I agree with his facts and most of his conclusions. A more neutral word than "forgery" would have been more accurate. Maybe he had another word and his editors and pulisher wanted to sell books, not to appeal to purists.
I can't locate the book I was reading last night. It is very good. Borg and Wright acknowledge where they differ from other scholars by outlining all the main strands of academic study. They both are practicing Christians who have faith. The book is a discussion of certain themes in NT studies on which they differ about the implications. It is a Socratic dialogue. I've had it for many years but never read it b/c it seemed overly academic for an informed but still casual interest. So I was shocked that I was rivted last night.
Of course, I don't possess the knowledge or background to affirm what they are saying. I am only a reader. There is a place for bold claims, like Ehrmann's, and a place for more nuanced scholarly reflection. I feel that all authors agree on the vast amount of NT studies. When I read these books, it is not only NT scholarship but Judaism, in general, and 1st century Judaism, in particular, linguistics, Hebrew, Greek, archaeology, etc. So many disciplines are involved. I doubt anyone person knows the "truth." I may be befuddled often, but I vastly prefer this, to the WT.
It is a joy to particpate in a thread where we can discuss this topic without fearing the big A. or disfellowshipping.
