As the time draws closer for my first time author event, I have begun researching for my presentation. Instead of starting off by deliberately assuming a Christian axiom i.e., my belief in the New Testament, I decided to make an assertion that anyone’s belief for the Bible ought to have a concrete basis.
Throughout the days of my researching, I have across several interesting works. Like I said in a previous post about Spong, (Liberal) Scholars seem to think they can bend the truth nowadays like Stephanie Meyer can do with vampires: eviscerate the source and stuff it with bologna.
Except in this case, the Scholars don’t think they’re writing a novel; they’re telling the ‘truth’.
Sometimes I think that’s what I think them, specifically of Bart Ehrman.
I’m currently reading right now his latest work of fiction, Forged where he goes into depth explaining how some of the New Testament books have been completely forged by unknown authors for unknown motives. As compelling and intellectually sound his book does come across as, even for laymen, I have to admit there are a couple of mistakes that make his book not seem worthwhile.
What is it that makes him lousy?
Even though the back cover of the book calls Ehrman a ‘leading Bible authority’, I would have to point out a major fallacy.
Suppose for instance we lived in a world where the color blue did not exist and we were sitting in an auditorium. Suddenly, a man comes in and walks up to the podium and declares, “I have seen the color blue and I can tell you that the color of my eyes are blue.”
At the same moment, another man stands up and shouts, “That’s not true! Your eyes are BROWN.”
Who do you suppose would say that? How could there be such an objection where we live in a world that has not seen the color blue?
The point behind this illustration is to demonstrate that in order to declare or object to a truth, there are the needs to knowing truth and accepting it.
The same goes with Bart Ehrman.
There are speculations you can posit about the New Testament as a ‘scholar’, but you can’t make assertions based on something you have not seen. The same should be said about his argument. No one can assert that any works of antiquity are forged unless you have an authoritative (original) source to compare it to.
How do Scholars know that Gospel of Peter is fake? We have other sources to compare them to, specifically his epistles.
How do Scholars know that the Gospel of Judas is fake? We have other sources to compare them to, specifically the synoptic Gospels.
How does Bart Ehrman know 75% of the New Testament is fake? We don’t have other sources to compare them to, specifically the ones outside the New Testament.
I don’t have an entire clue where Ehrman is going to get his data from, whether from the New Testament or Nag Hammadi Gospels, but I can assure you that what he’s going to use as evidence will certainly beg the question.
For now, I’m planning on letting him develop his intellectual argument so this way there is more basis to defend my stance for the New Testament.