Are forgeries inspired scripture?

[HitchSlap]

And what evidence do you have in my responses that I am blithely unaware of what critical scholarship consensus is at this point in time?

Your responses are devoid of any understanding of critical NT scholarship. You've made no attempt to acknowledge the points I've made concerning critical scholarship, or that you even understand the argument I'm making.
I'm happy with my understanding of what the scholars say and why. You're free to believe what you need to, as it's clear you're not interested in any type of meaningful discussion.

Carry on.

 

[HitchSlap]

And of course Atheists are

Right, they're not beholden to any religious dogma that would prevent them from clouded judgement.

BTW, you know that Metzger is a bible believin' Christian, and he's honest with his conclusion of the facts, in spite of his personal devotion. I'm not aware of any non-religious scholar, who claims the opposite, BTW, so that should tell you something.

 

[radhead]

I wouldn't find that out, because St. Athanasius was careful. Those works of dubious apostolicity, like 1 Barnabas, were omitted. As for modern scholars who think they know more than the Fathers on what St. Paul did or did not write, I consider this pure arrogation on their part.

You only agree with the church fathers because their arguments became accepted as the state religion. There were plenty of varying opinions in the early centuries of Christianity.

 

[Wgw]

You only agree with the church fathers because their arguments became accepted as the state religion. There were plenty of varying opinions in the early centuries of Christianity.

No, I agree with them because they are in my opinion correct. I have carefully studied Gnosticism and the ancient heresies; I find Gnosticism fascinating and was genuinely tempted by it. Ultimately I rejected them because I believe the Orthodox moral ideology to be more compelling.

I would also note that my own particular church was never a majority or state religion in most of the territories in which it exists; the exceptions being Western Syria and Edessa. In most of its canonical territory, it has historically been persecuted by various hostile regimes (the Romans, the Persians, the Islamic caliphates, the Indians).

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never said they were scholars, only that I've read the popular Christian apologists, who often site what the devotional scholars say. I also mentioned I have read Metzger (had an entire course based on his text) Bruce, Habermas, et. al. over the years, so if you'd rather make snarky remarks than discuss the actual content, then suture self. I've always considered you to be a bit of a pedant.

No, you didn't actually say they were scholars but when one is claiming to have read scholars and historians of a more favorable bent on the Bible it would seem reasonable to cite those who are actual scholars and historians...wouldn't you think?

Oh and saying I was an outlandish sort of gal was not meant to be "snarky"?

I have always considered you to be rather contemptuous but.... I still enjoy our somewhat tense conversations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your responses are devoid of any understanding of critical NT scholarship. You've made no attempt to acknowledge the points I've made concerning critical scholarship, or that you even understand the argument I'm making.
I'm happy with my understanding of what the scholars say and why. You're free to believe what you need to, as it's clear you're not interested in any type of meaningful discussion.

Carry on.

Ephesians is considered a Deuteropauline epistle.

Different writing styles.
Written later than Paul's known epistles.
It was common during this time to write pseudonymously under one who had sway and authority.
There are other reasons, if you're interested.

Your responses are devoid of any understanding of critical NT scholarship. You've made no attempt to acknowledge the points I've made concerning critical scholarship, or that you even understand the argument I'm making.
I'm happy with my understanding of what the scholars say and why. You're free to believe what you need to, as it's clear you're not interested in any type of meaningful discussion.

Carry on.

One point in your argument is different writing style, can you provide at least three scholars/historians that are not biased by being atheists? Another point you have provided is that it is written later than Paul's known epistles, can you provide evidence that this is the case by something more than assumption or presumption? The last point and a very important one, it was common during this time for appointed scribes to write for the Apostles but it was never common for scribes to claim to be the Apostle in the writings.

 

[cloudyday2]

It would be interesting to plot each scholar's opinion on an X/Y graph where X is each scholar's religious belief and Y is each scholar's opinions about authorship. Of course it is hard to transform either attribute into a simple number, but I suspect that those scholars who have freed themselves from religion might be more suspicious of authorship.

It would also be interesting to add a Z dimension that represents the quality of each scholar.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, they're not beholden to any religious dogma that would prevent them from clouded judgement.

You are serious aren't you?

BTW, you know that Metzger is a bible believin' Christian, and he's honest with his conclusion of the facts, in spite of his personal devotion. I'm not aware of any non-religious scholar, who claims the opposite, BTW, so that should tell you something.

I do know that Metzger "was" a Bible believing Christian and he always felt that if the person writing under the name of the more famous person was relaying the message of that person, it was not forgery. He did not agree with Bart Ehrman's conclusions.

 

[HitchSlap]

One point in your argument is different writing style, can you provide at least three scholars/historians that are not biased by being atheists? Another point you have provided is that it is written later than Paul's known epistles, can you provide evidence that this is the case by something more than assumption or presumption? The last point and a very important one, it was common during this time for appointed scribes to write for the Apostles but it was never common for scribes to claim to be the Apostle in the writings.

What does atheism have to do with critically analyzing writing styles? You're aware that there is a specfic, certain, literary methodology used by scholars and academics the world over to analyze ancient writing? Are you aware that these specific methods can be applied to any ancient text, by any academic or scholar? Are you aware that when these specific methods are used, they yield specific patterns of data, that when compared with known controls (i.e. Romans), they fail to reach the threshold that would put them without any doubt as having been written by Paul. Additionally, it was common practice to write letters and missives in the name of one who held sway or authority, so we know, and have other non-biblical examples of this.

Sentence structure, syntax, and words used of known writings can be compared to other writings, and using statistical analysis, writings can be categorized as either, a match, not a match, possibly a match, to the known author. Knowledge of subject matter is also evaluated; for example, if you have one work by a known author, and they exhibit a proficient knowledge of a certain geographical location, that when compared to an unknown work, the author is unaware of the previous authors knowledge, and this geographical information might be missing, or wrong altogether. Or, let's say a certain word wasn't used until a certain point in time, so anything written using these words, and claiming to be from an earlier time period, would raise a red flag.

So to answer your question, there are known, accepted, academic and scholarly approaches to critically evaluating ancient literature. These methods are available to anyone; atheists, theists, Baptists, Europeans, Americans, and even Republicans, and results will always be the same, regardless of who does the analysis. Unfortunately, what devotional historians tend to do, is cherry pick their data to support their religious beliefs. There are a few exceptions, I mentioned Metzger earlier, but by and large, they lose credibility when they're unwilling to take into account true academic methods.

As I've said before, I don't care what you believe, and I'm not trying to get you to forsake your religious beliefs, but at the least, you should attempt to understand the academic standards used to evaluate ancient literature, and why these conclusions are drawn. Again, it's incumbent upon you, to show why this methodology used for all ancient literature should not apply to the bible.

 

[OzSpen]

Yep, I've read Habermas as well. I've read much of devotional "scholars" over the years. Remember, I used to be one of you.

Why don't you try reading Dr Paul Barnett, former professor of history, Macquarie University. His Finding the Historical Jesus (Eerdmans 2009) and Jesus and the Logic of History (Apollos/IVP 1997) just might be too accurate historically for you.

Paul Barnett is not a 'devotional' scholar (whatever that means). He's a historical Jesus scholar and is interested in real history. Perhaps his writings might be too historically logical for you.

You try to remind us you used to be one of us. I remind you that 'what may be known about God is plain to them [ungodly human beings], because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse' (Rom 1:19-20 NIV).

You can try to run from Him, but you can't get away from Him and you will face him at death 'without excuse'. 'I used to be one of you' will not be an excuse when you face him one second after your last breath.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Which, unfortunately, devotional scholars are not considered to be.

So please tell me what kinds of scholars are Dr Paul Barnett, Dr Richard Bauckham, Dr Samuel Byrskog and Dr N T Wright.

 

[OzSpen]

All critical experts do.

ALL???

You must be joking. Have you read ALL of them? Sounds awfully like hyperbole and special pleading.

 

[OzSpen]

Go kiss yer mum, and go back to bed, mate.

So you think scoffing and ad hominems work? Not with me.

 

[cloudyday2]

Aside from @Hammster , I don't think any of the other Christians have weighed-in with an answer to the OP. Would it bother you to learn that one of the NT books is likely to be a forgery - i.e. the author intended to deceive readers by pretending to be a famous Christian?

That forged book is the same book that you have read many times and found inspirational. Does the deceits of its origins change its position today as inspired scripture?

I assume that even the scholars who believe that none of the NT books are forgeries must admit that this opinion is only an educated guess. Nobody can know for certain.

 

[HitchSlap]

So you think scoffing and ad hominems work? Not with me.

And you pointing out an obvious typo is, what?

If you haven't figured it out yet, I give as good as I get.

 

[HitchSlap]

Aside from @Hammster , I don't think any of the other Christians have weighed-in with an answer to the OP. Would it bother you to learn that one of the NT books is likely to be a forgery - i.e. the author intended to deceive readers by pretending to be a famous Christian?

That forged book is the same book that you have read many times and found inspirational. Does the deceits of its origins change its position today as inspired scripture?

I assume that even the scholars who believe that none of the NT books are forgeries must admit that this opinion is only an educated guess. Nobody can know for certain.

Judging by their knee jerk reactions, it's obvious they're bothered.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The New Testament documents are the expression of the early Christian communities. Historians interpret the texts by understanding the situation of these communities.

Ironically, the idea that Christianity begins with these documents is a fundamentalist assumption. Christianity began with a movement that wrote the texts.

This. Christianity is not what we would call a "book religion". It's first and foremost a Person religion, that is, it is the religion centered upon the Person of Jesus of Nazareth whom we believe to be the Christ; and secondly it is a people religion, it is the religion of the historic Christian community, the Communio Sanctorum, the Communion or Fellowship of the Saints consisting of both the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. The Bible consists in those texts deemed good to read and valuable for the life and health of the Church, and by good to read meaning within the context of Christian worship. The Bible, as a collection of Scripture, arose from within the context of Liturgy, the structured and organized worship of the Christian faithful.

So, for example, there are valid questions to be had, say, about the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles with a general scholarly consensus that they weren't written by St. Paul but by a later hand. However their place within the Canon and their use within Christian worship is firmly established, and so they are accepted as holy and divine Scripture regardless of whether they are the authentic letters of St. Paul the Apostle or else pious forgeries. These were never counted even among the Antilegomena, the disputed books, which for example 2 Peter was; there is a more established case for questioning 2 Peter, the epistle of James, the epistle of Jude, etc then there is the Pastorals. However the issue of the Canon has always been, and always is, an issue for the entire Church. As such the issue of authorship is a matter of scholarly inquiry, to what end it is a matter that the entire Church must address as to the issue of canonicity that is separate, and thus far the historic position of the Church on this matter is rather clear: The Pastorals have--for as long as there has been anything resembling a Canon of Scripture--always been homolegoumena, established, accepted Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oncedeceived]

What does atheism have to do with critically analyzing writing styles? You're aware that there is a specfic, certain, literary methodology used by scholars and academics the world over to analyze ancient writing? Are you aware that these specific methods can be applied to any ancient text, by any academic or scholar? Are you aware that when these specific methods are used, they yield specific patterns of data, that when compared with known controls (i.e. Romans), they fail to reach the threshold that would put them without any doubt as having been written by Paul. Additionally, it was common practice to write letters and missives in the name of one who held sway or authority, so we know, and have other non-biblical examples of this.

Atheism can be just as biased as can Theism. One needs to view the arguments in whole and determine how much personal bias is filtered into findings. Just as you tried to claim that Christian Scholars were not leaving behind their faith in their conclusions you, have to look at the other side of the coin.

Yes, there are specific methods in which antiquities are determined. The Bible actually comes out much better than most documents from antiquity. IN terms of volume alone, the New Testament documentation is leap and bounds ahead in time span and number of copies to make such determinations.

Sentence structure, syntax, and words used of known writings can be compared to other writings, and using statistical analysis, writings can be categorized as either, a match, not a match, possibly a match, to the known author. Knowledge of subject matter is also evaluated; for example, if you have one work by a known author, and they exhibit a proficient knowledge of a certain geographical location, that when compared to an unknown work, the author is unaware of the previous authors knowledge, and this geographical information might be missing, or wrong altogether. Or, let's say a certain word wasn't used until a certain point in time, so anything written using these words, and claiming to be from an earlier time period, would raise a red flag.

Yes, and surprising enough of over 5,800 copies we have in regard to the New Testament, nothing changes the message from any other copy...most errors are spelling and what Daniel Wallace calls nonsense readings which make up 75% of errors in New Testament copies. Only 1% of all copies of the New Testament we have has variants and of those NONE challenge, change or compromise or effect any major theology.

So to answer your question, there are known, accepted, academic and scholarly approaches to critically evaluating ancient literature. These methods are available to anyone; atheists, theists, Baptists, Europeans, Americans, and even Republicans, and results will always be the same, regardless of who does the analysis. Unfortunately, what devotional historians tend to do, is cherry pick their data to support their religious beliefs. There are a few exceptions, I mentioned Metzger earlier, but by and large, they lose credibility when they're unwilling to take into account true academic methods.

I don't believe there are any true scholars or historians that do not take into account true academic methods and no one I am aware of has ever brought forward any accusations against any of them.

As I've said before, I don't care what you believe, and I'm not trying to get you to forsake your religious beliefs, but at the least, you should attempt to understand the academic standards used to evaluate ancient literature, and why these conclusions are drawn. Again, it's incumbent upon you, to show why this methodology used for all ancient literature should not apply to the bible.

You and others seem to be under the false assumption that Christians as a whole are mindless, blind leading the blind individuals that have taken Christianity without questioning anything. You will find those, just as you will find atheists who will believe anything that is against Christianity without knowing any actual facts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Judging by their knee jerk reactions, it's obvious they're bothered.

This is a statement which gives me at least a multitude of insight into your mind set. It seems you feel that you are presenting something that should shake us to the very core of our belief when in fact, we are disagreeing with you not because we are "bothered" by what you say but that what you say is not completely accurate or in evidence and we are pointing that fact out. What you consider knee jerking reaction is in actuality we who have researched this area finding fault with your assessments.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aside from @Hammster , I don't think any of the other Christians have weighed-in with an answer to the OP. Would it bother you to learn that one of the NT books is likely to be a forgery - i.e. the author intended to deceive readers by pretending to be a famous Christian?

That forged book is the same book that you have read many times and found inspirational. Does the deceits of its origins change its position today as inspired scripture?

I assume that even the scholars who believe that none of the NT books are forgeries must admit that this opinion is only an educated guess. Nobody can know for certain.

I will answer this...if it were proven that a NT book was written by someone "pretending" to be a famous Christian, it would mean that the message is in keeping with the message of the original writer and would still have the inspiration of the message given to the original writer. No Apostle, church leader or man in general is the authority but God Himself. Of nearly 6,000 actual copies of the NT in hand and nearly a million documents from the early church leaders (which by them alone the NT could be written alone) the message is the inspiration and is not compromised in anything found to date.