On what Authority

[Bill_Pick]

or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not not written by one the twelve Apostles.

 

[puzzleannie]

on the authority of the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ and protected, as He promised, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, who established the canon of scripture by the end of the 4th Century. Is this a trick question?

 

[Jon_Hus]

Bill,

Biblical students and scholars the whole world over are waiting for you Sir to educate us on the infallable guide to the Biblical canon. Please, for humanities sake, end the suffering.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, “technically”, Paul wasn’t one of the 12.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Good bait… But not sure anyone is going to bite the hook, they might just take the worm and leave.

FSC

 

[Publisher]

or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not not written by one the twelve Apostles.

Not sure what your question is asking…as it now stands NONE of the NT books were written by any of the original 12 apostles. None of the gospels were “signed”…the authors are “tradition” not fact. Paul’s authentic letters were written by him, but he wasn’t of the 12…but the pastoral letters were written by “Pauline influenced” writers…none of the NT books were written by any of the original 12.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Not sure what your question is asking**…as it now stands NONE of the NT books were written by any of the original 12 apostles**. None of the gospels were “signed”…the authors are “tradition” not fact. Paul’s authentic letters were written by him, but he wasn’t of the 12…but the pastoral letters were written by “Pauline influenced” writers…none of the NT books were written by any of the original 12.

1st and 2nd Peter?

God bless you

 

[Rightlydivide]

Having studied the authorship of the NT indepth, I can tell you the arguments against the traditional authorship are the result of presuppositions. Well duh…we all have presuppositions. However, their presuppositions are faulty. For example on just the subject of dating of these books which directly relates to their authorship, do you know why Luke is dated post 70 AD?
It is almost always a direct result of the belief that Christ’s allusion to the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and events surrounding it is an example of vaticinium ex eventu. Now, you can believe that but if you do it effects everything. What proof is there? Real proof? None. Its a presupposition based upon the belief that Luke is not inspired and Christ could not predict the future.

 

[Rightlydivide]

1st and 2nd Peter?

God bless you

Absolutely. Great point. There is a scholarly consensus on Peter and near unanimous on 2nd Peter that they are not authored by Peter. Why? Presuppositions. 2nd Peter’s Greek stinks and it may contain references to Gnostics so it HAS to be dated later. Unless, Peter wrote it himself or used someone different than 1st Peter and the Gnostics actually influenced things earlier. I studied this topic. Its one big assumption piled on another assumption until they have an entire framework based upon guesses!

 

[Bill_Pick]

on the authority of the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ and protected, as He promised, by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, who established the canon of scripture by the end of the 4th Century. Is this a trick question?

I was think Protestants but may be not

 

[Bill_Pick]

Having studied the authorship of the NT indepth, I can tell you the arguments against the traditional authorship are the result of presuppositions. Well duh…we all have presuppositions. However, their presuppositions are faulty. For example on just the subject of dating of these books which directly relates to their authorship, do you know why Luke is dated post 70 AD?
It is almost always a direct result of the belief that Christ’s allusion to the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem and events surrounding it is an example of vaticinium ex eventu. Now, you can believe that but if you do it effects everything. What proof is there? Real proof? None. Its a presupposition based upon the belief that Luke is not inspired and Christ could not predict the future.

Did you miss the part that said ON WHO AUTHORITY

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well, “technically”, Paul wasn’t one of the 12.

And I did not count Paul as one

 

[Publisher]

1st and 2nd Peter?

God bless you

Except for the more “conservative/evangelical” believers, 1 & 2 Peter are “pseudegraphical”…an unknown author writing under the name of “Peter” to lend credibility to the writing…much of the apocryphal writings of the 2nd and 3rd century employ such “authorship”. I’m sure no one here believes “Gospel of Thomas” was written by Thomas the apostle…or the “Apocylypse of Peter” or “Gospel of Peter” was actually written by Peter the apostle…1 & 2 Peter are simply the same type of writings but earlier on the scene. Same with 1 & 2 Timothy or Titus were not written by Paul…but someone from the “Pauline” community of believers.

If the conservative scholarship is accepted…great…I do not accept the “conservative” view.

Most of the NT was written at the end of the 1st century to the beginning of the 2nd by anonymous writers…Paul’s “authentic” letters not withstanding…Mark probably written by 50-55 CE…he was aware of Paul’s view of the Lord’s Supper as his gospel…and the synoptics use 1 Cor almost “liturgical” reading of “on the night he was betrayed…he took the cup…” The Didache…probably written after 90 CE from Antioch does not reflect the Pauline understanding of the eucharist at all.

Most of the authorship of the NT is “tradition” excluding the “authentic Pauline letters”.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not sure what your question is asking…as it now stands NONE of the NT books were written by any of the original 12 apostles. None of the gospels were “signed”…the authors are “tradition” not fact. Paul’s authentic letters were written by him, but he wasn’t of the 12…but the pastoral letters were written by “Pauline influenced” writers…none of the NT books were written by any of the original 12.

Several of them were. The problem is that secular scriptual scholars all use circumstancial evidence. They also forget that when canon was being compiled the Church went to great lengths to keep any pseudopigraphical books out, immediatly rejecting those they were unsure of the origins of.

Personally I have more faith in what someone 1700 years ago said about the origins of a 1900 year old book than I will about someone in the modern day saying about that same 1900 year old book.

 

[puzzleannie]

I was think Protestants but may be not

so we had to wait around for 1500 years to know what was in the bible? also who, exactly is “we”?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Except for the more “conservative/evangelical” believers, 1 & 2 Peter are “pseudegraphical”…an unknown author writing under the name of “Peter” to lend credibility to the writing…much of the apocryphal writings of the 2nd and 3rd century employ such “authorship”. I’m sure no one here believes “Gospel of Thomas” was written by Thomas the apostle…or the “Apocylypse of Peter” or “Gospel of Peter” was actually written by Peter the apostle…1 & 2 Peter are simply the same type of writings but earlier on the scene. Same with 1 & 2 Timothy or Titus were not written by Paul…but someone from the “Pauline” community of believers.

If the conservative scholarship is accepted…great…I do not accept the “conservative” view.

Most of the NT was written at the end of the 1st century to the beginning of the 2nd by anonymous writers…Paul’s “authentic” letters not withstanding…Mark probably written by 50-55 CE…he was aware of Paul’s view of the Lord’s Supper as his gospel…and the synoptics use 1 Cor almost “liturgical” reading of “on the night he was betrayed…he took the cup…” The Didache…probably written after 90 CE from Antioch does not reflect the Pauline understanding of the eucharist at all.

Most of the authorship of the NT is “tradition” excluding the “authentic Pauline letters”.

Mark is written 50-55 you state. That is the range given from even conservative scholars usually. Can I ask why the range is not 48-55?
Or 47-55?
Thanks. I am trying to make a point that in my years of reading this topic we give ranges when in reality our ranges are guesses based upon presuppositions. I think you will find there is no reason that it could not be or even is less likely to be 48 AD as opposed to 55 AD. When you give the reason why, if you choose to, you will find that it is usually attached to a presupposition.
So I ask again, how about 48-55 AD?
If the topic does not interest you, I understand that as well.

 

[Publisher]

As far as Marks date of authorship…it would be after Pauls letter to the Corinthians…probably the first NT “book” written… since the writer of Mark seems to have been familiar with Paul’s story of the Last Supper…since he incorporated and 1 Corinthians was probably written around 52-55 CE. So Mark was written afterwards…it could have been written as late as 60-65 CE,

 

[Rightlydivide]

As far as Marks date of authorship…it would be after Pauls letter to the Corinthians…probably the first NT “book” written… since the writer of Mark seems to have been familiar with Paul’s story of the Last Supper…since he incorporated and 1 Corinthians was probably written around 52-55 CE. So Mark was written afterwards…

So the presupposition is that Paul’s use of received (paralambano) in relation to the Last Supper was some information that was not preexisting but instead was a direct revelation as opposed to it coming from the Lord through information from peers that exists in an oral tradition shared by Mark. I will note that Paul in all his letters, with my presupposition of Pauline authorship of all the letters attributed to him, is rather fond of the word and it never has a supernatural connotation in its other uses.
If a direct revelation, the presupposition is also that the Lord did not reveal to Paul information that was already known to others.
Correct?

 

[Publisher]

So the presupposition is that Paul’s use of received (paralambano) in relation to the Last Supper was some information that was not preexisting but instead was a direct revelation as opposed to it coming from the Lord through information from peers that exists in an oral tradition shared by Mark. I will note that Paul in all his letters, with my presupposition of Pauline authorship of all the letters attributed to him, is rather fond of the word and it never has a supernatural connotation in its other uses.
If a direct revelation, the presupposition is also that the Lord did not reveal to Paul information that was already known to others.
Correct?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Christianity moving from obscure Jewish sect to it’s own religion with purpose and intent can defintely thank Paul…he was a religious genius. In Hyam Maccoby’s book the “Mythmaker”, he attributes Christianitys move to a separate religion to Paul…Paul was a visionary to be sure and he of all 1st century figures gave Christianity a credence and helped it gain acceptance among the Gentiles.

The authentic letters of Paul definitely influenced “Mark” who in turn influenced the other two synoptics. That there were earlier oral traditions existing isn’t in question. The early Christian movement wasn’t a homogenous whole as most conservative believers attest.

There were many Gentile “God fearers” in the 1st century who were attracted to the Jewish beliefs of the One God thanks to the Diaspora…but “circumcison” was pretty much a deal breaker for “Gentile converts” to Judaism…Paul’s “version” of Judaism…as found in his version of Christianity is what won the Gentiles over to Pauline Christianity.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Christianity moving from obscure Jewish sect to it’s own religion with purpose and intent can defintely thank Paul…he was a religious genius. In Hyam Maccoby’s book the “Mythmaker”, he attributes Christianitys move to a separate religion to Paul…Paul was a visionary to be sure and he of all 1st century figures gave Christianity a credence and helped it gain acceptance among the Gentiles.

The authentic letters of Paul definitely influenced “Mark” who in turn influenced the other two synoptics. That there were earlier oral traditions existing isn’t in question. The early Christian movement wasn’t a homogenous whole as most conservative believers attest.

There were many Gentile “God fearers” in the 1st century who were attracted to the Jewish beliefs of the One God thanks to the Diaspora…but “circumcison” was pretty much a deal breaker for “Gentile converts” to Judaism…Paul’s “version” of Judaism…as found in his version of Christianity is what won the Gentiles over to Pauline Christianity.

Let me try it again. Paul, in his account says that the Lord revealed this to him. The word used for revealed in 1st Corinthians 11:23 does not in and of itself denote a divine revelation. It could. It might. It has a more informal meaning of “to receive something”.
So when Paul says that he received this from the Lord it could be a direct revelation. It does not have to be though because the other times he uses the word it does not denote a direct revelation. So to receive something from the Lord does not have to denote a special revelation. Even today, the phrase is used and people are not contending God directly or audibly spoke to them.
So your belief or presupposition is that Paul’s “revelation” about the Last Supper is that it was not already a pre-existing oral tradition AND/OR that the Lord did not reveal something to Paul as well as *already * known by his inner circle. Did the Lord reveal things to Paul through only divine revelation or through others. The question is valid. What we know about Paul we know from very few sources; the Bible and a few patristic writings. That is also important to understand. The conservative and the liberal have the same basic information available but what they differ on is their presuppositions.

I understand the concept of Pauline Christianity. I have the book you referenced. After my conversion, I came within an inch of dumping it all (MY BELIEFS) after reading the book you referenced, John Dominic Cross, Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, and other popular writers.
But you see, I do not accept the presuppositions that they do. Right before I gave it up to the altar of liberal scholarship I remember asking myself “how DO they know it was that way and not the way it says”. To suggest that it was not the way it (it being the Bible) says it occured requires proof or a substantial reason to not accept it.
We can both pull out scholars left and right. But what I am doing is engaging in a direct dialogue with you Publisher and asking you about your presuppositions about who wrote what and when.
But lets be upfront, you do not believe that Acts accurately reflects history. That is your presupposition I would imagine. So I would ask you WHY and we will go down to those basic core questions that shape why you do and do not believe what you do. The good thing is we can leave most of the religion talk out of it and look at the history.
So once again, did Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper exist in independent oral tradition or did it not? But most importantly, how do you KNOW what you profess to KNOW?
My bold is meant for emphasis and should not be construed as yelling please.