Scan barcode
rodhilton's review against another edition
3.0
Forged is an unapologetic book, which claims that a number of books in the New Testament are not merely inaccurate, not merely misattributed, but intentional forgeries by the authors. The author, Bart Ehrman, is a well-respected biblical scholar and has done a great job of writing a book intended for consumption by laypeople.
I would argue that "Forged", "Misquoting Jesus", and "Jesus, Interrupted" make up a perfect little trilogy of scholarly books about the New Testament's history (I don't include God's Problem because, while it is an excellent book, it is devoted much more to the Old Testament and is somewhat more philosophical in nature). I think any Christian owes it to him or herself to read the books.
That said, Forged is the weakest of the three. First and foremost, the book title is slightly misleading. The subtitle of the book is "Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", implying the book is largely about the actual books of the canonical Bible. This is not wholly accurate, as a very large portion of the book (though I am reluctant to call it the majority) is devoted to talking about forgeries in a broader sense, specifically with regards to books written about Jesus or his followers that did NOT make it into the modern Bible.
These stories are interesting, but not quite what I was expecting. They are important for comparison purposes as well, to understand the broader context of forgeries in the time of early Christianity, but it often felt like not enough of the book was devoted to the ACTUAL books of the Bible. I can easily see a religious person responding to a great deal of it with "well, of course THOSE are forgeries, that's why God didn't let them into His Bible!"
There is still quite a lot of material devoted to the actual Bible. In particular, Ehrman argues that a number of Paul's and Peter's letters are forgeries, but I was particularly astonished by the allegation that the book of Acts is a forgery. Ehrman makes strong, well-informed, intellectually stimulating arguments in laying out his case, and I felt like I learned a great deal.
He spends a lot of time arguing that the premise is even worth discussing. A lot of pages are devoted to simply proving that there were any forgeries during early Christianity at all, and he spends a great deal of time mentioning opponents to his arguments in order to dismantle their counterclaims. I understand that this is necessary, but it dragged on a bit for me. Ehrman already won me over with Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, so I didn't personally need these sections, though I understand that some might.
Overall, the book is very interesting, with only a small amount of content rehashed from his other books. If you are a fan of Ehrman's, as I am, I think you will really enjoy reading Forged. If you are not already a fan of his, however, I'd recommend starting with Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, which are significantly better books overall.
I would argue that "Forged", "Misquoting Jesus", and "Jesus, Interrupted" make up a perfect little trilogy of scholarly books about the New Testament's history (I don't include God's Problem because, while it is an excellent book, it is devoted much more to the Old Testament and is somewhat more philosophical in nature). I think any Christian owes it to him or herself to read the books.
That said, Forged is the weakest of the three. First and foremost, the book title is slightly misleading. The subtitle of the book is "Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", implying the book is largely about the actual books of the canonical Bible. This is not wholly accurate, as a very large portion of the book (though I am reluctant to call it the majority) is devoted to talking about forgeries in a broader sense, specifically with regards to books written about Jesus or his followers that did NOT make it into the modern Bible.
These stories are interesting, but not quite what I was expecting. They are important for comparison purposes as well, to understand the broader context of forgeries in the time of early Christianity, but it often felt like not enough of the book was devoted to the ACTUAL books of the Bible. I can easily see a religious person responding to a great deal of it with "well, of course THOSE are forgeries, that's why God didn't let them into His Bible!"
There is still quite a lot of material devoted to the actual Bible. In particular, Ehrman argues that a number of Paul's and Peter's letters are forgeries, but I was particularly astonished by the allegation that the book of Acts is a forgery. Ehrman makes strong, well-informed, intellectually stimulating arguments in laying out his case, and I felt like I learned a great deal.
He spends a lot of time arguing that the premise is even worth discussing. A lot of pages are devoted to simply proving that there were any forgeries during early Christianity at all, and he spends a great deal of time mentioning opponents to his arguments in order to dismantle their counterclaims. I understand that this is necessary, but it dragged on a bit for me. Ehrman already won me over with Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, so I didn't personally need these sections, though I understand that some might.
Overall, the book is very interesting, with only a small amount of content rehashed from his other books. If you are a fan of Ehrman's, as I am, I think you will really enjoy reading Forged. If you are not already a fan of his, however, I'd recommend starting with Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, which are significantly better books overall.
johnbreeden's review against another edition
3.0
I am really giving this book a 3 1/2. I've read a few of Dr. Ehrman's books and have learned a lot from them. There were quite a few things to learn here, but there is also some repetition. I would still consider this a good book. I'm just looking for more content.
jimbo1023's review against another edition
3.0
An okay book that suffered from Ehrman's regular habit of self-reference.
22_'s review against another edition
5.0
(I feel bad for writing a review of this when I have left other books, ones I liked a lot more, unreviewed.)
I didn't come to this book with an axe to grind—everyone has had the experience of discovering that a fact long held is actually disproven or contentious. A couple of delicious examples. Several people have told me how the "ring around the rosies" children's song is about the bubonic plague and Black Death, taking delight in how a gruesome ghastly grim piece of history is hidden innocuously in a playground song, but as David Wilton in [b:Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends|410941|Word Myths Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends|David Wilton|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347794587s/410941.jpg|400206] points out, the song is likely from much later than the last plague outbreaks in English-speaking areas, and he wonders what it says about people that they like to propagate this urban legend.
Similarly, we all have been told how spinach has a ton of iron in it. Popeye. But this turns out to be an indescribably convoluted academic urban legend, as meticulously documented by Ole Bjørn Rekdal in their 2014 paper, “Academic urban legends” available for free on Sagepub. The story goes that spinach has a lot of iron in it. Then people found out that this isn’t true: someone misread a decimal point in the original German research done in the late 19th century, and that this showed how lazy academics continued to perpetrate the myth. Then it turns out that those authors upbraiding lazy academics were the lazy academics: the original research did not have a decimal point error. Then it turns out that whatever iron is available in spinach isn’t bioavailable, so there’s not much point in eating a bunch of it. I’ve sketched out this story but the real thing is pure gold: Ole Bjørn Rekdal is a delightful writer and “Academic urban legends” will be the best article you’ll read this year.
So yeah, if you spend any time observing yourself, you’ll find yourself regularly updating your beliefs, and that makes you less wedded to beliefs. Beliefs can give you lots of badge honor and are great for tribal signaling, but you know what’s even better? The sport of belief-busting, and unbusting, and re-busting, and so on.
So Bart Ehrman’s book is kind of like Rekdal’s paper, but necessarily much more coarse and foggy because while Rekdal can read all the scientific literature relevant to the great spinach irony misquoting fact-fabricating urban legend debacle, Ehrman is dealing with two thousand years of urban-legend-making.
Also. Marcion is hella cool.
I didn't come to this book with an axe to grind—everyone has had the experience of discovering that a fact long held is actually disproven or contentious. A couple of delicious examples. Several people have told me how the "ring around the rosies" children's song is about the bubonic plague and Black Death, taking delight in how a gruesome ghastly grim piece of history is hidden innocuously in a playground song, but as David Wilton in [b:Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends|410941|Word Myths Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends|David Wilton|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1347794587s/410941.jpg|400206] points out, the song is likely from much later than the last plague outbreaks in English-speaking areas, and he wonders what it says about people that they like to propagate this urban legend.
Similarly, we all have been told how spinach has a ton of iron in it. Popeye. But this turns out to be an indescribably convoluted academic urban legend, as meticulously documented by Ole Bjørn Rekdal in their 2014 paper, “Academic urban legends” available for free on Sagepub. The story goes that spinach has a lot of iron in it. Then people found out that this isn’t true: someone misread a decimal point in the original German research done in the late 19th century, and that this showed how lazy academics continued to perpetrate the myth. Then it turns out that those authors upbraiding lazy academics were the lazy academics: the original research did not have a decimal point error. Then it turns out that whatever iron is available in spinach isn’t bioavailable, so there’s not much point in eating a bunch of it. I’ve sketched out this story but the real thing is pure gold: Ole Bjørn Rekdal is a delightful writer and “Academic urban legends” will be the best article you’ll read this year.
So yeah, if you spend any time observing yourself, you’ll find yourself regularly updating your beliefs, and that makes you less wedded to beliefs. Beliefs can give you lots of badge honor and are great for tribal signaling, but you know what’s even better? The sport of belief-busting, and unbusting, and re-busting, and so on.
So Bart Ehrman’s book is kind of like Rekdal’s paper, but necessarily much more coarse and foggy because while Rekdal can read all the scientific literature relevant to the great spinach irony misquoting fact-fabricating urban legend debacle, Ehrman is dealing with two thousand years of urban-legend-making.
Also. Marcion is hella cool.
cdeane61's review against another edition
3.0
A little tedious to get through, but full of interesting information nonetheless.
I think Ehrman present a well reasoned argument for his contention that many of the books in the bible are forged, giving examples and citing sources all the while.
His breakdown of how forgery was viewed in biblical times (not at all favorably) and of all the ways that one can tell a work is forged is interesting throughout.
I already have another of his books lined up to read.
I think Ehrman present a well reasoned argument for his contention that many of the books in the bible are forged, giving examples and citing sources all the while.
His breakdown of how forgery was viewed in biblical times (not at all favorably) and of all the ways that one can tell a work is forged is interesting throughout.
I already have another of his books lined up to read.
jake_wont_shut_up's review against another edition
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
4.5
Highly informative, though he certainly could’ve gone deeper.
Main criticism is that he constantly restated the exact same phrases. Maybe he’s so used to hearing people defend forgers he wanted to reiterate every time his earlier arguments against them?
Main criticism is that he constantly restated the exact same phrases. Maybe he’s so used to hearing people defend forgers he wanted to reiterate every time his earlier arguments against them?
rubooks's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.75
It was a very interesting perspective the truth of the books included in the Bible and a bunch that were not. Unsurprisingly, to simply take everything in the Bible and other works from antiquity as 100% correct, with no bias or agenda by the author is not a good idea. It is definitely worth a read (or a listen) and makes it apparent that people from long ago and not that different from people now
kahawa's review against another edition
3.0
Lots of good information.... And lots of narrow-minded conclusions. I appreciate his research, but I feel like he so often overstates his case. Is this a debater's flaw? Overall he does a good job of exposing the rampant forgeries going on in the early centuries of the church, and demonstrates fairly conclusively that forgery was as unacceptable then as it is today.