I have been sharing information about the “CANON” of the New Testament. In modern times, when the problem of authorship has been divorced from that of canonicity, the sharp distinction evident between the style of Hebrews and that of the Pauline writings has convinced most scholars that Paul was not the author. Catholic writers, influenced by the decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, have tried to protect the Paulinity of Hebrews by stressing that Paul used a scribe to write the epistle. Now, however, they are beginning to recognize that Hebrews probably has no real relation to Paul, other than that the author may have had some acquaintance with thought like Paul.

The same problem of authorship affects those epistles of Paul that are called the Catholic Epistles. Unless they were attributed to apostolic figures, there was reluctance to accept them.

In form 1 Peter is a treatise or even a homily associated with baptism (and perhaps with the paschal celebration) that has been adapted to the letter form – notice the continuing Christian preference for this genre. The work is purportedly written by Peter, and therefore a date before Peter’s death (ca 65” CE) has been traditional. Many non-Catholic scholars look upon the epistle as pseudonymous and suggest a later date. There are, however, no absolutely compelling reasons why either the traditional date or authorship must be rejected.

The problem with 2 Peter is much more difficult, for here we have a work that most critical scholars today, both Protestant and Catholic, recognize as clearly pseudonymous. The use of abstract theological language and the reference to a collection of Pauline letters suggest that this may well be the last of the canonical New Testament Books to have been written. Some non-Catholic scholars date it as late as 150 CE, but a date between 100 and 125 is quite tenable. The contention that the work must have been written before the death of the last apostle and the close of revelation implies an over-simplified view, not only of the close of revelation, but also of the apostles (a group wider than the Twelve).

So, as we can see, the New Testament, like other things in our religious history, is not as clear as we might expect. All this does, however, is call us to BELIEVE – to have faith. If everything was clear and without any confusion, we would not need faith. I would ask you: What is it that you do believe? Belief is not based on proof. It is based on what we accept!