Half the New Testament is forged??

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/comment-page-25/?iref=obnetwork

The link above is to an article on CNN introducing Bart Ehrman's newest book, "Forged", in which he argues that half of the New Testament was forged, written by authors assuming an identity in order to gain a wider reading, and take on a more authoritative voice.  Normally I prefer to leave discussions like this in the seminary classroom, where there is the time and background knowledge necessary to address the task in depth, and at length.  However, when Ehrman's ideas make it on the front page of CNN, it is time to at least offer a counter-argument as to why Ehrman's views are at misguided at best.

First of all, this is not some new, ground-breaking argument that Ehrman is making.  If anything, he is playing on the skepticism of the age to cash-in on over a centuries worth of debate.  Furthermore, if you have any knowledge of who Ehrman is, it becomes obvious that he has the proverbial ax to grind.  Just as Christians objectivity is often called into question because of their faith, I would argue that Ehrman's objectivity is far from certain, especially in light of his admitted shift from Christian to agnostic.  Christians may have a lot at stake in proving the authenticity of their sacred texts, but Ehrman has a lot at stake as well, since discrediting the Bible justifies his own loss of faith.  In keeping with that idea, it is important that we as Christians not respond to Ehrman's argument with mere quoting of scripture.  While that may do for those of us in the faith, it won't go far in answering non-Christian critics whose trust of the Bible must be bolstered if they are to come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ.   

When you get down to it, there are a number of things not taken into consideration by Ehrman.  Most of them are a direct result of a type of intellectual snobbery, a snobbery that finds its roots in the idea that people in the era of the New Testament could not have been as advanced as we are today.  To quote the article:
"Ehrman reserves most of his scrutiny for the writings of Paul, which make up the bulk of the New Testament. He says that only about half of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul – 7 of 13 - were actually written by him.  Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine."
I find it interesting that in our own day, one of the first things you learn in a writing class is to vary your language and vocabulary.  The use of synonyms is encouraged.  And yet here, half of Paul's letters are being thrown out on the basis that the vocabulary and style differ.  Granted, there are some words that are extremely important in the letters of Paul.  However, to assume that Paul would use the exact same style and the exact same vocabulary given the varied nature of his audiences smacks of the intellectual elitism I mentioned earlier.  Ben Witherington, in his critique of Ehrman's book, points out that Ehrman fails to show any knowledge of how the scribal system worked in the first century A.D.
(If you want to read the critique of someone way smarter and more learned on the subject than myself, you can find Witherington's response here:
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/03/30/forged-bart-ehrmans-new-salvo-the-introduction/)

Witherington's mention of scribal practice brings up another assumption indirectly made by Ehrman.  Many of Paul's letters contain a personal greeting in Paul's own hand at the end of the letter.  Ehrman seems to assume that no one in the church at Colossae (Ehrman's list of forgeries is most likely Ephesians, Colossians, I & II Timothy, Titus, and II Thessalonians) would recognize that the hand-writing wasn't Paul's.  Even if they had never met Paul, they surely knew the person that the letter was sent through.  In fact, in order for Ehrman's argument to be true, many of the Christian churches of the first century would have to be full of extremely gullible people.  Wouldn't these churches be skeptical when decades after Paul's death, letters supposedly written to them started cropping up?  Ehrman's argument rests on the assumption that early Christian communities couldn't detect authenticity, and had no collective sense of their own history.  In fact, the very reason why the epistles found in the New Testament were chosen- over the forgeries that were undoubtedly floating around- was that they had a verifiable history and authenticity.

I am sure that there are those who would argue with much of what I have said.  I have intentionally left out referencing the work of the Holy Spirit, not because I don't think it's relevant, but rather because I think Ehrman's view can be discredited without referring to the work of God.  Undoubtedly, many unbelievers are skeptical when we chalk up the unexplainable to "God's will" or "divine intervention".  Do I believe that God was at work in a very real way when the New Testament was put together?  Absolutely.  But I also think that the origins and authorship of the New Testament can be defending and explained on Ehrman's home-turf, with the use of reason in the realm of the academy.  Better scholars than Ehrman, such as Luke Timothy Johnson and N.T. Wright, have proven as much.  The real point is not who wrote what book, but rather what was written in each book.  Being able to explain in a reasoned way why Paul actually wrote the letters of Paul, and how "unlettered" men could have given us the gospel doesn't detract from the mystery.  The Bible is inspired not because of who wrote it, but because of the story it tells.  For my money no man, letter or unlettered, could tell the story of Jesus as we find it in the Gospel of John, unless the love of God was his muse.  The very idea that "the Word became flesh", that in humility God would dwell among His people in human form, is so far beyond the realm of human imagination that it is by it's very essence, proof of divine inspiration.