Eldership

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

It is also possible that later translators injected "opinion" and "customs" into later translations.
Sue

That is true.

It is also true that early scribes making early copies may have done the same, which is a very popular academic theory, especially in the case of the Timothy and Titus epistles. Some of the academic theories go even further and say that Paul did not write them at all. They say that some of Paul's followers must have written them after Paul died. I might even agree with them about the letter to Titus, which seems very much like a "blended brother" document to me, just a bunch of quotes lifted out of context from someplace else and then jammed all together and presented as if it was written by their leader, but I'm not convinced at all about the two Timothy epistles.

But you really get into difficulties when you start questioning the canon of scripture! You might have to take a second look at the Book of Wisdom from the Roman Catholic's version of the Old Testament (which, actually, I recommend that you do that...) Obviously, the New Testament collection of works that we have come to know as "The Bible" was precisely translated from the original golden plates by an entirely reliable source. Oh, wait, no, that's a different story. I meant to say that the 4th century clerics who included and excluded different written works on the basis of their own opinions must have done a perfect job because they were authorized by the Pope to make the selections and the infallible Pope then ratified their decisions.

Clearly, we 21st century believers who have vast access to far more information, and (I'll state controversially) much more spiritual insight derived nearly 2000 more years of consideration and prayer, at least from Biblical scholars beginning with Martin Luther through to the present day, must recognize and submit to the deputy authority of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who in his Easter letter of 367, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon. Aside from the textual edits made in the earliest years of the assemblies, the interpretations asserted throughout the Dark Ages, the first attempts to translate into other languages, the removal of the Apocrypha from the 1611 King James Version (and subsequent corrections of its typos and archaic spellings), the scholarly revisions of the underlying texts, the subsequent translations and revisions of translations based upon the consensus underlying texts, and the superimposition of more modern interpretations, the Bible is EXACTLY the way God meant it to be from the very day Moses penned the account of his own death down to our present times.

Obviously.

The Lord be with your spirit!

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

That is true.

It is also true that early scribes making early copies may have done the same, which is a very popular academic theory, especially in the case of the Timothy and Titus epistles. Some of the academic theories go even further and say that Paul did not write them at all. They say that some of Paul's followers must have written them after Paul died. I might even agree with them about the letter to Titus, which seems very much like a "blended brother" document to me, just a bunch of quotes lifted out of context from someplace else and then jammed all together and presented as if it was written by their leader, but I'm not convinced at all about the two Timothy epistles.

But you really get into difficulties when you start questioning the canon of scripture! You might have to take a second look at the Book of Wisdom from the Roman Catholic's version of the Old Testament (which, actually, I recommend that you do that...) Obviously, the New Testament collection of works that we have come to know as "The Bible" was precisely translated from the original golden plates by an entirely reliable source. Oh, wait, no, that's a different story. I meant to say that the 4th century clerics who included and excluded different written works on the basis of their own opinions must have done a perfect job because they were authorized by the Pope to make the selections and the infallible Pope then ratified their decisions.

Clearly, we 21st century believers who have vast access to far more information, and (I'll state controversially) much more spiritual insight derived nearly 2000 more years of consideration and prayer, at least from Biblical scholars beginning with Martin Luther through to the present day, must recognize and submit to the deputy authority of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who in his Easter letter of 367, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon. Aside from the textual edits made in the earliest years of the assemblies, the interpretations asserted throughout the Dark Ages, the first attempts to translate into other languages, the removal of the Apocrypha from the 1611 King James Version (and subsequent corrections of its typos and archaic spellings), the scholarly revisions of the underlying texts, the subsequent translations and revisions of translations based upon the consensus underlying texts, and the superimposition of more modern interpretations, the Bible is EXACTLY the way God meant it to be from the very day Moses penned the account of his own death down to our present times.

Obviously.

The Lord be with your spirit!

Saying a letter may have been written by followers of Paul in his name is not the same thing as saying the letters shouldn't be in the scriptures. Are you suggesting both?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Saying a letter may have been written by followers of Paul in his name is not the same thing as saying the letters shouldn't be in the scriptures. Are you suggesting both?

It would seem to me that something presented as being something that it is not is not capable of being considered the truth of God because it is fundamentally false.

I suppose others might have different opinions but if I'm forced to accept not just unknown but pseudographic origin? If it says "I, Paul" and it's definitely NOT Paul? I'd decline that, yes.

A conclusion of pseudographia is not an analysis that I'm prepared to accept as capable of resulting in something worthy of acceptance as God's Word. I've reviewed other pseudographic material, of course, and that's part of the reason I'm very suspicious of Titus.

Happily, however, most of what Titus contains is to be found elsewhere anyways...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It would seem to me that something presented as being something that it is not is not capable of being considered the truth of God because it is fundamentally false.

I suppose others might have different opinions but if I'm forced to accept not just unknown but pseudographic origin? If it says "I, Paul" and it's definitely NOT Paul? I'd decline that, yes.

I don't have the research in front of me, but I have come across historical research that claims authorship in the name of mentor was a common and accepted practice back then, with no negative connotation. If that's the case, an objectively untrue "I, Paul" doesn't necessarily negate it as Scripture. It would, in my view, certain alter the way in which we interpret the epistle, however.

That said, though I have read a few compelling arguments that Paul was not the author of a few epistles which bear his name, I must admit there's a huge mental/internal barrier to getting into getting back into what is and what is not the insipired Word... That's just full disclosure - not an attempt to stiffle the inquiry...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't have the research in front of me, but I have come across historical research that claims authorship in the name of mentor was a common and accepted practice back then, with no negative connotation. If that's the case, an objectively untrue "I, Paul" doesn't necessarily negate it as Scripture. It would, in my view, certain alter the way in which we interpret the epistle, however.

That said, though I have read a few compelling arguments that Paul was not the author of a few epistles which bear his name, I must admit there's a huge mental/internal barrier to getting into getting back into what is and what is not the insipired Word... That's just full disclosure - not an attempt to stiffle the inquiry...

I've known a couple of historians in my day. I've got the witness of the Spirit with my spirit. I'm fairly comfortable where I'm at as regards such matters.

As to the issue of whether this was a common and accepted practice back then, I do not know it, would not assume it would be the case in the case of Paul's epistles, and am suspicous, at least, that the existence of a common and accepted practice is not now common and accepted knowledge, if true.

That said, I'll vigorously defend traditional authorship, including Paul of Hebrews, for everything - except Titus. I'll get into that issue further one day, even here perhaps, but at this time I surely wouldn't base any great decision in my faith or practice on which direction the epistle to Titus cuts, if that is the sole witness on the point. I'd say it was a sloppy cut-and-paste job if they had been using word processors in first century Judea.