. If you learn nothing else today, please make that something that you do. The Council of Nicaea, which was, indeed, called by Emperor Constantine, had its share of controversy, but it had nothing to do with the Bible, and, so far as historians can tell, the Bible was never discussed at the Council.

There is historical evidence that the current Canon of the Bible is pretty much the same as what was considered canonical in 170AD (as far as grouping the books together -- as noted above, most had been in circulation for over 100 years before that point.

Again, please put out of your mind any belief that Constantine defined Christianity, or that the books of the Bible were selected by him or the Council of Nicaea. You've been sold a bill of goods by a bad novel -- those things never happened, and by the historical evidence, never could have happened.

reply to post by adjensen


You are right although he did make his list.

The council of nicea was one of many councils where the differences between the different Christian groups got discussed. .

Still what are we discussing here... If the bible is truth ? Is it forged ? A non issue for me.