Half of the New Testament a forgery?

[sojourner]

This was all settled when the canon was determined. The Holy Spirit guided holy men into an understanding of which books are legitimate and which ones were not. It appears to me that the author did not take the approach of seeking the guidance of the holy spirit but tried to reason it through as though reason is superior to God's knowledge. Not olnly that but the reasoning appears to be subjective. To me Ephesians does appear to be in the style of writing that I see in Paul's other letters.
A long winded sentence does not surprise me at all because Paul has a habit of being long winded throughout his writinigs even if it doesn't show up in long sentences.

Except that the canon was not meant to "legitimize" some texts over others. It was a rather arbitrary process, whose only purpose was to set apart "stuff that's OK to read in church." It said nothing about the inspiration, or legitimacy of texts outside the canon.

The claim that Paul wrote Ephesians is almost "universally repudiated," according to Stephen Harris, author of "The New Testament: A Student's Introduction" (McGraw-Hill, 1988).

 

[sojourner]

The first four books in the new testament tell the same story.

Take another look. The stories are vastly different. The audience is different, the authors are different, the styles are different, some of the characters are different, the theology behind the narratives is different for each, the reasons for writing them are different, the perspective of each is different, and the thesis for each is different.

Secondly, the only people who referred to Paul as an apostle was himself and Luke.

And the rest of Christendom...

 

[sojourner]

So, when someone who wasn't Paul, but said he was, he wasn't trying to deceive anyone? If that is true, why write in the name of Paul in the first place? Of course they wanted to deceive people. They wanted others to believe they were Paul when they were not, or James or Peter when they were not. That is deception.

That simply is not the case with the ancient practice of pseudonymity. Pseudonymity was a fairly common practice in the ancient world. It's intent is not to deceive, but to establish credibility. When a student was taught by the teacher, the student's knowledge was equal to that of the teacher. Teachers allowed their students to speak for them "in their name." So the real problem isn't one of deception (to say that these are forgeries, or that they are deceptively written is to grossly conflate the practice of pseudonymity), it is one of authenticity. While Ephesians is not written by Paul, it was likely written by a student of his in the Pauline tradition.

 

[outhouse]

." So the real problem isn't one of deception (to say that these are forgeries, or that they are deceptively written is to grossly conflate the practice of pseudonymity), it is one of authenticity. While Ephesians is not written by Paul, it was likely written by a student of his in the Pauline tradition.

while this may be true, we dont know how much it may have been edited to fit a common theistic theme.

we know this took place as we can see different authors step in with material that doesn not match where the original was going.

hence the forgerys statement which is accurate and not up for dispute among the majority of scholars

 

[sojourner]

while this may be true, we dont know how much it may have been edited to fit a common theistic theme.

we know this took place as we can see different authors step in with material that doesn not match where the original was going.

hence the forgerys statement which is accurate and not up for dispute among the majority of scholars

That doesn't constitute "forgery." It constitutes revision.

 

[outhouse]

That doesn't constitute "forgery." It constitutes revision.

you mean like a redactor?

what do you call it when a person who is not the original author changes something at a later date on someone elses work????


forgery

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's all just paper and ink....so what's the big deal really.....They only have meaning because you give them meaning.....

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why should anyone expect Religious books to be any more accurate to other history books.
even the earliest gospels had to rely on hearsay and memory. Every court knows that even direct observation of an event ends up with different evidence.

None of us, nor the original writers, has God as a sub editor to proof read what was written.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That doesn't constitute "forgery." It constitutes revision.

Revelation 22-19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Revelation 22-19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Authors who add such paragraphs to preserve their writings, are doing no more than the witches, wizards and prists of old, who added curses to their words as a final protection.

Disagree with me ... and you are sure to Die........

 

[waitasec]

Authors who add such paragraphs to preserve their writings, are doing no more than the witches, wizards and prists of old, who added curses to their words as a final protection.

Disagree with me ... and you are sure to Die........

 

[sojourner]

you mean like a redactor?

what do you call it when a person who is not the original author changes something at a later date on someone elses work????


forgery

No, you don't. Not when the document is intentionally open to revision. You think the OT and gospel writers didn't get their information from much earlier, oral information? This isn't forgery. It's revision.

 

[sojourner]

Revelation 22-19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I don't see that anything has been "taken away" from Revelation...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, Ehrman knows how to sell books.

 

[sojourner]

Well, Ehrman knows how to sell books.

I like Ehrman. But this seems to be conflated in favor of marketing, which IMO, lowers its scholastic value by a few points, and affords the other team a penalty shot.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I like Ehrman. But this seems to be conflated in favor of marketing, which IMO, lowers its scholastic value by a few points, and affords the other team a penalty shot.

haha I like Ehrman, too. But there's a point at which it just gets silly.

My impression of his last four books or so are, "Here he goes again...."

Same song different verse. He's running the risk of becoming irrelevant (well, to me he has been irrelevant for at least the last five years).

 

[sojourner]

haha I like Ehrman, too. But there's a point at which it just gets silly.

My impression of his last four books or so are, "Here he goes again...."

Same song different verse. He's running the risk of becoming irrelevant (well, to me he has been irrelevant for at least the last five years).

Now we know why we don't read him in seminary. Could it be because we're too busy reading Rhodes and Kloppenborg and Crossan?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now we know why we don't read him in seminary. Could it be because we're too busy reading Rhodes and Kloppenborg and Crossan?

I doubt it. You could read at least half of Ehrman's books in an afternoon.

I suppose that you didn't read him in seminary because he has written far more non-scholarly material than scholarly... and in his non-scholarly work is mainstream scholarship.

Unfortunately, if you've read one of those books you've read them all.

 

[sojourner]

I doubt it. You could read at least half of Ehrman's books in an afternoon.

I suppose that you didn't read him in seminary because he has written far more non-scholarly material than scholarly... and in his non-scholarly work is mainstream scholarship.

Unfortunately, if you've read one of those books you've read them all.

And, God knows, Cokesbury (who I'm sure is on the payola with the faculty) wants us to keep buying more books to read...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And, God knows, Cokesbury (who I'm sure is on the payola with the faculty) wants us to keep buying more books to read...

haha - I haven't been in a Cokesbury in a very long time.

Do they even sell Ehrman?