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.
the archives near Emmaus 
My take is he’s smart, super smart, and jadded…that can be a leathal combination and usually is.
@Sean: True!
Ehrman doesn’t consider books that don’t claim authorship to be forgeries. Get your facts straight, please. Forgeries are books that claim to be written by someone other than the real author.
Sean’s is the typical response to Ehrman. Not a single factual rebuttal. He’s no longer one of us, so we can dismiss him because of bad motives.
Pf: Did you watch the lecture? He seemed to lump the Gospels under documents that are forgeries. Maybe I misunderstood him. Can you recall where he clarified that he doesn’t allude to the Gospels were forgeries? If he made that clarification I missed it.
I read the book. There are several categories of writings listed, but the only ones considered forgeries are those in which the author presents himself as someone he is not. The gospels writers did not claim authorship, the names were attributed by later Christians, thus Ehrman does not consider them forgeries. Like many scholars, he doesn’t think the names attributed to the gospel writers are correct, but that is a different issue.
PF: I don’t doubt that in the book he clarifies (rightly) that the gospels cannot be called “forgeries”, but this video lacks that clarification as I remember it. I am not talking about his book, but the video. If in the video he makes this clarification and I missed it then let me know. I’d be more than happy to acknowledge this. I jotted these notes while watching the video and it seemed to me that he never took the opportunity to explain to his audience why the Gospels would not be the same as the Apocalypse of Peter or 2 Peter in his estimation.
at 28:00 he says the gospels are not forgeries.