'Corruption' of the earliest New Testament texts by the orthodox Church.

New thread because this subject became entangled in an unrelated thread -- Antisemitic beliefs spreading among evangelical Christians in America

For those who haven't followed the other back and forth: Here are some of the posts on the subject "Orthodox Corruption of the earliest texts"

Originally Posted by Somerville
Recent research of mine has focused on the even greater divisions found in the first four-five centuries during which Christianity spread across the lands around the Mediterranean Sea. Most Christians today may have heard of apostates and heretics but few know much of the different theological beliefs that fell under the mantle of Christianity. They may have read Epistle to the Colossians or 1 Timothy in which Paul warns of 'false teachings' but know little if anything about the heresies.

Click to expand...

it's just me responded in what seems to be his standard manner by claiming he "never gets an answer" when he asks a question. One might think he's just trying to spur the original commenter into posting something dumb - so I did reply -- you can have your opinion as to whether my response is dumb or not.

Somerville said:

So, even though Paul in his epistles was ranting about the false teachers who were causing problems in some of the early gathering, you have never understood the problem.

OK, a little education for the knowledgeable Christian. Writing toward the end of the 4th century, Epiphanius stated that there were more than 80 different groups which called themselves Christian. After the orthodox beliefs became dominant owing to support by the Empire, these 'heretical' groups were erased from history, though we have learned a bit by document discoveries during the 20th century, such as the Nag Hammadi collection found by an Egyptian farmer in 1945.

A few of the early churches:
Ebionites, the earliest group that might be seen as Christian, those trying to live as they understood the Messiah had taught while at the same time adhering to the traditional Jewish religious practices, which included male circumcision. James the Just was the leader of this group in Jerusalem.

Gnostics, those with knowledge, from the Greek gnosis. They saw the Tanakh as the work of an inferior deity and that only the Christ could lead the believers back to worship of the true God. To reach true salvation required a special knowledge that could only be understood by those who were willing to study the appropriate texts. As with other early beliefs, we know little about the Gnostics except for the attacks upon them by early orthodox writers such as Origen and Tertullian.

Docetics, a belief mirrored in John 1 that Jesus existed before becoming human. There were several groups falling into this category: those who believed the Jesus they knew was only an image, what we would call a hologram, then there were those who believed Jesus entered into a human body at the time of the baptism by John and left the human during the crucifixion. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.
One offspring of the Docetics were those we know as Adoptionists, what they called themselves we don't know. The Jesus who walked the roads of Judea and preached was a human who had been 'adopted' by God and who really did die on the cross. The Jesus seen after the crucifixion was the image and not a physical being.

Marcionites, created by Marcion of Sinope. "Marcion believed that Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge (see also God as the Devil). Marcion was the son of a bishop of Sinope in Pontus. About the middle of the second century (140–155) he traveled to Rome, where he joined the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo.[2]

Marcion's canon, possibly the first Christian canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: a gospel consisting of ten sections drawn from the Gospel of Luke; and ten Pauline epistles"

Arians, believed that Jesus was neither man nor God but instead more of a heavenly being greater than any angel but less than the supreme deity. Not quite adoptionism but almost - because what true deity could actually suffer a physical crucifixion. Origen of Alexandria, seen as one of the earliest expositors of Christian theology, wrote that Jesus was less than his Father, a belief of many early Christians before the development of trinitarian theology.

Click to expand...

The reply to my list of early Christian sects was the following

it's just me said:

I've heard this song and dance before, too, so often that I think you guys are all reading from the same script. Sorry, Christian theology goes well back into the first century, you see it in the NT and the writings of those who succeeded the apostles.

And if you are going to claim that there have been multiple reactions and interpolations, I'd like to know what they are and how they changed the faith.

Click to expand...

My answer
The matter of interpolations is far more difficult to discern though there are instances where modern scientific methods have been able to find erasures and interpolations in ancient manuscripts.

Now changes from the oldest manuscripts that are known today just require a bit of comparison.

The two oldest 'complete' New Testaments are found in the Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both of which are dated to the first half of the 4th century CE. The Codex Alexandrinus is believed to have been written during the 5th century. All three have multiple differences from the text most Christians know today.

"In any event, none of [the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible] now survive. What do survive are copies made over the course of centuries, or more accurately, copies of the copies of the copies, some 5,366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands."
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27

Examples:
Codex Vaticanus: Verses not found in this codex that are present in the KJV
Matthew 12:47;16:2b-3;*17:21;*18:11;*23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46;*11:26;*15:28
Luke 17:36,22:43–44
John 5:4,Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11);
Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29;
Romans 16:24.
1 Peter 5:3.

This info found in the following book
Metzger, Bruce M.*(2001).*A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Codex Sinaiticus
Mark 16 which tells of the three women, Mary Magdalene, Mary – mother of James and Salome going to the tomb to anoint Jesus body. Codex Sinaiticus ends the chapter at verse 8
“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Modern Bibles continue the tale with verses 9 to 20

The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13)
Father, Hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins, as we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
And bring us not into temptation.

John 8: 3–11 is not found in the codex, nor are the verses Luke 9:55–56
Luke 24:51 does not have the phrase “and was taken up into heaven”

These and other verses missing from the oldest texts were evidently viewed by the interpolators and editors as providing some justification for the beliefs of the Gnostics, Docetics, Arians and Adoptionists.

Thinking about what I wrote in the bolded sentence, I realised that it is poorly phrased. What I should have written is more like this -- These and other verses missing from the oldest texts were evidently viewed by the interpolators and editors as providing insufficient justification for the beliefs of the group we might designate proto-orthodox. We also have multiple texts, many dated to the 2nd century, which were later deemed heretical as they supported the beliefs of the Gnostics, Docetics and other early sects. Some were declared non-canonical but useful in establishing worship practices while others were so heretical, various bishops ordered all copies destroyed.

Oh my word?!?!?!?! I'm in shock! Are you telling me that the Bible might not be the literal word of god, but in fact is a political text that was voted on and mangled by fallible human beings?

Duh!!!

That's one of the most obvious arguments for why God does not exist at all.

You know that game Telephone that you used to play as a kid around the came fire where someone would whisper a sentence into someone's ears and then it would get passed around the circle to see if the same message came out on the other end? It never worked did it? Somewhere along the line someone always ****ed it up and mangled it. A lot of the time it was on purpose. Some mischief maker would use it as an opportunity to introduce a sex term of some kind.

The modern Bible is the result of the worlds oldest game of Telephone. Even if it were at one point the original words of a living god of some sort it has been mangled, voted on and edited by political leaders so many times that there is no way the modern translation bears any resemblance whatsoever to the original text.

The fact that an all powerful, all knowing, supposedly infallible god would use such an obviously flawed and generally idiotic method to spread his word is in and of itself proof that such a god is not real in the first place.

Continuing my 'attack' on those who believe the Christianity they know today has been around since the very beginning.

In the earliest gatherings of those who followed Jesus, women were seen as the equals of the male believers. By the middle of the 2nd century, the sect which became the Church were beginning to attack the idea of female equality.

The earliest copies we have of the Pauline letter to the Corinthians don't have the following verses: 1 Corinthians 14:33-36
In some early texts, these verses are found following verse 40.

Some scholars see this interpolation as an early effort to reduce the role of women in the Church. Even so, there are some verses which show that women did have a major position in various congregations as may be read in Romans 16

The verses in Romans 16 along with the non-canonical Acts of Paul and Thecla were used by some of the early heterodox sects as justification for women being elevated to the highest positions in their gatherings.

By the late 2nd century, we have Iranaeus writing his Adversus Haerases as the first complete attack on the heterodox sects, which is kind of support that there were multiple early differences in Christianity.

Somerville said:

Continuing my 'attack' on those who believe the Christianity they know today has been around since the very beginning.

In the earliest gatherings of those who followed Jesus, women were seen as the equals of the male believers. By the middle of the 2nd century, the sect which became the Church were beginning to attack the idea of female equality.

The earliest copies we have of the Pauline letter to the Corinthians don't have the following verses: 1 Corinthians 14:33-36

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?​

In some early texts, these verses are found following verse 40.

Some scholars see this interpolation as an early effort to reduce the role of women in the Church. Even so, there are some verses which show that women did have a major position in various congregations as may be read in Romans 16

1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

6 Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my relatives[d] who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.​

The verses in Romans 16 along with the non-canonical Acts of Paul and Thecla were used by some of the early heterodox sects as justification for women being elevated to the highest positions in their gatherings.

By the late 2nd century, we have Iranaeus writing his Adversus Haerases as the first complete attack on the heterodox sects, which is kind of support that there were multiple early differences in Christianity.

Click to expand...

From a historical , non-Church piece of evidence, the information that Pilny the younger got about Christianity was from the torture of two female slaves that were 'deaconesses. That was in 110 ce.

RAMOSS said:

From a historical , non-Church piece of evidence, the information that Pilny the younger got about Christianity was from the torture of two female slaves that were 'deaconesses. That was in 110 ce.

Click to expand...

Recent academic analysis of Pliny's letter to Trajan questions its authenticity

Investigating the authenticity of Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan concerning the Christians
Enrico Tuccinardi
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, Volume 32, Issue 2, June 2017,

Abstract:

Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan regarding the Christians is a crucial subject for the studies on early Christianity. A serious quarrel among scholars concerning its genuineness arose between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th; per contra, Plinian authorship has not been seriously questioned in the last few decades. After analysing various kinds of internal and external evidence in favour of and against the authenticity of the letter, a modern stylometric method is applied in order to examine whether internal linguistic evidence allows one to definitely settle the debate.The findings of this analysis tend to contradict received opinion among modern scholars affirming the authenticity of Pliny’s letter, and suggest instead the presence of large amounts of interpolation inside the text of the letter, since its stylistic behaviour appears highly different from that of the rest of Book X.

Click to expand...

Stylometric Analysis: Stylometry is the application of the study of linguistic style, usually to written language . . .

Stylometry is often used to attribute authorship to anonymous or disputed documents. It has legal as well as academic and literary applications, ranging from the question of the authorship of Shakespeare's works to forensic linguistics.

Click to expand...

The question then becomes -- WHO and WHY would the "Letter from Pliny to Trajan, Book 10, Letter #96." have been composed and placed into the collection of Pliny's letters? Doubt we will ever know the authorship but the why may be just another addition to the tales of early martydom that Prof. Candida Moss wrote about in The Myth of Persecution. Tales that may have been told to support persecution of those who refused to convert to Christianity once it had become the state religion.

Other commenters don't seem to be willing to post about the 'corruption' of the New Testament but I figure I'll just continue to provide a few words on the subject for the edification of the curious.

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional Sayings (logoi) of Jesus. It is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, the "Doubting Thomas" of the canonical Gospels, and according to many early traditions, the twin brother of Jesus ("didymos" means "twin" in Greek).

We have two versions of the Gospel of Thomas today. The first was discovered in the late 1800's among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and consists of fragments of a Greek version, which has been dated to c. 200. The second is a complete version, in Coptic, from Codex II of the Nag Hammadi finds. Thomas was probably first written in Greek (or possibly even Syriac or Aramaic) sometime between the mid 1st and 2nd centuries.

There has been much speculation on the relationship of Thomas to the canonical Gospels. Many Sayings in Thomas have parallels with the New Testament Sayings, especially those found in the synoptic Gospels. This leads many to believe that Thomas was also based on the so-called "Q" Document, along with Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Indeed, some have speculated that Thomas may in fact be "Q". Unlike the synoptic Gospels, and like "Q", the Gospel of Thomas has no narrative connecting the various Sayings. In form, it is simply a list of 114 Sayings, in no particular order. Comparison with New Testament parallels show that Thomas contains either more primitive versions of the Sayings, or developments of more primitive versions. Either way, Thomas seems to preserve earlier traditions about Jesus than the New Testament.

Although it is not possible to attribute the Gospel of Thomas to any particular sect, it is clearly Gnostic in nature. As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly understand them.

Click to expand...

Somerville said:

New thread because this subject became entangled in an unrelated thread -- Antisemitic beliefs spreading among evangelical Christians in America

For those who haven't followed the other back and forth: Here are some of the posts on the subject "Orthodox Corruption of the earliest texts"



it's just me responded in what seems to be his standard manner by claiming he "never gets an answer" when he asks a question. One might think he's just trying to spur the original commenter into posting something dumb - so I did reply -- you can have your opinion as to whether my response is dumb or not.

Click to expand...

Actually, I knew if you said anything at all, this is what you'd say. Most of the time I can't get an answer from the rest of this crowd.

I then pointed out to you that all of these heresies had been dealt with and the thread deteriorated from there.

This vast mountain of manuscripts caused one scholar to remark: “The great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed. . . . If comparative trivialities, such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.” (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. I, p. 561) To this may be added the observation of Jack Finegan: “The close relationship in time between the oldest New Testament manuscripts and the original texts is also nothing less than amazing. . . . For our knowledge of the writings of most of the classical authors we are dependent upon manuscripts the oldest of which belong to a time between the ninth and eleventh centuries A.D. . . . Thus it is that the certainty with which the text of the New Testament is established exceeds that of any other ancient book. The words which the New Testament writers addressed to their world and time have crossed the further miles and centuries to us substantially unchanged in form and certainly undiminished in power.”​—Light From the Ancient Past, 1959, pp. 449, 450.

As an integral part of the written Word of God, the Christian Greek Scriptures are of inestimable value. They contain four accounts of the ministry of God’s only-begotten Son, including his origin, his teaching, his example, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection. The historical record of the formation of the Christian congregation and the outpouring of the holy spirit, which enabled it to grow so successfully, as well as details concerning its problems and how they were resolved​—all of this is so essential for the operation of the true Christian congregation today. The separate books that were independently written for particular persons or situations, or with a special view and purpose in mind, all merge to form a great unified complete entity with no details lacking. They complement and complete the Bible canon and are presently of universal importance, interest, and concern primarily to spiritual Israel, which is the congregation of God, but, additionally, to all persons who seek the approval of God.

Click to expand...

Christian Greek Scriptures — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Corruption of the texts occurred long before there was a "new testament".


OM

To what extent do manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures differ from one another? Estimates of the number of differences, called “variant readings,” in Greek manuscripts and ancient translations exceed 200,000. Does this suggest that the text of the Christian Scriptures has become hopelessly obscured? Actually the figure is quite misleading. How so? In A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix point out: “There is an ambiguity in saying there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, since these represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament. If one single word is misspelled in 3,000 different manuscripts, this is counted as 3,000 variants or readings.” Moreover, most of the variant readings are merely mechanical, having to do with matters such as spelling (comparable to the difference between “honor” and “honour”) and word order. One scholar declared that out of 150,000 variant readings those that could raise doubt as to meaning amounted to only 400. Of these, only 50 were truly significant. Similarly, Fenton John Anthony Hort, a world-renowned scholar of the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, writes:

“The proportion of words [in the entire Greek text of the Christian Scriptures] virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven-eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities constitutes the whole area of criticism. . . . the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.” Whatever version of the Christian Scriptures you possess, there is no reason to doubt that the Greek text upon which it is based represents with considerable fidelity what the inspired authors of these Bible books originally wrote. Though now nearly 2,000 years removed from the time of their original composition, the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures is a marvel of accurate transmission.

Click to expand...

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1977248

I posted the following in the other thread that initiated this thread.

"In any event, none of [the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible] now survive. What do survive are copies made over the course of centuries, or more accurately, copies of the copies of the copies, some 5,366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exactly alike in their particulars. No one knows how many differences, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands."
The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27

Click to expand...

At this time, we do not have any 1st century text that became part of the New Testament. The earliest fragment, and its dating is disputed, is P52 located in the Rylands Library in England. It is commonly dated to the first half of the 1st century (c.125 -150) though some scholars think it should be placed in the 2nd half of the 1st century.

When the advocates tell us of the 5800 Greek manuscripts, "more than any other ancient text", they always fail to mention that the vast majority of that 5800 number are dated to a period between 1000 and 1485 CE. They are less than 100 manuscripts, and many are little more than fragments that can be dated earlier than 400 CE. As I wrote before, the heretical and non-canonical early Christian texts that we know of today have been found since the mid-19th century. irenaeus' Adversus Haereses is one of the earliest attacks against the 'heretical' beliefs and it was one of the reasons that Athanasius of Alexandria, in the 4th century, ordered the destruction of all non-canonical texts. This order is probably the reason we have the Nag Hammadi collection today as it is thought a person who owned the books decided to bury them to prevent their destruction.

Elvira said:

The Text of the Christian Scriptures—How Accurate? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Click to expand...

There are a lot of unsupported claims in that web page. In fact, a close analysis of the texts have shown that the 'accurate transmission' is not 'a marvel'. There are certainly enough interpolitions and edits of the documents. .. and the NWT is a travesty.

Somerville said:

I posted the following in the other thread that initiated this thread.



At this time, we do not have any 1st century text that became part of the New Testament. The earliest fragment, and its dating is disputed, is P52 located in the Rylands Library in England. It is commonly dated to the first half of the 1st century (c.125 -150) though some scholars think it should be placed in the 2nd half of the 1st century.

When the advocates tell us of the 5800 Greek manuscripts, "more than any other ancient text", they always fail to mention that the vast majority of that 5800 number are dated to a period between 1000 and 1485 CE. They are less than 100 manuscripts, and many are little more than fragments that can be dated earlier than 400 CE. As I wrote before, the heretical and non-canonical early Christian texts that we know of today have been found since the mid-19th century. irenaeus' Adversus Haereses is one of the earliest attacks against the 'heretical' beliefs and it was one of the reasons that Athanasius of Alexandria, in the 4th century, ordered the destruction of all non-canonical texts. This order is probably the reason we have the Nag Hammadi collection today as it is thought a person who owned the books decided to bury them to prevent their destruction.

Click to expand...

There are also people who would place P52 in the second half of the second century to the first quarter of the third century.

RAMOSS said:

There are a lot of unsupported claims in that web page. In fact, a close analysis of the texts have shown that the 'accurate transmission' is not 'a marvel'. There are certainly enough interpolitions and edits of the documents. .. and the NWT is a travesty.

Click to expand...

Speaking of unsupported claims...:2razz:

Elvira said:

Speaking of unsupported claims...:2razz:

Click to expand...

When it comes to the corruption of the texts, that has been quite well documented in this thread.

RAMOSS said:

When it comes to the corruption of the texts, that has been quite well documented in this thread.

Click to expand...

And that is called an opinion...we all got one...

Just realised that I wrote; ""P52 located in the Rylands Library in England. It is commonly dated to the first half of the 1st century (c.125 -150) when obviously the year 125 is in the 2nd century. Gahh, I hate making stupid mistakes like this.

Elvira said:

And that is called an opinion...we all got one...

Click to expand...

It is the "opinion" of people who have spent years studying the existing texts that we know of today. Sadly, you and others, seemingly prefer faith statements to academic studies. That is your right in the USA but it does mean your opinion has the same weight.

Somerville said:

It is the "opinion" of people who have spent years studying the existing texts that we know of today. Sadly, you and others, seemingly prefer faith statements to academic studies. That is your right in the USA but it does mean your opinion has the same weight.

Click to expand...

Depends on who you're askin'...

CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES

After the death of Jesus, these books were penned under inspiration by eight men: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. Not all these men followed Jesus during his ministry; in fact, as far as is known for a certainty, only the three apostles Matthew, John, and Peter did. Mark may have been the “certain young man” who followed Jesus at a distance after he was arrested. (Mr 14:51, 52) At Pentecost, James, Jude, and perhaps Mark were present along with them. (Ac 1:13-15; 2:1) Later the apostle Paul was converted. All these writers became closely associated with the governing body of the first-century congregation in Jerusalem.

In what language were these books originally written? With the exception of the book of Matthew, which was written originally in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, all the other 26 books were written in the common Greek, Koine, the international language of the day.​

Click to expand...

The preceding statement is one of faith and not one that can be supported by the vast majority of academics who study the New Testament.


On the same JW page, we may read the following:

The books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, listed according to the approximate year (C.E.) written, are as follows: Matthew, 41; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 and 51; Galatians, 50-52; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 55; Romans, 56; Luke, 56-58; Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, 60-61; Hebrews, Acts, 61; James, before 62; Mark, 60-65; 1 Timothy, Titus, 61-64; 1 Peter, 62-64; 2 Peter, 64; 2 Timothy, Jude, 65; Revelation, 96; John and 1, 2, 3 John, 98. This period of less than 60 years is quite a contrast with the nearly 11 centuries taken to complete the Hebrew Scriptures.

Click to expand...

The dates given here for the four gospels are much earlier than most academics agree upon. The majority say Mark is the earliest written and it is generally dated to some time following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

The epistles attributed to Paul, 7 of the 13, have zero mention of the gospels we know them today, never mind the ones which were deemed to be non-canonical as they were seen as providing support for one of the sects seen as heretical by the 3rd century.

Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:

First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD)
Galatians (c. 53)
First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
Philippians (c. 55)
Philemon (c. 55)
Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
Romans (c. 57)
The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:[2]

Colossians (c. 62)
Second Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars (traditional dating given):

Ephesians (c. 62)
First Timothy (c. 62–64)
Second Timothy (c. 62–64)
Titus (c. 62–64)

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

And that is called an opinion...we all got one...

Click to expand...

Not all opinions are equal. Some are based on facts, others are based on religious belief and confirmation bias.

Somerville said:

The preceding statement is one of faith and not one that can be supported by the vast majority of academics who study the New Testament.

1: "the three apostles Matthew, John, and Peter" followed Jesus.
There is ZERO evidence for this, the names attached to the gospels weren't there until the last quarter of the 2nd century.

2: Paul is rather open about NOT becoming "associated with the governing body of the first-century congregation in Jerusalem."

3: The 1st century "governing body in Jerusalem" were probably Ebionites - worshippers of Jesus who believed in following all of traditional Jewish law.
​

On the same JW page, we may read the following:


The dates given here for the four gospels are much earlier than most academics agree upon. The majority say Mark is the earliest written and it is generally dated to some time following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

The epistles attributed to Paul, 7 of the 13, have zero mention of the gospels we know them today, never mind the ones which were deemed to be non-canonical as they were seen as providing support for one of the sects seen as heretical by the 3rd century.

Click to expand...

I will also point out that the contention that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and then later translated into Greek is pretty much falsified. The current Gospel of Matthew does not show any signs of being translated from the Aramaic into the Greek. It rather shows all the earmarks of a text that was written in Greek to begin with. If indeed the apostle Matthew wrote a book, the writing we identify as 'The Gospel of Matthew' is not that writing.

RAMOSS said:

Not all opinions are equal. Some are based on facts, others are based on religious belief and confirmation bias.

Click to expand...

And still others are based on atheist/non-believers bias...

Elvira said:

And still others are based on atheist/non-believers bias...

Click to expand...

Yes, but then the question is 'what evidence is the opinion based on'. Many times, the atheist/non-Christian belief is based on tangible and objective evidence, and the Christian/JW/Mormon opinion is based on unsupported claims.