4

We begin by noting the obvious that the document called "2 Peter" is either a pseudepigraphon (a forgery) or it is not. The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter essentially rests on three observations: A few (admittedly significant) antenicaean father express doubts such as Origen; Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History vi 25, iii 3); Jerome, ...


3

There are two common answers to this question. I'll summarize both and offer a third. 1. Manuscript evidence The earliest manuscript bearing the title "according to Matthew" is very likely P64/67 (these fragments are usually considered part of the same original manuscript). This manuscript is typically dated to around AD 175 (see here); though a ...


3

The assertions in the question are based on the false assumption that Matthew, Mark and Luke recorded ALL the events in Jesus' life - in fact they carefully selected events and write them for the audiences they wrote them for. Note the last verse in John:21:25 - There are many more things that Jesus did. If all of them were written down, I suppose that not ...


3

Manuscript evidence The earliest manuscript bearing the title "according to Matthew" is very likely P64/67 (these fragments are usually considered part of the same original manuscript). This manuscript is typically dated to around AD 175 (see here); though a variety of earlier & later dates have been proposed. There are no intact manuscripts of ...


3

The earliest surviving effort to answer this question is (probably) the explanation found in the 2nd century Muratorian Canon: "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one ...


2

The answer to this question is the same "we" as found in 1 John 1:1-5 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you ...


2

A defense of Johannine authorship Although I do not agree with the conclusion suggested by the OP, I think it is a reasonable question to ask—so the question should not simply be dismissed. Outright dismissing the question because we don’t like its implications would be as much a historical mistake as dismissing eyewitness authorship—as scholars of the 19th ...


2

This book is attributed to Solomon by a very old tradition. Yet as noted in this video from the Bible Project, min 1:03 onwards ... you do have to admit Solomon is a very odd candidate as the author of this book, given the fact he had seven hundred wives. For the lovers in the Song of Songs, they are the only ones in the world for each other. referencing 1 ...


2

As stated in the other question, the main arguments against the authenticity of 2 Peter are: The argument against the authenticity of 2 Peter essentially rests on three observations: A few (admittedly significant) antenicaean father express doubts such as Origen; Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History vi 25, iii 3); Jerome, etc. This exacerbated by the fact until ...


2

There are internal evidences that we can follow to a certain span of years. An excellent site which shows these scriptural evidences is found at DatingTheNewTestament. In their overview and timeline, they place the earliest possible date after Jesus' crucifixion commonly believed to have been in 33 AD. I prefer the 31 AD date as it allows a 40 year span on ...


2

I'll offer an answer 2 ways--although I do not hold the view that Matthew copied Mark, it is a very common viewpoint. First I'll evaluate the question as stated. Second, I'll offer an alternate explanation of the evidence. Both approaches will offer an answer the question, though in very different ways. 1. Matthew quoted Mark Papias of Hieropolis preserved ...


2

Your question is subject to a bit of equivocation as Gathercole and others argue that the title is in the original text, but not in the main body itself. See the discussion here. So, while the title is not in the body of the text, it is in the earliest texts. As such it’s likely that all that was in the body of the text and/or the title itself was written by ...


2

According to its sub-title, it is a Psalm of David (c. 1010–970 BCE). According to Charles and Emilie Briggs, it is to be dated within the Persian period (539 to 333 BCE). See: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. The Briggs describe the psalm as "a profession of integrity by a Levite, engaged in worshipping Yahweh in the temple ...


1

The question was asked: Why was 2 Peter included in the New Testament in the 4th century when its authorship was disputed for so long? Most likely the early church hesitated to accept 2 Peter as authentic because so many other writings were floating around with Peter’s name on them there were clearly heretical. Just like Peter was slow to accept converted ...


1

Matthew and Luke seem to build upon the shorter Gospel of Mark. What would make sense is Matthew had a Hebrew/Aramaic gospel before Mark. Quoting Irenaeus: Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect,... If Mark translated much of Matthew's Hebrew/Aramaic gospel, then then it would make sense that Matthew used that ...


1

The response given by Hold to the Rod was so well done and had so much effort put into it, that I spent quite a while studying what he had written. Thank you! It helped me learn more. It also raised new questions. But let me start properly. I will first explain my perspective on what led me to ask my question. Then I will write any additional comments I have ...


1

There is great debate about the authorship of the Gospel of John. Richard Bauckham argues in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that it is John the Elder who produced the work (see especially Chapter 20), not John of Zebedee to whom you refer in the OP. I don't believe this John the Elder has any specific connection with Peter, so that would decouple the Petrine ...


1

I was recently thinking about the same thing and that is to entertain some doubts about the conventional doubting of this reference being authentic. Here is a thought on why Papias being an amanuensis for John, and possible dialog partner with him during his dictation, might be considered more plausible than conventionally accepted. Papias was from ...


1

I am interested in thoughts others may have, but will also share my own musings. Though the Anti-Marcionite prologues are terribly difficult to fact check, and have often (perhaps just a little too quickly) been discarded as sources of history, the piece of the prologue that commands my attention is the fact that the prologue cited a known source—a source ...


1

External evidence Allowing that a few years must pass between the writing of a document and its surfacing in quotations in various parts of the Roman world (no email or Amazon publishing back then), a quotation of a New Testament document by the Apostolic Fathers would be very strong evidence that the document in question was written in the 1st Century. I ...


1

According to Dr. Stanley Toussaint The majority of scholars believe this epistle was written by James, the brother of Jesus, who was the head of the church in Jerusalem.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible