Reddit reviews Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
We found 9 Reddit comments about Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
TL;DR it's by textual analysis and one of the best treatments of your particular inquiry is from Bart Erhman's Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.
You should be able to attain a copy through inter-library loan. If not, I've got a digital copy that I may consider sharing with you.
To answer these types of questions, your best bet is to read just about anything by Bart Ehrman, for example you could try Forged: Writing in the Name of God. Ehrman is a very distinguished Biblical scholar and religious studies Prof at UNC-Chapel Hill, and knows his stuff, plus his works are generally accessible.
As far as forgeries go, Bart Ehrman has a good book about forgeries in the NT called Forged. This isn't just his view, but the view of many other scholars as well. The arguments are quite convincing, which involve dating, differences in theology, and differences in writing style. He also discusses counter arguments and the use of secretaries.
Bart Ehrman
> Does he mention the Codex Escalada which mentions Juan Diego and is dated around the same time as the painting?
If you go and read the article yourself, you'll see that he does mention it and explains why it's not convincing - it's a single scrap of parchment of unknown provenance that just happened to appear right around the time when Juan Diego was being considered for canonization. Even if the "codex" is authentic, there are (AFAIK) no other contemporary sources to corroborate it. So all we really know is that someone made this piece of writing/drawing - perhaps for the express purpose of convincing people that the legend of Juan Diego was a real event. There's a long history of Christian writers lying to advance their own theological views that goes back to the New Testament authors, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case here too.
>Also, are you aware Juan Diego was made a saint?
Yes, and I don't consider it relevant. The Catholic Church decides who becomes a saint, and they have a conflict of interest – this gives them more miracle claims that they can present to their congregations as proof that their beliefs are correct. Even if they're not deliberately deceiving people or fabricating evidence, the fact is that the people doing these investigations are Catholic themselves. They're invested in their faith and they want these miracles to be real, which makes them biased.
> You said "some" are accepted not to be by Paul, therefore its a trick to ask questions about the authors intent. This is a pretty stark contradiction.
No, you are conflating two separate issues.
> That does not mean that Jesus could not be speaking literally, he very well could be. He did say quite a few culturally outrageous things, some of which he clearly expects nobody to be able to follow i.e. when he states the part of the way to attain eternal life is to give up all earthly things, his apostles protest that its not possible and jesus confirms that with man it is not possible.
Thank you for admitting that Jesus advocated extreme poverty. The early church also practiced small-scale communism, forcing new members of the cult to give up their possessions, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that Jesus was just kidding. (They thought that Jesus was coming "very soon", so it's hard to blame them.) Jesus also preached self-mutilation as a means of avoiding sin. (Mat 5:29-30, Mat 18:8-9) Yes, Jesus said some screwed-up stuff that Christians are wise to discount and ignore. It sounds like you are making my argument for me.
> Other scholars have offered that the use of the term hate in that context was meant more as a comparative word meaning 'to love less', stating the the idea of passionate hatred didn't exist in this context.
Yes, I have heard this bad argument before. I believe there is at least one translation of the NT that translates the word "hate" as "not love as much", which is not the first time a translation was used to change scripture support contemporary values. Yes, "hate" means "to love less". It also means "do not love at all, and wish ill upon". To call what Jesus meant as "loving less" instead of "hate" is spin, and an example of what I call The Christian Narrative. I repeat: Christians do NOT believe in the Bible. The Word of God is the Christian Narrative, NOT the Bible. The Bible is interpreted so that it fits the narrative. The Bible supports the Narrative, not the other way around.
I will make this more clear:My guess is that when you preach Rom 3:23 to someone else, then you don't spend five paragraphs trying to figure out the "intent of the author". It's not necessary to do that because Rom 3:23 already conforms to your values and thus it does not require any "interpretation".
> I would challenge you to explain why the literal reading should be the assumed one, I would challenge that that is not how you approach life in general.
Of course it's not how I approach life in general, and that is because life in general is not purported to be the perfect word of a divine being. The Bible is supposed to be the ultimate story of reality and how I should live my life. How am I supposed to regard life and general in the same way? That's an entirely unfair comparison, and thus it's a bogus argument.
My challenge back to you is for you to explain to me which Bible verses you take literally (Rom 3:23 and John 3:16 perhaps?), and which ones you don't take literally, and why you don't take them literally. The reason why you cannot take some verses literally because they clash with extra-biblical values that are more important, and thus those offending verses must be "interpreted" to suit the higher calling. I submit that loving your mother is more important that obeying everything Jesus told you to do, and I believe you agree with that because that is part of your Christian Narrative, which is the Word of God. Not the Bible.
Would you happen to know what's the difference in the content of Forged and his later book Forgery and Counterforgery?
I was thinking of buying it, but it sounds so overlapping with Forged.
You also have the option of reading books written by actual bible scholars, like Bart Ehrman.
Try for example "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" (https://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God-Why-Bibles-Authors-ebook/dp/B004IWR3JW) or "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them)" (https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions-ebook/dp/B001TKD4XA/). Both books discuss real and deep problems with the Bible that are quite difficult to dismiss.
And there is also "The Invention of God" by Thomas Römer (https://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Thomas-R%C3%B6mer-ebook/dp/B01985ZGGA) which presents evidence on how the abrahamitic god evolved as an amalgamation of several gods from the arabian/middle eastern desert, all explained by using the Bible itself as a source. Beware, though, that this book is a much heavier read than the ones by Ehrman.
I'd suggest anything by: Richard Carrier (esp. "On the Historicity of Jesus",
or Bart Ehrman (esp. "Forged: Writing in the Name of God-", and 'Jesus Interrupted'),
or Richard Dawkins (esp. "The God Delusion")
or Israel Finkelstein ("The Bible Unearthed", gives a good overview of the origin of biblical books.