Very few people in the ancient world could read much less write. It should then be no shock that most believers simply accepted the authorial traditions uncritically. What else could they have done?
Mike what do you make of the fact that the epistle of James was disputed until the fourth century? If it was authentic it would had to have been composed very early, in the 50s!
What do you say to the fact that 2 Thess makes statements that directly contradict 1 Thess?
What about statements in Ephesians that directly contradict opinions Paul expressed in 1 Cor?
I wouldn’t get too excited about ancient traditions. Before about two hundred years ago questioning authorial orthodoxy could result in losing one’s life. Interesting that as soon as scholars were actually free to express contrary opinions they began to do so.
Robert, you said in Post 35:
“1. You continue to avoid the question about your assumptions. Do you accept that they are indeed assumptions or are you just trying to avoid the issue?”
I don’t make any assumptions when I read Eusebius and Athanasias. I read them just as I would read any other non-fiction author – ancient or modern – whose writings bear on history that interests me. I judge to the best of my ability each writer and writing on their own merits.
“2. If scholars have indeed (cf #3) ignored the work of ancient scholars like Eusebius and Athanasius, perhaps you could present their work here, and we can judge if we consider it convincing.”
The references I have already made to these two men in this thread have been largely ignored.
“3. Don’t expect scholars to comprehensively rehash arguments for positions that are generally considered settled. To correctly understand and engage in scholarship on a specific point, a doctoral student at a world-class faculty is first expected to critically review hundreds of years of prior scholarly discussion in multiple languages. Some matters are considered more or less settled consensus, only rarely but sometimes contested vigorously by those who have proven themselves qualified to do so. If the point of one’s dissertation, book, or article is not attempting to overturn a specific point of consensus, it would be improper to rehash commonly accepted arguments. As I said above, it can be controversial for a genuine scholar to seek to overturn the overwhelming scholarly consensus, and then we would demand meticulous and comprehensive scholarly work. Otherwise, it is not preposterous to accept points of a scholarly consensus that one has no issue with.”
I accept everything you say here as true, and reading it leads me to say that I should have added “shameful” to “preposterous.” This is “chronological snobbery” as a form of art!
“Perhaps you could point to specific examples of the preposterous work of scholars, and we could ascertain the theses being defended.”
You summarized it very well in this point three. If ancient verdicts can be permanently dismissed in this way, then I consider that preposterous and shameful.
“4. So are you accepting that there is indeed an inherent tendency in the church tradition to provide justification for faith and practice? Or are you just trying to ignore this point?”
I didn’t ignore the point. I rebutted it by calling attention to the inherent tendency outside the church tradition to provide justification for unbelief and lack of practice.
“5. What specific crippling inherent tendencies of secular scholarship are you alluding to here? Please give specific examples.”
You are blind to your own prejudices. My detailing them is not going to help you.
“6. But you have ignored my point that what you consider controversial is not at all controversial among critical scholars, both believing Christians, unbelievers, and those from other faith groups. So please do not retire from addressing why you consider these issues controversial and polemical in your sense. Is it because of your apologetic desire to defend matters important to your faith?”
My focus in this thread is on history, not faith.
Porphyry, you said in Post 36:
“Here is Jerome:
the epistle which is entitled “To the Hebrews” is accepted as the apostle Paul’s not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times [which, by the way, is not accurate, see Origen], although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches.”
This clip of Jerome is not germane to the thread, the subject of which is authorship. Jerome says he doesn’t care about it. If he did, he’d be following Augustine’s logic from “Contra Faustum” rather than ignoring its implications in the case of Hebrews. Neither is Jerome interested in orthodoxy; instead, his focus is entirely ecclesiastical. For him, it is enough that it was written by an unknown churchman (though he does not explain here how he knows this) and that it is regularly read in the churches. My interest throughout this thread has been authorship of the NT texts. Jerome is intentionally offering nothing on that point; and he offers a different criterion for canonicity (ecclesiastical source and practice) than the one you’ve been pushing (theological orthodoxy). Again, you and I don’t differ on the point that orthodoxy had a place in the discussion of authorship; our main difference is about whether or not moderns can rightfully claim to be more knowledgeable about the authorship of the 27 NT texts than the ancients who first read and heard them.
Notwithstanding all I’ve said above, Jerome has tangentially made an important historical observation in this quote when he bears witness that Hebrews was “accepted as the apostle Paul’s not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times.” The east first received the letter and therefore were in the best position to validate it. It is the certitude of the earliest recipients of the 7 disputed texts who were able to win over uncertain congregations and scholars so that these 7 could be added to the 20 “recognized books” (Eusebius) that had been settled since the early 4th century. It is not without reason that historians generally consider earlier sources preferable to later ones.
Porphyry, you said in Post 37:
“There is absolutely no reason I should have to fulfill such a silly request to prove my point.”
You can call it silly if you like, but I consider it profoundly telling that no writing known to be produced by an apostle, brother of the Lord, or apostolic helper was ever rejected on theological or any other grounds.
“My original point, from post 14, was “A major criterion of authenticity was theological orthodoxy: could a ‘true apostle’ (or apostolic man) have written such a work?”
In this wording, there is no disagreement between you and me. Theological orthodoxy was used as a means of helping to determine authorship. Theological orthodoxy alone was not enough to determine inclusion or exclusion. Otherwise the NT canon would be larger because, as Athanasius said in his 367 proclamation on the canon, there were other worthy works not included.
Consider also that, unlike the OT, the NT contains only first generation writing. One has to wonder how it was that the book of Joshua was added to that of Moses, but the writings of Clement and other post-apostolic authors were not added to those of the apostles. The answer lies in authorship; orthodoxy was not enough to gain entrance. But my concern is not the canon per se, but rather authorship. Canon is an ecclesiastical issue; authorship is a historical issue. I’m interested in the latter, not the former.
“I provided the quotation from Eusebius, in post 19, that demonstrates that I was correct: “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.”
Again, I have no problem with this.
Robert, you said in Post 38:
“Page 18 Paragraphs 6 & 7 seem to endorse the majority text, which is not a standard accepted by critical scholars of NT text criticism. (There may even be an underlying unconscious methodological assumption that manuscripts were typically copies of an original.) On the other hand, the majority text is sometimes defended by old-fashioned proponents of the Greek textus receptus and/or King James Version. Ironically, perhaps, it also seems to be more but of very slight importance to the results of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). If, as is generally assumed, the earliest generations of copyists already made the most numerous errors in copies that we do not have and later generations supported a progressive move toward (a) text type(s), the CBGM may may suffer from a more subtle but similar methodological flaw.”
The argument of my book does not rest on text type distinctions, nor on distinctions between original-to-copy versus copy-to-copy.
Porphyry, regarding your proposed crime scene analogy in Post 39:
When I say that the churches were geographically-disparate and organizationally-independent, I’m saying that there was no central controlling authority – whether ecclesiastical, political, or otherwise – who could impose a decision about authorship on them. An ecumenical council could have taken a vote and imposed a solution…but, and this is highly significant, none were ever called upon to do so – yet agreement was reached. There must be a reason for this, especially when the churches notoriously needed ecumenical councils to settle all sort of other disagreements. I think the reason lies in the fact that the provenance of texts in those days, with every copy being handwritten, was easier to achieve – even if very time-consuming and prone to delays in identifying and eradicating forgeries. I have not claimed that every church was a Chuck/Charlie. Some were an Alice or Bob, but that does not necessarily mean that they were pretending to know more than they did (which would be a fraud of its own). But even though Alice and Bob didn’t see the perp, since they were near the crime scene it’s certainly possible they may have seen some things of interest to investigators. I assume that some churches did accept the testimony of other churches about the provenance of this or that text, but there would be no shame in doing so because it only stands to reason that some congregations would have more access to the relevant proof points than others. The salient point in all this is that churches were able to work out their positions without things becoming so contentious as to require a church council, which owes to the matter of authorship being one of investigation and not interpretation.
Porphyry,
In Post 40, you are fighting strawmen – not me. I don’t accept your premise that churches of the 1st-4th centuries “failed spectacularly” at rooting out forgeries. I don’t have time now to go back and check all the examples of long-undetected forgeries that you and someone else have put forward in this thread, but I don’t recall an apostolic text being among them. The focus of this thread stated in its title is the authorship of NT texts. Neither ancient churches nor I have put them forward as the meticulous arbiters of authorship of all Christian texts. Eusebius does a reasonably good job of cataloging apostolic forgeries. If you want to criticize the vetting process, focus on what you think he got wrong about it. As for the textual criticism issues, you are likewise attacking the idea that they were scrupulous beyond criticism with respect to every word that the apostles wrote – which is a claim neither I nor the ancients have made.
Stephen, in Post 41 you wrote:
“Very few people in the ancient world could read much less write. It should then be no shock that most believers simply accepted the authorial traditions uncritically. What else could they have done?”
I don’t find it easy to imagine a church congregation in the 1st-4th century that didn’t have at least one literate person. Everyone else in the congregation would know what the texts said from his lips.
“Mike what do you make of the fact that the epistle of James was disputed until the fourth century? If it was authentic it would had to have been composed very early, in the 50s!”
Not much.
“What do you say to the fact that 2 Thess makes statements that directly contradict 1 Thess?”
Chapter and verse?
“What about statements in Ephesians that directly contradict opinions Paul expressed in 1 Cor?”
Chapter and verse?
“I wouldn’t get too excited about ancient traditions. Before about two hundred years ago questioning authorial orthodoxy could result in losing one’s life. Interesting that as soon as scholars were actually free to express contrary opinions they began to do so.”
You should read Porphyry above. He’ll tell you about a churchman from the 4th-5th century who felt very free to express contrary opinions on authorship – and even that he didn’t care very much about authorship. And I think the guy died with his head on.
This clip of Jerome is not germane to the thread, the subject of which is authorship. Jerome says he doesn’t care about it
You’ve got to be kidding.
I offered the quotation–on your demand–precisely to show that the eventual agreement on canonicity was reached only by bracketing the contentious issue of authorship.
I had asserted (post 27, quoted again in posts 32 and 36):
it is demonstrably false to claim that there was consensus about authorship of the NT books: To achieve consensus on the canon, they were forced to distinguish the issue of authorship from the issue of canonicity; that allowed them to achieve consensus on canonicity while retaining their doubts about authorship.
To this, you challenged me (post 32): If you think it’s demonstrable, demonstrate it.
I provided the quotation from Jerome that shows exactly what I claimed: there was not a consensus on authorship; to reach a consensus on the canon they had to set aside the question of authorship.
Then you have the gall to reply that it is irrelevant because Jerome says authorship doesn’t matter for canonicity, when that is precisely the point I had been making all along!
I don’t accept your premise that churches of the 1st-4th centuries “failed spectacularly” at rooting out forgeries. I don’t have time now to go back and check all the examples of long-undetected forgeries that you and someone else have put forward in this thread,
Are you familiar with any of the examples we cited? How can you simply deny my premise if you aren’t familiar with the material?
but I don’t recall an apostolic text being among them. The focus of this thread stated in its title is the authorship of NT texts. Neither ancient churches nor I have put them forward as the meticulous arbiters of authorship of all Christian texts.
So, given that you don’t seem to be familiar with the examples we have provided of widely accepted frauds, would you concede that, if there are in fact numerous examples of forged Christian texts widely accepted by orthodox Christians as authentic, it would reflect poorly on the orthodox Christians’ ability to judge the authorship and authenticity of Christian texts?
If so, is there a reason to assume that they are beyond criticism (such that it is preposterous for a modern scholar to suggest they were mistaken) when judging the authorship and authenticity of one set of Christian texts (those in the NT canon) and pretty poor at judging the authorship and authenticity of another?
Going back a bit, I need to comment on this:
When Athanasius listed the books of the New Testament, he did not comment on their orthodoxy or canonicity…but he did state their authorship.
That’s just wrong.
In his 39th Festal Letter, Athanasius explicitly comments on canonicity. That is (part of) what makes the letter so remarkable–that it is–beginning to end–an explicit discussion of canonicity.
As to authorship of the NT, he says very little. He specifies books by their familiar authorial attribution (the same as even the most skeptical scholar might use, for example, in speaking of the Gospel of John), and he presumes that the books are written by the authors they are traditionally attributed to, but he does not pretend to be settling any questions of authorship concerning the NT.
The only place he makes a clear statement about contested authorship is with respect to the apocrypha (as a whole, without specifying the works he refers to), saying they were an invention of heretics.
As to whether he comments on orthodoxy, it is perhaps not quite so clear, but he says the canonical works are inspired, and he says that “in these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.”
So he did comment on their orthodoxy: “in these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.”. He very explicitly and repeatedly commented on their canonicity: “it hath seemed good to me also . . . to bring before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine”; “there are other books besides these, not indeed included in the Canon . . . ” He said very little about their (human) authorship.
You essentially got the letter’s contents backwards.
Porphyry, in Post 49 you said:
“You’ve got to be kidding.”
Read it for yourself: “It is of no great moment who the author is.”
“I offered the quotation–on your demand–precisely to show that the eventual agreement on canonicity was reached only by bracketing the contentious issue of authorship.”
Jerome did not say that there was a consensus to bracket authorship; on the contrary, he said, “the epistle which is entitled “To the Hebrews” is accepted as the apostle Paul’s not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times.” At the most, Jerome was speaking for the church of his age, not the church that was closest to the apostles – and, to his credit, he himself made that clear.
“I provided the quotation from Jerome that shows exactly what I claimed: there was not a consensus on authorship; to reach a consensus on the canon they had to set aside the question of authorship. Then you have the gall to reply that it is irrelevant because Jerome says authorship doesn’t matter for canonicity, when that is precisely the point I had been making all along!”
I was not propelled by gall. I was simply reminding you that my concern from the beginning of this thread until now has been authorship of the NT texts. An ancient source whose interest is canonicity and who is agnostic on authorship doesn’t advance the dialogue.
Porphyry, in Post 50 you wrote:
“Are you familiar with any of the examples we cited?”
The ones that Eusebius said the ancient churches had identified as forgeries before he cataloged the state of play.
“How can you simply deny my premise if you aren’t familiar with the material?”
Because what they all have in common is that none of them made it into the New Testament. This thread is about NT texts.
“So, given that you don’t seem to be familiar with the examples we have provided of widely accepted frauds, would you concede that, if there are in fact numerous examples of forged Christian texts widely accepted by orthodox Christians as authentic, it would reflect poorly on the orthodox Christians’ ability to judge the authorship and authenticity of Christian texts? If so, is there a reason to assume that they are beyond criticism (such that it is preposterous for a modern scholar to suggest they were mistaken) when judging the authorship and authenticity of one set of Christian texts (those in the NT canon) and pretty poor at judging the authorship and authenticity of another?”
The undeniable fact that none of the texts you listed made it into the New Testament is testimony that the ancient churches were successful in vetting apostolic writings. Neither did any of these forgeries even make it into Eusebius’s list of possibles. If it was the case that ancient churches policed other writings with less zeal than they did alleged apostolic writings, that should not surprise us because it has long been a tenet of historiography that primary sources have pride of place over secondary sources.
Porphyry, in Post 51 you said:
“Going back a bit, I need to comment on this: ‘When Athanasius listed the books of the New Testament, he did not comment on their orthodoxy or canonicity…but he did state their authorship.’ That’s just wrong.”
I can see why you might say that. Taken out of context, my words – “he did not comment on their orthodoxy or canonicity” – are confusing. Therefore, I’ll explain what I meant. Obviously the subject of Athanasius’s letter was the biblical canon. What I was getting at was that his letter was not an explanation of why the books listed made it into the canon…other than to say they were “handed down” as “divine.” Unlike Jerome, Athanasius was not saying what he allowed in the canon and why he allowed it. Rather, Athanasius wanted it understood that he was reciting the canon that had received. So it preceded him. Again, it was “handed down” from previous generations as “divine.” He gives no explanation of how these texts originally came to be “handed down” as “divine.” That’s what I meant when I said “he did not comment on…canonicity” Same for orthodoxy.
“In his 39th Festal Letter, Athanasius explicitly comments on canonicity. That is (part of) what makes the letter so remarkable–that it is–beginning to end–an explicit discussion of canonicity.”
Actually, I think you’re misreading it. I think it’s fairer to the text to say it is primarily a declaration of the canon, with a few flickers of light on related subjects sprinkled in.
“As to authorship of the NT, he says very little. He specifies books by their familiar authorial attribution (the same as even the most skeptical scholar might use, for example, in speaking of the Gospel of John), and he presumes that the books are written by the authors they are traditionally attributed to, but he does not pretend to be settling any questions of authorship concerning the NT.”
He says “very little” about NT authorship?! He explicitly gave the names of every single NT author save Luke, whose identity can be safely inferred from the other explicit mentions of Luke in the letter and the broader context which was widespread understanding of the Luke-Acts connection. He could have easily used different words, such as “the fourteen epistles attributed to Paul” instead of “there are fourteen Epistles of Paul.” But he used the words he used because wanted his readers to understand him. He couldn’t very well expect them to believe that he had been “handed down” something “divine” that was not actually divine. For if the letters of Paul were the letters of someone else, they could not be the word of God.
“The only place he makes a clear statement about contested authorship is with respect to the apocrypha (as a whole, without specifying the works he refers to), saying they were an invention of heretics.”
My concern in this thread is exclusively with the NT texts.
“As to whether he comments on orthodoxy, it is perhaps not quite so clear, but he says the canonical works are inspired, and he says that ‘in these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.’ So he did comment on their orthodoxy: ‘in these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.’. He very explicitly and repeatedly commented on their canonicity: “it hath seemed good to me also . . . to bring before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine”; “there are other books besides these, not indeed included in the Canon . . . ”
He uses that same word “godliness” to describe the works that are worthy of reading but are not canonical, so I don’t see how you can suggest that he is identifying godliness/orthodoxy as a/the causative factor in canonicity.
“He said very little about their (human) authorship.”
Addressed above.
“You essentially got the letter’s contents backwards.”
I think you’d better read it again.
Mike-
The “literate members of the local congregation” idea receives a vigorous critique from Robyn Faith Walsh in her recent book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, which I have reviewed in another thread at this very forum.
*
If you don’t find it compelling that a text attributed by its partisans to the brother of Jesus was disputed until the fourth century then what becomes of your idea of a “chain of custody”?
*
In 1 Thess, almost universally attributed to the historical Paul, the Parousia is at the door and will come suddenly and unexpectedly, like a “thief in the night”. In 2 Thess, no, the end is not yet. There will be signs beforehand which the author delineates.
*
In 1 Cor, Paul deliberately criticizes some members of the congregation for the claim that they already participate in the Resurrection and the Kingdom. Paul says no, the Resurrection and the Kingdom is yet to come at the Parousia. In Ephesians the author makes precisely the claim that believers already participate in the Resurrection and the Kingdom.
Note: Both contradictions are results of the problem of the delay of the Parousia. The early view of Jesus and Paul was that the end was coming very soon. When the church realized that the end was not yet they had to accommodate this into their practice. It’s interesting that the Pauline forgeries seem largely to have been intended to deal with this issue, the first real crisis of the faith.
Stephen, in Post 55 you wrote:
“The ‘literate members of the local congregation’ idea receives a vigorous critique from Robyn Faith Walsh in her recent book, The Origins of Early Christian Literature, which I have reviewed in another thread at this very forum.”
I’m unfamiliar with the book you cite, but the letters of Paul are sufficient to establish that an apostle communicating with congregations by letter was not materially impeded by literacy rates.
“If you don’t find it compelling that a text attributed by its partisans to the brother of Jesus was disputed until the fourth century then what becomes of your idea of a “chain of custody”?”
Nothing. Extant manuscripts indicate that the NT texts were circulated as smaller collections – e.g. Paul’s letters, the Gospels, etc. – before they came together as the NT. It stands to reason that the smaller letters by less prolific authors might not travel as widely or as quickly as the larger collections and therefore not achieve widespread attestation as easily. . Consistent with this, Eusebius reports that 20 books were recognized by practically all the churches by early in the 4th century. The 7 books in the “almost” category included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
“In 1 Thess, almost universally attributed to the historical Paul, the Parousia is at the door and will come suddenly and unexpectedly, like a “thief in the night”. In 2 Thess, no, the end is not yet. There will be signs beforehand which the author delineates. In 1 Cor, Paul deliberately criticizes some members of the congregation for the claim that they already participate in the Resurrection and the Kingdom. Paul says no, the Resurrection and the Kingdom is yet to come at the Parousia. In Ephesians the author makes precisely the claim that believers already participate in the Resurrection and the Kingdom. Note: Both contradictions are results of the problem of the delay of the Parousia. The early view of Jesus and Paul was that the end was coming very soon. When the church realized that the end was not yet they had to accommodate this into their practice. It’s interesting that the Pauline forgeries seem largely to have been intended to deal with this issue, the first real crisis of the faith.”
When I asked you yesterday afternoon for chapter and verse I was in a hurry. If I’d had more time to think it through I would not have asked for anything and simply have responded by saying there’s no point getting into those kinds of discussions because the most ancient churches, including those of Thessalonica, are on record as having claimed both letters were from Paul. But I will go ahead and address these two “discrepancies” you’ve given some detail on before reverting to that position because it would be rude of me otherwise.
Jesus gave signs that would occur in the run-up to His coming as well as saying it would be like a thief in the night (Matt 24). If Jesus spoke both, I see nothing strange in Paul speaking of both. That what Paul said came in two letters instead of one I take to be happenstance.
As for the alleged 1 Cor-Eph discrepancy, there were aspects of the kingdom available before the Parousia and the fullness of the kingdom. I don’t see any meaningful discrepancy between these two letters.
As for the Parousia, it occurred just when Jesus and Paul and the other apostles said it would – what we would call late in the 1st century AD, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but before the generation to which Jesus had belonged completely passing away. Why was the Parousia not reported? Because it came like a thief in the night.
Robert, in Post 56 you said:
“I think you are clearly assuming that Athanasius and Eusebius (and others) were basing their testimony on traditional sources of information which were accurate and reliable. You haven’t demonstrated this to be the case, and we’ve provided you with plenty of examples to the contrary. And you think any assumption other than yours is preposterous. If I’m mistaken in this assessment, perhaps you could provide the names of others who think you’ve demonstrated your case.”
I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why Eusebius and Athanasius are not credible sources.
“You’re provided a few quotes or references, but I have seen nothing to support your claim that modern scholars who investigate these issues have ignored this material.”
The first example that comes to mind is “Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” by Bart Ehrman. It’s been a while since I read it, but I don’t recall him wrestling to any significant degree, if at all, with the findings of Eusebius, Athanasius, or Augustine in that book.
“If you had experience with academia, perhaps you would better understand the importance of requiring mastery of the history of a scholarly discussion before challenging a scholarly consensus. It is the exact opposite of chronological snobbery.”
It should be, but, as I said just above, I don’t recall Bart showing those three ancient men that courtesy.
“You obviously misunderstood. Nothing has been permanently dismissed. Before one can successfully defend a new thesis, one must demonstrate mastery of the history of a question. Certainly if one is directly challenge a consensus view, ancient or modern, this is all the more important. Perhaps you might be confusing genres of academic work? For example, if a scholar is writing for a general audience or providing a summary commentary, it would be impractical to re-open all questions where there is no space or expectation of the most rigorously defended theses challenging consensus views of scholars.”
You apparently have a very high regard for academia and the protocols it follows. But if they are responsible for the lack of respect you have for ancient sources, it doesn’t speak well of them.
“If you claim there is a contrary bias of Party B, that does not refute the existence of a contrary bias of Party A. Two or more sides of a debate can be biased at the same time.”
Agreed. This was the point I was making. Why does it feel like we’re arguing it?
“On the whole, it would be good for you to recognize that the overwhelming majority of Scripture scholars over the last few centuries have been Christian believers and ministers. That the scholarly consensus has eventually accepted some points that you reject has occurred despite a great appreciation for the faith and practice of the Christian churches.”
I do recognize what you describe here, but that doesn’t mean those people are right…or wrong. You respect academia, so surely you know that in history, those sources closest to the subject being studied are preferable, all other things being equal. On that basis, the burden of proof is on modern scholars to prove that all other things are not equal such that the ancient sources are not to be given greater regard in this matter. That’s the essence of the question with which I launched this thread.
“Even if your ad hominem directed at me were true, why not provide justification for your opinions for others here? If you like, I can refer you to the…But you still have not explained why you find these matters to be controversial. If it is not based on your faith stance, why do you consider these matters controversial? They are not considered controversial by most Christian critical scholars or historians.”
Your use of “ad hominem” indicates you might think I was attacking you. For the record, I am not. I am simply trying to make the point that we are all susceptible to biases and therefore must all be on guard against them. You seemed to be suggesting that people with faith might be subject to temptations from which you are free. I know from living on both sides of the faith fence that there are snakes everywhere.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)