Monday, February 22, 2010



A Rocha是一个以基督为信仰的自然保护组织,我们的名称是源于葡萄牙语的磐石,也是 我们组织的第一个启动项目,一个葡萄牙的野外研究中心。现在,A Rocha已经发展成为一个全球性项目大家族,遍布欧洲、中东、非洲、南北美洲、亚洲 以及大洋洲。A Rocha项目具有跨文化的特点,强调社群共享,致力于科学研究、自然保护行动和环境 教育。

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Second Thoughts About "Canonical Pseudepigraphy"

In his Dictionary of Later New Testament and Its Developments article on pseudepigraphy (which means “false superscription”), James Dunn discussed the problem of New Testament writings that explicitly claim to have been written by a certain person but were believed by many modern scholars to have been written by someone else.

Unlike anonymous New Testament writings such as the book of Hebrews, the issue of false attribution in pseudepigraphal writings raised questions about their integrity and acceptability in the canon. For example, we read of Serapion (second century A.D.) who rejected the Gospel of Peter as “the writings that falsely bear their names [Peter and the other apostles] . . . knowing that such were not handed down to us” (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.3).

Dunn described the nature of the moral and theological problem in this way, “It is this judgment of falseness, of an intent to deceive and mislead, particularly by passing off as apostolic what should not be so regarded, that makes the issue of pseudepigraphy in the NT so sensitive.” On the other hand, Dunn recognized the significant consensus of NT scholarship that maintains the pseudepigraphic character of NT writings such as Ephesians, the Pastoral epistles and 2 Peter. How then should we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Download the rest of the article review below:
Review the Pseudepigraphy Article