Who Wrote What?

[Justin Kissel]

A recently read a comment that got me to thinking about something. How do most traditionalists feel about the discussions of authorship of some of the documents that are an important part of our history? Did the Holy Apostles really write the Apostolic Canons? Did St. Dionysius really write Mystical Theology and some of the other works attributed to him? For that matter, did Moses write all of the first five books of the Scripture? Are these questions important?

Personally, I submit that they are not. These types of discussions are nothing new, but have been going on for centuries. St. Photius the Great (†891), for instance, mentions in his Bibliotheca reading a work which defended the belief that St. Dionysius the Areopagite did in fact write the texts ascribed to him. In other words, the authorship was disputed. To me, it seems of lesser importance whether this or that Father wrote this or that document. If something is true, then it's true.

[joasia]

Justin,

Are you playing devil's advocate? Are we Orthodox now going to dispute the fact of the Orthodox saints' writings to amuse you?

Looks to me, like you just want to stir up s--t. That's not a very nice thing to do. We are suppose to be here to help each other, not cause arguements.

Sounds to me like you're bored and need some kind of exhilaration.

The Old and New Testament are official documents of God. Who are YOU to say that they didn't happen?

Smarten up.

Anybody who has any spiritual sense wouldn't judge the Holy Fathers and ESPECIALLY, the Apostles. We base our faith on the fact that these writings are true.

If you have doubts then you are truely lost.

God help you in your ignorance.

In Christ,

Joanna

[Miriam]

:ohvey: So spake the pot to his brother kettle.... :ohvey:

[joasia]

And so Miriam,

My right to express my feelings is not acceptable? Seems, I see you expressing yours quite often. Hmmmm. And when was I ever a pot, I wonder? So you can say whatever you want, but I can't? Is that the way it goes here?

Did you have anything intellectual to add to this thread, by any chance?

[Miriam]

No actually I think you've taken care of it. I never said that you couldn't express yourself, I would, however,advise moderating the accusational tone a bit....Just a thought. Discussion is one thing, but attacks never really accomplish anything.

With love in Christ....

[joasia]

Well Miriam,

You are right. I should tone it down. I apologize. My point is that...there are too many questions of whether saints are true or not. I know there are non-Orthodox that come here and we should assist them in their quest for answers. It just seems so much more difficult dealing with it on the chatboard. Sometimes I feel like people are trying to put a stick in the wheel on purpose.

Don't you ever feel defensive that way? Anyways, what is your view on the autheticity question?

In Christ,

Joanna

[Justin Kissel]

No, I'm not playing devil's advocate I don't believe that Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible (including the stuff that happened after his own death); I still consider them the "book of Moses." I don't believe that David wrote all the Psalms; I still consider them the Psalms of David. I don't believe that the Apostles wrote the Apostolic Canons; I still think they are the teachings of the Apostles; I don't believe that Dionysius the Areopagite wrote Mystical Theology and the other works attributed to him; I still think those works are perfectly Orthodox and not merely semi-Orthodox, neo-platonic works. While I don't have any quotes to back this up, I don't think the Fathers disagreed with this view of things. If and when I do come across quotes--either evidencing or contradicting my position--I will post them here.

Until then, what's the fear in discussing (and if you're worried about the non-Orthodox, well, most egg-heads would like to know that this type of thing is being discussed)? Hebrews is a fine example: maybe Paul wrote it, maybe he didn't, the Church wasn't sure. Same thing with Revelation, most thought it was St. John the Apostle (the one the Lord loved), but some other Fathers disagreed. Shall we call those Fathers who disagreed fools? There were lots of other disagreements over authorship then, even as now. I believe that if something is accepted by the Church--especially by all, everywhere, and from ancient times--then it is accepted, regardless of whether we are perfectly certain who wrote it. Consider that even some of our Scriptural books (e.g., Tobit) were written by unknown authors. It doesn't matter whether Mystical Theology was written by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, or someone who was a 5th century Christian philosopher. That the end of Mark, or that certain other portions of Scripture were added later seems agreed upon by most (even many traditionalists)--that doesn't make the "additions" unimportant or of lesser value. Does the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom have less value because it was added to later on? How about the Canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils?

It is not my ignorance that I fear, Joanna. I will always be ignorant. What I fear is those times (which are often) when, in my pride, I forget that I am ignorant. I need to be humble. But sometimes humility means admitting that maybe I don't know as much as I'd like to think I know. Maybe I don't know for sure who wrote Mystical Theology, and maybe that's a good thing, as it is a curb against my pride: it prevents me from thinking that I know it all, have all the answers, and can solve any problems that come my way. Had I known that the topic would raise such a reaction, I would not have posted it. I'm hesitant to post even this above, as I'm afraid it will get a similar response, scandalizing some. I will nonetheless post it, because I think what I have said is not wholly inaccurate, and needs to be said now that the subject has been started.