Loading...My books Forged, for normal human beings, and Forgery and Counterforgery, for abnormal scholars, both deal with issues of the authorship of the writings of the New Testament (and other books in early Christianity) and with why there are good reasons for thinking that some of them were forgeries (written in the name of famous people like Paul or Peter by people who knew full well they were not Paul or Peter), others are anonymous though later attributed to famous people who didn’t write them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). It also deals with why I don’t think we can explain any of these writings on the popular but, based on my research, totally unfounded idea that “secretaries” wrote them for these famous people.
In my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 8th ed, with Hugo Mendez I address such issues only briefly, on side-bar boxes, to give students a brief sense of the issues. Here they are!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
You say: “And so, even though the “secretary hypothesis” seems attractive, there is no evidence that it is right. On the contrary, all the evidence points in just the opposite direction.”
However, in her recent book, “God’s Ghostwriters “, Professor Candida Moss puts forward a well argued case in support of a parallel hypothesis. As the opening paragraph of the blurb on Amazon succinctly states , “the book tells the untold story of how enslaved people created, gave meaning to, and spread the word of the New Testament, shaping the very foundations of Christianity.”
These enslaved people, according to Prof Moss, were the very secretaries and collaborators whose role in creating the books of the New Testament you firmly dismiss in your textbook. What are your thoughts on this, please?
Read her book and look for her evidence.
Do you personally consider the Gospel of John a forgery, since it seems to be leading the reader to believe it was written by John the apostle?
Definitely not. I think it explicitly differentiates between the author and the Beloved Disciple and I don’t think that it indicates that the Beloved Disciples was John. Double whamee….
When I studied the NT in Episcopalian Jr HS & Monastic HS. I always considered Matthew & John to have more legitimacy than Mark & Luke- really pal of St Paul!
Thanks for settling many conflicts in my mind & life Dr Ehrman
Off topic, in John’s gospel when Jesus says, for example, “If you have seen me you have seen the father,” “I and the father are one.”
How much different should we take this in comparison to a a king’s messenger?
The king sends his messenger (wearing the king’s ring, or carrying his staff, or whatever) and the messenger says in regards to people wondering about his authority, “If you have seen me, you have seen your king,” or “I and the king are one.”
Jesus is saying, “dude, God and I are on the same plan, if you’ve seen me you’ve seen God” etc…
I’d say they are pretty similar.
“In the ancient world, someone who did such a thing — who wrote such a book, and then signed someone else’s name to it – would have been called a forger, even if he was a secretary.”
How can I know that? What resources would you direct people too?
I have a book that deals with this for a general audience where I give the evidence; it’s called “Forged” A hard=core scholarly discussoin is in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
In hindsight I was probably safe to assume Forged would cover this, considering the start of this post lol. Appreciate the confirmation.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Curuius to know what you think of the evidence in Dr. Moss’ s book? I don’t know when I’ll get around to reading it but she is a sound scholar so I’m curious as to why you don’t think her evidence holds up? Thank you
I didn’t find a lot of it compelling for some of her points. But she has certainly dug hard to find it!