Dear Friend,If you want to be technical, we can assume many things about many books of the Bible of what and if they are authentic since we only have scraps in many cases.
Indeed, but in the case of divinely inspired scripture, it's veracity is proven within the text - the intertwining of prophecy with the instruction allows one to render a verdict... In some cases that cannot be trusted fully because the text has been corrupted, but by and large, the method works.
You’re relying on the catholic/orthodox traditions to authenticate many things in the Bible whether you like it or not
Less than you'd imagine. I work out of the Protestant canon because it is the most sure (everyone agrees on those books), but I am not limited to it, or the Roman canon, or any canon, with the exception that the originally sanctioned Torah, Prophets, and Writings are declared (by YHWH and by Yeshua).
Anyway, there is a theme of continuity in Saint Clement’s writings with others writing and traditions of that time period that certainly gives reason to assume them credible.
Only if one assumes the other writings from that period are credible, which they are not. Again, there are no extant copies which date prior to 300AD... With Rome's propensity toward forgery, and more importantly, inclusions, and 250 years to tweak the works, I see no reason at all to hold the documents as being faultless.
In fact, the general tenor would suggest they have faults. It is, as I said before, LUDICROUS to suggest that a Torah keeping sect of Judaism became a liturgical (greek/latin based, semi-pagan to be kind) hierarchical, authoritarian religion literally over night. It is on this premise that your (y'all) claim to authority rests, and I find no need to accept these writings in order to bolster your claim.
In fact, when there is a dispute, it is only natural to go back to the original contract(s), hence my strong defense of sola-scriptura. An agent claiming authority based upon those contracts is naturally bound by them, or the agent is false.
“”Only if one assumes the other writings from that period are credible, which they are not. Again, there are no extant copies which date prior to 300AD... With Rome’s propensity toward forgery””
Even Protestant Scholars like J.N.D Kelly disagree with you because they realize by ignoring the writings of Origen,Irenaues,Eusebius, Jerome, Athanasius and others you end up backing yourself into a corner regarding authenticity of the NT Scripture
If you believe the approved writings of early church fathers are flawed you’re going to have question canon and many Scriptures if your being honest with yourself.
Here is something for you to read from UPENN written by Robert Kraft- who holds a PhD in “Christian Origins”
CHRISTIAN TRANSMISSION OF GREEK JEWISH SCRIPTURES:
A METHODOLOGICAL PROBE
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Transmission%20of%20Gk-Jewish%20Scriptures
If you don’t mind me asking-what denomination or group of protestant are you ,dear friend?