Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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?
Right, they're not beholden to any religious dogma that would prevent them from clouded judgement.And of course Atheists are
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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
You are serious aren't you?Right, they're not beholden to any religious dogma that would prevent them from clouded judgement.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Which, unfortunately, devotional scholars are not considered to be.
Judging by their knee jerk reactions, it's obvious they're bothered.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Judging by their knee jerk reactions, it's obvious they're bothered.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?