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.
As was stated, that's not the intended topic of the thread. The only purpose of this thread is to show, as was done, that the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon.
Well, trying to be as honest as I can, I checked Wikipedia and sure enough Mike is right. Bart Ehrman a Biblical scholar I respect says Matthew is not forged. It is classified as a false attribution. Just for reference the books he says are falsely attributed (not written by the people they are attributed to) are:
Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Luke
Gospel of John
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
Epistle to the Hebrews
The books he classifies as forgeries are:
First Epistle of Peter
Second Epistle of Peter
Acts of the Apostles
Epistle of James
Epistle of Jude
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle to Titus
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Colossians
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.
QUESTION: What "testimony of the church' are you referring to? Please provide your reference and who wrote it?
The focus of this thread is quite narrow and I am stating it up front. The purpose of this thread is to refute the claim made by many modern day scholars, and by lay people who don't know what they are talking about, that the early church knowingly accepted forgeries into the New Testament canon. The key word is knowingly. Whether or not a writing may have gone undetected as a forgery and unwittingly admitted into the canon is not the topic of this thread. Having made the scope of this thread's focus known up front I do not expect this thread to veer off into the subject of whether any of the New Testament documents might be forgeries that failed to be discovered as such. The only point being made on this thread is that no forgeries, that is, writings which claimed to have been written by one of the apostles, but were actually written by someone else claiming to be one of the apostles were ever knowingly allowed into the New Testament canon. I can't make it any clearer than that. In order to keep this thread from getting overly long, I will ask the moderators to delete any posts and to issue a warning to anyone who attempts to steer the thread in the direction of whether any of Paul's or Peter's writings are forgeries.
A claim made even by some scholars is that it was common practice for the church to knowingly accept pseudepigraphical works, otherwise known as forgeries into the New Testament canon. This is demonstrably not true.
Evidence Number One: The Muratorian Canon is dated to c. A.D. 75. It is an early catalog of the New Testament books and contains 21 of the 27 New Testament books. In the bolded part of the excerpt below it is stated that there were in circulation writings which were forged under the name of Paul, as well as several other writings which could not be received into the church because it was not suitable for gall (forgeries) to be mingled with honey.
3. As to the epistles34 of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Oid Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object35 in these;-which it is needful for us to discuss severally,36 as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey. [Bolded mine]
Evidence Number Two: Around the year A.D. 200, when Serapion, bishop of Antioch learned that the Gospel of Peter was not really written by the apostle Peter he wrote the following as quoted by Eusebius in his Church History book 6, chapter 12.
1. It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion's literary industry, but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.
2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He writes as follows:
3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us. [Bolded mine]
Evidence Number three: Some of the New Testament documents were disputed for a period of time before being admitted as part of the Canon. For instance, 2 Peter was not accepted without a struggle. Issues such as a lack of citations and stylistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter raised concerns concerning its authenticity. Based on the evidences one and two above, Since 2 Peter claimed to be written by Peter, it would not have been recognized as authentic and knowingly admitted into the canon if it was found to be a forgery.
Despite claims made by modern days scholars who hold that view, and the claims made by people who are ignorant of the facts, the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon. Some may argue that while the church didn't knowingly accept forgeries into the canon, a writing might have escaped being found to be a forgery and inadvertently been admitted into the canon, but that isn't the topic of this thread as stated up above as clearly as I could make it.
The early church actually went to great effort to determine the authenticity of documents which claimed to be written by the apostles.
The information in this thread was obtained from the book 'Reinventing Jesus' by co-authors J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace.
2 Peter was widely considered a pseudepigraphical forgery even in early times. It was included into the canon of the NT largely at the insistence of the bishop of Rome because it contains a passage which addresses the delay of the Parousia or second coming of Jesus.
2 Peter
Authorship and Date
"The author clearly affirms that he is Peter. In spite of this, tradition is by no means uniform on this attributation. Origen and Eusebius said that it was contested, and several eastern churches did not accept it. The objection was particularly strong in the Greek churches because of the manifest difference in style between 1 Pt. and 2 Pt. Modern scholars are almost unanimously that Peter (or the author of 1 Pt.) cannot be the author 2 Pt."
"2 Peter seems to presuppose a collection of the letters of Paul which are regarded as Scripture (3:15). Whether this collection existed before the end of the 1st century or not, it certainly did not exist with this quality during the life of Peter. The delay in the Parousia is not itself a convincing argument against a later date; but the reference to the first generation of Christians as "the fathers" (3:2) who are dead cannot come from the first generation Christian. So also the apostles are joined with the prophets as heros of the past (3:2). The dependence of 2 Pt. 2:1-3:3on Jude is prior. It is granted that 2 Pt. 2:1-3:3 seems to be a digression and an interruption, but it does not show a lack of unity and authorship. 1 Pt. has a vocabulary of 496 words and 2 Pt. has a vocabulary pf 330 words, of which they have only 100 in common. These arguments are now accepted as convincing evidence that 2 Peter is not from Peter."
"If it is not, the author and the date remain unknown. A date later than the fall of Jerusalem in 70 is as early as one may go; a date at the end of the 1st century or early 2nd century is much more probable, but dates ranging from 120 to 180 by some appear altogether too late. The attribution is a literary fiction, which was not regarded in the ancient world as we regard it now; but the attribution to Peter may indicate that the author had been a disciple of Peter who attempted to answer the question of the delay of the Parousia in terms which he remembered as those of Peter."
Canonicity "Origen is the first witness of the cannicy of 2 Pt. In the 4th century. because of it's doubtful authorship, it was denied or doubted about as much as it was accepted.. It was accepted in the west after 400." [Dictionary of the Bible; Peter, Epistles of; Pg.667 by Father John L. McKenzie, SJ]
The late Dr. McKenzie was a Jesuit Priest, and as such cannot be charged with some anti-Christian bias. He possessed a PhD in theology.
Eusebius didn't believe that 2 Peter was authentic either.
Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 3.—The Epistles of the Apostles. (by Eusebius)
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. 1 And this the ancient elders 2 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. 3 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; 4 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture
Even modern Christian theologians acknowledge that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical.
Bible.org
The Authorship of Second Peter
Related Media
I. Introduction
There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing†in the New Testament.1 Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.â€2 And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.â€3
The result of this debate is that 2 Peter is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature.But the evangelical world rejects the critics’ claims. Conservatives say this has serious ramifications for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. The critics, on the other hand, claim this was standard procedure and therefore not dishonest. https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
***
Tyndale House:
The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter
ANT (The Authentic New Testament) This letter, claiming to be a second letter by Peter, is certainly pseudepigraphic. Both the external and even more the eternal evidence is against the book's genuineness as the work of the Apostle. The writer has assumed Peter's identity in order to reinforce the message of Jude, which to some extent he has attempted to copy. His manner of referring to Christ, his acceptance of Paul's letters as Scripture, his allusions to the envoys, and his response to those who through the passage of time had become skeptical about the Second Advent, all reveal his late date. It has been held that the author was acquainted with the Antiquities of Josephus, and as the letter was also subsequent to that of Jude, its composition prior to the beginning of the second century is impossible.
BNT (Barclay New Testament) It has to be said that a very great many scholars, from John Calvin onwards, have been very doubtful if Peter really is the author of this letter. There are three main reasons for this doubt.
First, the style of this letter is so different from the first letter which bears Peter's name that it is next to impossible that the same man could have written both. This is one of the most florid, rhetorical and flamboyant pieces of style in the New Testament.
Second, in 3: 15, 16, the writer writes to his readers as if the letters of Paul were well known to them. This seems to imply that the letters of Paul had been collected and published and were part of the literature of the church. But Paul's letters were private letters, and they were not collected and edited and published for all to read until at least A.D. 90. In the early sixties, when Peter died, it would hardly have been possible to write like this.
Third, he talks of the people who said that the Second Coming was not going to happen, because things have been just the same 'since the fathers fell asleep' (3: 4). This seems to mark out the readers of this letter as at least second generation Christians, whose fathers, who had first heard the Christian message, are now dead.
It may be that the writer of this letter was someone who knew well what Peter had said in his preaching and his writing, and who knew well what he would say in the present situation, and who wrote in his great teacher's name.
CTNT (Centenary Translation of the New Testament) The last book of the New Testament to win recognition. The evidence for it in the first three centuries is slight and scattered. Origen and Eusebius question its genuineness. It was only after long struggle that it became accepted as a part of Scripture.
One passage in it, 2 Peter 2: 1-19, presents a very close resemblance to Jude 3-16.
DRB (Douay-Rheims Bible) In this Epistle St. Peter says, (chapter 3), Behold this second Epistle I write to you: and before (chapter 1: 14), Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand. This shows, that it was written a very short time before his martyrdom, which was about thirty-five years after our Lord's Ascension.
MSNT (The Modern Speech New Testament) It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to either the date or the authorship of this Letter. From the beginning there have been doubts as to its genuineness and canonicity, and these are represented to-day in the differing judgement of critics equally able and sincere.
It has, however, unquestionably had a place in the canon of the New Testament since the Council of Laodicea in 372 A.D., and there is certainly no such decisive evidence against it as to warrant our omitting it from the New Testament.
It would appear that the writer, whoever he was, had seen the Letter from Jude, and bore it in mind in this his plea for such character and conduct on the part of believers as were worthy of their faith and would prepare them for the Coming of the Lord.
2 Peter MUST BE GENUINE according to God's will, declare the fundamentalists. Therefore it IS genuine.
Well, trying to be as honest as I can, I checked Wikipedia and sure enough Mike is right. Bart Ehrman a Biblical scholar I respect says Matthew is not forged. It is classified as a false attribution. Just for reference the books he says are falsely attributed (not written by the people they are attributed to) are:
Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Luke
Gospel of John
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
Epistle to the Hebrews
The books he classifies as forgeries are:
First Epistle of Peter
Second Epistle of Peter
Acts of the Apostles
Epistle of James
Epistle of Jude
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle to Titus
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Colossians
I concede. I should have done my homework.
So 70% of the New Testament is either falsely attributed or outright forged according to New Testament scholars. I guess we could say that the church fathers had to have the IQ of a gnat to let that much questionable material into the canon but then I keep forgetting the narrow topic of this thread is not their IQ's but whether or not they really knew they were letting in such questionable materials. Call me skeptical.
2 Peter was widely considered a pseudepigraphical forgery even in early times. It was included into the canon of the NT largely at the insistence of the bishop of Rome because it contains a passage which addresses the delay of the Parousia or second coming of Jesus.
2 Peter
Authorship and Date
"The author clearly affirms that he is Peter. In spite of this, tradition is by no means uniform on this attributation. Origen and Eusebius said that it was contested, and several eastern churches did not accept it. The objection was particularly strong in the Greek churches because of the manifest difference in style between 1 Pt. and 2 Pt. Modern scholars are almost unanimously that Peter (or the author of 1 Pt.) cannot be the author 2 Pt."
"2 Peter seems to presuppose a collection of the letters of Paul which are regarded as Scripture (3:15). Whether this collection existed before the end of the 1st century or not, it certainly did not exist with this quality during the life of Peter. The delay in the Parousia is not itself a convincing argument against a later date; but the reference to the first generation of Christians as "the fathers" (3:2) who are dead cannot come from the first generation Christian. So also the apostles are joined with the prophets as heros of the past (3:2). The dependence of 2 Pt. 2:1-3:3on Jude is prior. It is granted that 2 Pt. 2:1-3:3 seems to be a digression and an interruption, but it does not show a lack of unity and authorship. 1 Pt. has a vocabulary of 496 words and 2 Pt. has a vocabulary pf 330 words, of which they have only 100 in common. These arguments are now accepted as convincing evidence that 2 Peter is not from Peter."
"If it is not, the author and the date remain unknown. A date later than the fall of Jerusalem in 70 is as early as one may go; a date at the end of the 1st century or early 2nd century is much more probable, but dates ranging from 120 to 180 by some appear altogether too late. The attribution is a literary fiction, which was not regarded in the ancient world as we regard it now; but the attribution to Peter may indicate that the author had been a disciple of Peter who attempted to answer the question of the delay of the Parousia in terms which he remembered as those of Peter."
Canonicity "Origen is the first witness of the cannicy of 2 Pt. In the 4th century. because of it's doubtful authorship, it was denied or doubted about as much as it was accepted.. It was accepted in the west after 400." [Dictionary of the Bible; Peter, Epistles of; Pg.667 by Father John L. McKenzie, SJ]
The late Dr. McKenzie was a Jesuit Priest, and as such cannot be charged with some anti-Christian bias. He possessed a PhD in theology.
Eusebius didn't believe that 2 Peter was authentic either.
Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 3.—The Epistles of the Apostles. (by Eusebius)
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. 1 And this the ancient elders 2 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. 3 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; 4 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture
Even modern Christian theologians acknowledge that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical.
Bible.org
The Authorship of Second Peter
Related Media
I. Introduction
There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing†in the New Testament.1 Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.â€2 And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.â€3
The result of this debate is that 2 Peter is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature.But the evangelical world rejects the critics’ claims. Conservatives say this has serious ramifications for the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. The critics, on the other hand, claim this was standard procedure and therefore not dishonest. https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
***
Tyndale House:
The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter
ANT (The Authentic New Testament) This letter, claiming to be a second letter by Peter, is certainly pseudepigraphic. Both the external and even more the eternal evidence is against the book's genuineness as the work of the Apostle. The writer has assumed Peter's identity in order to reinforce the message of Jude, which to some extent he has attempted to copy. His manner of referring to Christ, his acceptance of Paul's letters as Scripture, his allusions to the envoys, and his response to those who through the passage of time had become skeptical about the Second Advent, all reveal his late date. It has been held that the author was acquainted with the Antiquities of Josephus, and as the letter was also subsequent to that of Jude, its composition prior to the beginning of the second century is impossible.
BNT (Barclay New Testament) It has to be said that a very great many scholars, from John Calvin onwards, have been very doubtful if Peter really is the author of this letter. There are three main reasons for this doubt.
First, the style of this letter is so different from the first letter which bears Peter's name that it is next to impossible that the same man could have written both. This is one of the most florid, rhetorical and flamboyant pieces of style in the New Testament.
Second, in 3: 15, 16, the writer writes to his readers as if the letters of Paul were well known to them. This seems to imply that the letters of Paul had been collected and published and were part of the literature of the church. But Paul's letters were private letters, and they were not collected and edited and published for all to read until at least A.D. 90. In the early sixties, when Peter died, it would hardly have been possible to write like this.
Third, he talks of the people who said that the Second Coming was not going to happen, because things have been just the same 'since the fathers fell asleep' (3: 4). This seems to mark out the readers of this letter as at least second generation Christians, whose fathers, who had first heard the Christian message, are now dead.
It may be that the writer of this letter was someone who knew well what Peter had said in his preaching and his writing, and who knew well what he would say in the present situation, and who wrote in his great teacher's name.
CTNT (Centenary Translation of the New Testament) The last book of the New Testament to win recognition. The evidence for it in the first three centuries is slight and scattered. Origen and Eusebius question its genuineness. It was only after long struggle that it became accepted as a part of Scripture.
One passage in it, 2 Peter 2: 1-19, presents a very close resemblance to Jude 3-16.
DRB (Douay-Rheims Bible) In this Epistle St. Peter says, (chapter 3), Behold this second Epistle I write to you: and before (chapter 1: 14), Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand. This shows, that it was written a very short time before his martyrdom, which was about thirty-five years after our Lord's Ascension.
MSNT (The Modern Speech New Testament) It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to either the date or the authorship of this Letter. From the beginning there have been doubts as to its genuineness and canonicity, and these are represented to-day in the differing judgement of critics equally able and sincere.
It has, however, unquestionably had a place in the canon of the New Testament since the Council of Laodicea in 372 A.D., and there is certainly no such decisive evidence against it as to warrant our omitting it from the New Testament.
It would appear that the writer, whoever he was, had seen the Letter from Jude, and bore it in mind in this his plea for such character and conduct on the part of believers as were worthy of their faith and would prepare them for the Coming of the Lord.
2 Peter MUST BE GENUINE according to God's will, declare the fundamentalists. Therefore it IS genuine.
Eusebius (A.D. c. 260-349) was giving his opinion and the opinion of those who agreed with him when he wrote ''But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.'' (Church History 3.3.1).
Later he acknowledged that while 2 Peter was disputed, many did recognize it as authentic. ''Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.'' (Church History 3.25.3)
In the link 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.
''Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Methodius, etc.''
There are always going to be, even today, those who dispute certain of the New Testament books. But the church did finally accept 2 Peter as authentic which it would not have if it was believed by most at that time to be a forgery.
The opinion of modern day scholars on the authenticity of 2 Peter, or of any other New Testament document, whether 'for' or 'against' is not the subject of this thread. The issue at hand is what the early church thought about the matter of authenticity. And based upon the statements made in the Muratorian canon and by Serapion, the bishop of Antioch (See post #1), known forgeries were not accepted into the canon.
So 70% of the New Testament is either falsely attributed or outright forged according to New Testament scholars. I guess we could say that the church fathers had to have the IQ of a gnat to let that much questionable material into the canon but then I keep forgetting the narrow topic of this thread is not their IQ's but whether or not they really knew they were letting in such questionable materials. Call me skeptical.
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.
Despite admitting in post #12 that you should have done your homework, you now take the opinion of one scholar, Bart Ehrman, concerning the number of NT Testament books which he considers forgeries and conclude that his opinion is the opinion of most scholars. It is not. But again, the opinion of modern day scholars is not the focus of this thread.
whew! I'm so glad things are back to normal between Mike and me: hostile disagreement.
No. Don't put words in my mouth. I said, and demonstrated that the church did not knowingly allow forgeries into the New Testament canon. And as I made perfectly clear, the topic of this thread is not whether the church unknowingly let forgeries into the canon.
well if they did not do so knowingly, they surely did not know it at the time right?
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.
