Forged – Reviewed by Edwin A. Schwisow
by Edwin A. Schwisow
Forged – Bart D. Ehrman – HarperCollins 2011
At least one Adventist university currently is struggling to reach an accommodation on how to teach — and not teach, science classes in which the church's traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-12 is respected, at least, and if possible endorsed.
Ten years from now, the issue will have run its course and I predict that a new one will emerge very likely surrounding the issues discussed in the book, Forged, by Bart D. Ehrman, professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus.
For most Adventist readers, this book will present a whole new dimension to the study of Scripture, from the point of view of the much-feared ‘higher criticism,’ an approach much maligned (but quietly studied) by many preachers we deem fundamentalist. Bible colleges and Adventist universities in general skirt the question of higher criticism by simply saying, “We don’t believe in it, therefore we don’t use it.”
This book is essentially a rehash of views that have been around a long time, but this is perhaps the first book written by a former Bible college student who presents this topic in a way that the general Christian and non-Christian reader will find interesting enough to actually read the whole book.
If Forged can be said to have a theme, it might be, which parts of the New Testament are truly written by the authors of record, and how and why did the rest come to appear in its current form? From a reader’s standpoint, the book offers a great deal of, who-done-it, mystery. Though the author does not claim to solve every riddle, he does give entertaining insight into how the much-feared ‘higher criticism’ actually works, or doesn’t work, depending on your point of view.
Evangelical Christians can run, but they can’t hide from the evidence this book presents. Like sexuality, our children are going to find out about higher criticism somehow. It is better to gain insights from a reputable source than from one who hates Christianity and finds joy in destroying faith.
To read is not necessarily to believe. As a journalist, I find a lot of what he has written overly speculative. Like evolution, some of the early conjectures of higher criticism have lost considerable traction; others have gained some mainstream acceptance.
This book is by no means the final word as an introduction to higher criticism of the New Testament. But it’s a good beginning and can be criticized for its brevity (305 pages). Even so it earns a four-star rating (out of five possible) from Amazon.com readers.
I do a lot of visiting with educated nonbelievers and being acquainted with the claims of higher criticism is a tremendous boon in explaining why I stick with my faith. I face the questions of higher criticism in my typical head-on way, quietly but coherently. I now carry on an avid email exchange with several seriously ‘interested’ people who want to bring religion into their families’ lives. In my case, knowledge of the elements of higher criticism has brought nothing but greater confidence in my Christian interaction with others.
Reviewed & posted by CWH
I cannot speak for undergraduate study on Adventist campuses, but "Higher Criticism" is already studied on the graduate level. Of course it is. It is studied, first, because someone with a scholarly degree must be acquainted with these ideas, with or without acceptance of either the premeses or conclusions. This level of study goes back decades.
The second reason it is studied is because, properly speaking, the Adventist church is not fundamentalist — even though many (most?) Adventists are fundamentalist. Ellen White was careful to NOT apply infallibility to the Scriptures — and to herself. Also, anyone who has paid much attention to the controversy over Ellen White's writings over the past three decades is aware that her prophetic gift cannot be crammed into the fundamentalist model. In fact, anyone who carefully read Nichol's Ellen White and Her Critics before 1980 was already aware that findamentalism is not an option for us.
This doean't mean that Adventist scholars can or should swallow the whole Higher Criticism system, hook, line and sinker. It does give us some room, however, to critically examine Higher Criticism, and work with its methods. As the reviewer noted, much of this stuff is specualtive. If you get past the speculation, you may find a few gems worth picking up.
This sounds like a reasonable approach to the subject. It is certainly true that we are not fundamentalists and I wish this fact was taught and presented more from the local church on up to the heirachy, which currently sounds more fundamentalist than any time in the past.
WHY USE A FANCY TERM FOR THE OLD MAXIM–UNBELIEF!
Perhaps because many of the people who use higher criticism are believers. One can believe in God, the Bible, and even Ellen White without being a fundamentalist. I don't accept many of the results of higher criticism, but that doesn't mean I can't recognise the belief of those who do. Some have no faith in God at all, but many do. Can we choose who is classified as a 'believer', or is that something we don't have the right to do because we often have neither the information nor the wisdom to do?
A good point, Kevin.
James 4:12. Matthew 7:1-5.
Jim Miller
Having read at least three of Ehrman's books, I find them the most heavily documented of any books covering the early history of Christianity. One can certainly disagree with his findings, but cannot attack them with similar facts. He is esteemed as one of the best scholars of the formation of the NT canon and the many contradictions. Ignoring them, especially when conversing with someone who is also well versed in this subject, may find that individual going back for more studying. His findings are inescapable and may be ignored but cannot be refuted.
Most Christians know little or nothing of Christianity's origins and have accepted by "faith" whatever they have been told. This is deplorable and affects Adventists as well as all Christians.
I am familiar with the author but would rather spend time on other researchers without such an agenda. There really are reliable and great scholars in the Christian world who would disagree with this man's findings and interpretations. I would rather study from them. I would suggest N.T. Wright as noted on another post.
Thanks for adding that author's name to resources regarding Higher Criticism. This particular book appealed to me, as a reviewer, because of its brevity and readability for an audience not yet invested in this kind of analysis of Scripture. On the matter of who actually wrote what, it's interesting that this kind of criticism continues regarding the work of William Shakespeare, but this in no way discredits the value or literary inspiration of the work that appears under his name. Many Adventists would be astounded by the amount of "ghost-writing" and "ghost-rewriting" that occurs in denominational circles even today—and certainly in an earlier time, this same practice was applied to the writings of Ellen White.
Ignoring the recent discoveries of the canonization of the NT as well as the many additions, and contradictions, is often a complete surprise to Adventists. I remember my son, studying the Bible at Walla Walla 25 years ago as the only non-theology student in the class, to find that those students found this information completely new and rather disheartening. How much of this information is now taught at Andrews Seminary?
I have read four books and heard a number of lectures by Ehrman. He is recognized as one of the best NT scholars now living.
Comparing the Bible to Shakespeare is inappropriate: Shakespeare was never claimed to be divine, although he had almost the ability of more than a human in understanding the human condition.
Once both the Bible and EGW has been claimed to be both inspired and untouchable, the results are seen today.
At some levels, absolutely, comparing Shakespeare with the Bible is inappropriate, but the methodology of studying the style and era of writing to determine on the one hand if a fellow named "Jeremiah" actually wrote the book of Jeremiah of his own accord and without external ammendations, in the era indicated, or whether an actor named William actually penned a portion or entirety of A Midsummer Night's Dream are not dissimilar forms of sleuthing. The intent is not to measure the inspiration of either, but to look at the style of presentation and content to learn more about era and identity of the writers. Many Christians feel strongly that subjecting the Word of God to such scrutiny exalts human reason above the infallibility of the Word—or feelings to that effect. It's a touchy subject we do not yet discuss with ease and erudition—as a book reviewer I have simply done what I could to launch the topic….