(September 25, 2015 at 4:46 am)pocaracas Wrote:(September 25, 2015 at 1:55 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not correct. 7 of Paul's Epistles are clearly attributed to Paul without any doubt among scholars. An 8th is considered likely to have been written by him, however it's disputed (2 Thessalonians) and there's no clear consensus on it. In one respect it doesn't really matter too much because it's largely a duplication of what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians. If 1 Thessalonians didn't exist then the authorship of 2 Thessalonians wouldn't be disputed.
The pastoral epistles are considered unlikely to have been written by Paul because most scholars don't think Paul could have been released from Roman-custody only to be re-arrested a couple of years later. Even if that possibility is accepted, there is no external evidence for these trips - however that's because Acts ends in 61AD and the three pastorals would have been written between 62-67 AD. Also Acts 20:25 makes it clear Paul doesn't expect to be released "And now I know that none of you, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, will ever see my face again."... but then that assumes accuracy for Acts of the Apostles. Also Acts ends in 61AD - before Paul is either released or executed, so it could well be that Luke felt that Paul was not going to be released when he wrote Acts, but something unexpected happened a year later. Many scholars argue that 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-14 on the question of whether women can teach in churches; if it was written by Paul he had to have changed his mind. The external evidence however shows that women were given roles to have in the early church and faced criticisms from non-Christians for it; therefore it seems unlikely that the first or second century church was following this teaching. Furthermore the pastorals are the last of the Pauline epistles to be canonised.
However most agree they do still reflect the theology that Paul taught and followed (except of course for the restrictive roles of women) meaning that they were likely written by someone devoted to Paul's flavour of Christianity. It is possible that Paul wrote them. None of the above points prove absolutely that he didn't, but they lend evidence that supports the view that he did not, therefore making the conclusion that he "most likely didn't write them" the one that most scholars hold. It's held with a level of conviction of course, but it's not absolute - and it's not as strong as the conviction that Paul did write the 7 "undisputed" Epistles.
The Epistles of Peter are considered pseudonymous.
The Epistles of James and Jude aren't; however scholars note that since each author only wrote one letter that survives today it can't be authenticated by their other writings, as can be done with Paul's. Therefore it's impossible to conclude on the evidence alone whether they are genuine or not. Regardless they are not "alleged" authors, the texts claim authorship to James and Jude it isn't "alleged". If they are indeed forgeries they are the earliest forgeries in the Bible and that itself is a problem, because as I explained before the Church doesn't get targeted for persecution until 64 AD; and both James and Jude are alive and well and in Jerusalem until at least 61 AD. So one needs to come up with an explanation of how someone is going to create a forgery while they are still alive and are active in the church leadership, and why they would it.
Scholars generally agree that Jude was written by a person named Judas. They also agree it wasn't Judas Iscariot (the Judas that betrays Jesus). The author himself says he is the brother of James, which indicates he's not the other Apostle Jude.
The Epistle of James is more interesting. There are four main views: 1. It was written by James before or during the period that Paul was writing, 2. It was written by James shortly after Paul's epistles, 3. James wrote an epistle and somebody else reworked it into the Epistle of James, 4. It is pseudonymous. Interestingly no one in scholarly circles holds the view that it was written by some "mystery James". The author doesn't seem to need to explain his identity - just like Paul doesn't need to explain his.
The internal evidence that James the Just is the author is extremely strong. In particular, the teachings in the short Epistle are much more similar to what Jesus is quoted as sayinf in the Gospels than in any other New Testament book - including around 10 direct parallel teachings to the Sermon on the Mount. Almost every thought that James writes down in this epistle can be traced to something Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament. We know that James the Just was an important leader (as important as Peter and Paul) at the time the epistle was written, and he appears to have greater authority in the early church than Peter or Barnabas (Acts 15). And the most likely time this epistle was written is sometime between 45-49 AD (although any date up to the early 60's is technically possible).
What's perhaps most notable about it is just how Jewish it is. Jesus's teachings became progressively less Jewish with the introduction of Paul's epistles, and then the Gospel writers providing their theological views, but the epistle of James is so Jewish that with some exception it could pass off as being a Jewish book and not a Christian book.
So again, James isn't the "alleged" author: He is the most likely author of the epistle. Most likely, but certainly not certain.
Their position is misquoted for one thing. No one is certain of when the gospels are written, and the range of possible dates span from 45 AD all the way through to 95 AD. The really early dates like 45 AD require a proto-Mark document - a version of Mark that pre-dates the present version of Mark. This view can't be ruled out, and Mark is still Mark even if it started as "proto-Mark" it would simply mean what we have now is a later edition of proto-Mark (which by the way is the main view). An early date in the mid 50's for proto-Mark solves a wave of problems that are presented by the synoptic problem. If proto-Mark isn't written until 70 AD or later one needs to find ways to explain all the primitive features in it which get polished and corrected in Matthew and Luke. If it's written in the mid-50's or sooner it's easier to explain. The version of Mark that we have now could well have been written AFTER Matthew and Luke, and the problem that presents is - why bother rewriting it when Matthew and Luke already exist and are much better gospels? Matthew contains 97% of Mark. Why would Matthew be writing to Jewish Christians AFTER 70AD which is after the Jerusalem Church has been destroyed? Those problems get solved if it's written around 60AD. In fact nearly every problem I can think of gets solved if both Matthew and Luke are written around that time: It explains why Mark gets re-written, it better explains why the first-person-narrative in Acts begins in Acts 13, it explains why Acts ends in 61AD, it explains why Matthew is writing his version for Jewish-Christians instead of gentile Christians, it explains why Mark's gospel is so primitive. It also allows the Gospel of John to be written in the correct time-frame with the knowledge of the content of the synoptics but without making direct usage of them, and allowing for the clear difference in literary language which is used by John.
And the so-called early dates do not pose any problem for sceptics. I think in years to come the viewpoint among critical scholars will broaden more.
In any case there aren't absolutes being claimed by most scholars despite Wikipedia implying otherwise.
Thanks for the lesson.really, I've learned something new.
However, it doesn't change the gist of the argument - most NT books seem to have not been written by who they are claimed to have been written.
What changes in the theology, if we remove the clearly pseudonymous books?
The majority of what we're left with is from Paul... Pauline christianity...?
Not to interrupt a great discussion, but what books would be left - in your "canon", so to speak?
