Porphyry,
In post 88, I promised you an answer to what you wrote in post 83, in which you quoted my words back to me from two previous posts to note an apparent shift in my position, specifically:
“‘I only think it’s preposterous to ignore them.’ [post 80] First, in that case your position has shifted. The first time you labeled a position as “preposterous” you said: ‘It is preposterous to think that modern scholars are better able to determine the authorship of NT books than ancient scholars.’ [post 3]”
I responded that it was fair of you to point this out and that I would address the issue before concluding my participation in this thread. Here is my answer.
In pondering how to answer, I originally thought about explaining more precisely a nuance of the second statement in its context, or I could re-word it so as to be clearer even out of context, but I think it’s better to just say that the second statement was misspoken and I retract it. I stand by the first statement.
My use of the word “preposterous” was not, and is not, for the purpose of provocation, but rather for the sake of candor and clarity. I really do believe that it is unreasonable to think that modern scholars should be trusted more when it comes to identifying the authors of the New Testament texts than ancient ones. If I were to soft pedal that point, I’d be doing my readers no service. Better that they should understand me than like me.
The texts we have were authored and pieced together by the “mind of the church.” The creeds (Old Roman Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed) do not mention that the cannon or any text is inerrant and infallible. The ancient scholars, didn’t even have proof of who wrote what.
There was a book that had no author.
Robert,
The move you describe in post 166 is problematic and not tenable.
On October 21, I subscribed to this blog and, after familiarizing myself with the structure of the forum, chose the subforum of the Historical Jesus as the appropriate place to launch this thread. After all, the issue of whether the NT texts are or aren’t the primary historical sources for the life of Jesus of Nazareth hangs on their authorship. Throughout the three weeks of this thread’s existence, I have repeatedly made clear that my interest was historical and that I did not want to become entangled in theological (or any other kind of) discussions.
I emphasized the historical focus of this thread in post 133 when I wrote: “The full title of this blog is “The Bart Ehrman Blog: The HISTORY and LITERATURE of Early Christianity” (emphasis added). The full title of the forum category within which this thread is posted is “The HISTORICAL Jesus: What can we say about what the HISTORICAL Jesus really said, did, and experienced?” (emphasis added). Consistent with all this, the focus of this thread – authorship of the NT TEXTS – is approached as an issue of HISTORY, not theology (emphasis added).”
It should go without saying that to move this thread to any other subforum, much less the Christianity After the New Testament subforum, is inappropriate. And to do so without prior notice, without discussion, and without even explanation – after 22 days of operation without a single question on this point being raised – is beyond the pale.
I am fully mindful and respectful that, as a subscriber to this blog, I have no say in its rules of operation. But subscribers do have a right to expect fair play to prevail, and that is what is missing in this development. When fair play doesn’t prevail, then the subscriber’s only option is to unsubscribe. I have experience with blogs who begin to monkey with content contributed by its subscribers or visitors. It often leads to deletion of content, but even when it doesn’t, the contributor feels like he’s being manipulated.
I will return to this site in 24 hours. If, at that time, this thread has not been restored to its original category, I will immediately cancel my subscription without making any further comment.
This is not a threat or an ultimatum. I am not angry; neither am I upset in any way. I harbor no illusion that anyone here will think my absence a loss, though I have appreciated some of the responses even when the level of disagreement was high. I just have to be pragmatic about my time. I feel like the last three weeks have been on the whole productive, but I cannot afford to continue spending time here when the context in which we’ve been speaking to each other has been altered, which means more alteration is always possible. Regardless of your decision, peace to you all.
Remove the names of the books and any verse of authorship. Then piece it all back together based on how detailed it is about the death of John the Baptist fulfilling the prophecy as Elijah and Peter as First Pope.
Reason: That John the Baptist is the return of Elijah is absolutely necessary for Jesus being the Christ. The entire Church in reality is centered on the legal justification of the succession of Popes.
That the NT scriptures will theologically support both the Nicene Creed and Heresies is unavoidable. However it is necessary that all prophecy be fulfilled before the Nicene Creed was written and the Cannon is finalized during the Council of Rome.
The writing of Paul were accepted into the Cannon because Paul says the Christ is the Church. The Christ did return. All the texts were written before the Church was organized as the Catholic Church defended by Roman Law, hence they were expecting the return of Christ in context of time of the scriptures.
First, the order of texts should be established, then authorship. I come up with ideas on my own and then disagree with my own reasoning afterwards. I cannot help. I’m a waste of space and not important. All this stuff was already decided about a very long time ago through violence against nature:themselves to support the Roman Empire, and then defend themselves against the Islamic Empire. The traditions of the Catholic Church and Vatican in Rome are legally justified by the same reasoning the Constitution and USA exist today.
The book has no order, the book has no author.
I think 1 Peter, John, Mark, Luke,
1 Peter is first because the Roman Law, Edict of Thessalonia, Emperor Theodosius , was sided with Peter through Pontiff Damasus, Peter of Alexdria, through Pope Liberius who was against the ARIANS.
1 Peter doesn’t mention anything about a Virgin Birth, nor John the Baptist, but does mention a resurrection. John does not mention a Virgin Birth either, but does mention John the Baptist and the resurrection and that Peter is the leader in the final chapter. The Virgin Birth was cleverly devised so that James and Jesus are not really brothers, nor really distant relatives of John the Baptist as mentioned in Luke through Mary and Elizabeth. Then Mark, or Mark was originally a part of John but later separated as two texts. It is possible to piece together a tight timeline of events centered on John the Baptist using only the gospels of Mark and John. Which I did one time as two days of about 40 hours work and 3 gallons of coffee. Thats why Luke is last. Luke ties it all in. 1 Peter was first. John and Mark ae the same text originally. Luke was last, and Paul was not going to be the leader over Peter. Off to Rome.
We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.
St. Augustine (Contra Faustum 28,4)
For, as regards any writing professing to come immediately from Christ Himself, if it were really His, how is it not read and acknowledged and regarded as of supreme authority in the Church, which, beginning with Christ Himself, and continued by His apostles, who were succeeded by the bishops, has been maintained and extended to our own day, and in which is found the fulfillment of many former predictions, while those concerning the last days are sure to be accomplished in the future? In regard to the appearance of such a writing, it would require to be considered from what quarter it issued. Supposing it to have issued from Christ Himself, those in immediate connection with Him might very well have received it, and have transmitted it to others. In this case, the authority of the writing would be fully established by the traditions of various communities, and of their presidents, as I have already said.
I see no sense in arguing with the dead and resurrected through sainthood to be one of 144,000 judges.
That explains what Jesus was doing during the 3 days in Hell. Writing scrolls on Lamb parchment with the blood of Christ as the ink. Those scrolls weren’t given to anyone. (?)
But first I should disprove it to myself that the texts cannot appear from nowhere. The texts had no author nor a creator. (Supernatural phenomena)
If the heavens and earth can come from nothing without a God, then it is also possible that texts can appear from nowhere.
Texts that come from nowhere without an author that also tell us about the creation of the heavens and earth by God.
Robert wrote
Moved this thread from the Historical Jesus subforum to the Christianity After the New Testament subforum.
Mike responded
The move you describe in post 166 is problematic and not tenable.
Mike, I would regard your absence as a loss. That said, don’t you think you’re overreacting just a smidgeon? I can honestly say that until this moment I never even noticed which subform this thread was in! When I arrive at the forum menu I always look for the new posts. I only pay attention to the subforums when I’m searching for something. For currently active threads I never pay attention.
Being an astronomy aficionado, this reminds me of the brouhaha over the reclassification of Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object rather than as a planet. Pluto itself was changed not a bit. Only some astronomy bureaucrat’s filing system.
You’re entitled to your reaction of course. But does it really matter where this thread is filed?
Colin wrote
Texts that come from nowhere without an author that also tell us about the creation of the heavens and earth by God.
You are mystical. I would point out that, just as one must ask what the difference is between a “supernatural” explanation and a “natural” explanation we just don’t know, we must inquire what the difference is between a text without an author and a text whose author we don’t (or can’t) know?
The church formed the canon but the canon was also used to form the church. This lengthy process was clearly not altogether a result of careful planning. In fact, it seems to have been more of a bottom-up process rather than top-down. Was there ever a time when Matthew was considered doubtful after it was generally known? Note that the Pauline corpus was ‘added to’ rather than rejected. What appears to have been the case early on was that there were varying constituencies with varying canons. As the church organized itself it appropriated the common elements of these canons and slowly marginalized the outliers. Very little of the marginalization need have been done by force. An obscure text rotting on a shelf doesn’t have to be burned.
My self reasoning is that the obvious theological answer to the nature of the body of Jesus Christ question is that Paul explains it. The body of the church is Christ. Human, divine, flesh, God, substance, ? Huh? 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24
People have a sinful nature of being empathetic. They watch someone be torn apart by lions at a colosseum in Rome while eating dinner and drinking wine and cheer on joyfully without a care in the world like they’re watching a theatre performance. Awful. Paul says that in Christ we are one body, if someone gets killed or tortured you should awful for them. If not, there’s something wrong with you. 1 Corinthians 12:26
The body of Christ is the Church. Well it must be a heresy. Revelations was written afterwards to clarify that heresy up. Revelations 21:22.
Revelations was written after Paul and the body of Christ is the Church heresy of the Trinity. The Church cannot be God because man cannot be God. Here on earth, that is. Revelations says the same but it’s a new heaven and new earth where God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple.
Thats my reasoning why Revelations was the last text written. The Church itself was in danger of creating its own idolatry thinking that they were the Christ and equal to God. The Nicene Creed does not have the phrase “the body of Christ is the Church” it has “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. I have no reasoning, Revelations could’ve been the first text written, in Hell, in 3 days, on the parchment made of lamb skin and written in blood. The text came from nowhere, had no author. I like the story,
I’m far from claiming authorship. I’m trying to find the order. Is Revelation supposed to be literal truth? I don’t know if that was understanding or not at the time during the Council of Rome.
I am short on time this morning and only have time to check in as I said I would do…so these comments must be brief.
Robert, thank you for restoring this thread to its original categorization. I only had time to skim your communications. I see comments and questions from you that deserve responses which I will formulate and deliver in due time.
Everyone else, thank you for the string of posts which I see. I’m not assuming all are to me. I will read them all and respond to all that apply to me in due time.
The “due time” alludes to the fact that I have several scheduled family commitments which will take up almost all of today, so it may be tomorrow on the next before I can respond to everything I should.
I really do believe that it is unreasonable to think that modern scholars should be trusted more when it comes to identifying the authors of the New Testament texts than ancient ones.
Let’s hit this head-on, because it occurs to me that I am uncomfortable with the implication of the titular question’s phrasing (in terms of qualifications).
I try very had not to take anyone’s word for things that matter. Not Eusebius; not Bart. I try not to rely on trust. I want to see their arguments and evidence. As Aquinas notes that Aristotle says, argument from authority is the weakest sort of argument. Not only have individual scholars (even geniuses) been gravely mistaken, entire fields of study have wandered off course from time to time. Authority is only an imperfect proxy for truth.
(Sometimes I have to take things on authority but then I take it with a grain of salt, and remember that I am quite literally not qualified to hold an opinion.)
At any rate, that may be the source of our impasse. If you are not looking for arguments and evidence but are only looking for one or more authorities to give answers to questions, then it could be plausible to favor the ancient authors.
But if you are looking for evidence and arguments, there is no contest. They don’t provide much evidence or argument. Modern scholars do and in spades.
On that note:
It’s not that ancient scholars couldn’t examine vocabulary and syntax. In fact, at times they did.
Let’s look for a moment at what Clement of Alexandra says about Hebrews. He acknowledges that the Greek does not match Paul’s. The linguistic evidence (even by Clement’s admission) does not support the thesis of Pauline authorship.
Further, he suggests that Paul deliberately hid his identity from the recipients. Thus, (on Clement’s own thesis), the original recipients could not confirm the authorship of the letter as Pauline (since Paul deliberately hid it from them).
So of the evidence that Clement discusses, none of it actually supports his conclusion. On what basis, then, does Clement insist that the epistle really is Pauline? If he knows evidence that supports Pauline authorship against the considerations he does make, why wouldn’t he and Eusebius mention it?
And give that they don’t mention it, why would I accept their conclusion? The only evidence they consider weighs against their conclusion/
What Clement is doing is merely explaining away evidence that militates against his favored thesis, but he doesn’t actually try to prove the thesis itself. He only tries to save the thesis as a possibility, that is, to show that the evidence against it doesn’t actually rule it out.
His replies may or may not be adequate to meet the objections, but even if they meet the objections, they aren’t actually establishing what happened; they are only saving a possibility. But showing something is possible is not the same as showing that it happened. It isn’t even the same as showing that it is likely.
I think your argumentation here has followed a similar tack. Perhaps it is possible that the early churches were scrupulous and scholarly in vetting writings from the apostolic era. Perhaps it is possible that their process of handing on was reliable, worked perfectly, and so did not allow anything spurious to be handed on as authentic.
Maybe. But one can’t just move from what is possible to what actually happened.
Maybe the tradition worked just the way the orthodox insist it worked. Or maybe errors were made at every step in the process and passed on undetected. If either is possible, how do we decide which happened, or at least, which is most likely to have happened? We can’t just pick the one that we like. And we can’t just take some ancient author’s word for it when he picks one, without giving us evidence that led him to that conclusion. We have to actually look at the evidence to see which possible scenario best fits the facts we have access to.
These, I think, are the assumptions that Robert keeps insisting you are making.
We can construct all sorts of hypothetical situations around what could have happened (maybe, maybe, maybe), but before we say what *did* happen we need to show the evidence.
Getting back to the point: Bare authority won’t settle this. Only evidence will. So I’d suggest that the correct way to look at the early Christian authors is, not in terms of authority or credentials or qualifications, but by asking what evidence they provide. They do give evidence of what the orthodox Church in the 4th and fifth century believed on the issue. Do they provide anything more? Certainly they could have checked facts we don’t have access to; that is only a possibility; do we have evidence that they actually did?
@Porphyry
(Sometimes I have to take things on authority but then I take it with a grain of salt, and remember that I am quite literally not qualified to hold an opinion.)
If you live in the USA, the 1st Amendment allows you to have your opinion on this matter. Some of these ancient scholars didn’t have that Right. It’s a much different world now. The Pope isn’t going to through you in jail for arguing about any of this like Saul of Tarsus would. Saul of Tarsus would throw us all in jail for allowing the texts to even exist.
If this is your professional career, it might however affect where you could be a professor or not. I think, maybe not. Obviously a Catholic priest is not allowed to full circle disagree with the views of the modern Catholic Church at the pulpit, but in private, they might very well.
I’m not a professor, priest, pastor, academic, scholar, and not a very good student.
They had a very big political dilemma before the Council of Rome establishing what the authority is. In general, the elder view has the greater authority. The texts must be authored by the apostles. If playing by those rules, this question itself should not even exist.
Trying to pull off a story more authoritative than Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on stone, written directly from the finger of God, was not going to be possible even for the greatest imagination of con artists like Joseph Smith.
Is Biblica planning on removing books of the Bible now if they can shown to be forgeries? Put those in the new “author unknown” section with the apocrypha.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)