I think the answer as to how the books of the New Testament are authenticated is not a matter of a post-Apostolic Tradition (however this may be defined). Rather, the contemporary critical scholar and historian employ the tools of good historical, textual, and redaction criticism for authenticity. In addition to this (or instead of), the epistemologically feasible approach of the Holy Spirit's self-authentication of Scripture is likewise sufficient. But, concerning the immediate attention of Matthew and Philemon as historical documents that I consider authentic, I shall defend them in brief here.

     The Gospel of Matthew is the most contested book concerning its authorship since no clear indications appear to validate Matthew as the author. But the best indication for Matthew's authorship is found in Eusebius' citations of someone closely affiliated with the Apostles and is probably reliable.(1) There are also possible internal indications of Matthean authorship from the Gospel of Matthew itself: (i) Matthew is the only one to refer to the tax collector as "Matthew" while the other Gospel writers use "Levi" (cf. Matt. 9:9-13); (ii) All three Gospels list a "Matthew" along with the other apostles, and Matthew 10:3 identifies the apostolic Matthew as the tax collector; (iii) There are Matthean expressions used to explain financial transactions that would be the most sense if the author were a tax collector (cf. Matt. 17:24-27; 18:23-35; 21:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15). Concerning the provenance of Matthew's writing of his Gospel, there is very little to acknowledge. But perhaps it is likely that Matthew wrote somewhere in Syria, for those who think that Matthew's geography discloses any significance. New Testament scholars D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris declare that "we cannot be certain of the geographic provenance of this gospel. Syria is perhaps the most likely suggestion, but nothing of importance hangs on the decision."(2).

      The Letter to Philemon, unlike Matthew, explicitly identifies its author as Paul. What makes it difficult for contemporary scholarship to decipher is its brevity and deep, personal attitude it conveys. But there are four reasons to consider this to be Paul's letter during a time in prison in Rome (ca. 58-60 A.D.). First, the letter has earmarks of Pauline authorship (Philemon 1-3 especially). Second, it includes information beyond the New Testament that might not have been made up for fear of being disconfirmed by other findings (e.g., Paul considers Philemon a "dear friend and fellow worker" (Philemon 1). That bit of information might not have been used since Philemon was probably a well-known wealthy Gentile in Collossae. Third, the letter's author discusses Philemon in terms of being a friend and co-worker and not as one with apostolic authority. Fourth, even liberal scholarship admits that Philemon may be authentic even though the characters in the letter may be fictitious representations of the world versus the Church with Philemon as the fictional protagonist.(3) In any case, Philemon is not the portrait of a forgery.

END NOTES

1. D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 67-8.

2. Ibid., p. 76.

3. For example, see N. Peterson, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).