On Feb 27, 1:07 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 11:13 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes: > > >> > On Feb 25, 12:20 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes: > > >> >> > On Feb 25, 10:20 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, > >> >> >> fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian > >> >> >> authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which > >> >> >> added it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. > > >> >> > Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no > >> >> > Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon. > > >> >> Well, at least no question-begging Christian church. But I'm curious > >> >> which documents you have in mind with your "similar". I wasn't aware > >> >> of any accepted by the church as having been written by an author of a > >> >> canonical text (which was, after all, the point of my statement). > > >> > Very few canonical texts were written by their "authors," so > >> > again I don't know what you're talking about. (Look up > >> > Pseudepigrapha in a Bible dictionary.) > > >> But all canonical texts were written by their authors. Again, I'm > >> not > > > No one knows who the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, > > some of the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and (at least) 2 > > Peter are. That's whey they're called pseudepigraphical. > > But it's a pretty good bet that they had authors. And while nobody
Quite a few textual scholars would contest that assertion. the best we can say is that they had "redactors" who compiled existing bits of tradition, primarily oral, possibly (in the case of Q) written.
> knows who the author Luke is or the author of Acts, the broad > consensus (unless it's changed recently) is that whoever they were, > they were the same person.
Nothing to do with "consensus." It says so in the text.
> >> Christian, so I may not be up on such things, but I had thought that > >> Luke and Acts had been determined to have been written by the same > >> author (whoever that might have been). And that at least most of the > >> Pauline epistles were considered to have been written by the same > >> person (who was believed to actually be St. Paul). What I'm talking > >> about is another letter asserted to be by Paul and enough in the style > >> of the others that Christian scholars believed it. Or a version of > >> Acts determined to be by the author of John. Or a "Second Acts" by > >> the guy who wrote Luke. > > > If something like that ever turns up, it will be appropriately > > assessed. > > And, I would have thought, if so determined, probably added to the > canon. The one you called "finalized" and for which "no option exists > within Christianity for adding to" it.
Do explain what the options for opening the 1700-year-old canon are.
> > But that's not too likely, despite the number of times it happens in > > novels. > > Not likely at all. > > > (The most common example being the Q document.) > > Someone's found a manuscript of Q? When did that happen? As far as I > knew it was hypothetical, inferred from the contents of Matthew and > Luke.
There are quite a few novels about it. Has Dan Brown gotten around to it yet?
> >> I just have a hard time envisioning the Catholic Church saying > >> "Yes, we believe that this letter was written by St. Paul, but it > >> has less status than the others because we didn't know about it > >> seventeen hundred years ago." > > > And how, exactly, would such a document suddenly come to light? > > Probably the same way all of the late-discovered non-canonical > gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the like did.
Really? To what communities could Paul have written where suitable climatic conditions prevail?
