The 21st-century non-religious, non-scholar reading Bart’s “Forged” and “Athanasius’s “Festal Letter 39” wanting to find out from a purely historical point of view who wrote the 27 New Testament texts faces a dilemma. He wonders, “All other things being equal, which of these two scholars – the modern one or the ancient one – is better qualified to tell me the answer? One thing’s for sure, they’re not telling me the same thing.” Indeed, the modern scholar is telling him that the ancient scholar is wrong almost 75% of the time. I would tend to think that in most cases, such a reader would lean Bart’s direction simply because it’s easier to read prose from a contemporary than from one who lived a millennium and a half ago. In any case, such a reader is not in an enviable position. He has neither the training nor the time to come to the answer the same separate ways that these two men came to their answers. He has to trust one or the other for the history of the matter. Or else trust neither and remain ignorant of the answers. I don’t envy him.
Have we moderately reinvented what “authorship by the Holy Spirit” means. It’s not literally.
Suppose 2000 years that simply using the Torah as a guide and inspiration to write new stories was considered to be that. To them the Torah was a divine text. Therefore by using a divine text to create a new text, the new text if found coherent with the Torah was also considered a divine text.
The New Testament books were written by using the Torah and Prophets and the literary inspiration to create new stories.
There’s no way to know who the authors were. Anybody with knowledge of the Torah and Prophets would be able to create new stories
I keep telling you again and again, yet I see no sign that you absorb the point: the key 4th-century witnesses I have been citing (Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine) were not reporting their individual findings, as Bart reports his individual findings (along with references to the findings of others), but rather these 4th-century witnesses were reporting the consensus view of all the churches, most notably, the apostolic ones since the 1st century.
Recall that “accepted” = apostolic and orthodox
Any consensus they were reporting was a fourth century consensus–that is what they can directly speak to. But the issue, what needs to be shown, is whether it actually goes back to the first century.
How did the consensus that, e.g., Matthew wrote the first gospel and John wrote the last actually arise?
On that point, Athanasius tells us nothing, and what Eusebius tells us only raises serious questions about the accuracy church’s institutional memory.
As to your hypothetical 21st century layman:
Modern scholars already know all that is still available to be known about Athanasius, and they have taken account of that–and many other things–in reaching their conclusions. Whatever qualifications you know that Athanasius has to speak to the authors of the NT, modern scholars are also aware of.
The only reason a layman should side with Athanasius over a consensus of modern scholars is if he thinks the modern scholars are incompetent. But that is, practically by definition, not something a layman is usually in a position to judge.
(I want to acknowledge that being an expert doesn’t necessarily require degrees and an endowed chair; an amateur could with a lot of time and effort, develop genuine expertise necessary to seriously challenge established scholars. Occasionally amateurs do so successfully; but it is is quite rare. The fact that it is the argument and evidence that matters not the CV of of the author is why most peer-reviewed journals don’t require you to show your degrees and affiliations before they consider your paper.)
That is not to say that a consensus of modern scholars is always right. It is to say that, even if they’ve gotten it wrong, a layman is almost guaranteed not to be in a position to say so.
In general, when a layman insists that all the specialists are wrong, he is probably speaking from a place of ignorance and hubris. In fact, even when a layman takes sides in an active dispute between specialists he is almost certainly out of his league.
Again, the real question that needs to be asked is not who is better qualified. What you need to be asking is why the modern scholars think what they do. What are their reasons for thinking the traditional attributions are wrong? Until you directly engage that, you aren’t entitled to call their position preposterous.
“Who Is Better Qualified to Determine Authorship of the NT Texts – Modern Scholars or Ancient Ones?” seems to be a strange question to ask only to those who have an presupposition that it does not need to be asked because the answer is assumed (consciously or unconsciously) to be obvious.
Porphyry, this is my response to your post 224:
“Any consensus they were reporting was a fourth century consensus–that is what they can directly speak to. But the issue, what needs to be shown, is whether it actually goes back to the first century.”
Unless their testimony includes the 1st century, it is senseless and useless. Are we to believe they were saying that the consensus arose in the 4th century? According to the methodology employed by Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine and the others, the “handing down” had to have begun in the 1st century – otherwise, the writings could not have been called apostolic. The full collection may not have been attested to until late in the process – that is, the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century; but the apostolicity of the individual texts, by the methodology employed, had to have been declared from the beginning, at least by the author and the first recipients.
“How did the consensus that, e.g., Matthew wrote the first gospel and John wrote the last actually arise? On that point, Athanasius tells us nothing, and what Eusebius tells us only raises serious questions about the accuracy church’s institutional memory.”
Let’s stay on point: authorship of the NT texts, not details about when each book was written. Besides, I’m unaware of Athanasius and Augustine – much less Eusebius – testifying to an empire-wide agreement among the churches about the order in which the NT texts were written.
“As to your hypothetical 21st century layman:”
In your remarks on this subject, you seem to put more of a load on the layman than on the scholar. Given that the latter is a professional and the former is an amateur, that seems backwards. (I’m speaking of when a scholar writes for a lay market.)
According to the methodology employed by Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine and the others, the “handing down” had to have begun in the 1st century – otherwise, the writings could not have been called apostolic. The full collection may not have been attested to until late in the process – that is, the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century; but the apostolicity of the individual texts, by the methodology employed, had to have been declared from the beginning, at least by the author and the first recipients.
How does their methodology actually ensure it goes back to the first century?
Something to consider: in canon law a custom that is 100 years old is considered immemorial. That is, no one can be expected to remember more than 100 years. Absent documents, if something goes back 100 years, it might as well have always been that way.
How does the church in the 4th century know that a tradition goes back to the first century if that tradition was not documented along the way?
So when we have a fourth century author saying generically, “this is generally accepted by the churches as a thing given to the ancient Fathers”, or “the Churches hold this as a thing received from the beginning” he may be perfectly correct in reporting what the fourth century churches think about the origins of their religion (especially of their Scriptures), but how can we know that their thinking that it goes back to the apostles is historically accurate?
Institutions, especially religious institutions, make dubious historical claims about their origins all the time. Shall we simply accept them all uncritically?
Let’s stay on point: authorship of the NT texts, not details about when each book was written.
You misunderstood me. I didn’t mean to make a chronological claim. The gospels are customarily identified by ordinal number, derived from the order they are customarily placed in (if you open a bible, Mt is first. If you list the gospels, you will probably place Matthew first). This order does reflect the traditional view of their relative chronology, but it is not wedded to it. Plenty of modern scholars who accept Marcan priority will refer to Matthew as the first gospel.
you seem to put more of a load on the layman than on the scholar
I don’t see why you say this. The layman’s job (as anyone’s) is not to opine on subjects where he isn’t entitled to an opinion. If a layman hasn’t carefully and thoroughly studied why modern scholars hold what they hold, he has no business saying they are wrong.
I suppose it is a great load on the layman insofar as, unlike the professional, he wasn’t paid to spend years mastering the literature in his field, and he isn’t employed to continue to stay on top of his field. In that practical respect, yes, the layman is at a massive disadvantage in arguing with professionals. That why it is rare for the amateur to successfully challenge the consensus. highly trained, highly specialized professionals are, within their field, generally going to have a very substantial leg up on everyone else.
Porphyry, this is the beginning of my response to your post 230:
“‘According to the methodology employed by Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine and the others, the “handing down” had to have begun in the 1st century – otherwise, the writings could not have been called apostolic. The full collection may not have been attested to until late in the process – that is, the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century; but the apostolicity of the individual texts, by the methodology employed, had to have been declared from the beginning, at least by the author and the first recipients.’ How does their methodology actually ensure it goes back to the first century? Something to consider: in canon law a custom that is 100 years old is considered immemorial. That is, no one can be expected to remember more than 100 years. Absent documents, if something goes back 100 years, it might as well have always been that way. How does the church in the 4th century know that a tradition goes back to the first century if that tradition was not documented along the way? So when we have a fourth century author saying generically, ‘this is generally accepted by the churches as a thing given to the ancient Fathers,’ or ‘the Churches hold this as a thing received from the beginning’ he may be perfectly correct in reporting what the fourth century churches think about the origins of their religion (especially of their Scriptures), but how can we know that their thinking that it goes back to the apostles is historically accurate? Institutions, especially religious institutions, make dubious historical claims about their origins all the time. Shall we simply accept them all uncritically?”
Do these questions from you mean that you have now conceded that there was indeed a 4th-century consensus about authorship of the 27 books of the New Testament – or, if not all 27, then at least the 20 that Eusebius identified as “acknowledged as genuine” (i.e. undisputed) in CH 3.25.1-3? Otherwise, what’s the point of our haggling about how far back their claim actually goes if you don’t concede that a 4th-century claim to consensus about authorship was ever made? I ask this because my recollection is that you were quite insistent that I was misreading Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine, and others on this point.
As for the rest of your post 230, I am time-starved for the next day or two but will answer the rest of your questions as time allows.
The blessing.
I can present you a moral justification why it’s not a sin to question, disagree, disobey the authorship authority of the Bible itself.
A long time ago in the Garden of Eden there was a problem. Adam and Eve were trapped in this problem of being immortal or dying someday. God forbids that they are immortal and so they must die to become mortals. The falsehood is that the first sin committed was in the Garden of Eden.
It’s not so, the first sin was committed when Cain killed Abel because sin is death itself and the cause of itself.
Understanding why God preferred the animal sacrifice of Abel than the grain sacrifice of Cain is because the animals were created after the grain during the Creation. Animals have more authority than the grain. Therefore whatever has more authority is what thou preferred as sacrificed. Cain has not committed yet by only disagreeing with God’s favor of the animal sacrifice.
Therefore disobedience, disagreement itself is not a sin.
This scenario occurs between Jesus and Judas. Judas is trapped into obeying what Jesus said which leads to his death, also called the betrayal of Jesus. The other option is to disobey. Because the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden is traditionally taught as being the first sin, the betrayal of Jesus is also taught as being a sin. Therefore, traditionally any disobedience and disagreement with the Church authority of chronologically “handing down” the scriptures is a sin that is theologically justified by Adam and Eve committing the first sin in the Garden of Eden. That is why you’re now looking at the supposed writings of early church fathers in this problem of authorship.
The blessing.
The ancient scholars and mind of the church can’t even make sense of the ancient stories.
The Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve were made on the eight day. The mankind was created on day six. Cain did not marry his sister and commit incest. There’s other humans out there, not unmentioned sons and daughters. Cain kills Abel because if animal sacrifice is greater than grain sacrifice, then human sacrifice must be greater than animal sacrifice. That’s why nobody believes in the sacrificial Hebrew logic anymore, but they’re still out there someplace swinging dead chickens around their head anyways. God warns Cain to keep his feeling inside, stay inside his house because sin is waiting outside. Which means don’t go kill Abel because that is sin.
Modern scholars, hands down. They can’t possibly put together anything more hysterical and historical than the ancient scholars did.
Porphyry, this is my second installment on answering your post 230:
“You misunderstood me. I didn’t mean to make a chronological claim. The gospels are customarily identified by ordinal number, derived from the order they are customarily placed in (if you open a bible, Mt is first. If you list the gospels, you will probably place Matthew first). This order does reflect the traditional view of their relative chronology, but it is not wedded to it. Plenty of modern scholars who accept Marcan priority will refer to Matthew as the first gospel.”
Then I continue to misunderstand you because, as you know, ancient collections of the Gospels and of the New Testament sometimes arranged the Gospels orders different from the one we know. That is, there was no one single order in which they always appeared. Please rephrase your question as if starting from scratch so that I can have a better chance of understanding what you’re asking and/or the point you’re attempting to make.
I should be able to get the final installment of my answer to post 230 sometime tomorrow.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)