Summations Only

Was Robert Louis Stevenson a forger when he wrote Treasure Island pretending to be Jim Hawkins?

Ringo,
I fail to see the comparison is valid. It's misleading at best. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character in a book of fiction.
Instead, what we have is somebody pretending to be the real Paul, writing as Paul. Somebody pretending to be the biblical Peter writing as Peter.
What we have is logical deceit.
If Treasure Island was non-fiction then Stevenson is committing forgery. Falsely pretending to be someone he isn't.

You're assuming that there was a real Paul and a real Peter. I'm not.

Jar: "Yes, I do not doubt that you consider it forgery but that simply indicates ignorance of common practice of the period and of Talmudic Discourse. Your claim though was that scholars consider them forgeries which I really doubt."It may very well have been common but that certainly doesn't make it right. Nor was it thought of as right according to Christian scholar Bart Ehrman. Rather Ehrman suggests whenever we see examples of people pretending to be someone else in ancient writing, this is referred to as "falsely inscribed", "lies" or "bastards" by the ancient people themselves. They had no more respect for that falsehood than we do. Ehrman calls this forgery and does not apologize for that and gives compelling justification for why it is exactly that.
So someone pretending to be Paul and writing in Paul's name, somebody pretending to be Peter and writing in Peter's name.. is a forger. I can't see how attempting to rationalize or sanitize the reality of what it is helps. It's forgery.

ringo " You're assuming that there was a real Paul and a real Peter. I'm not".Why would you assume that?
I think the bible is fiction. Is there some truth.. probably. What? no clue. I am not convinced there was a Paul, Peter or Jesus actually.
But I am convinced Christians believe that. So they believe that the characters are not fictional but real. If they are reality in the minds of Christians then the 6 letters of Paul listed and two from Peter are forgeries because Paul and Peter did not write them.

Neither am I - and if they don't exist, there is no forgery. It would be like signing Donald Duck's name to a cheque. You seem to be reasoning in both directions at once. (Most) Christians believe that Paul and Peter were real but they also (tend to) believe that they wrote the epistles attributed to them.

Yes, I understand that you believe that.And yes, Bart Ehrman has made a good living being controversial.But in this matter he is simply wrong.Please study Talmudic discourse.

ringo,
Of course I am arguing two sides at once. :-))))
Forget what I think or you think. The Christian mindset is the one to what I mean to refer. By their own belief and not you or I.
By that standard, we have to say there is a real Paul and real Peter. So the real Paul and real Peter did not write some books in the NT. By the Christian perspective and standard, they must be forgery.
By your perspective and possibly mine as well, it's just poppycock whether a first faker Paul wrote it or another faker Paul latter wrote some other letters.
I am saying from the Christian perspective they must have at least 8 forgeries in the NT.

jar,
When I get time I'll check Talmudic. No clue what that is actually.
But saying Ehrman is simply wrong, is no better than me saying he's simply right.
However, if you suggest there is some proof to your statement contained in Talmudic discourse, I'll check it.
Thanks

They might be, if it wasn't for double-think.

Ringo,
It's double think to you. It's reality and thus forgery to Christians. It simply logically has to be. I'm not saying I get get a devout Christian to admit it's forgery. I do say it has to be by their standard.
You might be the wrong guy to debate this with. Your logic and rational thought make it meaningless. ))))
You know what I mean here, I know you must.

A good indication that Bart is just looking for reactions and money is the Books of Moses, attributed to Moshe. What I posit is not really even unusual at the period. For example Exodus ends with a description of Moshe's death and burial, hardly likely if as attributed Moshe was the author and not something that required revisionist movements for someone to notice.We really have no idea who were the actual authors of much of scripture. There are likely three different authors attributed to John when it comes to the Gospel of John, Revelation and the Epistles of John.There are several Talmuds, they are the written versions of various opinions related to tradition, law, scripture and practices, of the Oral Law. It was originally only oral but sometime around 200CE (about the same time the Western Canons were being decided) it was written.Since the oral tradition had gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years it is impossible to verify actual attributions. But here is an example from the discussion on Shabbat, the Sabbath. It's only a very, very small example but will give you an idea of what was involved.

quote:

---

MISHNA I.: There are two acts constituting transfer 1 of movable things (over the dividing line of adjoining premises, based on biblical statutes). The two acts are, however, increased to four on the inside and to a like amount on the outside of the premises (by the addition of rabbinical statutes). How so? A mendicant stands outside and the master of a house inside. The mendicant passes his hand into the house (through a window or door) and puts something into the hand of the master, or he takes something out of the master's hand and draws it back (toward him). In such a case the mendicant is guilty (of transfer) and the master of the house is free. If the master of the house passes his hand outside and puts a thing into the hand of the mendicant, or takes something out of the mendicant's hand and brings it into the house, the master of the house is culpable and the mendicant is free. 2 If the mendicant extends his hand into the house and the master takes something out of it, or puts something into it which is drawn to the outside by the mendicant, they are both free. If the master of the house extends his hand outside and the mendicant takes something out of it, or puts something into it which is drawn to the inside by the master, they are both free.

​

GEMARA: We were taught (Shebuoth, IV. 2): "The acts of transfer on the Sabbath are two, respectively four." Why is this teaching here specified as two respectively four on the inside, and two respectively four on the outside, and there no such specification was made? Said R. Papa: Here the special subject of treatment is the Sabbath, and the Mishna enumerated the cases which involve guilt and those which do not involve guilt; while there the principal subject of treatment is a different one, and he mentions only the cases that involve guilt, leaving the cases that do not involve guilt untouched. But the cases that involve guilt are those by which acts of transfer are committed, and such are only two? Nay, there are two acts of transfer from within and two from without. But the Mishna says, "Yetziath" (which in a literal sense means transfer from within)? Said R. Ashi: The Tana calls transfer from without by the same term. And for what reason? Because every act of removing a thing from its place is called Yetziah. Said Rabbina: The Mishna also bears out this sense; for it speaks of Yetziath and immediately illustrates its remark by citing a case from without. This bears it out. Rabha, however, says: He (the Tana) speaks about divided premises (whose line of division is crossed), and in this case there are only two (in each of which there may be four acts of transfer).

​

Said R. Mathna to Abayi: Are there not eight, even twelve (instances of transfer over the line of division)? 1 And he rejoined: Such transfers as involve the obligation of a sin-offering are counted; but those that do not involve such an obligation are not counted.

​

"They are both free." Was not the act (of transfer) committed by both? Said R. Hyya bar Gamda: The act of removing the thing was committed by the joint efforts of both, and they (the rabbis) said: "It is written in the law, when a person did it" 2--i.e., when one person commits the act he is culpable, but when an act is committed by the joint efforts of two persons, they are both free.

​

Rabh questioned Rabbi: If one were laden by his friend with eatables and beverages and carried them outside (of the house), how is the law? Is the removing of his body tantamount to the removing of a thing from its place, and therefore he is culpable, or is it not so?

​

Said Rabbi to him: He is culpable. And this case is not like the case of removing his hand. Why so? Because (in the latter case) the hand was not at rest, while (in the former) the body (before and after removal) was entirely at rest. 1

​

Said Rabbi Hyya to Rabh: Descendant of nobles! Did I not tell thee that when Rabbi is engaged with a certain tract ask him not about a subject (that is treated) in another tract, for he may not have that subject in his mind! And if Rabbi were not a great man thou mightest cause him shame, for he would give thee an answer which might not be right. In this instance, however, he gave thee a correct answer; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one was laden with eatables and beverages while it was yet light on the eve of Sabbath, and he carried them outside after dark, he is culpable; for his case is not like that of removing the hand mentioned above.

​

Abayi said: From all that was said above it is certain to me that the hand of a man (standing on the street) is not treated as public ground. 2 And I also see that (if a man stands on private ground) his hand is not to be treated a-, private ground. Would it be correct, then, to regard the hand as unclaimed ground? If so, would the penalty imposed by the rabbis in such a case, namely, that one should not move his hand (containing a movable thing) back (during the Sabbath day), apply in this case or not?

---

Just as a matter of perspective there were 24 Chapters just on the topic of the Sabbath.

Jar,
It seems to me you are attempting to justify the pattern of scholars for a long time, which is avoiding calling forgery what it is.
If a writer dies and his prodigies carry on in his name. Despite that fact they may very well think they know what the originator thinks..they can in no way KNOW in fact this is what he would say. So writing in his name is clearly forgery, no matter how altruistic the motives may be to the prodigies.
So for say 18 centuries people believe the original writer called Paul wrote all the letters. Well, he didn't write all the letters. For 1800 years people were deceived and indeed still are today. The fact many scholars seem immune to this type of forgery, siting various justifications for it- says more about the scholars. To any person that is forgery. For some reason religious books get a pass and the same behaviour outside the holy books is forgery.
However, repeat that behaviour where a writer pretends to be somebody he isn't, well in holy books that is okay. Why? Well precedent is the only logical reason. Scholars have accepted it as not forgery, when it clearly is, and trying to call it what it is, is not the problem. The problem is accepting it as okay and not deceitful.
The famous interpolation at the end of Mark you brought up, is really just a fraudulent insert. An unknown writer inserts several passages into an unknown writer Mark. That's fraud. It's fraud because nobody says " hey, we are trying to get this Mark gospel to jive with some other gospels. The ending sucks, so we have to modify the ending to add some continuity to this whole gospel theme". That's fraud. Whether scholars have been habituated to the habit of this type of stuff and indeed conditioned over studying this stuff, to accept fraud as something else..does not make it right. Nor does the "turn the other way " attitude of scholars make it right either.
This stuff is logically forgery and fraud and meant to deceive the readers. Whatever the motives were, it still deceit.

I understand that is what you believe right now. Continue studying, questioning and growing.

Do you think "recognized by many scholars" is enough to convince believers that those texts are forgeries? Most scientists think disagree with the description of creation in Genesis. Does that convince fundamentalists that the Bible is wrong?Yes there is some dispute about the authorship of some of the Pauline epistles. But if you want to accuse people of ignoring forgeries you need to do a mite better than just pointing to controversy.