Reasons to distrust certain ancient witnesses (off the top of my head):
Many of them were fairly remote from the source. Take someone early, like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. They are a good 100 years after Paul died. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it is not as though they personally knew the authors. And the near universal ascription of the gospels to the four familiar evangelists arose relatively late.
They often had access to a small subset of the manuscripts and texts we know. This definitely cuts both ways: Many of them certainly knew texts we don’t (And that we would love to have). Still, they were limited to the texts they could physically put their hands on, while we have centuries of discovering and cataloguing old manuscripts that we can consult.
They often had polemical purposes. They were True Believers out to crush Heretics. They were, quite literally, apologists and heresiologists. They were hardly objective scholars dispassionately investigating the truth of the matter.
On the other hand, if you include the total witness of the people near the time, you find that they often disagree with the (proto)-Orthodox authors. If antiquity of witness matters, why should the early dissidents be overlooked when they reject this or that canonical book?
Relative to modern scholars, no ancient scholar was remote from the source.
Ancient scholars were no more polemical than modern ones.
Ancient churches were geographically-dispersed and organizationally-independent and yet managed to achieve consensus on the authorship of the 27 books New Testament without even having to vote on it in an ecumenical council.
It is preposterous to think that modern scholars are better able to determine the authorship of NT books than ancient scholars.
The 27 NT texts were delivered to, and read publicly by, congregations (churches) – not scholars. Scholars got their peeks, but they got their peeks through the congregations. It was through the interaction of congregations by means of individuals that texts were copied and thus gradually spread throughout the Christian movement. In other words, the chain of custody for NT manuscripts and copies thereof ran through congregations, of which scholars were usually a part – sometimes themselves heads of congregations (bishops).
…the chain of custody for NT manuscripts and copies…
Mike, what “chain of custody” are you describing? Who wrote the gospel of Mark? Where did he write? How do we know? How do we know the text Papias describes as written by Mark from Peter’s recollections was the same text as what we call the gospel of Mark? If the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him why does he rely so much on Mark, copying him word for word? Remember the disciple Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark was getting his stories second-hand! Odd “chain of custody” wouldn’t you say?
What “chain of custody” are you describing? The chain of custody that began when each one of the 27 texts were completed and handed over, and that continued every time one of the texts was copied and conveyed to a new congregation.
Who wrote the gospel of Mark? Mark.
Where did he write? Don’t know.
How do we know? We know that Mark was the author because that’s the way it was handed down. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that any of the 27 texts began circulation as anonymous. Just because a name may not have been written in the text doesn’t mean that the recipients didn’t know who wrote it.
How do we know the text Papias describes as written by Mark from Peter’s recollections was the same text as what we call the gospel of Mark? Is there evidence that there were two different versions of Mark circulating? If not, then it is reasonable to assume Papias was talking about the same gospel of Mark everyone else was.
If the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him why does he rely so much on Mark, copying him word for word? Don’t know. I could speculate that he was not so much “relying” on Mark as he was simply wanting to produce a more Jewish version of Mark. But I don’t really need to know the answer to that question.
Remember the disciple Matthew was an eyewitness and Mark was getting his stories second-hand! Assuming Papias was right about Mark’s transcribing Peter’s memories, this does not preclude Mark having witnessed at least some of the events in his gospel, especially given that he was a resident of Jerusalem.
Odd “chain of custody” wouldn’t you say? I don’t see anything odd in what I’ve said.
Relative to modern scholars, no ancient scholar was remote from the source.
Yes, I realize that they are, in being ancient, chronologically, much closer to the authors of the gospels than anyone writing today. My point was that they were not generally so close to the people they claimed were the authors that they should be presumed to have direct knowledge of those persons’ authorship. Those who were actually early enough that they might have had a direct connection to the authors never named them as authors (the only exception I can think of is Clement, who names Paul as the author of I Cor, but as that isn’t a contested work it isn’t relevant to your initial question).
Ancient scholars were no more polemical than modern ones.
I don’t think that is true.
managed to achieve consensus on the authorship of the 27 books New Testament without even having to vote on it in an ecumenical council
Even among the orthodox there was not a consensus reached on the authorship of the 27 books. The authorship of Hebrews, for example, was disputed early and often, even by the orthodox–Eusebius mentions that is it rejected at Rome because it wasn’t written by Paul.
Also, it took hundreds of years for that consensus (so far as there ever was one) to emerge; by the time it did, those churches were a lot less independent; they were also a lot further removed from the facts that they were settling. Many of the antilegomena were disputed–for centuries–precisely because their authorship was questioned. And when those questions of authorship and canonicity were finally put to the side, it isn’t as though they were put to the side because someone suddenly and at last found the evidence that settled the matter but that previously had been lost or ignored. Even the orthodox today attribute the fixing of the canon to the work of the Holy Spirit in the church rather than to some later discovery of previously missing evidence that settled the factual questions.
It is preposterous to think that modern scholars are better able to determine the authorship of NT books than ancient scholars.
Picking up on Robert, I don’t think they can generally name the individual author (the undisputed Pauline letters being an obvious and significant exception, but again, not relevant to your question), but I think they can paint a portrait of the author, e.g.: The person who wrote this passage (probably) is or is not the same one who wrote that passage; the person who wrote this work was influenced by Jewish Christianity; the person who wrote this work is from this time period, or from this geographical area; the person who wrote this work was using this other work as a source; the person who wrote this work had such-and-such sort of education. Each point has to be considered on the merits of the arguments and evidence. Some will be extremely tentative, others are pretty conclusively established. I don’t think there is anything preposterous about following the evidence. (And for the record, among the evidence considered is what the early Christians said. Scholars do look at things like what Papias he heard or what books Jerome said he once saw.)
Porphyry:
It is not necessary that ancient scholars prominent to us had direct knowledge of NT authors for us to know the identity of the NT authors. As I said above, ancient scholars received the NT texts as members of congregations in the chain of custody. The affirmation of the congregations is the meat; the affirmation of the individual scholars is salt and pepper to the meat.
As for the polemics of ancient and modern scholars, do you agree with Bart Erhman when he says he is not polemical?
Consensus on authorship does not require 100% unanimity. Indeed, Eusebius and others report that consensus on the authorship of some texts was achieved more quickly and easily than others. This stands to reason. Some were almost universally acknowledged, others were almost universally rejected. Others – such as Hebrews and Revelation – fell closer to the middle. As for Hebrews, Rome may have eventually joined the consensus grudgingly – but they did indeed join it. This is often the way consensus is achieved. Rome could have stood its ground, but the conviction of the eastern churches prevailed – and they being the original recipients of the letter were in the better position to know. The respective positions of east and west were, of course, reversed when it came to Revelation.
Yes, it took a long time for consensus to develop because it took a long time for all the texts to make their way to all the congregations. No printing press. Nothing in the NT texts directing that there should be a NT. And certainly no due date; therefore, no sense of urgency. And you’re right that the deliberations didn’t end because of a “Perry Mason” moment. Rather, what brought things to a head was the need to make decisions on the texts left in question – neither clearly in or clearly out – because of the Roman Empire’s embrace of Christianity and because of the lines of distinction being firmed up between Christianity and Judaism (the need to cut the umbilical cord).
I don’t attribute the closing of the canon to the Holy Spirit; the matter was much more organic and mundane than that. That is not to say that God’s hand was not at work, but that it was subtly patient with human workings – like the growing of grass or the leavening of bread. The reason churches didn’t bicker and divide over canonicity in the 4th-5th centuries as they did over theological issues is that the latter required interpretation whereas authorship only required investigation. Sure, they were generations removed from the 1st century, but the trail was not nearly as cold for them as it is for modern scholars. There were many pseudonymously and anonymously written texts put forward in the churches, but churches thoroughly investigated all claims and accepted the texts worthy of acceptance and rejected those that weren’t. By most modern counts, they accepted only as authentic about a fifth of those put forward.
Interestingly, modern scholars tend to say who the NT authors weren’t more than they’re willing to say who they were. That’s taking the easier side of things, don’t you think? Anyone with a sledgehammer can take down a wall; it takes a qualified bricklayer to put one up. Kudos to the ancients for not leaving us in the dark about the authors of the 27 NT texts!
Robert:
Do you believe that Adolf Hitler wrote the Hitler-Tagebücher? Don’t know.
Do you believe that Peter wrote the gospel of Peter? No.
Do you believe that Judas wrote the gospel of Judas? Not likely.
Do you believe that Dionysius wrote the Corpus Areopagiticum? Don’t know.
As counterintuitive as it might seem, we have more knowledge about the first century than people in the second century would or could have. How so? We have access to a vast collection of ancient texts, inscriptions, and archaeological evidence from the first century on, not readily available to people living in the second century, who would have only had access to local knowledge and accounts of events happening within their immediate vicinity. These were primarily oral cultures. Most believers never read the gospels simply because because they couldn’t read. There must have been generations of believers who didn’t even know the gospels existed! What “chain of custody”?
ancient scholars received the NT texts as members of congregations in the chain of custody.
If there was a reliable chain of custody, why was the authorship disputed?
it took a long time for all the texts to make their way to all the congregations. No printing press.
The disputes over the NT canon presumed that the disputants knew the works they were disputing. It was not simply a case of “we haven’t heard of this letter to the Hebrews.”
what brought things to a head was the need to make decisions on the texts left in question – neither clearly in or clearly out – because of the Roman Empire’s embrace of Christianity
Right. You are making my case for me. You’d earlier suggest that the churches independently determined the authorship and independently arrived at the same conclusion. In fact, there were significant political and cultural forces moving the discussion to consensus.
churches thoroughly investigated all claims and accepted the texts worthy of acceptance and rejected those that weren’t.
You are assuming your own conclusion and putting forth as fact just the thing that is in dispute. A major criterion of authenticity was theological orthodoxy: could a “true apostle” (or apostolic man) have written such a work? If the work says theologically problematic things, that’s proof it is spurious.
modern scholars tend to say who the NT authors weren’t more than they’re willing to say who they were. That’s taking the easier side of things, don’t you think?
I think it is to be expected. How are we supposed to name the unknown person who authored any given work?
If I accuse you of some random crime, and you say, “it wasn’t me! Look! I have an iron clad alibi!” does the fact you haven’t proven who did commit the crime provide reason to dismiss your alibi? We must confine our conclusions to the evidence we have, and the fact we don’t have the evidence to name the actual author doesn’t mean the evidence we have showing that some other person wasn’t the author isn’t rock solid.
Stephen:
“As counterintuitive as it might seem, we have more knowledge about the first century than people in the second century would or could have.”
This sentence is overly broad and obscures important facts, which I’ll elucidate below.
“We have access to a vast collection of ancient texts, inscriptions, and archaeological evidence from the first century on, not readily available to people living in the second century, who would have only had access to local knowledge and accounts of events happening within their immediate vicinity.”
We may indeed have a lot more library-type resources than those folks had, and our literacy rates are surely higher, too – but these facts are not germane to the question of this thread. The 1st-4th century congregations were, in the case of the originals, present when the text was first read in public, and everyone in the room heard what was read…whether they were literate or not. And their leaders would tell them the author of the text, from whom (or from his emissary) the leaders would have received it. In the case of copies, the receiving congregation, especially its leaders, would know the provenance of the copy being read before it was ever authorized to be read before the congregation. Occasionally, a congregation would not have sufficiently vetted the manuscript copy being read, but the preponderance of congregations would correct for such individual failings. We know, for example, that pseudonymous writings sometimes found initial acceptance in this or that congregation before being revealed by other congregations as fakes.
“These were primarily oral cultures.”
On this, you and I can heartily agree.
“Most believers never read the gospels simply because because they couldn’t read. There must have been generations of believers who didn’t even know the gospels existed!”
The only way such people could be ignorant of the gospels is if they didn’t go to church…because that’s where the gospels were read. One of the ways that the ancients had of determining provenance, but that are lost to us, is that they wanted texts that had been read from the beginning in the churches. If an apostolic text appeared out of nowhere, it would be suspect.
“What “chain of custody”?”
From church to church. You should give more thought to how 4th century churches came to be reading the same NT texts without any pope, ecumenical council, canon list, or scripture verse to guide them.
Porphyry:
If there was a reliable chain of custody, why was the authorship disputed?
Any chain of custody can break when a link fails. Sometimes links failed. That’s why it took longer to achieve consensus on some books than others.
“The disputes over the NT canon presumed that the disputants knew the works they were disputing. It was not simply a case of ‘we haven’t heard of this letter to the Hebrews’.”
Keep in mind that the process of NT formation took roughly 300 years and that “canon” was not an issue in the beginning because no one knew that the goal was to produce a NT. The issue that ran from the beginning of process to the end was authenticity of authorship.
“You are making my case for me.”
I don’t see that, so you’re going to have to explain your thinking to me.
“You’d earlier suggest that the churches independently determined the authorship and independently arrived at the same conclusion.”
Keep in mind that independence did not disallow collaboration in reaching conclusions. This, in fact, was how consensus was achieved.
“In fact, there were significant political and cultural forces moving the discussion to consensus.”
Of course, but the forces provoked the deciding – not the decisions. Constantine didn’t care what books were in the NT as much as he wanted there to be a canon which all churches followed. Big difference.
“You are assuming your own conclusion and putting forth as fact just the thing that is in dispute.”
I don’t see that, so this is another case where you’re going to explain your thinking to me. (I’d infer it if I could.)
“A major criterion of authenticity was theological orthodoxy: could a ‘true apostle’ (or apostolic man) have written such a work? If the work says theologically problematic things, that’s proof it is spurious.”
I think “theological orthodoxy” as a criterion of authenticity is a misnomer. Are you aware of any writing by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, or Jude that was rejected for lack of orthodoxy. Rather than orthodoxy, the ancients, if uncertain of the provenance, look for clues in the text that the named author might not be the actual author.
“I think it is to be expected. How are we supposed to name the unknown person who authored any given work? If I accuse you of some random crime, and you say, “it wasn’t me! Look! I have an iron clad alibi!” does the fact you haven’t proven who did commit the crime provide reason to dismiss your alibi? We must confine our conclusions to the evidence we have, and the fact we don’t have the evidence to name the actual author doesn’t mean the evidence we have showing that some other person wasn’t the author isn’t rock solid.”
I didn’t say that modern scholars declaring who the author wasn’t was useless – just not nearly as useful as saying who the author was. And I was saying that it takes much less work to say who an author wasn’t than to say who it was – thus the analogy of tearing down a wall over against building one.
Any chain of custody can break when a link fails. Sometimes links failed.
If a link fails in a chain of custody, you no longer have a reliable chain of custody.
Keep in mind that the process of NT formation took roughly 300 years and that “canon” was not an issue in the beginning because no one knew that the goal was to produce a NT.
My point that you were responding to was that the disputes were not caused by some churches’ just not knowing the disputed works because dissemination took time. They did know of the works they were disputing, and they positively rejected them. You can’t just write their dissent off as “they didn’t have a printing press yet, so they didn’t know the works”.
Again, if we presume the ancients, by virtue of being ancient, had some epistemically privileged position concerning the authorship of the NT, we can’t write off the ancient disputes over authorship and simply look at the later orthodox consensus.
“You are making my case for me.” I don’t see that, so you’re going to have to explain your thinking to me.
I did, in the next line, which you quoted.
independence did not disallow collaboration in reaching conclusions. This, in fact, was how consensus was achieved.
What do you think “independent” means? Their conclusions aren’t independent if they influenced each other in reaching those conclusions.
Constantine didn’t care what books were in the NT as much as he wanted there to be a canon which all churches followed. Big difference.
I understand Constantine didn’t dictate which books were in the NT. That still doesn’t mean the churches arrived at their conclusions independently. If as you say, Constantine insisted that the churches adopt a single canon (which I’m not sure is actually true, by the way), that means the churches weren’t working independently to their own conclusions, they were forced to find agreement together. If a judge locks the jury in a room, and say, “I don’t care what your verdict is, but I want a unanimous verdict by this evening, or you will all be put to death,” you can’t very well say the jurors reached their verdicts independently.
“You are assuming your own conclusion and putting forth as fact just the thing that is in dispute.” I don’t see that, so this is another case where you’re going to explain your thinking to me. (I’d infer it if I could.)
Look at the line of yours that I quoted immediately before that comment: “churches thoroughly investigated all claims and accepted the texts worthy of acceptance and rejected those that weren’t.”
It asserts as fact:
1) That the churches “thoroughly investigated all claims.” (Have you established this? Do you know all the claims they were presented? Do you know the details of how they investigated those claims? Of are you merely asserting that their investigation was thorough?)
2) and they “accepted the texts worthy of acceptance and rejected those that weren’t” (What you need to show is precisely that the texts they accepted after their investigation were those and only those “worthy of acceptance”, instead you here simply assert it as a fact.)
I think “theological orthodoxy” as a criterion of authenticity is a misnomer. Do you actually mean “misnomer” here?
Are you aware of any writing by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, or Jude that was rejected for lack of orthodoxy. I could absolute produce examples of works that claimed to be written by apostles and that were rejected for lack of orthodoxy. Eusebius, for example, distinguishes the non-canonical books into those that are profitable, but not canonical, and those that are rejected because they are used by heretics. Of those last, he says quite explicitly “the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.” In other words, their heterodox teaching was taken as certain proof of their inauthenticity.
Rather than orthodoxy, the ancients, if uncertain of the provenance, look for clues in the text that the named author might not be the actual author.
They did both.
I didn’t say that modern scholars declaring who the author wasn’t was useless – just not nearly as useful as saying who the author was.
Yes, the observation is both true and trivial. The relevant question is whether the ancients did more than they were justified in doing by identifying authors or whether we must content ourselves with modest speculation about who wrote which books.
This is the relevance of Robert’s asking about things like pseudo-Dionysus. There are numerous, demonstrably fraudulent works that were widely accepted as authentic by the Christian tradition for centuries. That fact puts paid to any naive illusion that the Christian tradition was meticulous in investigating and ascribing authorship to works.
Porphyry, you said:
“If a link fails in a chain of custody, you no longer have a reliable chain of custody.”
That may apply when considering a single artifact, like a painting, being passed from one person to another. However, we are talking about countless copies (not just the original) being passed on to hundreds, if not thousands of congregations. A single point of failure is not going to break such a system; on the contrary, there are multiple – if not innumerable – points of recovery.
”My point that you were responding to was that the disputes were not caused by some churches’ just not knowing the disputed works because dissemination took time. They did know of the works they were disputing, and they positively rejected them. You can’t just write their dissent off as ‘they didn’t have a printing press yet, so they didn’t know the works’.”
I am not writing off any dissension. Some dissension indeed resulted in ultimate rejection of a text. As I said, by some counts only one of five potential texts were accepted into the final New Testament. But rejection by some was not necessarily permanent; and, even when it was, it did not always result in rejection by the preponderance of congregations.
“Again, if we presume the ancients, by virtue of being ancient, had some epistemically privileged position concerning the authorship of the NT, we can’t write off the ancient disputes over authorship and simply look at the later orthodox consensus.”
My main point is that initial resistance to the authenticity of a text didn’t preclude ultimate consensus. The churches of the 4th-5th centuries received the 1st century texts under consideration from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century churches before them. There can be no denying that 4th-5th centuries churches achieved consensus on the 27 texts of the New Testament while remaining organizationally independent. That is, there was no central authority over their decisions about which books to consider canonical, as evidenced by regional proclamations of the canon such as that of Athanasius in 367.
“What do you think ‘independent’ means?”
Not under a controlling human authority.
“Their conclusions aren’t independent if they influenced each other in reaching those conclusions.”
Why not? If you were to influence me in this conversation and/or I influence you, does this mean ipso facto that one of us has lost his independence? If that’s the case then every independent nation on earth would lose its independence the moment it attempted to resolve its differences with another independent nation through negotiations.
“I understand Constantine didn’t dictate which books were in the NT. That still doesn’t mean the churches arrived at their conclusions independently. If as you say, Constantine insisted that the churches adopt a single canon (which I’m not sure is actually true, by the way), that means the churches weren’t working independently to their own conclusions, they were forced to find agreement together. If a judge locks the jury in a room, and say, “I don’t care what your verdict is, but I want a unanimous verdict by this evening, or you will all be put to death,” you can’t very well say the jurors reached their verdicts independently.”
First of all, I don’t accept your excessively dramatic analogy of ‘decision or death,’ nor that Constantine forced a decision
in explicit terms. But however great the pressure was to come to a conclusion on canonicity was or wasn’t, and whatever the sources of that pressure, the fact that the churches actually came to a consensus is proof that a consensus was possible in spite of whatever points of disagreement there may have been.
“You are assuming your own conclusion and putting forth as fact just the thing that is in dispute…Look at the line of yours that I quoted immediately before that comment: ‘churches thoroughly investigated all claims and accepted the texts worthy of acceptance and rejected those that weren’t’. It asserts as fact: 1) That the churches ‘thoroughly investigated all claims.’ (Have you established this? Do you know all the claims they were presented? Do you know the details of how they investigated those claims? Of are you merely asserting that their investigation was thorough?)”
We do not have to have transcripts of their discussions to see that they were thorough enough to achieve a consensus without having to call an ecumenical council, as history plainly attests.
“2) and they “accepted the texts worthy of acceptance and rejected those that weren’t” (What you need to show is precisely that the texts they accepted after their investigation were those and only those “worthy of acceptance”, instead you here simply assert it as a fact.)”
It’s a matter of uncontested history that the New Testament we have today took its final shape in the 4th-5th centuries.
“I could absolutely produce examples of works that claimed to be written by apostles and that were rejected for lack of orthodoxy. Eusebius, for example, distinguishes the non-canonical books into those that are profitable, but not canonical, and those that are rejected because they are used by heretics. Of those last, he says quite explicitly “the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.” In other words, their heterodox teaching was taken as certain proof of their inauthenticity.”
You are illustrating my point about orthodoxy. What I mean by misnomer is that orthodoxy in the example you cite was used to determine authorship, not canonicity. It’s authorship that ultimately determined canonicity; consideration of orthodoxy was only a means to that end. If you could give me an example of a text that was determined to have been authored by an apostle but that the apostle wrote contra orthodoxy in that text, and so on that basis his text was rejected, then you could say orthodoxy was a determining factor of canonicity – but history records no such case.
“The relevant question is whether the ancients did more than they were justified in doing by identifying authors or whether we must content ourselves with modest speculation about who wrote which books.”
You are merely cheerleading the hubris of modern biblical scholarship. They disrespect the verdict of the ancients while being praised for being “modest” in the way they do so. The ancients had just as much fear of appearing gullible as we do. No one wants to look the fool, to be hoodwinked. That’s why, while about 20 of the books could be accepted as authentic without much question, the remaining 7 took some extra deliberation for a conclusion to be reached. No one can better attest to the authenticity of the recipe for Aunt Millie’s German chocolate cake than Aunt’s Millie’s closest relatives. Her descendants living two millennia later and speaking foreign tongues shouldn’t be claiming that the recipe must be someone else’s.
People go to the public library or the book store and accept the authorship ascriptions on the books sitting on the shelves with hardly a question at all. Yet the authorship of the 27 texts we call the New Testament was vetted far more thoroughly than practically all of those other books.
It is not the ancients who have gone out on a limb regarding NT authorship; it is the moderns.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)