While there are some things that Ehrman claims that make sense (e.g. the questionable nature of the Petrine Epistles) in other areas he overstates his case. I don’t think the Gospels or the Book of Hebrews should be labeled “forgeries” since these texts have no internal claims to authorship by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Paul. Also, we should be careful to not throw away the discussion about secretaries writing for authors who dictate, which should come into play when discussing the Pastoral Epistles and the Peterine Epistles (e.g. Ehrman says no one dictated their letters, but Paul appears to have done so, see Rom. 16.22; or possible examples of Paul “signing off” or informing his reader that he has written this letter himself as in 1 Cor. 16.21; 1 Phile. 1.19; 2 Thess. 3.17; Col 4.18).

What do you think of Ehrman’s skepticism? Is his epistemological qualifications justified? Does it matter if certain people wrote certain parts of Scripture? 

Also, Ehrman will be debating Daniel Wallace on the reliability of the New Testament MSS on October 1st in Dallas, TX. You can learn more about it here. Ehrman will be debating Craig A. Evans on a similar topic. They will discuss whether or not the New Testament presents an accurate picture of the historical Jesus at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 19th and 20th. When there are more details available about this debate I will relay them.

If you would like to hear responses to a variety of the claims made by Ehrman in his various works, consider the Ehrman Project.