Questions common to post 141 from Robert and post 145 from Porphyry are answered here.

“And George Washington is more of a distraction than Paul’s witness to the resurrected Christ??”

Were there no analog to Christ in the original analogy, the addition of a George Washington might have had merit. As things are, however, adding a second analog for Christ only distracts and confuses. (Recall from post 132: ‘Aunt Millie ~ Jesus, Uncle Herman ~ the apostles, the various relatives ~ the various congregations.’)

“You have to make a case for the factual nature of your historical assumptions, not merely claim that others don’t appreciate it.”

As stated, the historical assumptions which the original analogy helps illustrate are supported by Eusebius in CH, Athanasius in FL 39, and Augustine in CF 33.6.

“Where do Eusebius, Jerome, or Augustine say that they have traced the handing down of the authentic letters of Paul? I’ve already given you the exact words of Eusebius in the original Greek, and you have ignored them, preferring instead this assumption of yours.”

Eusebius mentions “Paul’s Epistles” in CH 3:25 as being among “the recognized books.” He says there are 14 of them in CH 3.3, adding that some questioned the authorship of Hebrews. Athanasius enumerates all 14 in FL 39.5, making no exception of Hebrews. (Augustine makes no explicit mention of Paul or Hebrews in CF 33.6, instead speaking generically about “the writings” of “the apostles.” As for Jerome, I did not cite him.)

“Do you trust the judgment of Eusebius about the letters of Abgar and Jesus?”

You’ll have to explain to me how this applies to the question that launched the thread and the “handing down” process for apostolic texts we are focused on at this point in that thread.

“Where are these records? Where does Eusebius, Jerome, or Augustine refer to these records?”

I think it’s unreasonable to assume that a bishop’s administration of a church – especially in cities the size of Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus – involved no record-keeping of any kind. If, however, you want to insist that without seeing such records, we cannot assume they existed, I will accept that stipulation for purposes of our discussion. I can do this because even if the administration of congregations was conducted entirely by word of mouth, it would still demonstrate the point that I was illustrating – that this handing down of apostolic documents was quite public and not the private family affair that Porphyry’s embellished analogy suggested. I could personally relate to that aspect of Porphyry’s scenario because my own family has limited visibility beyond two or three generations, and hardly anyone outside our family knows much about our recipes and other family heirlooms. But this bears no resemblance to the dynamics of church congregations comprised of many families and having certain heirlooms in common: such as the sight and sound of apostolic texts being read at regular gatherings week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, for up to three centuries.

Robert,

A few points with regard to your post 150 response to my post 149.

On Eusebius: I am not, and have not been, relying on Eusebius as a source for authentication of authorship of the 27 NT texts. Rather I am relying on him as a source of reporting the testimony of apostolic succession churches that were in possession of the apostolic writings from the beginning. In other words, I am taking Eusebius on his own terms. He doesn’t claim to be authenticating the NT texts; he only claims to be reporting what generations of churches have been experiencing. No one was in a better position than apostolic churches to know the authenticity of apostolic texts. (In his day, Eusebius was a modern scholar; yet he was too wise to think he would know more about the authorship of the texts in question than those who had preceded him and experienced the texts in the midst of crowds.)

On Abgar: I just can’t see how this applies to the question at hand – especially given what I just wrote above about Eusebius. He himself made no mention of Jesus or Abgar in CH 3:25 or elsewhere when he was mentioning the texts that came to be called the New Testament. In other words, Eusebius followed his own rules when it came to reporting which books were considered authentically apostolic. That is, since the apostolic churches apparently did not regularly read the letters associated with Abgar and Jesus, said letters were not mentioned along with the “acknowledged” or “disputed by some” books (i.e., the totality of the 27 NT texts). Eusebius apparently felt duty bound to report what he did about Abgar and Jesus, but he did not go farther than that.)

On records: Again, I am making no claim about precisely what records or persons 4th-century bishops like Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine consulted when they came to their consistent conclusions about the authorship of the NT texts. I’m just assuming they were being as thorough as you or I or Bart would be in sticking to reporting on the commonly-held views of authorship heading into the canonization process.

On the “handing down” process: Do not let the mundanity of the “handing down” process diminish its importance in your eyes. It is not a dramatic process, nor is it eye-catching, but it was more than adequate for the purpose of authenticating the source of the NT texts. If the NT texts are true, no one even foresaw that there would be a canon or a New Testament. They just wanted to preserve the writings of those individuals who formed them into churches in the first place. You seem to be stuck in a methodological paradigm of an individual scholar doing what Bart and his fellow scholars do with vocabulary and syntax. It’s congregations who validated from one generation to another the source of the texts that were read during gatherings. Reporting on that is like reporting on paint drying or grass growing, but that doesn’t mean it’s unimportant or insufficient to the task of validation.

Robert, I want to comment on a couple of other things you said in post 141:

“The question is not about the proper methodological approach to analogies in general, but whether or not your analogy is apt, whether it effectively takes into account the reality, complexity, and totality of the historical referent…”

I think it’s about both. A good analogy proves nothing. What it does is illustrate something. How well the analogy fits reality is in the eye of the beholder.

“Make up your mind. Are they stretching the analogy or taking it too narrowly?”

Both. It is being stretched by adding unnecessary elements, and it is taking matters too narrowly by limiting the focus to a private matter within an individual family instead of keeping the focus on the historical reality that it was a public matter in congregations comprised of many families.

Robert,

First, you accuse me leaving Christ out of the recipe analogy (post 141); now you’re accusing me of putting him in it (post 156). Do you see why I find you unsatisfiable?

Robert, below are my responses to what you wrote in post 154. By the way, I respect the effort you put into going back and tracing the post numbers for the various points below, and I appreciate the fact that you are giving me the opportunity to respond.

“You’ve either claimed or strongly implied by your answers to the direct questions of myself and others here that Eusebius and others testified that there was a chain of custody going back to the original authors of everything in the New Testament, and which reliably identified the original authors (Post #21).”

Agreed.

“You said that Eusebius reports the history of what we today would call canon formation (24), but are unable to answer any of the questions that I consider most important about the earliest collections of the Pauline epistles.

Agreed as to the first half of the sentence. As for the second, I don’t understand the point of those questions since I thought we all agreed that pseudonymous apostolic writings circulated during the 1st-4th centuries and our only point of disagreement was how well or how poorly the ancient congregations policed them.

“You said it is preposterous that modern scholars dismiss the work of ancient scholars like Eusebius and by seldom conveying and addressing their arguments (31),”

Agreed.

“but now you yourself seem to attach no importance to his work and arguments.”

On the contrary, I attach great importance to his work and arguments…especially when considered in the light of subsequent 4th-century developments. In fact, I cited CH along with FL 39 (by Athanasius) and CF 33.6 (by Augustine) as pivotal historical records relevant to the question that launched this thread. Having said that, in analyzing CH I do, like any reader would do, and like any author wants all his readers to do, discriminate between matters of greater and lesser importance – the authenticity of apostolic writings falling into the former category and the Abgar-Jesus correspondence falling into the latter.This should be all the more apparent to you since I have repeatedly stated that my interest in the subject matter of this thread is historical and not theology – specifically, focused on authorship of the NT texts.

“Now you say he is just a source reporting the testimony of others.”

That is no small thing! He is reporting the posture of ancient congregations of the Roman Empire on the subject of apostolic authorship from apostolic times to his own – a major effort! Just because he is not parsing the vocabulary and syntax of the NT texts does not mean he is not contributing important information about their authorship. As you well know, I consider his contributions in this regard even more important than those of modern scholars.

“You claimed that the burden of proof is on anyone who doubts that Eusebius is a credible source or doubts that his testimony is based on accurate and reliable information (56).”

That seems reasonable to me. His work was accepted in its day by his peers, and I can think of no reason that he would have been either unwilling or unable to report the facts of empire-wide views of authentic apostolic authorship in the midst of many forgeries. Things might be different if we had reason to believe he had motive and ability to lie.

“You claimed that anyone familiar with Eusebius would know that the ancient churches of Thessalonica are on record as having claimed both letters were from Paul (62, 65). Even after this was shown to be untrue, you still made the absurd claim that ‘Eusebius’s book itself was a report of Thessalonica vouching for the two epistles – likewise Ephesus for their letter, Colossae for theirs,’ even though Eusebius never mentioned the letters to Thessalonica, Ephsesus, or Colossae.”

Far from an absurd claim, I consider it an inference so reasonable and natural that it’s impossible for me to think that Eusebius didn’t expect readers to take this to be included in his meaning.

“You said we could take the word of Eusebius (100).”

Agreed, especially given the public nature of his claims about what writings were considered by the apostolic succession churches around the empire to be of authentic apostolic authorship – and all the more so given the corroboration I have mentioned from Athanasius and Augustine. In other words, the declarations of these three men did not take place in a private corner somewhere.

“You said that 4th-century scholars have traced the 27 texts of the New Testament through the apostolic succession churches, handed down to them from the 1st century (140), specifically mentioning Eusebius (149).”

Agreed.

“I asked you directly what, if anything, I had misunderstood of your position (67). No response.”

That was such a broad question, I did not know where to begin a response. By contrast, you have provided me in post 154 a format that makes it practical for me to respond…and in detail…and so I have done so.

“After I asked you to stop playing word games (95), you said I was being willfully unreasonable and denying the obvious (96).”

Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it. At least I was only characterizing you as being hard-headed, whereas you were accusing me of bad faith or deceit.

“Now, after learning what Eusebius actually says, you want to back away from this whole detailed discussion and claim that you have not been relying on Eusebius as a source for authentication of authorship of the 27 NT texts.”

As you have seen here, I have backed away from nothing.

“Your only “claim” now is that we can rightfully assume that what Eusebius and others report was true and accurate.”

My claim is that ancient scholars are better qualified to determine authorship of the NT texts than modern scholars. That was my claim in the beginning, that’s what my claim is now, and that’s been my claim throughout this thread.

“What we identified as your assumption from the very beginning.”

That claim was not my assumption; it was my conclusion…after much study and thought. The study, thought, and conclusion all came before I purchased access to this blog and launched this thread. My purpose here has been to see if there were any holes in my argument. So far, all you guys have done is strengthen my convictions about the conclusion.

“Or if you still want to claim that this is not merely your assumption, tell us, who are the ancient scholars whose work and argumentation that modern scholars are ignoring? Where is their work and their argumentation? Quote the arguments specifically with respect to the Pauline epistles.”

I’ve told you over and over. You just don’t like my answers. My best guess as to why that is is that you guys see modern text critical methodology as superior to the means employed by the ancients to ascertain authorship. Therefore, if you don’t see ancient scholars practicing it, you have no reason to trust their judgment. It’s not that ancient scholars couldn’t examine vocabulary and syntax. In fact, at times they did. And given their greater fluency with the Greek of that time, and their greater familiarity with the culture, I would trust their work using this method more than I would that of modern scholars. But text criticism was not their preferred method for finding out the author of a text. Nor would be the preferred method of any reasonable person.

If my neighbor brings me a letter she says was written to me by her husband, who is currently out of town, and tells me that it’s from her husband, do I need text critical analysis to know who wrote the letter?