[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Modern Bible scholars believe that some books of the New Testament weren't written until early in the 2nd century. I'm speaking here of I John, II John, and III John (100 CE), I and II Timothy (110 CE, written by an admirer of Paul), Titus (110 CE, also written by an admirer of Paul), Jude (115 CE, written by an admirer of Jude), and II Peter (130 CE, written by an admirer of Peter). All dates are, of course, approximate.

The earliest New Testament writings appear to be the undisputed letters of Paul along with Colossians and II Thessalonians, which are judged to be written by a disciple or admirer of Paul. All seven of the genuine epistles as well as Colossians and II Thessalonians are judged to predate Mark, the first gospel to be written.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

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?

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I am going to say three things, then stop.

Actually, I knew exactly what "virtually" meant, and when still saying "almost everybody," you have a fallacious statement. You cannot poll "everybody" so you cannot state with any reliability or factuality if "almost all" (or even "most") scholars believe a certain thing.

There is yet another fallacy in this that I have not pointed out. Citing a majority -- even if you could prove a majority -- is not even solid ground to stand upon. If I said "most Americans believe in God" to an atheist, how much water would that hold in an argument? None at all, because most Americans could be wrong! And numerical superiority has no bearing on truth. (I cannot recall the name of the fallacy off the top of my head, but it's on that harbinger of wisdom, wikipedia! )

I also don't wish to carry this particular point to extremes, as it doesn't appear edifying, but I do wish to correct a what may be misinterpretation of my intention.

In your original reply, you spoke of the idea that certain books had a later date than scholars from earlier ages assigned to them and the idea that some books were not penned by the author whose name is affixed to them as "conspiracy-theory oriented stuff." I wasn't offering the fact that most critical scholars concur with the opinions I presented as proof of the validity of those opinions (that would be fallacious thinking), I was simply trying to show that, far from being some whacked-out conspiratorial rant, these opinions, indeed, are well within the mainstream of modern Biblical scholarship.

As to the idea that you can't poll everybody, well, that's true; but it doesn't stop very many researchers from making generalizations based upon a representative sample of the whole, as well it shouldn't. Again, and I hope this is the last time I have to say this, I don't see where any logical fallacy is involved in anything I've said.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

And, finally, I apologize back. I did not see your response when I posted to HarryT, and I would have replied to you directly if I had. So that was my bad there.

Quite alright. I accept your apology. I perhaps jumped a bit quick on that. These threads do move rather quickly.