Well, is it a forgery? Perhaps there's some evidence suggesting a forgery. Just because something's written, that doesn't mean you should believe it.
I'm pretty sure most people here have already considered claims of evidence of forgery. While the quote itself is a bit uncharitable toward the skeptic, nothing in it says anything like what you are claiming the reasoning is behind believing any ancient testimonies.Just check out Daniel B. Wallace or Michael Licona's works for the details. There are even a couple of debates between Wallace and Ehrman where Ehrman's claims are met head-on.
For a bit of background about the phrase, "writing on the wall" see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_writing_on_the_wallThe point of the quote, it seems to me, is to mock the kind of skepticism that some people have that, when something is happening right in front of them, in plain sight, yet they will deny its reality. In other words, sometimes skeptics go against reason in an over-commitment to their skepticism, perhaps.
You can also see responses to Ehrman's claims regarding forgeries at the following site:http://ehrmanproject.com/indexScholars such as Darrell Bock and Ben Witheringon respond to individual statements Ehrman has made in this books. There are both videos and transcripts available.
The quote really only makes sense in the context of Daniel 5. Still, perhaps it should read "a close-minded skeptic..." or perhaps "an unyielding skeptic..." We are all skeptical at times, but the skepticism that will not yield in the face of convincing proof to the contrary is irrational.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.