Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The early church was in a better position to know which NT documents were authentic than modern day scholars. But again, the opinion of modern day scholars is not the focus of this thread.
As I believe I thoroughly established, there were doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter from the very beginning. And yet it was included into the canon because it contained a very important statement on why Jesus had not yet returned as promised. You are claiming that the church never knowingly included anything that was not authentic into the NT. There is effectively little difference between knowing something is probably inauthentic and including it anyway, and knowing for a fact that a thing is inauthentic. But you see, this is how Christianity has always operated. Christians decide what is true based on what should be true, according to their faith, and then declare it to be so. The authenticity of 2 Peter has been questioned since the very beginning. Modern Christian scholars have concluded that 2 Peter cannot possibly have been written by the apostle. And yet fundamentalists claim that it is so, because it MUST be so in accordance with their beliefs.
Christianity is the creation of Christians. The original Yeshua of story and legend, assuming that such an individual ever actually existed (I am NOT disputing it), left no record of his own thoughts and purposes written in his own hand. A very serious oversight for a supreme Being! What we have today are the thousands of differing views and opinions on who Jesus was, and what he represented. The original Yeshua has long since been lost.
As I believe I thoroughly established, there were doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter from the very beginning. And yet it was included into the canon because it contained a very important statement on why Jesus had not yet returned as promised. You are claiming that the church never knowingly included anything that was not authentic into the NT. There is effectively little difference between knowing something is probably inauthentic and including it anyway, and knowing for a fact that a thing is inauthentic. But you see, this is how Christianity has always operated. Christians decide what is true based on what should be true, according to their faith, and then declare it to be so. The authenticity of 2 Peter has been questioned since the very beginning. Modern Christian scholars have concluded that 2 Peter cannot possibly have been written by the apostle. And yet fundamentalists claim that it is so, because it MUST be so in accordance with their beliefs.
Christianity is the creation of Christians. The original Yeshua of story and legend, assuming that such an individual ever actually existed (I am NOT disputing it), left no record of his own thoughts and purposes written in his own hand. A very serious oversight for a supreme Being! What we have today are the thousands of differing views and opinions on who Jesus was, and what he represented. The original Yeshua has long since been lost.
I said in the very first post of this thread, before you ever posted that 2 Peter was disputed and wasn't accepted into the canon without a struggle. I established that fact, not you. I also gave my reply to your post in post #17, and so don't need to repeat it here.
It is not the purpose of this thread to debate whether Christianity is based on fact or fiction. Save that argument for the Religion forum.
And though not all scholars agree that 2 Peter is a forgery, as I've stated more than once, scholars views about 2 Peter are not the topic of this thread. The only focus is on the fact that the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon despite the opinion of scholars and lay people who claim otherwise. The evidences were provided in the first post.
The Gospels don't claim to have been written by the men whose names are attached to them. Nothing in the text of the Gospels gives the names of the authors and so the issue of whether they are a forgery is mute. For the issue of forgery to apply to the Gospels they would have to have stated in the body of text that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. But they don't make that claim.
OK. Then who attached them?
You use word "knowingly".
I'd use word "willingly". It's a young religion, persecuted, that needs any and all good PR items. Which, I safely presume, at the time, were rather scarce. Also, with unfortunate lack of criminal labs, computers, networks, data storages, etc, etc, that can prove or disprove, or track authenticity, much was relied on hearsay and good faith more than on scientific proof.
Humans, only humans. The very moment Yeshua left, it all went into humans hands. And got botched immediately, as that's what humans do best.
Also, dear OP, ask any police investigator. They will tell you that WORST type of witnesses are eye witnesses, as they never get facts right. Least to say, 200 years down the road. When breaking news, taken as holy truth, were stories told by merchants traveling from a town to town.
I said in the very first post of this thread, before you ever posted that 2 Peter was disputed and wasn't accepted into the canon without a struggle. I established that fact, not you. I also gave my reply to your post in post #17, and so don't need to repeat it here.
It is not the purpose of this thread to debate whether Christianity is based on fact or fiction. Save that argument for the Religion forum.
And though not all scholars agree that 2 Peter is a forgery, as I've stated more than once, scholars views about 2 Peter are not the topic of this thread. The only focus is on the fact that the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon despite the opinion of scholars and lay people who claim otherwise. The evidences were provided in the first post.
What does Mike want? Either for members to agree with him or not post anything? Seems he was just looking to make a statement and then leave it at that. A one-post thread. Quite the novelty.
I said in the very first post of this thread, before you ever posted that 2 Peter was disputed and wasn't accepted into the canon without a struggle. I established that fact, not you. I also gave my reply to your post in post #17, and so don't need to repeat it here.
It is not the purpose of this thread to debate whether Christianity is based on fact or fiction. Save that argument for the Religion forum.
And though not all scholars agree that 2 Peter is a forgery, as I've stated more than once, scholars views about 2 Peter are not the topic of this thread. The only focus is on the fact that the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon despite the opinion of scholars and lay people who claim otherwise. The evidences were provided in the first post.
2 Peter was included into the canon over the widespread objection of many. You are attempting to claim that none of the books of the NT which were "knowingly" pseudepigraphical were included into the NT canon. And yet 2 Peter was widely considered pseudepigraphical at the time, and was included anyway because it was considered important. The entire question is an example of being disingenuous, then and now.
The Gospels don't claim to have been written by the men whose names are attached to them. Nothing in the text of the Gospels gives the names of the authors and so the issue of whether they are a forgery is mute. For the issue of forgery to apply to the Gospels they would have to have stated in the body of text that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. But they don't make that claim.
I made it quite clear that the topic of this thread is that the church did not knowingly admit forgeries into the canon and I provided the testimony of the church which proves that they didn't.
And by the way, you're posting on the Christianity forum now so leave your claims that Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be off of this thread as per the prohibition stated in the sticky. The clear statements of the church are that it did not knowingly allow forgeries into the New Testament.
Papias in the second century identified the author of Gospel Mark as someone named Mark who served as the translator for Peter. Papais specifically indicated that Mark did not know Jesus. There is virtually unanimous modern agreement that the author of Gospel Luke and the author of Acts are one in the same the same person. There is NOTHING to connect the author of The Gospel According to John to the apostle John. Papais indicates that there was a second John, called John the Presbyter or elder. It is to this John that the authorship of Gospel John can best be attributed.
Which leaves Gospel Matthew. Papais, Polycarp and Eusebius all indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel during the years 60-64. Additionally however, Papais, Polycarp and Eusebius all indicated that this Gospel was written in the language of the Jews. In other words, Aramaic. The canonical Gospel contained in the NT however was written in very clear Koine Greek. There is absolutely no indication that Gospel Matthew is a translation from so cumbersome a language as Aramaic. Further more, Gospel Matthew contains virtually the entire Gospel of Mark, also written in pure Koine Greek, with extra material woven in. Gospel Matthew is not and cannot be a copy of a document written in Aramaic.
SO who DID write Gospel Matthew No one knows! To consider it a pseudepigraphical however may be stretching the definition of pseudepigraphical.
Wikipedia
Pseudepigrapha
Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") are falsely-attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.[1] Pseudepigraphy covers the false ascription of names of authors to works, even to authentic works that make no such claim within their text. Thus a widely accepted but incorrect attribution of authorship may make a completely authentic text pseudepigraphical. Assessing the actual writer of a text locates questions of pseudepigraphical attribution within the discipline of literary criticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha
Gospel Matthew does not identify it's author. It's attribution to the apostle Matthew is entirely a matter of Christian tradition. Know one knows who wrote it.
You use word "knowingly".
I'd use word "willingly". It's a young religion, persecuted, that needs any and all good PR items. Which, I safely presume, at the time, were rather scarce. Also, with unfortunate lack of criminal labs, computers, networks, data storages, etc, etc, that can prove or disprove, or track authenticity, much was relied on hearsay and good faith more than on scientific proof.
Humans, only humans. The very moment Yeshua left, it all went into humans hands. And got botched immediately, as that's what humans do best.
Also, dear OP, ask any police investigator. They will tell you that WORST type of witnesses are eye witnesses, as they never get facts right. Least to say, 200 years down the road. When breaking news, taken as holy truth, were stories told by merchants traveling from a town to town.
Who attached the names to the Gospels is not the topic of this thread. The Gospels make no claim to be written by some particular person and so there is no issue of forgery involved with the Gospels.
I said 'knowingly' and that's what I meant and is evidenced by the statements in the Muratorian canon and by Serapion, bishop of Antioch. When a document was found to be a forgery it was rejected. That is a clear statement from the early church.
2 Peter was included into the canon over the widespread objection of many. You are attempting to claim that none of the books of the NT which were "knowingly" pseudepigraphical were included into the NT canon. And yet 2 Peter was widely considered pseudepigraphical at the time, and was included anyway because it was considered important. The entire question is an example of being disingenuous, then and now.
My 'claim' is backed up by the statement contained in the Muratorian canon and the statement made by Serapion, bishop of Antioch which attest to the fact that the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon. Both statements were posted in the OP.
The reason 2 Peter was disputed obviously is because there were those who believed it to be genuine and there were those who didn't. Otherwise it would not have been disputed.
As I already noted in post #17, from the very link which you provided, McGiffert's Notes to Bk. 3 Chap. 3, states that by the end of the fourth century 2 Peter was considered certainly canonical. 2 Peter was certainly viewed as authentic by many before the fourth century, but it wasn't considered certainly canonical until the fourth century. In the meantime the debates concerning its authenticity continued. Of course there were, and still are those who don't accept it as authentic, but by and large, the church finally did.
What does Mike want? Either for members to agree with him or not post anything? Seems he was just looking to make a statement and then leave it at that. A one-post thread. Quite the novelty.
What does Mike want? For one thing, an acknowledgement of the statements made in the Muratorian canon and by Serapion, bishop of Antioch that the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon and in fact rejected them would be nice instead of those statements being totally ignored. After all, the purpose of this thread is to establish that fact in contrast with the claims made by modern scholars and by lay people who don't know any better that the church did allow forgeries into the canon.
The linguistic style differences between First and Second Peter provide substantial proof that the two were written by different individuals. Whether someone wishes to conclude that one of them, most likely 1st Peter (rough Greek such as might be known by a fisherman), was written by Peter of the gospels and Acts is unverifiable. But 2nd Peter is more classical in style and could only have come from the Disciple Peter if he had received a university education between the time of writing between the two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
