Polaris said:
That depends on who you ask. Many seriously believe that the Apostle John was indeed the author of St. John. There are several reasons that the gospels are viewed as authorative:
1. We have reason to believe that they were either recorded/written by an apostle or under the direction of one.
2. They are 4 parallel accounts of Christ's life and for the most part are in complete harmony with each other.
3. They are a historical account of Christ's life and teachings from reliable sources, often eye-witnesses. The authors were simply recounting what they had heard and seen, they were not trying to unauthoratively establish church doctrines.
Concerning the non-Pauline epistles, again it depends on who you ask. Many believe they were indeed written by apostles. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
The canon we use today is by no means the perfect bible. There may be writings that shouldn't necessarily be in there and there are likely writings that should have been included that aren't. I believe the canon was put together by good honest men who for the most part did the best they could to include authorative writings.
If there are any writings that can reasonably be attributed to the apostles or were recorded under their direction, I would definitely accept their writings. This whole issue underscores yet again the importance of modern-day revelation and modern-day apostles/prophets. There is obviously confusion and ambiguity concerning what early writings are actually apostolic and authorative. Modern-day prophets and/or apostles are needed to clarify the points of doctrine addressed by these ambiguous sources. Through inspired modern-day apostles we can confidantly know what teachings are actually part of gospel truth.
Here's your quotation:
Therefore the only writings that we LDS view as authorative in any way are those which can reasonably be attributed to the Apostles.
M. Eugene Boring,
Chalice Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 139: "Since the identity of the author [of Mark] is unknown..."
Stephen Harris,
The New Testament, pg. 119: "The writer [of Mark] does not identify himself in the Gospel text, and scholars, unable to verify the late second-century tradition of Markan quthorship, regard the work as anonymous."
Dennis E. Smith,
Chalice, pg. 152: "Regarding the authorship [of Matthew], the gospel mentions a tax collector named Matthew (9:9; 10:3). Tradition, most notably Papias...equates this Matthew with the author of the work. Yet the gospel itself makes no such claim and never specifically identifies its author. Indeed, it is most likely that the Matthew of the text was dead by the time the gospel writer recorded his work. Consequently, most scholars today do not consider the Matthew to be the author of the work."
Harris,
The New Testament, pp. 149, 152: "As in Mark's case, the author [of Matthew] does not identify himself, suggesting to most historians that the Gospel originated and circulated anonymously. The tradition that the author is the "publican" or tax collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9-13...dates from the late second century c.e. and cannot be verified. The main problem with accepting the Apostle Matthew's authorship is that the writer relies heavily on Mark as a source. it is extremely unlikely that one of the original Twelve would depend on the work of Mark, who was not an eyewitness to the events he describes."
Ronald J. Allen,
Chalice, pp. 175, 176: "We do not have definite answers to the questions of quthorship, date and place of composition [of Luke]...Luke does not furnish this data directly. The identification of Luke as the author does not occur in the body of either the gospel or Acts. This attribution, found only in the title, first appears in an ancient manuscript that dates from 175-225 c.e. We can neither prove nor disprove that a person named Luke was the author. Some Christians believe that the Author of Luke-Acts was Luke, a companion of Paul (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Most scholars (whose views I share) acknowledge that such an identification is unlikely, but not impossible."
Harris,
The New Testament, pp. 180,181: "The most important early reference to the author of Luke-Acts confirms that, like Mark, he was not an eyewitness to the events he narrates. In the Muratorian list of New testament books...a note identifies the author of this Gospel as Luke, "the beloved" physician who accompanied Paul on some of the apostle's missionary journeys. The note also states that Luke did not know Jesus. The author nowhere identifies himself... His depiction of Paul's character and teaching, moreover, does not always coincide with what Paul reveals of himself in his letters. To many contemporary scholars, these facts indicate that the author could not have known the apostle well. Perhaps the most telling argument against Luke's authorship is that the writer shows no knowledge of Paul's letters. Although the author's identity is not conclusively established, for convenience we refer to him as Luke."
Larry Paul Jones,
Chalice, pg. 220: "This intense debate over apostolic authorship seems out of place for a narrative that never refers to the disciples of Jesus as apostles and limits the Twelve to a minor role. Many readers, again beginning in the second century, have considered a character in the narrative, the Beloved Disciple...the cryptic "signature" of the author. The role of this disciple at the crucifixion and in the closing scene of the narrative plays no small part in this. Since the text never names this disciple, theories of his identity abound, but none of them proves he wrote the text. Given the lack of convincing evidence, it seems best to conclude that we do not know who wrote the book..."
Harris,
The New Testament, pg. 209: "Scholars identify the work as anonymous."
There is no reasonable evidence to conclude that apostles either directed or wrote the gospels. They are parallel accounts, because Matthew and Luke rely on the earlier Mark -- but there are significant differences, too. At least Matthew and Luke were not eyewitnesses.
