Porphyry, regarding your post 97:
Eusebius in EH and Athanasius in FL 39 both speak about authorship, but toward different ends. Eusebius is reporting on deliberations taking place in the jury room while Athanasius reports only on the verdict that was reached. Augustine explains HOW the verdict was reached.
The best known example of dissenting views on NT authorship is, of course, Hebrews. But the view that Paul wrote it is the view that prevailed in antiquity. People like Jerome were like the jurors who were the last to agree with the majority. Whatever rationalizations the dissenters used to go along (such as the Jerome quote you presented) don’t matter because there is no asterisk attached to the verdict. If the people like Jerome had prevailed, there would have been other orthodox texts without confirmed authors brought into the canon.
Eusebius proves what we would expect – that some books found approval more easily than others. What’s amazing is that 20 of them found this almost universal acceptance. What’s also amazing is that the additional seven that got included had been identified by Eusebius as honorable mentions, while over a hundred were discarded as spurious – with almost universal disdain. So, while Eusebius gave more details about differences in views, the final verdict fell exactly along the fault lines he had drawn.
Finally, while appreciate the detail you provided, if you still don’t think that antiquity had the view of authorship that Bart was trying to correct with “Forged,” then I think it’s senseless for us to continue debating the question that launched this thread.
The same writer [Papias] gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.
To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.
-Eusebius on Papias
Porphyry, regarding your post 103:
This will be tedious, but since I’ve failed to clarify it enough to this point, I feel like I need to go the extra mile. It’s important that you and I come to a single view on this if at all possible, and this is likely the last chance I’ll get. None of us has to change his mind on the subject of the thread for us to have a productive discussion/debate, but if we can’t even agree on some fundamental facts as a basis for discussion, anything we say is likely to be confusing and frustrating to others.
As I recall, in “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are,” Bart laid out the case for there being only seven books of the New Testament whose author is known (what are called “the undisputed Paulines”). I don’t think Bart refers to Athanasius by name, but the “Who We Think They Are” (i.e., the authors as traditionally understood as having come down from antiquity) match the authors that Athanasius lists in “Festal Letter 39.5.”
Whether in the book or elsewhere, Bart makes clear that he is not trying to be novel with his thesis but that he is merely explaining to a popular audience what is commonly accepted among modern scholars. Thus “Forged” serves well as a proxy for the view of authorship taken by modern scholars, and “FL 39.5” does the same for that of ancient scholars. To say it a slightly different way, as “Forged” speaks for modern scholars on NT authorship, so “FL 39.5” speaks for ancient scholars.
When I say “prevailing view” below, I mean just that – prevailing, not unanimous. I think we all know, for example, that there are some modern scholars who think there are more or less known authors than Bart lists. For example, some scholars think there are only four undisputed Paulines, not seven. On the other hand, there are some scholars who will accept more known authors than seven. Bart, I believe, and I assume you believe, too, is presenting the prevailing view of modern scholarship.
The word “prevailing” works in the same way when it comes to the view of ancient scholars. For example, Jerome, as you have pointed out, dissented on the authorship of Hebrews. And there are others who agreed with him in that dissent, usually associated with Rome. But, according to Jerome himself, 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.” This is why I think it’s fair to say that Paul being the author of Hebrews was the view that prevailed. People like Jerome held their noses and accepted the book for its orthodoxy or some other reason. And though Hebrews is the most notorious case, it wasn’t the only case. Eusebius identifies seven books whose authorship was disputed. But there was in all 27 cases a prevailing view on authorship regardless of whether there was 100% agreement or something less than that.
When I asked the question at the beginning of the thread, “Who Is Better Qualified to Determine Authorship of the NT Texts – Modern Scholars or Ancient Ones?,” it was with the understanding that there was an ancient view on NT authorship, a modern view, and that the two views were in conflict. I think the title of Bart’s book – “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” – reflects that exact same point of view. In other words, I think Bart and Mike are in agreement about the two views and the degree to which they diverge. Since it seems he and I can agree about this, it would seem all of us here could, too. The purpose of this post is to find out if we do.
*** Authorship of the 27 New Testament Texts ***
“The Prevailing View of Modern Scholars” (typified by Bart’s “Forged”)
(BOOK’S NAME) – (AUTHOR’S NAME)
Matthew – unknown
Mark – unknown
Luke – unknown
John – unknown
Acts – unknown
Romans – Paul
1 Corinthians – Paul
2 Corinthians – Paul
Galatians – Paul
Ephesians – unknown
Philippians – Paul
Colossians – unknown
1 Thessalonians – Paul
2 Thessalonians – unknown
1 Timothy – unknown
2 Timothy – unknown
Titus – unknown
Philemon – Paul
Hebrews – unknown
James – unknown
1 Peter – unknown
2 Peter – unknown
1 John – unknown
2 John – unknown
3 John – unknown
Jude – unknown
Revelation – unknown
(Summary 7 known, 20 unknown)
“The Prevailing View of Ancient Scholars” (as typified by Athanasius’s FL 39.5)
(BOOK’S NAME) – (AUTHOR’S NAME)
Matthew – Matthew
Mark – Mark
Luke – Luke
John – John
Acts – Luke
Romans – Paul
1 Corinthians – Paul
2 Corinthians – Paul
Galatians – Paul
Ephesians – Paul
Philippians – Paul
Colossians – Paul
1 Thessalonians – Paul
2 Thessalonians – Paul
1 Timothy – Paul
2 Timothy – Paul
Titus – Paul
Philemon – Paul
Hebrews – Paul
James – James
1 Peter – Peter
2 Peter – Peter
1 John – John
2 John – John
3 John – John
Jude – Jude
Revelation – John
(Summary 27 known, 0 unknown)
I have written all of this in good faith and with respect for Bart and all of you. If I’ve made any mistakes, please let me know what you think they are. Before I ever launched the thread, this is what I thought ALL of us thought – whether we favored the modern view or the ancient view. I am not surprised at all that most if not all of you on this site answer the question with “Modern scholars!” I assumed all along that I would be the only one answering the question “Ancient scholars!” But I never expected that there would be people on a Bart Ehrman blog who didn’t agree that the prevailing view of the ancients was that they knew the identity of all the New Testament books. Some of the things you’ve said suggest to me otherwise – and I must accept reality…if that’s what it is.
Okay, I’m exhausted now. And I’ve probably exhausted you in the process. In any case, please let me know if our thread can continue on the basis of this understanding or if it needs to be revised here or there or if we should just call our thread quits.
Mike I can speak only for myself. I simply assume that you are communicating your ideas as honestly as possible. Let me just sum up my point of view.
The church created itself through a messy process, anything but straightforward. There was no linear tradition. This process took centuries. One of the insights of modern scholarship is just how unstraightforward the process was.
Consider the quote from Eusebius about Papias I just posted. Even if we assume Eusebius was accurately relating Papias’s views, Eusebius still has little regard for his testimony. And he laments that so many “Church Fathers” followed Papias. Eusebius is forcing us to choose between his and Papias’ testimony. So which do we choose? Papias is our sole “early” source for texts ascribed to Mark and Matthew. Eusebius had access to Papias’ actual writings which we do not. Privileging Eusebius’ testimony undermines Papias’ “early” report. So which do we choose?
Another point easy to overlook is that Eusebius rejects the view that “the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth”. But in reading Paul and the synoptic gospels this appears to be precisely the view of Jesus and the early church! So if there were an unbroken tradition between the NT writings and Eusebius how come the fundamental teachings of Jesus and his disicples didn’t make it unmodified?
Each ancient source must be considered on its own terms. None of them should be approached uncritically. The result is that, as I wrote before, we wind up with lots of blank spaces on our maps. Modern scholarship does not replace one certainty with another. It requires us to live with uncertainty.
I appreciate the clarification. If I’m mistaken, I’m willing to be shown; in fact, I would be glad to be corrected if I am in error.
Your original statement–the one I first took issue with–was that the ancient Christians achieved consensus on the authorship of the 27 books of the NT. (And for the sake of clarity, I understand “consensus” to mean something approaching near to unanimity, any dissenting voices being so minor and unimportant they can be ignored.) If you want to insist only on a prevailing view then I will withhold comment.
I will even admit that a consensus may have emerged sometime late in antiquity or the early middle ages–I can’t say precisely when any such consensus might have emerged, but certainly there isn’t yet a consensus in the period we have been discussing, that is to say, the period up through the early 5th century (and for what it’s worth, note that by the Renaissance one could no loner speak of any consensus, from Luther to his nemesis Cajetan, Pauline authorship of Hebrews was widely questioned). I insist that there was no yet consensus through the early 5th century because not only do the the authors of the period continue to raise doubts on the topics, but even when they defend Pauline authorship, they continue to note, explicitly, that there is ongoing dissent.
But I would also note that by the point one might be able to begin to speak of a consensus, the question of canonicity was already settled (in part by distinguishing the problems of canonicity and authorship), and it may well be that people just didn’t care very much about authorship once canonicity was assured; after all, once you know a book is inspired by God, it isn’t terribly pressing to say which human he inspired to write it; an attitude seen much later in Erasmus, “as far as I can judge it does not seem to be his. . . . [but] even if I knew for a fact that it was not Paul’s, the matter is not worth fighting over,” an attitude that is actually still quite common among a certain sort of believing Christian; Once divine authorship (and thus inerrance) is assured as a matter of faith, human authorship is little more than historical trivia.
I don’t know if that will be sufficient for you to find further discussion worthwhile, but would reiterate: if you believe I am in error, and can show as much, please do.
I have quite a bit more that I’d like to add on the actual issue of the authorship of Hebrews, but that will have to wait.
…I don’t see how it bears on my request in post 105.
Then I guess I don’t understand what you are asking. If you accept that what modern scholars are attempting is different than what the ancients were attempting then it becomes clear that modern scholars are not attempting to “determine authorship”, an impossible task.
Stephen, regarding your post 111:
Wow. I just keep getting surprised. The following questions are not rhetorical; I am genuinely confused and looking to you to help me understand.
-If what you’re saying is true, why, when I asked the question that launched this thread (“Who Is Better Qualified to Determine Authorship of the NT Texts – Modern Scholars or Ancient Ones?”), wasn’t the first answer, “Your question doesn’t make sense because ‘modern scholars are not attempting to ‘determine authorship’ – therefore no comparison between modern and ancient scholars is possible”?
-If modern scholars – like Bart – “are not attempting to ‘determine authorship’,” what are they attempting?
-Why does Bart say in his “Forged” subtitle, “Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are” if he’s not “determining authorship.”
-Maybe you’re saying modern scholars are only “determining non-authorship” – is that what you’re saying?
-If “what modern scholars are attempting is different than what the ancients were attempting,” what is the difference? That is, a) what were ancient scholars attempting that modern scholars are not? and b) what are modern scholars attempting that ancients did not?
As to whether I would accept the summary of post 107:
Insofar as it is a summary of a complex state of affairs, there is a lack of nuance. Some illustrative examples: in speaking of a prevailing view of ancient scholars, what period are we talking about? The lines shifted considerably over the first few centuries. Or labeling authors of works as unknown (according to modern scholars), while true in the plainest sense, understates some areas of consensus. There are still fruitful things to be said about the individual author: e.g., did the person who wrote 2 John also write 3 John? Did the person who wrote Acts also write the Gospel of Luke? Being able to identify the author of one text as also the author of another isn’t nothing.
That is all relatively minor. Taken as a cursory and limited summary, I think it is fine.
The bigger issue I would raise is that when you speak of ancient scholars, it seem you actually mean ancient *orthodox* scholars. The qualification matters, for there were non-orthodox scholars (whether heterodox Christians or outright pagans) who certainly did not accept the orthodox attributions of the books of the NT. (Admittedly, we don’t always have as rich a record of precisely what they held, but that is in large part due to the fact that their works were not preserved once orthodoxy prevailed. The victors write the history books is nowhere truer than in early Christianity.) Now you might defend dismissing those non-orthodox individuals because you say their conclusions were motivated by their ideology, and their research (so far as we can reconstruct it) isn’t conclusive. Well, fine. You might be right, but I’d think the same objections apply to the orthodox scholars.
I did not receive the responses to post 105 that I was hoping for, but I am grateful for the responses that I did receive – especially the one from Porphyry, who seemed to push himself as far as he dared. I respect that.
I’ve figured out a way to go forward, at least for a while. Specifically, I’ve figured out a way to keep to the same question but to have a finer focus. Thinking through the feedback helped me arrive at this approach which I lay out here.
Forum>The Historical Jesus>Who Is Better Qualified to Determine Authorship of the NT Texts – Modern Scholars or Ancient Ones?
“Modern Scholars” as epitomized by Bart Ehrman in “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are,” published in 2011 – that is, centered on the 21st century, but not limited to it.
“Ancient Scholars” as epitomized by Athanasius of Alexandria, written for Easter 367 – that is, centered on the 4th century, but not limited to it.
Therefore, “Who Is Better Qualified to Determine Authorship of the NT Texts – Modern Scholars or Ancient Ones?” can be personalized and encapsulated into “Who Is Better Qualified to Determine Authorship of the NT Texts – Bart or Athanasius?”
Since no one fully agreed with my framing, I don’t expect anyone to agree with my encapsulation. But at least you’ll better know how I view the things we’re discussing.
I took a position in the first post by asking a second question, “How could modern people be expected to know better who wrote the NT texts than the ancient ones who first received the texts, read them publicly, copied them, and spread them?” Though I have not yet received a satisfying answer to that question, I am not going to just repeating it. Rather, I want to ask some question related questions in fresh ways. One of the things you’ve helped me see in a clearer way is that, as Stephen put it in post 111, “If you accept that what modern scholars are attempting is different than what the ancients were attempting then it becomes clear that modern scholars are not attempting to ‘determine authorship,’ an impossible task.” (This is similar to, but goes farther than, what Robert said in post 4: “Modern critical scholars don’t identify the authors, but rather deduce what they can from the text itself, and they don’t always agree.”) If modern scholars are not even attempting to determine authorship, then isn’t that an implicit concession that they cannot be better at determining it than ancient scholars?
It seems to me that some, if not all, of you have not given sufficient attention to the way ancient scholars talk about the NT texts. You need to imagine, or re-imagine, how the autograph is produced, and then handed over to its intended recipients…and then how those texts are handed down from generation to generation. When you read texts like Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39 or Augustine’s Contra Faustum, or Eusebius’s Church History, they speak regularly of this process – and it is a a process that informs them of authorship. The process is like the granting, and then the passing on, of a family heirloom. They thus become acquainted with texts and learn of their authors through relationships – trusted relationships. I’ll quickly admit that fraud can be introduced at any point in this process, but that doesn’t mean the process is always contaminated by fraud. This is the reason modern scholars usually can’t determine authorship. They have no access to this process. For we modern folks, the contents of the NT texts are all settled. Descendants of Aunt Millie know her recipe for German chocolate cake not through study of the vocabulary and syntax of the written or printed recipe, but through relationship with Aunt Millie or relatives in between.
Robert, in post 117 you said:
No, because modern critical scholars largely disagree, for a variety of reasons, with the ancient authors who simply accepted at face value the claims made by some pseudonymous authors claiming to be Paul et al…”
1) Did you mean to say “with the ancient scholars who…” rather than “with the ancient authors who…”?
2) To which specific NT texts do you think this description applies?
Mike I don’t know what I can say that would improve on either Robert’s or Porphyry’s comments.
It seems to me that some, if not all, of you have not given sufficient attention to the way ancient scholars talk about the NT texts. You need to imagine, or re-imagine, how the autograph is produced, and then handed over to its intended recipients…and then how those texts are handed down from generation to generation.
But don’t you see how this statement literally ‘Begs the Question’? The process that you imagine taking place here is precisely what is in question. I refer you back to my quote of Eusebius on Papias.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)