Quote:
Originally Posted by EatingPie
Actually, you have to be careful here. More accurately, it's that bits may have been added over time. One scholar I know, Bob Siegel, studied the "floating passage" (The Adultrous Woman) and concluded it was actually removed by "some prude of a monk" as he puts it.
What's important, though, is that, while we don't know for sure if they were in original manuscripts or not, they are left in our modern Bibles but flagged (typically put in brackets) with a notation stating that they're somewhat suspect.
In terms of the effects of errors, let me cite a modern scholar named Bruce Metzger.
Technically, the Canonized Bible did not exist during Constantine's reign. All of the books of the New Testament, except Revelation, were included during the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD. So I'm not sure what "whole swathes" you're referring to here.
Now we get to the more consipracy-theory oriented stuff I was referring to in my initial post. Not the known corrupt texts, or the different manuscripts that vary from the oldest copies, but the wholesale denial of the extant texts.
There are certainly some scholars that dissent from the thousands of year of accepted teachings.  There was even the Jesus Seminar which voted on which particular passages were spoken by Christ himself, eliminating quite a bit of the gospels in the process.
So, sure, you can find modern scholars who will say many things. But let's just take the most basic question to illustrate how problematic this case is: How do we know the books were written by an "admirer" of Peter or Paul? Especially when -- in the case of Timothy -- we have a direct claim of authorship, and no other evidence supporting a specific "other" author?
I'm not sure where you got this information. Passive voice is very powerful... "it is judged" sounds official, but judged by whom is the real kicker.
The books of Paul were "judged" by the Council of Laodicea to be written by Paul himself. Authorship was a key component to inclusion in the original Canon. There is one specific book which some Bibles attribute to Paul's, but its authorship remains in question, and that's Hebrews. But it passed other tests of authenticity to earn it a spot in the Canon, regardless of authorship.
Okay, so my point was simply that adding or deleting from a book is a bad thing. (I would also now add to that making unsubstantiated claims about books is also a bad thing.) This, however, is totally different than deleting your own copy of the book. You're not editing or changing. You are merely deleting something you disagree with, don't like, or simply need to free up space.
-Pie |
Some books, such as II Peter, have been in dispute since the early days of Christianity. Others have been questioned by later Christian authorities, such as when Martin Luther famously called James the "epistle of straw."
In his
New Testament course for The Teaching Company, Professor
Bart D. Ehrman offers for reasons why people forged writings in the name of famous authors: (1) profit (new libraries would often pay generously for new works by famous authors), (2) to honor a beloved teacher, students often attached the teacher's name as an act of gratitude and modesty, (3) to gain an audience, and (4) the belief that had the person named as author had a chance to address the issue, this is what they would have said. In the last case, I might add that such persons may have felt "inspired" to write their books.
That there were forgeries written in Paul's name, such as III Corinthians and the Pauline epistles to Seneca, is not in dispute. The only question is to whether any of these made it into the accepted NT canon.
II Thessalonians and Colossians still tend to be hotly debated by scholars, but there seems to be considerably less support for Pauline authorship for the book of Ephesians. Scholars argue that the style is entirely unlike other Pauline works. Long, convoluted sentences are used by this author, whereas Paul tended to write in short, abrupt sentences. Also there is the choice of vocabulary. There are 116 words used in this short work that are found in none of the undisputed works. Such a deviation is quite untypical of any author. There is even less support for the Pastoral Epistles of I and II Timothy and Titus. Critical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opinion that Paul was not the author. Not least among their reasons for that judgment is that the historical backdrop of these books seems to be more appropriate to a later historical period than the one in which Paul lived and worked. In addition, the author's opinion of women's role in the churches (usurp no authority and remain silent) seems to be at odds with the prominent role they played in Paul's own ministry. (For that reason alone the idea that Paul didn't write these books elevates him, in my opinion.)