How do you know that? I can't believe you fell for that fairytale, which has been peddled by Protestant scholars since about the 19th century onward. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
We can tell with high degree of certainty, based on textual criticism method, which of the extant variants of the same verses or books is the "original" (the master variant copy) from which other copies were made, not the the original, i.e. first, manuscript written by the original author.
All we have are books and fragments from the late second century in a number of variants. Thus, all we can tell, using the method mentioned, is for example whether the long, or the short copy of Luke's Gospel came before the other, not what was in Luke's original work when it was first written, presumably in the first century, by an anonymous author the Catholic Church decided to name "Luke," according to tradition.
But I do appreciate tossing in “pseudoepigraphical”, it's impressive, really.
Yeah, pseudoepographical, written by someone other than the supped author, like many other books in the Bible.
“Yeah, pseudoepographical, written by someone other than the supped author, like many other books in the Bible.”
How do you know that?
I can’t believe you fell that nonsense promoted by skeptics, atheists and other assorted pseudo-scholars! The objections to Peter’s authorship are downright laughable.
“All we have are books and fragments from the late second century in a number of variants. Thus, all we can tell, using the method mentioned, is for example whether the long, or the short copy of Luke’s Gospel came before the other, not what was in Luke’s original work when it was first written, presumably in the first century, by an anonymous author the Catholic Church decided to name “Luke,” according to tradition.”
That’s what comes of swallowing all that mushy thinking provided by critics of the Bible. You can end up with all mush and no thinking.