Reddit mentions of An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)

You are correct, your professor is a fundamentalist. Check out The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman and An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown.

• An Introduction to the New Testament
  
• Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity
  
• An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)
  
• New Testament History and Literature
  
• Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years
  
• New Testament History: A Narrative Account

> hard from an intellectual point of view

I'm sorry, I had to snicker when I read this. There is no other organization that has more intellectual underpinnings than the Catholic Church.

If you are having problems reconciling Scripture (exegetically or hermeneutically), you need to start reading academic books, such as those by Brown, Meier, Gonzalez, and Martos, just to name a few.

Helpful for me was Thomism and modern Thomists such as Feser.

Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, published in 1997 from the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, includes attempts to review and summarize scholarly opinion on authorship (and date and purpose and audience) of all the books in the New Testament Canon. Here are some passages relevant to your question.

From "Did Paul Write II Thessalonians?" (pp. 592-594):

> In 20th-century German scholarship, running from W. Wrede in 1904 to W. Trilling in 1972, arguments presented against Pauline writing gradually made this minority view more and more accepted. English-speaking scholarship (e.g., Aus, Best, Bruce, Jewett, L. T. Johnson, Marshall, and Morris) has tended to defend writing by Paul, but more recently Bailey, Collins, Giblin, Holland, and Hughes have been among the increasing numbers opting for pseudonymity.

Of the scholars defending Pauline authorship, the most relevant might be R. Aus, Augsberg Commentaries, 1984; and R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Corresponandance, 1986. Brown also goes on to list the main arguments for and against Pauline authorship, which is worth reading.

From "Did Paul Write Colossians?" (pp. 610-615):

> At the present moment about 60 percent of critical scholarship holds that Paul did not write the letter.

A footnote here says that R. F. Collins, in Letters that Paul Did Not Write (1988), "surveys the various scholars and the nuances of their views." The footnote also says, "Cannon's detailed study favors Paul as the writer", referring to G. E. Cannon's 1983 publication "The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians". Though Brown doesn't dwell on which scholars have which opinions, he does survey arguments for and against. I suppose Collins would be a good place to look for more.

From "Ephesians: To Whom and By Whom?" (pp. 626-630):

> Although some scholars continue to accept Paul as the writer of Eph, the thrust of the evidence has pushed 70 to 80 percent of critical scholarship to reject that view, including a significant number who think that Paul wrote Col.

Though Brown does not here list scholars who argue Pauline authorship, a previous footnote states "See in Cross, the debate over the Pauline writings of Eph (for, J. N. Sanders; against, D. E. Nineham." This refers to F. L. Cross's Studies in Ephesians (1956), and presumably earlier scholars he cites. Brown gives an analysis of arguments both for and against pseudonymity, though he doesn't list a single paper published after 1970 that argues Pauline authorship, which is telling.

In "Who Wrote Titus and I Timothy? (pp. 662-668), he gives a wide array of reasons to doubt the authority of the Pastorals, also explaining traditional reasons to suppose Pauline authorship, and concludes:

> About 80 to 90 percent of modern scholars would agree that the Pastorals were written after Paul's lifetime.

He indicates that more information can be found in R. F. Collins's Letters that Paul Did Not Write, which argues pseudonymity. But the only modern scholars Brown mentions who might still hold Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is G. W. Knight, from the New International Commentary on the New Testament, 1992, and L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 1986. When discussing II Timothy, Brown only mentions that some scholars still hold Pauline authorship without naming them specifically, though he indicates that Johnson may be one.

All in all, I'd say Brown somewhat understates the likelihood that a modern scholar will think these letters are pseudonymous. But if you read the percentages as "percent of New Testament scholars still alive in 1997 who hold this opinion, regardless of when their most recent relevant publication was", it may not be far from the mark.

Brown also includes an entire chapter, "25: Pseudonymity and the Deuteropauline Writings" that examines the issues holistically, giving a great deal of insight about the complex issues involved in determining authorship of ancient texts. It's definitely worth reading, if you get a chance.

Most of it came from classes and lectures. I don't have the class book list and sources anymore. I do hope you really, really like reading!

Forged writingss

Misquoting Jesus A well known book.

Introduction to the new testiment

The new testament: a historical intoduction

Revelation and the End of All Things Also a somewhat popular book

You can also do some Wikipedia reading on Gnosticism and other early Christen sects to get an idea of just how many groups their were and how differing their beliefs could be. Also look for things on the Q, M and L source.

Edit

You can likely find a number of online pod-casts (or whatever you call them) and lectures on these things.

I am not a historian so my access to books and memorized sources is very limited, I am a student and have been accused of reading serial boxes at least once when I accidentally quoted the wrong book name, It was too much fun to make the correction as no one had ever said that too me before and I felt special, like I had hit an academic milestone.

Also, Don't feel bad about asking for sources.

These are some of the better books I've accumulated in school:

• An Introduction to the New Testament - Raymond Brown. Exactly what the title says.
  
  
• The Early Church - Henry Chadwick. This is more of a historical overview of the development of the Church, etc.
  
  
• The Shape of Catholic Theology - Aiden Nichols. This book is kind of a dense read. Not gonna lie.
  
  
• At the Origin of the Christian Claim - Luigi Giussani.
  
  
• The Craft of Theology - Avery Dulles.
  
  
• The Theology of the Church - Charles Jornet. - This one is about ecclesiology, or the structure of the Church.
  
  
• Early Christian Fathers -Cyril Richardson. Includes primary sources like letters and homilies.
  
  
• The Trinitarian Crontroversy - William Rusch. Very good history of early heresies, like Arianism and Nestorianism, and how they pushed the Church to develop the Creed.
  
  
• Called to Communion - Joseph Ratzinger.
  
  
• Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man - Henri de Lubac. This book is fantastic!
  
  
• The Meaning of Tradition - Yves Congar.
  
  
• Introduction to Moral Theology - Romanus Cessario.
  
  
• The Major Works -Anselm of Canterbury. Nice collection, see especially: Cur Deus Homo.
  
  
• On the Incarnation - Ignatius of Antioch. I LOVED this one!
  
  
• Credo for Today - Joseph Ratzinger. Basically anything by Ratzinger.

>As I said, I grew up as Catholic as one can.

You also said you attended seminary for four years. One would think that you have studied the Summa upon immediate entry into your pre-theology.

>I actually studied for a year the Acts of the Apostles.

Then surely, as a former Seminarian, you have a Reverse Interlinear and a Greek Primer to study Scripture as in-depth as possible? Because, as every good seminarian knows, Scripture is written in Koine Greek, and we need to study various facets of language to understand the full meaning of what is recorded.

>Do I try to seek answers? Everyday I do. I visit /r/Christianity to check on discussions often

I would not qualify visiting an online forum as a means of seeking answers.

>I read a lot about the history of the Bible.

Whom have you read?

Surely, as a seminarian, you have read An Introduction to the New Testament by Brown and Reading the Old Testament by Boadt. Both are standard readings in seminary.

>I would never have known that creationism is a Jewish folklore.

Eh...I wouldn't say that "creationism if a Jewish folklore." I would say that Creationism is a non-Catholic interpretation of the Genesis myth (here I do not mean today's understanding of "myth").

I think the best you can get is some surveys of the debates. Some texts (esp introductory ones) attempt to present the major debates without taking a side. The closest you can get IMO to a consensus is scholars agreeing about what the questions are, or perhaps a survey of the relevant literature on a given passage. And while even that has plenty of variety and disagreement, you can generally call it a safe consensus.

Although, since the field is so massive, I'm not aware of a single text which would encompass all of biblical scholarship. So, I'll recommend some (IMO) good surveys of the literature and questions:

Old Testament (general introduction, forthcoming) I've seen some embargo copies of this, and even though it says "catholic" in the title, its very nuanced and pays attention to the different scholarly debates, in such a way that it is pretty darn objective.

Pentateuch

Historical Books

Prophets

Psalms & Wisdom Literature

New Testament (general introduction)

Paul

Canonization

History of Biblical Interpretation: Ancient

History of Biblical Interpretation: Ancient-Medieval

History of Biblical Interpretation: 1300-1700 (probably my favorite on this list)

History of Biblical Interpretation: Enlightenment-20th century (with overlap from the previous one)

I would also recommend a good biblical dictionary. They're not just definitions, they're filled with entire scholarly articles on various topics in a given field. My favorite is the IVP Bible Dictionary Series. I use it all the time (individual volumes can be purchased separately).

A lot of what's been listed is devotional stuff, not critical stuff.

For a good critical intro to the New Testament, try Raymond Browns Introduction to the New Testament

Or Bart Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Just about anything by Geza Vermes is also very good.

For the Old Testament, I'd recommend James Kugel's How to Read the Bible

or even Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

See Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament. You will probably find his perspective and presentation to be both insightful and invaluable.

For the New Testament, I recommend Brown

https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-New-Testament-Raymond-Brown/dp/0300140169

For the New Testament read this http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0300140169

For the Old testament Read this
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Old-Testament-5th-Edition/dp/013092380X/ref=pd_sim_b_78

I read the bible with the aid of a commentary (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary), and a Bible Dictionary (HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). It slowed the pace a bit, but I got a lot out of it. I also had some good intros to the New Testament (An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman).

Some other interesting study aids:

• Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman - for an overview on the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch.
  
  
• Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman - goes over the difficulty of rebuilding the original words of the authors of the bible.
  
  Good Luck.

I have two textbooks on the history of the New Testament that were both required for the courses I took at the University of Toronto, which is where I did my undergraduate degree and where I'm currently finishing up my master's degree (the specific courses I took were offered by a religious college within the university; and my degrees are in mechanical engineering, not history).

It's not too terribly difficult to find full copies of the textbooks I used online, but here are somewhat safer Amazon links: textbook 1, and textbook 2. That said textbooks are hard to read, and if you're in college or will be going to college soon I would suggest you take courses on Biblical history if you're interested in learning more. I've also done a lot of extracurricular reading on NT history for my own edification, to which end I've read books by NT Wright, EP Sanders, Dale Martin, and John Meier--I'd recommend all of those authors.

I haven't read or heard of the historians you listed, which is not to say they don't do good history. But if you name any historical construction of Jesus, no matter how bizarre, you'll probably find some scholar somewhere to support your position. And when it comes to the orthodox religious construction of Jesus there are a larger number of scholars than say in the Jesus myth camp or whatever (likewise there are more traditional Catholic historians than fundamentalist Baptist historians in scholarly communities etc. etc.), but most NT historians fall into the camps I described above.

>... I do believe (obviously) that the apostolic and Paul's Jesus is the one I believe in.

Okay... I mean the point is that you're probably unaware of what historians think Jesus actually preached and what Paul likely believed about Jesus. For example, do you think Jesus said he was a part of the Trinity? Do you think Paul thought Jesus was a part of the Trinity? You can find historians who support those positions, but most historians would say "probably not" to both questions (with a relatively high degree of certainty).