Determining Biblical Authorship

[Tart]

This topic is to present evidence and/or reasoning to establish if Biblical Authorship is authentic or non-authentic... Although I have seen many post throughout the years claiming that, for example, some of Paul's epistles are fakes and some are real, I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other. Ill have to note a disclaimer right now, that I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm very interested in it, as this is important for Christianity... And I'm namely talking about the New testament, but if anyone would like to discuss a book in the Old Testament that would be ok as well.

Here is a website that I just google with a quick search that ill say I might agree as what they say is "The New Testament - A Brief Overview" on authorship, as a quick starting point. (and note, I don't know why they have 1 Peter and 2 Peter, I think that may be a mistake on their part, but lets assume it is all on Peter even though I have heard 2 peter is a fraud)

Are these claims of authorship true or not? Why?

https://www.bible-history.com/new-testa ... thors.html

(and as my computer time is running out at the library, ill put off posting the actual evidence of why I agree with some of these claims in the linked website, but will post it in a future date. Namely supporting the traditionally held authorship of the Gospels)

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 3 by SallyF]

Yes, Sally this is a question about Biblical authorship, not a question about whether or not the Bible is the Word of God, stay on topic...

As for your first post, when you say
"To the best of my knowledge, NOT ONE of these supposed authors has been confirmed as such."
"To the best of my knowledge, NOT ONE of the supposed authors has been identified as even existing."

I would suggest to you that this is radical skepticism, which you can take but like the vast vast vast majority of scholars would disagree. Even those on your side of the equation, like Dr. Carreer for example, maybe the leading scholar in criticizing a historical Jesus, he admits things like Paul existing and Paul writing much of his epistles. And why? I think it is because it is the best explanation of the evidence.

So let me ask you something... You are claiming these people have not been shown to exist, or to have wirtten anything... And the funny thing is, is that the books themselves exist, and many of them have been signed by an author (like the epistles of Paul)... So what do YOU think the best explanation is of the evidence? I'd suggest to you, the best explanation is that Paul wrote Romans (for example)...

Do you have any valid reasoning to suggest that isnt true? And would you like to present a counter theory of how these books came into existence?

Me off topic …?

Well let me just see …




Yep, I was DEFINITELY on topic in my posts.

Lemme check again for you …



Yes indeed, firmly on topic …!

Please refer to the list of names of supposed authors above …

And add to it the name Jehovah …

The mythological Middle East deity some people claim is "God" with a capital G.

NOT ONE of those names - to the best of my knowledge - has EVER been shown to be the author of so much as a verse of biblical "scripture".

Which is all very much on topic.

Let's see what Christians say, one more time, just to make sure ...

[Tart]

I would suggest to you that this is radical skepticism, which you can take but like the vast vast vast majority of scholars would disagree.

<bolding mine>

But I have never really seen the actual evidence of it, usually we just get a statement that says "scholars think this" or "the majority of scholars think that", but in reality that is just appealing to authorities and not presenting the actual evidence of why scholars think one way or the other. Id like to discuss the evidence

<bolding mine>

You of course added, "vast vast vast", to your appeal to authorities, I suppose to sound more convincing, but not even a hint of evidence. I thought your goal was to discuss evidence?


Tcg

Ya and i suppose the key statement you left out of my quote is

"And why [do scholars think so]? I think it is because it is the best explanation of the evidence."

I have never seen any good reason to suggest someone like Paul never existed. In fact, i have good reason to believe everyone in the New Testament existed, because everyone we can confirm to be historical ends up being historical. And if you like to discuss why id be happy to do that.

Ill briefly sum up the case for someone like Paul, Peter, James, or John, in this way... There is no better explanation of the evidence, for the existence of the first churches and the existence of the books written in the Bible, then for these men to have actually existed and written at least some of them... Period... Now if you'd like to discuss the details id be happy to do that... But first, do you have any good explanation yourself? And if not, why would you believe otherwise? What would lead you to believe Paul, Peter, James, John didnt exist?

[Tcg]

What would lead you to believe Paul, Peter, James, John didnt exist?

Feel free to provide a reference to where I've expressed this belief. Once you do so, I'll consider entertaining your question.


Tcg

[Tart]

[Replying to post 11 by SallyF]

To your post about how God wrote the Bible

I dont believe that, and no body educated does, these pictures you posted were probably made to suggest God inspired its writers, and id agree with that, but im not going to respond to this any more... The Books had actual authors...lol

For example here is the first sentence of Romans.. It is of the author signing his name...

"1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God"

To be honest, i dont even know why i respond to post like this... Let the blind lead the blind into a ditch

[Tart]

What would lead you to believe Paul, Peter, James, John didnt exist?

Feel free to provide a reference to where I've expressed this belief. Once you do so, I'll consider entertaining your question.


Tcg

Ya this is another post that i shouldnt even be responding to... Im sick of these dumb games, im actually trying to have valid conversations about this stuff.

[Tcg]

What would lead you to believe Paul, Peter, James, John didnt exist?

Feel free to provide a reference to where I've expressed this belief. Once you do so, I'll consider entertaining your question.


Tcg

Ya this is another post that i shouldnt even be responding to... Im sick of these dumb games, im actually trying to have valid conversations about this stuff.

Then I suggest you not create a straw man in an attempt to have a valid conversation. A valid conversation would be built on what a fellow poster has said, not on a false creation of a view you assume another has.


Tcg

[Mithrae]

A valid conversation would be built on what a fellow poster has said...

Sadly that description does not cover post #8 which began that tangent, in which you snipped two paragraphs of Tart's reasoning for the existence of Paul et al from your quote in order to declare that he had provided "not even a hint of evidence" and thus was supposedly being hypocritical against his earlier comment that citing scholars' views without further evidence is an appeal to authority.

[Tcg]

I would suggest to you that this is radical skepticism, which you can take but like the vast vast vast majority of scholars would disagree.

<bolding mine>

But I have never really seen the actual evidence of it, usually we just get a statement that says "scholars think this" or "the majority of scholars think that", but in reality that is just appealing to authorities and not presenting the actual evidence of why scholars think one way or the other. Id like to discuss the evidence

<bolding mine>

You of course added, "vast vast vast", to your appeal to authorities, I suppose to sound more convincing, but not even a hint of evidence. I thought your goal was to discuss evidence?


Tcg

Ya and i suppose the key statement you left out of my quote is

"And why [do scholars think so]? I think it is because it is the best explanation of the evidence."

Using the word "evidence" in a sentence is not a presentation of evidence. Your "key statement" doesn't change this fact.


Tcg

[Tart]

A valid conversation would be built on what a fellow poster has said...

Sadly that description does not cover post #8 which began that tangent, in which you snipped two paragraphs of Tart's reasoning for the existence of Paul et al from your quote in order to declare that he had provided "not even a hint of evidence" and thus was supposedly being hypocritical against his earlier comment that citing scholars' views without further evidence is an appeal to authority.

Ya, i suppose me responding to Tcg is almost like low hanging fruit, that went bad, and bitter to the taste.... Im going to respond to the two well thought out responses soon...

[otseng]

Ya, i suppose me responding to Tcg is almost like low hanging fruit, that went bad, and bitter to the taste....

Moderator Warning


Please avoid making any comments of a personal nature.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.