I’ve heard that it’s not unusual for those who employ pseudonyms to incorporate clues in the pseudonym about their real identities. After (w)racking my brain over this for some time, I finally came to notice that “Ben Armhardt” is an anagram of “Bart D. Ehrman”!
How dumb of us not to have spotted that right away. But is it him, or is it someone spoofing him? (It will be him all right, a shamelessly self-promoting publicity stunt.) At least now no-one will give the leg-pull any credence. Or will they?
I notice that Archimedes pulled the anagram out as soon as his potential authorship was suggested. And I notice that we seem to have progressed from “newly translated codex” and “copy that I was shown” to a deeper acquaintance with the text. I assume that his friend has now lent him the copy? Also, the initial description of how to find it through an Amazon search, rather than simply giving title and author was awkward.
Still, we can disprove Ehrman’s authorship easily enough by noting that the introduction does not start off with an agonized discussion about the decision to hide his true identity, nor include a description of his qualifications to translate this document, which he wishes that he were able to tell us about. Nor would Ehrman call any event “the most remarkable adventure of his career as a New Testament scholar” without qualifying that statement to say that his career as a prestigious New Testament scholar contains many remarkable and prestigious events.
I would have pulled it out earlier had I thought of it. The translator writes under a nom de plume and dedicated the work to Bruce Metzger. Although Bruce Metzger had many students, the one who first came to mind to me was Bart Ehrman.
I assume that his friend has now lent him the copy?
That is correct.
Also, the initial description of how to find it through an Amazon search, rather than simply giving title and author was awkward.
The Amazon search brings up a description of the book.
Still, we can disprove Ehrman’s authorship easily enough by noting that the introduction does not start off with an agonized discussion about the decision to hide his true identity, nor include a description of his qualifications to translate this document, which he wishes that he were able to tell us about. Nor would Ehrman call any event “the most remarkable adventure of his career as a New Testament scholar” without qualifying that statement to say that his career as a prestigious New Testament scholar contains many remarkable and prestigious events.
Ah, so you’ve read the introduction! Or are you just getting bits and pieces of it? And how do you know what Ehrman would or wouldn’t do? Are you able to telepathically project yourself into his brain?