Fourth Question

asked by Kevin Tierney

     This ties in with our past 2 exchanges. How does the proponent of sola scriptura fight the modernists who claim Matthew did not write Matthew, that it was added by the Church for more authority. How do we know the writings in scripture are apostolic, if not by recourse of Tradition? (I.e. what is so apostolic about Philemon).

Answer to Question 4

Shandon L. Guthrie

     I think the answer as to how the books of the New Testament are authenticated is not a matter of a post-Apostolic Tradition (however this may be defined). Rather, the contemporary critical scholar and historian employ the tools of good historical, textual, and redaction criticism for authenticity. In addition to this (or instead of), the epistemologically feasible approach of the Holy Spirit's self-authentication of Scripture is likewise sufficient. But, concerning the immediate attention of Matthew and Philemon as historical documents that I consider authentic, I shall defend them in brief here.

     The Gospel of Matthew is the most contested book concerning its authorship since no clear indications appear to validate Matthew as the author. But the best indication for Matthew's authorship is found in Eusebius' citations of someone closely affiliated with the Apostles and is probably reliable.(1) There are also possible internal indications of Matthean authorship from the Gospel of Matthew itself: (i) Matthew is the only one to refer to the tax collector as "Matthew" while the other Gospel writers use "Levi" (cf. Matt. 9:9-13); (ii) All three Gospels list a "Matthew" along with the other apostles, and Matthew 10:3 identifies the apostolic Matthew as the tax collector; (iii) There are Matthean expressions used to explain financial transactions that would be the most sense if the author were a tax collector (cf. Matt. 17:24-27; 18:23-35; 21:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15). Concerning the provenance of Matthew's writing of his Gospel, there is very little to acknowledge. But perhaps it is likely that Matthew wrote somewhere in Syria, for those who think that Matthew's geography discloses any significance. New Testament scholars D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris declare that "we cannot be certain of the geographic provenance of this gospel. Syria is perhaps the most likely suggestion, but nothing of importance hangs on the decision."(2).

      The Letter to Philemon, unlike Matthew, explicitly identifies its author as Paul. What makes it difficult for contemporary scholarship to decipher is its brevity and deep, personal attitude it conveys. But there are four reasons to consider this to be Paul's letter during a time in prison in Rome (ca. 58-60 A.D.). First, the letter has earmarks of Pauline authorship (Philemon 1-3 especially). Second, it includes information beyond the New Testament that might not have been made up for fear of being disconfirmed by other findings (e.g., Paul considers Philemon a "dear friend and fellow worker" (Philemon 1). That bit of information might not have been used since Philemon was probably a well-known wealthy Gentile in Colossae. Third, the letter's author discusses Philemon in terms of being a friend and co-worker and not as one with apostolic authority. Fourth, even liberal scholarship admits that Philemon may be authentic even though the characters in the letter may be fictitious representations of the world versus the Church with Philemon as the fictional protagonist.(3) In any case, Philemon is not the portrait of a forgery.

 END NOTES

1. D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 67-8.

2. Ibid., p. 76.

3. For example, see N. Peterson, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

Response to Guthrie [Question 4]

Kevin Tierney

     Mr. Guthrie offers several answers as to how he knows. The first is that the Scripture is self-authenticating. Unfortunately for Mr. Guthrie, this is not a position that is wise to take when it comes to determining God’s word.

     If his word is self-authenticating, he must’ve forgotten to turn the self authentication switch on when he was talking to Samuel in 1 Samuel 3 who didn’t know God was talking to him, or in 1 Kings 13 when the man sent to prophesy didn’t know which command from God was authentic. If there was no test, God must’ve been joking around in Deuteronomy 13 and 18 when he offers 2 tests to make sure the words being spoke are from God, mainly if a prediction is false, or an indication to worship other Gods is given. If his word is self-authenticating, we wouldn’t have to test all things and hold fast to what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21.) Not to mention when reality sets in, the first person to receive God’s self authenticating word would not have been until 367, when a Catholic Bishop finally named the correct canon, and even then it wasn’t official until the Councils later in the century. So when a Protestant claims self authentication, it doesn’t hold when investigated.

     All the evidence from Matthew is easily explained away by the modernists, all the evidence Mr. Guthrie provided can be explained away, it was someone who was close to the Apostle, or knew the system of tax collectors in depth. So the answer still remains, by scripture alone, how we know the Gospel of Matthew is Apostolic, hence God’s word.

     When I mentioned Philemon, I asked what is so apostolic about it. If it’s apostolic because we know who wrote it, then why is Hebrews apostolic? No one knows who wrote it, yet for some reason, it is canonical. It is because of Tradition. Saying it is apostolic because it agrees with previous revelation doesn’t work, as many other works also agree with previous revelation (Didache, Ignatius works). Merely drawing off other books doesn’t help either, as many say Matthew draws off of mark, and John draws off all the previously written Gospels, by that standard, they would have to be dismissed to. So the question remains, from scripture alone, how can we be certain Matthew wrote Matthew? I’ve already shown in many instances, God’s word is not self-authenticating. The question remains, how do we know from sola scriptura who the books mentioned are apostolic?

Counter-Response to Tierney [Question 4]

Shandon L. Guthrie

     Tierney's objection here is twofold: (i) That Scripture in its entirety as divinely inspired cannot be self-authenticating, and (ii) Contemporary criticism casts doubt on the authenticity of Matthew and Philemon. But are his objections any good?

     Concerning (i), I think that Tierney fails to appreciate how human beings can have a justified true belief wholly apart from evidence. Tierney questions how one can come to know what appears as Scripture on the basis that some others find that task difficult. There is no doubt that certain circumstances can make it difficult for some to come to a conclusion everytime on every matter. Nonetheless, this does not disconfirm that I know that the 27 books of the New Testament are authentic. In order for Tierney to refute this, he would have to present a case against sola Scriptura more convincing than my believing in it. And this is what he has been attempting to do, albeit to his arguments' demise. But for Tierney to dismiss sola Scriptura on the basis that other people find it difficult to believe it is far from conclusive. Consider other justified true beliefs. My belief that the external world is real or that I exist escape any evidential validation or falsification since it is difficult to transcend the senses in order to prove such things. However, the Pyrrhonic skeptics denied that there exists an external world, and the Solipsists denied that anybody but themselves existed. Nonetheless, I am warranted in believing in the external world and that I exist apart from an evidential case for them. As this applies to sola Scriptura, it seems that the confirmation of the Holy Spirit to me (the immediate experience I have) about the Scriptures is warranted in the absence of reasons to reject it in the same way that I can believe in God apart from evidence. Curiously, Tierney admits that a "Catholic Bishop" was the "first person to receive God’s self authenticating word." But if Tierney's objection is to be taken seriously, it certainly must be universal and, hence, apply to the noted Bishop himself. When is self-authentication valid for Tierney -- only when it applies to Catholics?

     Lest this appear fideistic, I shall relieve the evidentialists of their insecurity about my objection to (i) by addressing (ii). The standard of historical criticism assumed in Tierney's objection in (ii) is not that Matthew and Philemon are inauthentic but that he does not know for certain what is authentic apart from being told that they are. I have two responses here. First, it fairs no better than my reasons for rejecting (i) in that he must rely on the testimony of another. If a Catholic Bishop demands that Matthew and Philemon be canonical then the Bishop falls prey to Tierney's uncomfortable (and inconsistent) criterion. Secondly, I offered several reasons why Matthew and Philemon are to be considered authentic. Unfortunately, Tierney did not respond to a single argument I made regarding this. Instead, he just surmised that I made Matthew and Philemon authentic on the basis that each "agrees with previous revelation." But the reader will search in vain for this statement in my answer to Question 4. Therefore, I am unconvinced by Tierney's alternatives.