Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Borg on Chronology

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Re: Borg on Chronology From: Bruce I see from advance publicity that Marcus J Borg, Evolution of the Word (HarperCollins, August 2012), will
    Message 1 of 12 , May 18, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Re: Borg on Chronology
      From: Bruce

      I see from advance publicity that Marcus J Borg, Evolution of the Word
      (HarperCollins, August 2012), will arrange all NT texts in proper
      chronological order, thus presumably ending discussion of such matters, and
      leading to the dissolution of this and other E-lists. Surely an overdue
      result.

      One detail of Borg's picture of NT chronology (laid out entire on the cover
      of his book) is this:

      Mark
      Philippians
      Colossians
      *Year 50
      Ephesians
      1 Timothy
      Ephesians]
      *Year 55
      1 Timothy
      Titus
      *Year 60
      2 Timothy
      Matthew

      Letting the absolute dates go, and considering only the relative dates, I
      have not elsewhere encountered the suggestion that both Ephesians and 1
      Timothy were composed in two segments. Can someone better informed summarize
      the argument (whether Borg's or another's) for either of these propositions,
      or provide a reference? I am aware of Muddiman's thesis (2001, revising
      earlier suggestions) that half of Ephesians is the missing Laodiceans, but
      what else is there?

      Of course, if Borg is right, Ephesians and 1 Timothy become interSynoptic in
      chronological position (between Mark and Matthew), and thus of intense
      relevance to any Synoptic discussion.

      Thanks,

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
    • Emmanuel Fritsch
      ... And Boismard thesis that half of Col is the missing Laod. ? manu
      Message 2 of 12 , May 21, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        E Bruce Brooks a écrit :
        >
        >
        > I am aware of Muddiman's thesis (2001, revising
        > earlier suggestions) that half of Ephesians is the missing Laodiceans, but
        > what else is there?
        >
        And Boismard thesis that half of Col is the missing Laod. ?

        manu
      • David Inglis
        It is sometimes stated that Marcion created a Letter to the Laodiceans, but Tertullian states the following in Adv Marcion V: “We have it on the true
        Message 3 of 12 , May 21, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          It is sometimes stated that Marcion created a Letter to the Laodiceans, but Tertullian states the following in Adv Marcion V:

          “We have it on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, however, was very desirous of giving it the new title (of Laodicean), as if he were extremely accurate in investigating such a point.”

          This agrees with the theory that Ephesians was actually a circular letter, and that Col 4:16 refers to a copy of this letter (or even perhaps the actual letter) coming from Laodicea. The NET provides support for this view, placing the words “in Ephesus” in Eph 1:1 in brackets, and adding this note:

          The earliest and most important mss omit “in Ephesus” (Ì46 א* B* 6 1739 [McionT,E]), yet the opening line of this epistle makes little sense without the phrase (“to the saints who are and are faithful…”? or perhaps “to the saints who are also faithful,” though with this sense the οὖσιν [ousin] is redundant and the καί [kai] is treated somewhat unnaturally). What is interesting is Marcion’s canon list which speaks of the letter to the Laodiceans among Paul’s authentic epistles. This, coupled with some internal evidence that the writer did not know his audience personally (cf. 1:15; 3:2; absence of personal names throughout), suggests that Ephesians was an encyclical letter, intended for more than one audience. Does this mean that the shorter reading is to be preferred? Yes and no. A plausible scenario is as follows, assuming Pauline authorship (though this is strongly contested today; for arguments on behalf of Pauline authorship, see M. Barth, Ephesians [AB 34], 1:36-50; P. T. O’Brien, Ephesians, 4-47; and H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2-61): Paul sent the letter from Rome, intending it first to go to Ephesus. At the same time, Colossians was dispatched. Going counterclockwise through Asia Minor, this letter would first come to Ephesus, the port of entry, then to Laodicea, then Colossae. Tychicus’ instructions may well have been for each church to “fill in the blank” on the address line. The church at Ephesus would have certainly made the most copies, being Paul’s home base for nearly three years. Hence, most of the surviving copies have “in Ephesus” in v. 1 (so א2 A B2 D F G Ψ 0278 33 1881 Ï latt sy co). But one might expect a hint of evidence that Laodicea also made a few copies: Both Marcion’s list and Col 4:16 may well imply this. What is to account for the early Alexandrian evidence, then? These mss were perhaps made from a very early copy, one reflecting the blank line before each church filled it in. Although it is of course only speculation (as is necessary in a historical investigation lacking some of the pieces to the puzzle), this scenario accounts for all of the data: (1) “in Ephesus” in most mss; (2) Laodicea in Marcion’s list and Col 4:16; (3) the lack of an addressee in the earliest witnesses; (4) why the earliest witnesses’ reading must be rejected as too hard; and (5) why the author seems not to know the readership. In sum, is “in Ephesus” original? Yes and no. Some address belongs there; ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (en Efesw) is the predominant address, but several other churches also received this circular letter as their own. For this reason the phrase has been placed in single brackets in the translation. NA27 also lists the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

          Based on the above, I regard the theory that Ephesians and Laodiceans are the same letter (or copies of the same letter) as much more likely than either of the suggestions mentioned below. However, apart from Col 4:16 and Tertullian, what other early references to a letter from Laodicea are there that might shed light on this issue?

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



          From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Fritsch
          Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 1:18 AM
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: GPG
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Borg on Chronology

          E Bruce Brooks a écrit :
          >
          > I am aware of Muddiman's thesis (2001, revising
          > earlier suggestions) that half of Ephesians is the missing Laodiceans, but
          > what else is there?
          >
          And Boismard thesis that half of Col is the missing Laod. ?

          manu



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic In Response To: David Inglis On: Ephesians and Colossians From: Bruce Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) seems to find Ephesians
          Message 4 of 12 , May 22, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: David Inglis
            On: Ephesians and Colossians
            From: Bruce

            Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) seems to find Ephesians pseudepigraphical. Can David's proposal be restated in those terms? If Pauline authorship of Ephesians is required, then I think the suggestion itself needs to be reworked.

            My own attempt at reworking might be along something like the following lines.

            That Ephesians was meant as a general letter (one for general circulation, not "circular" in the sense of being passed along a predetermined route, though that is one possible mechanism) seems obvious to me. General letters were early in existence; the earliest preserved one seems to be James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works dichotomy in Romans. That is, general letters were out there, and generally visible, at the end of Paul's working life. Romans itself, perhaps taking a cue from James, seems to have been intended as a general letter, as can be seen from its comprehensive theological content (far beyond what was required by the stated purpose of the letter), and perhaps from the textual confusion about its ending and final personalia. The pseudepigraphic Colossians follows on this, with its specific reference, not to circular letters, but to laterally shared letters. Ephesians, with its lack of pretense to be a church letter, seems to me to take the next step, formally speaking. But they are steps beyond Paul's own demonstrable practice.

            The use of personalia to validate a general letter as a church letter (and therefore as old enough to be by the Apostolic figure whose name was associated with it) remained a standard feature of Christian literature, as 1 Peter and the Letter of Clement to James, and much else, are there to witness. Were not the personalia of Hebrews added to give that work an Apostolic character, and thus entitle it to canonical status? That the personalia themselves are spurious is one of the disappointing discoveries of modern science, since if genuine they would have given us much information about Paul's travels and associates, together with all we used to think we knew about Mark in Rome.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Matson, Mark (Academic)
            Although this is way off-topic for Synoptic-L, I need to protest two statements below. 1. Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) finds Ephesians to
            Message 5 of 12 , May 23, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Although this is way off-topic for Synoptic-L, I need to protest two statements below.

              1. "Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) finds Ephesians to be pseudepigraphical." Well, perhaps if by "critical opinion" you mean people who agree with you. BUT, Markus Barth's volume in AB is a brilliant critical commentary. And many if not most current commentators tend on the side of Pauline authorship. (so note, for instance, O'Brien (1999), Hoehner (2002), Heil 2007 -- none of whom can be called uncritical). Granted there is a split of opinion (in NT scholarship, what isn't disputed), but there is by not means a consensus here. My own read of scholarship is that it actually tends towards inclusion of Ephesians.

              2. "James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works dichotomy in Romans." This posits two things, erroneously in my opinion: a). that James was written with Paul in mind. My sense is that James is mostly traditional (Jewish) ethical hortatory material, and certainly is not a response; and b). that Paul actually writes with a Lutheran faith/works problem. I think the current literature on Paul (Sanders, Dunn, Wright, etc) would frankly call that into question.


              Mark A. Matson
              Milligan College
              http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


              Bruce Brooks wrote:

              Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) seems to find Ephesians pseudepigraphical. Can David's proposal be restated in those terms? If Pauline authorship of Ephesians is required, then I think the suggestion itself needs to be reworked.

              My own attempt at reworking might be along something like the following lines.

              That Ephesians was meant as a general letter (one for general circulation, not "circular" in the sense of being passed along a predetermined route, though that is one possible mechanism) seems obvious to me. General letters were early in existence; the earliest preserved one seems to be James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works dichotomy in Romans. That is, general letters were out there, and generally visible, at the end of Paul's working life. Romans itself, perhaps taking a cue from James, seems to have been intended as a general letter, as can be seen from its comprehensive theological content (far beyond what was required by the stated purpose of the letter), and perhaps from the textual confusion about its ending and final personalia. The pseudepigraphic Colossians follows on this, with its specific reference, not to circular letters, but to laterally shared letters. Ephesians, with its lack of pretense to be a church letter, seems to me to take the next step, formally speaking. But they are steps beyond Paul's own demonstrable practice.
            • David Inglis
              The question I posed doesn t (I think) require that we specify whether Ephesians is either genuine or pseudopigraphical. All I was asking is whether Marcion s
              Message 6 of 12 , May 23, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                The question I posed doesn't (I think) require that we specify whether Ephesians is either genuine or pseudopigraphical.
                All I was asking is whether Marcion's assertion that Ephesians is the letter from Laodicea is likely to be true or not.
                I believe that what we know as Ephesians is in fact that letter, or at least one of a number of copies of the same
                letter that were sent to various different places, of which Ephesus and Laodicea were two. However, for the record, I
                believe that a substantial part of the reason that Ephesians is considered by some to be pseudopigraphical is invalid if
                Ephesians was NOT sent only to Ephesus, and so my opinion is that it is genuine.

                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
                Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:22 AM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Laodicenas (was Borg on Chronology)

                Although this is way off-topic for Synoptic-L, I need to protest two statements below.

                1. "Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) finds Ephesians to be pseudepigraphical." Well, perhaps if by
                "critical opinion" you mean people who agree with you. BUT, Markus Barth's volume in AB is a brilliant critical
                commentary. And many if not most current commentators tend on the side of Pauline authorship. (so note, for instance,
                O'Brien (1999), Hoehner (2002), Heil 2007 -- none of whom can be called uncritical). Granted there is a split of opinion
                (in NT scholarship, what isn't disputed), but there is by not means a consensus here. My own read of scholarship is that
                it actually tends towards inclusion of Ephesians.

                2. "James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works dichotomy in Romans." This posits two things, erroneously in my
                opinion: a). that James was written with Paul in mind. My sense is that James is mostly traditional (Jewish) ethical
                hortatory material, and certainly is not a response; and b). that Paul actually writes with a Lutheran faith/works
                problem. I think the current literature on Paul (Sanders, Dunn, Wright, etc) would frankly call that into question.

                Mark A. Matson
                Milligan College
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm

                Bruce Brooks wrote:

                Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M Barth) seems to find Ephesians pseudepigraphical. Can David's proposal be
                restated in those terms? If Pauline authorship of Ephesians is required, then I think the suggestion itself needs to be
                reworked.

                My own attempt at reworking might be along something like the following lines.

                That Ephesians was meant as a general letter (one for general circulation, not "circular" in the sense of being passed
                along a predetermined route, though that is one possible mechanism) seems obvious to me. General letters were early in
                existence; the earliest preserved one seems to be James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works dichotomy in Romans.
                That is, general letters were out there, and generally visible, at the end of Paul's working life. Romans itself,
                perhaps taking a cue from James, seems to have been intended as a general letter, as can be seen from its comprehensive
                theological content (far beyond what was required by the stated purpose of the letter), and perhaps from the textual
                confusion about its ending and final personalia. The pseudepigraphic Colossians follows on this, with its specific
                reference, not to circular letters, but to laterally shared letters. Ephesians, with its lack of pretense to be a church
                letter, seems to me to take the next step, formally speaking. But they are steps beyond Paul's own demonstrable
                practice.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic In Response To: David I On: Ephesians as Pauline From: Bruce If Ephesians is Pauline, and Mark is early, than Ephesians is relevant to the
                Message 7 of 12 , May 23, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic
                  In Response To: David I
                  On: Ephesians as Pauline
                  From: Bruce

                  If Ephesians is Pauline, and Mark is early, than Ephesians is relevant to
                  the Synoptic problem because Mark and Paul seem (at least on some accounts)
                  to be contemporary. If Matthew and Luke are post-Apostolic, and so is
                  Ephesians, then Ephesians is relevant to the Synoptic problem, since
                  Ephesians would then be potentially contemporary with them. The Synoptic
                  Problem can probably not be solved without considering the evidence of
                  contemporary documents, and the question of what documents are contemporary
                  with what Synoptics would seem to be relevant. I proceed on that basis to
                  consider David's scenario.

                  David I: A plausible scenario is as follows, assuming Pauline authorship
                  (though this is strongly contested today; for arguments on behalf of Pauline
                  authorship, see M. Barth, Ephesians [AB 34], 1:36-50; P. T. O'Brien,
                  Ephesians, 4-47; and H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2-61): Paul sent the letter
                  from Rome, intending it first to go to Ephesus. At the same time, Colossians
                  was dispatched.

                  Bruce: The Pauline authorship scenario does seem to require that Colossians
                  and Ephesians were written at the same time. I find that this conflicts with
                  internal evidence, which suggests that Ephesians is theologically and
                  ecclesiologically a stage later than Colossians. So also Crouch on the
                  respective Haustafeln, etc.

                  David I: Going counterclockwise through Asia Minor, this letter would first
                  come to Ephesus, the port of entry, then to Laodicea, then Colossae.
                  Tychicus' instructions may well have been for each church to "fill in the
                  blank" on the address line. The church at Ephesus would have certainly made
                  the most copies, being Paul's home base for nearly three years.

                  Bruce: I don't find that this coheres. If the letters were carried, by
                  whomever, on some consecutive itinerary through part of Asia Minor, then
                  they would already have been addressed. The idea that each church would
                  accept, let alone "fill in the blanks" of, an undifferentiated letter, to
                  convert it into a more individual letter, strikes me as so impolite as to be
                  impossible. If instead the original letter was "general," with no indicated
                  address, then the textually insecure "to Ephesus" finds an explanation (it
                  is one later person's way of construing an unaddressed letter), and so does
                  the theory that this is actually Laodiceans (as conjectured by a different
                  later person who was also looking at Colossians). The latter group might
                  include Marcion or a precedessor in the guessing game. Compare the late
                  Pauline credentials of Hebrews.

                  On this understanding, the textual insecurity of "to Ephesus" would if
                  anything support a post-Pauline scenario, against the authorial-Paul
                  possibility.

                  That Ephesians IS actually Laodiceans, either in whole (seemingly Marcion)
                  or in part (so Muddiman and others), is another matter. That proto-Ephesians
                  (the real letter mentioned in Colossians, if Colossians were Pauline) would
                  be a Pauline survival, like the Pastoral Letter cores suggested by Harrison.
                  I am presently unable to accept Colossians as Pauline, so the idea of an
                  authentic Laodiceans does not convince me, but obviously if a case can be
                  made for an embedded Laodiceans, that would change the equation. But these
                  Ephesians-internal matters are perhaps best discussed in another forum. So
                  thinking, I have copied this note to GPG and invite continuation of
                  discussion on this point there.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Synoptic In Response To: Mark Matson On: Critical Scholarship From: Bruce Mark recently protested (his word) two of my previous statements. It seems there
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 27, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Synoptic
                    In Response To: Mark Matson
                    On: Critical Scholarship
                    From: Bruce

                    Mark recently protested (his word) two of my previous statements. It seems
                    there may be something of importance at issue, and so I here repeat my
                    statements, with part of Mark's protest, and then respond.

                    1. I had said, in passing, "Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M
                    Barth) finds Ephesians to be pseudepigraphical." And Mark responded: "Well,
                    perhaps if by "critical opinion" you mean people who agree with you. BUT,
                    Markus Barth's volume in AB is a brilliant critical commentary. And many if
                    not most current commentators tend on the side of Pauline authorship. . . "

                    Barth's commentary is undoubtedly "brilliant," it would be churlish to
                    suggest otherwise, but one may still ask, Brilliant to what end? There is an
                    important distinction here, which I think should not be lost sight of as we
                    do our work and consider the work of others. As has been pointed out, and
                    not alone in NT studies, there are two ways of approaching an ancient text:
                    (a) to find out what it was doing in its own time, or (b) to explore its
                    value for our present time. Both have their uses, and their respective
                    publics, but they are aiming at different things, and their results should
                    not be mixed.

                    The usual label in NT for the former approach is "critical-historical." For
                    the other, there are several labels, but the one which M Barth's editor
                    applies to him is "evangelical" - meaning, I take it, an emphasis on the
                    importance of the message. Thus Jitsuo Morikawa's Foreword to Barth's 1959
                    Ephesians study, The Broken Wall, announces at the beginning "This is a
                    study book for evangelism," and concludes with a paragraph beginning
                    "Professor Barth is an evangelist at heart." The book itself was written at
                    the request of the American Baptist Convention "for specific use in its own
                    churches . . . Schools of evangelism, in a six weeks' study preparation for
                    active witness, will use this book as their basic text." That is, message is
                    the guiding concept, and immediate relevance is the watchword. The book
                    itself bears this out. It begins with what it calls the "strangeness" of
                    Ephesians, including the doubts raised about its authenticity, and certain
                    of its doctrinal features (predestination, ecclesiasticism), and then,
                    rather than proceed to deal directly with those problems, it makes a
                    paragraph break and says: (p26) "But enough of pointing out the bewildering
                    strangness of Ephesians! .. . Ephesians has indeed its beauty also . . ."
                    And the author proceeds to point out that beauty. His answer to the problems
                    of the test, then, is to talk about something else.

                    The same, though in greater detail and for a different audience, seems to me
                    to be on view in the 1974 AB commentary. Again there is an introduction
                    mentioning the doubts about authenticity, this time in more detail. But the
                    methods by which the doubts were raised are impugned; thus, the question of
                    directionality between Ephesians and the undoubtedly related 1 Peter is said
                    on p1/23 to be effectively insoluble ("If only criteria were available for
                    determining which one of two documents as similar and as subtly different as
                    Ephesians and I Peter came first!"). And the insolubility of this and all
                    other directionality problems is supported in n78 by a reference to Farmer's
                    challenge to Markan Priority, as casting all determinations of relative date
                    in doubt. This is not a use of critical methods, it is a denial that
                    critical methods work.

                    There are useful observations in Barth's commentary, among them the
                    similarity of themes between Ephesians, Hebrews, and John (of course not
                    new, as pointed out by Abbott in 1897, but heartily welcome nonetheless).
                    These are given several pages in Barth, and those pages conclude with this
                    judgement: "But too little is as yet known or proven. The dates of Hebrews
                    and John's Gospel are highly controversial. These writings may stand in a
                    very complicated and distant relationship to Ephesians, but except that they
                    offer interesting parallels of vocabulary, thought-form, and message, they
                    make no contribution to identifying the author of Ephesians. Their authors
                    may have known nothing of Ephesians may have known nothing of either of
                    them." (p27). And then again Barth turns away from the whole subject, with
                    this opening sentence: "It is time to turn to more commonly accepted
                    presuppositions, and their possible implications for dating Ephesians and
                    tracing its author."

                    It will seem to some of us that, however the relations between Ephesians, 1
                    Peter, Hebrews, and John may work out, or even whether there *are* any such
                    relations, the establishment of a common world of thought between
                    Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and John in fact goes far to establish the
                    authorship of Ephesians, in the sense that it tends to disestablish Paul as
                    a possible author. They imply a Zeitgeist in which Paul as we know him
                    elsewhere can have no part.

                    As I began by saying, there is a line in here somewhere, and those who would
                    draw that Zeitgeist conclusion would seem to be on the other side of that
                    line from Markus Barth.

                    As for the position of current commentators on Pauline authorship of
                    Ephesians, no doubt a majority could be found in favor. That does not affect
                    the difference between the two approaches to the texts.

                    Now here is the second point.

                    2. I had mentioned "James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works
                    dichotomy in Romans." Mark responded: "This posits two things, erroneously
                    in my opinion: a). that James was written with Paul in mind. My sense is
                    that James is mostly traditional (Jewish) ethical hortatory material, and
                    certainly is not a response; and b). that Paul actually writes with a
                    Lutheran faith/works problem. I think the current literature on Paul
                    (Sanders, Dunn, Wright, etc) would frankly call that into question."

                    Taking these in reverse order, Paul most assuredly does not write in a
                    Lutheran vein, and it needs no Ed Sanders or other giant of the field to
                    tell us so. For Paul to do anything of the kind would be grossly
                    anachronistic. It is however quite historically possible that Luther thinks
                    in a Pauline way. The centrality of sola fide in Luther's worldview, and his
                    detestation of the Epistle of James in particular (which, to put it mildly,
                    does not preach that doctrine) are presumably well known. To Luther, James
                    was insubstantial, a thing of straw, and presumably because it did *not*
                    preach the Gospel as he knew it. So far, so consistent.

                    The root question, however, is not a Lutheran but a historical one: whether
                    James (in the 1c) opposed the Gospel as Paul knew it (also in the 1c). It is
                    nothing to the point that James contains, or even mostly contains,
                    traditional ethical/hortatory material. The point is what James is doing in
                    the relevant passages. I proceed to assemble the relevant passages. Here,
                    first, is what I characterized as Paul/s "faith/works dichotomy in Romans:"

                    Rom 3:20-24. "For no human being will be justified in his [God's]
                    sight by works of the law since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But
                    not the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although
                    the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God
                    through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no
                    distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they
                    are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in
                    Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be
                    received by faith.

                    To which I would compare:

                    James 2:18. "But someone will say, You have faith and I have works.
                    Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my
                    faith."

                    Now here is Paul's own historical example of how faith is sufficient for
                    salvation:

                    Rom: 4:1-3. "What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather
                    according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has
                    something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture
                    say? Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

                    And here is James again:

                    James 2:20-24. "Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that
                    faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by
                    works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was
                    active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the
                    scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned
                    to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. You see that
                    man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

                    There are approximately two views to be taken of these passages in James.
                    (1) James is putting forth standard paraenetic material, and has nothing
                    particular in view other than general edification of the masses; or (2)
                    James is attacking a specific error known to him. To decide between the two,
                    we can invoke rhetorical science. Is the phrase "Do you want to be shown,
                    you foolish fellow," proper to general ethical exhortation? Or to the
                    diatribe form, an assault on an erroneous position held by a specific
                    person?

                    My suggestion would be the latter, and I also have a hunch about whose error
                    James had in mind.

                    Respectfully proffered,

                    Bruce

                    E Bruce Brooks
                    Warring States Project
                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                    One final response to a subject clearly outside of the list s focus (and I will be silent): 1. One of your main arguments re: Markus Barth is by using The
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 28, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      One final response to a subject clearly outside of the list's focus (and I will be silent):

                      1. One of your main arguments re: Markus Barth is by using The Broken Wall, not his AB commentary. They are clearly different books: one a more general audience, one a scholarly commentary. This is an argumentative fallacy; what one might say about one book by an author does not necessarily apply to another book by the same author.

                      2. You suggest that the fact that The Broken Wall was written for the American Baptist Church makes in inherently uncritical. In fact the implication is the American Baptist Church as a group is somehow wildly uncritical. First, the American Baptists are entirely different than Southern Baptist.; I would place the former closer to most mainline christian denominations. But that is even beside the point. Critical material has often been written within "conservative" groups. Indeed during the period The Broken Wall was written there was a very high quality critical journal prepared by Southern Baptists: the Review and Expositer. (granted, it has in recent years lost its critical focus; but that is not true for the period when Barth was writing). This is a fallacy of reading in focus from an audience, not the text.

                      3. You further imply that because Barth himself was "evangelical" (in the European sense, btw, which is far different than the use in the USA), he cannot be critical. This too is a fallacy.

                      4. But most importantly, you misrepresent Barth's two volumes which show high quality of historical critical analysis. You may disagree with his conclusion, but he considers all the major scholars, considers philological material, and has an extended discussion on the criterion of authenticity. A further read of the entire commentary would show that throughout Barth considers material historically, wide comparison and full recognition of the factors involved. But to simply write him off as "uncritical" because you disagree -- well that is a fallacy too.

                      5. On the issue of James and Paul: the issue turns entirely on the nature of key Pauline terms such as "justification" and "works of the law." On the latter, for instance, many (if not most) prominent Pauline scholars recognize that "works of the law" is not the same as "works." As Dunn points out, the former term is essentially the same as saying, "becoming a Jew by accepting the Torah." Thus the question is, can one be justified (transferred to salvation) only by accepting the role of the Torah (including circumcison, etc.). This issue is not what James is talking about.

                      mark

                      Mark A. Matson
                      Milligan College
                      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                      ________________________________________
                      E Bruce Brooks wrote:

                      Mark recently protested (his word) two of my previous statements. It seems
                      there may be something of importance at issue, and so I here repeat my
                      statements, with part of Mark's protest, and then respond.

                      1. I had said, in passing, "Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M
                      Barth) finds Ephesians to be pseudepigraphical." And Mark responded: "Well,
                      perhaps if by "critical opinion" you mean people who agree with you. BUT,
                      Markus Barth's volume in AB is a brilliant critical commentary. And many if
                      not most current commentators tend on the side of Pauline authorship. . . "

                      Barth's commentary is undoubtedly "brilliant," it would be churlish to
                      suggest otherwise, but one may still ask, Brilliant to what end? There is an
                      important distinction here, which I think should not be lost sight of as we
                      do our work and consider the work of others. As has been pointed out, and
                      not alone in NT studies, there are two ways of approaching an ancient text:
                      (a) to find out what it was doing in its own time, or (b) to explore its
                      value for our present time. Both have their uses, and their respective
                      publics, but they are aiming at different things, and their results should
                      not be mixed.

                      The usual label in NT for the former approach is "critical-historical." For
                      the other, there are several labels, but the one which M Barth's editor
                      applies to him is "evangelical" - meaning, I take it, an emphasis on the
                      importance of the message. Thus Jitsuo Morikawa's Foreword to Barth's 1959
                      Ephesians study, The Broken Wall, announces at the beginning "This is a
                      study book for evangelism," and concludes with a paragraph beginning
                      "Professor Barth is an evangelist at heart." The book itself was written at
                      the request of the American Baptist Convention "for specific use in its own
                      churches . . . Schools of evangelism, in a six weeks' study preparation for
                      active witness, will use this book as their basic text." That is, message is
                      the guiding concept, and immediate relevance is the watchword. The book
                      itself bears this out. It begins with what it calls the "strangeness" of
                      Ephesians, including the doubts raised about its authenticity, and certain
                      of its doctrinal features (predestination, ecclesiasticism), and then,
                      rather than proceed to deal directly with those problems, it makes a
                      paragraph break and says: (p26) "But enough of pointing out the bewildering
                      strangness of Ephesians! .. . Ephesians has indeed its beauty also . . ."
                      And the author proceeds to point out that beauty. His answer to the problems
                      of the test, then, is to talk about something else.

                      The same, though in greater detail and for a different audience, seems to me
                      to be on view in the 1974 AB commentary. Again there is an introduction
                      mentioning the doubts about authenticity, this time in more detail. But the
                      methods by which the doubts were raised are impugned; thus, the question of
                      directionality between Ephesians and the undoubtedly related 1 Peter is said
                      on p1/23 to be effectively insoluble ("If only criteria were available for
                      determining which one of two documents as similar and as subtly different as
                      Ephesians and I Peter came first!"). And the insolubility of this and all
                      other directionality problems is supported in n78 by a reference to Farmer's
                      challenge to Markan Priority, as casting all determinations of relative date
                      in doubt. This is not a use of critical methods, it is a denial that
                      critical methods work.

                      There are useful observations in Barth's commentary, among them the
                      similarity of themes between Ephesians, Hebrews, and John (of course not
                      new, as pointed out by Abbott in 1897, but heartily welcome nonetheless).
                      These are given several pages in Barth, and those pages conclude with this
                      judgement: "But too little is as yet known or proven. The dates of Hebrews
                      and John's Gospel are highly controversial. These writings may stand in a
                      very complicated and distant relationship to Ephesians, but except that they
                      offer interesting parallels of vocabulary, thought-form, and message, they
                      make no contribution to identifying the author of Ephesians. Their authors
                      may have known nothing of Ephesians may have known nothing of either of
                      them." (p27). And then again Barth turns away from the whole subject, with
                      this opening sentence: "It is time to turn to more commonly accepted
                      presuppositions, and their possible implications for dating Ephesians and
                      tracing its author."

                      It will seem to some of us that, however the relations between Ephesians, 1
                      Peter, Hebrews, and John may work out, or even whether there *are* any such
                      relations, the establishment of a common world of thought between
                      Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and John in fact goes far to establish the
                      authorship of Ephesians, in the sense that it tends to disestablish Paul as
                      a possible author. They imply a Zeitgeist in which Paul as we know him
                      elsewhere can have no part.

                      As I began by saying, there is a line in here somewhere, and those who would
                      draw that Zeitgeist conclusion would seem to be on the other side of that
                      line from Markus Barth.

                      As for the position of current commentators on Pauline authorship of
                      Ephesians, no doubt a majority could be found in favor. That does not affect
                      the difference between the two approaches to the texts.

                      Now here is the second point.

                      2. I had mentioned "James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works
                      dichotomy in Romans." Mark responded: "This posits two things, erroneously
                      in my opinion: a). that James was written with Paul in mind. My sense is
                      that James is mostly traditional (Jewish) ethical hortatory material, and
                      certainly is not a response; and b). that Paul actually writes with a
                      Lutheran faith/works problem. I think the current literature on Paul
                      (Sanders, Dunn, Wright, etc) would frankly call that into question."

                      Taking these in reverse order, Paul most assuredly does not write in a
                      Lutheran vein, and it needs no Ed Sanders or other giant of the field to
                      tell us so. For Paul to do anything of the kind would be grossly
                      anachronistic. It is however quite historically possible that Luther thinks
                      in a Pauline way. The centrality of sola fide in Luther's worldview, and his
                      detestation of the Epistle of James in particular (which, to put it mildly,
                      does not preach that doctrine) are presumably well known. To Luther, James
                      was insubstantial, a thing of straw, and presumably because it did *not*
                      preach the Gospel as he knew it. So far, so consistent.

                      The root question, however, is not a Lutheran but a historical one: whether
                      James (in the 1c) opposed the Gospel as Paul knew it (also in the 1c). It is
                      nothing to the point that James contains, or even mostly contains,
                      traditional ethical/hortatory material. The point is what James is doing in
                      the relevant passages. I proceed to assemble the relevant passages. Here,
                      first, is what I characterized as Paul/s "faith/works dichotomy in Romans:"

                      Rom 3:20-24. "For no human being will be justified in his [God's]
                      sight by works of the law since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But
                      not the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although
                      the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God
                      through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no
                      distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they
                      are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in
                      Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be
                      received by faith.

                      To which I would compare:

                      James 2:18. "But someone will say, You have faith and I have works.
                      Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my
                      faith."

                      Now here is Paul's own historical example of how faith is sufficient for
                      salvation:

                      Rom: 4:1-3. "What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather
                      according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has
                      something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture
                      say? Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

                      And here is James again:

                      James 2:20-24. "Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that
                      faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by
                      works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was
                      active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the
                      scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned
                      to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. You see that
                      man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

                      There are approximately two views to be taken of these passages in James.
                      (1) James is putting forth standard paraenetic material, and has nothing
                      particular in view other than general edification of the masses; or (2)
                      James is attacking a specific error known to him. To decide between the two,
                      we can invoke rhetorical science. Is the phrase "Do you want to be shown,
                      you foolish fellow," proper to general ethical exhortation? Or to the
                      diatribe form, an assault on an erroneous position held by a specific
                      person?

                      My suggestion would be the latter, and I also have a hunch about whose error
                      James had in mind.
                    • Bob Schacht
                      What Mark said. Bob Schacht Northern Arizona University ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 28, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What Mark said.

                        Bob Schacht
                        Northern Arizona University

                        At 04:58 PM 5/28/2012, Matson, Mark (Academic) wrote:
                        >One final response to a subject clearly outside of the list's focus
                        >(and I will be silent):
                        >
                        >1. One of your main arguments re: Markus Barth is by using The
                        >Broken Wall, not his AB commentary. They are clearly different
                        >books: one a more general audience, one a scholarly
                        >commentary. This is an argumentative fallacy; what one might say
                        >about one book by an author does not necessarily apply to another
                        >book by the same author.
                        >
                        >2. You suggest that the fact that The Broken Wall was written for
                        >the American Baptist Church makes in inherently uncritical. In fact
                        >the implication is the American Baptist Church as a group is somehow
                        >wildly uncritical. First, the American Baptists are entirely
                        >different than Southern Baptist.; I would place the former closer to
                        >most mainline christian denominations. But that is even beside the
                        >point. Critical material has often been written within
                        >"conservative" groups. Indeed during the period The Broken Wall was
                        >written there was a very high quality critical journal prepared by
                        >Southern Baptists: the Review and Expositer. (granted, it has in
                        >recent years lost its critical focus; but that is not true for the
                        >period when Barth was writing). This is a fallacy of reading in
                        >focus from an audience, not the text.
                        >
                        >3. You further imply that because Barth himself was "evangelical"
                        >(in the European sense, btw, which is far different than the use in
                        >the USA), he cannot be critical. This too is a fallacy.
                        >
                        >4. But most importantly, you misrepresent Barth's two volumes which
                        >show high quality of historical critical analysis. You may disagree
                        >with his conclusion, but he considers all the major scholars,
                        >considers philological material, and has an extended discussion on
                        >the criterion of authenticity. A further read of the entire
                        >commentary would show that throughout Barth considers material
                        >historically, wide comparison and full recognition of the factors
                        >involved. But to simply write him off as "uncritical" because you
                        >disagree -- well that is a fallacy too.
                        >
                        >5. On the issue of James and Paul: the issue turns entirely on the
                        >nature of key Pauline terms such as "justification" and "works of
                        >the law." On the latter, for instance, many (if not most)
                        >prominent Pauline scholars recognize that "works of the law" is not
                        >the same as "works." As Dunn points out, the former term is
                        >essentially the same as saying, "becoming a Jew by accepting the
                        >Torah." Thus the question is, can one be justified (transferred to
                        >salvation) only by accepting the role of the Torah (including
                        >circumcison, etc.). This issue is not what James is talking about.
                        >
                        >mark
                        >
                        >Mark A. Matson
                        >Milligan College
                        >http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                        >________________________________________
                        >E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                        >
                        >Mark recently protested (his word) two of my previous statements. It seems
                        >there may be something of importance at issue, and so I here repeat my
                        >statements, with part of Mark's protest, and then respond.
                        >
                        >1. I had said, in passing, "Critical opinion (by which I do not mean M
                        >Barth) finds Ephesians to be pseudepigraphical." And Mark responded: "Well,
                        >perhaps if by "critical opinion" you mean people who agree with you. BUT,
                        >Markus Barth's volume in AB is a brilliant critical commentary. And many if
                        >not most current commentators tend on the side of Pauline authorship. . . "
                        >
                        >Barth's commentary is undoubtedly "brilliant," it would be churlish to
                        >suggest otherwise, but one may still ask, Brilliant to what end? There is an
                        >important distinction here, which I think should not be lost sight of as we
                        >do our work and consider the work of others. As has been pointed out, and
                        >not alone in NT studies, there are two ways of approaching an ancient text:
                        >(a) to find out what it was doing in its own time, or (b) to explore its
                        >value for our present time. Both have their uses, and their respective
                        >publics, but they are aiming at different things, and their results should
                        >not be mixed.
                        >
                        >The usual label in NT for the former approach is "critical-historical." For
                        >the other, there are several labels, but the one which M Barth's editor
                        >applies to him is "evangelical" - meaning, I take it, an emphasis on the
                        >importance of the message. Thus Jitsuo Morikawa's Foreword to Barth's 1959
                        >Ephesians study, The Broken Wall, announces at the beginning "This is a
                        >study book for evangelism," and concludes with a paragraph beginning
                        >"Professor Barth is an evangelist at heart." The book itself was written at
                        >the request of the American Baptist Convention "for specific use in its own
                        >churches . . . Schools of evangelism, in a six weeks' study preparation for
                        >active witness, will use this book as their basic text." That is, message is
                        >the guiding concept, and immediate relevance is the watchword. The book
                        >itself bears this out. It begins with what it calls the "strangeness" of
                        >Ephesians, including the doubts raised about its authenticity, and certain
                        >of its doctrinal features (predestination, ecclesiasticism), and then,
                        >rather than proceed to deal directly with those problems, it makes a
                        >paragraph break and says: (p26) "But enough of pointing out the bewildering
                        >strangness of Ephesians! .. . Ephesians has indeed its beauty also . . ."
                        >And the author proceeds to point out that beauty. His answer to the problems
                        >of the test, then, is to talk about something else.
                        >
                        >The same, though in greater detail and for a different audience, seems to me
                        >to be on view in the 1974 AB commentary. Again there is an introduction
                        >mentioning the doubts about authenticity, this time in more detail. But the
                        >methods by which the doubts were raised are impugned; thus, the question of
                        >directionality between Ephesians and the undoubtedly related 1 Peter is said
                        >on p1/23 to be effectively insoluble ("If only criteria were available for
                        >determining which one of two documents as similar and as subtly different as
                        >Ephesians and I Peter came first!"). And the insolubility of this and all
                        >other directionality problems is supported in n78 by a reference to Farmer's
                        >challenge to Markan Priority, as casting all determinations of relative date
                        >in doubt. This is not a use of critical methods, it is a denial that
                        >critical methods work.
                        >
                        >There are useful observations in Barth's commentary, among them the
                        >similarity of themes between Ephesians, Hebrews, and John (of course not
                        >new, as pointed out by Abbott in 1897, but heartily welcome nonetheless).
                        >These are given several pages in Barth, and those pages conclude with this
                        >judgement: "But too little is as yet known or proven. The dates of Hebrews
                        >and John's Gospel are highly controversial. These writings may stand in a
                        >very complicated and distant relationship to Ephesians, but except that they
                        >offer interesting parallels of vocabulary, thought-form, and message, they
                        >make no contribution to identifying the author of Ephesians. Their authors
                        >may have known nothing of Ephesians may have known nothing of either of
                        >them." (p27). And then again Barth turns away from the whole subject, with
                        >this opening sentence: "It is time to turn to more commonly accepted
                        >presuppositions, and their possible implications for dating Ephesians and
                        >tracing its author."
                        >
                        >It will seem to some of us that, however the relations between Ephesians, 1
                        >Peter, Hebrews, and John may work out, or even whether there *are* any such
                        >relations, the establishment of a common world of thought between
                        >Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and John in fact goes far to establish the
                        >authorship of Ephesians, in the sense that it tends to disestablish Paul as
                        >a possible author. They imply a Zeitgeist in which Paul as we know him
                        >elsewhere can have no part.
                        >
                        >As I began by saying, there is a line in here somewhere, and those who would
                        >draw that Zeitgeist conclusion would seem to be on the other side of that
                        >line from Markus Barth.
                        >
                        >As for the position of current commentators on Pauline authorship of
                        >Ephesians, no doubt a majority could be found in favor. That does not affect
                        >the difference between the two approaches to the texts.
                        >
                        >Now here is the second point.
                        >
                        >2. I had mentioned "James, which directly opposes Paul's faith/works
                        >dichotomy in Romans." Mark responded: "This posits two things, erroneously
                        >in my opinion: a). that James was written with Paul in mind. My sense is
                        >that James is mostly traditional (Jewish) ethical hortatory material, and
                        >certainly is not a response; and b). that Paul actually writes with a
                        >Lutheran faith/works problem. I think the current literature on Paul
                        >(Sanders, Dunn, Wright, etc) would frankly call that into question."
                        >
                        >Taking these in reverse order, Paul most assuredly does not write in a
                        >Lutheran vein, and it needs no Ed Sanders or other giant of the field to
                        >tell us so. For Paul to do anything of the kind would be grossly
                        >anachronistic. It is however quite historically possible that Luther thinks
                        >in a Pauline way. The centrality of sola fide in Luther's worldview, and his
                        >detestation of the Epistle of James in particular (which, to put it mildly,
                        >does not preach that doctrine) are presumably well known. To Luther, James
                        >was insubstantial, a thing of straw, and presumably because it did *not*
                        >preach the Gospel as he knew it. So far, so consistent.
                        >
                        >The root question, however, is not a Lutheran but a historical one: whether
                        >James (in the 1c) opposed the Gospel as Paul knew it (also in the 1c). It is
                        >nothing to the point that James contains, or even mostly contains,
                        >traditional ethical/hortatory material. The point is what James is doing in
                        >the relevant passages. I proceed to assemble the relevant passages. Here,
                        >first, is what I characterized as Paul/s "faith/works dichotomy in Romans:"
                        >
                        > Rom 3:20-24. "For no human being will be justified in his [God's]
                        >sight by works of the law since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But
                        >not the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although
                        >the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God
                        >through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no
                        >distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they
                        >are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in
                        >Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be
                        >received by faith.
                        >
                        >To which I would compare:
                        >
                        > James 2:18. "But someone will say, You have faith and I have works.
                        >Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my
                        >faith."
                        >
                        >Now here is Paul's own historical example of how faith is sufficient for
                        >salvation:
                        >
                        > Rom: 4:1-3. "What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather
                        >according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has
                        >something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture
                        >say? Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
                        >
                        >And here is James again:
                        >
                        > James 2:20-24. "Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that
                        >faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by
                        >works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was
                        >active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the
                        >scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned
                        >to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. You see that
                        >man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
                        >
                        >There are approximately two views to be taken of these passages in James.
                        >(1) James is putting forth standard paraenetic material, and has nothing
                        >particular in view other than general edification of the masses; or (2)
                        >James is attacking a specific error known to him. To decide between the two,
                        >we can invoke rhetorical science. Is the phrase "Do you want to be shown,
                        >you foolish fellow," proper to general ethical exhortation? Or to the
                        >diatribe form, an assault on an erroneous position held by a specific
                        >person?
                        >
                        >My suggestion would be the latter, and I also have a hunch about whose error
                        >James had in mind.
                        >
                        >------------------------------------
                        >
                        >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • E Bruce Brooks
                        To: Synoptic Completing: Discussion on Barth From: Bruce Mark Matson persists in misrepresenting my position on Barth. To say it directly this time (this last
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 28, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To: Synoptic
                          Completing: Discussion on Barth
                          From: Bruce

                          Mark Matson persists in misrepresenting my position on Barth. To say it
                          directly this time (this last time), I do not merely like people who agree
                          with me, and I do not rest my view of Barth on his Baptist sponsorship, and
                          so on and on. I do have an argument, and I here repeat its key points, drawn
                          solely from his commentary:

                          1. Barth in his commentary repeats what are recognizably critical objections
                          to the authenticity of Ephesians, and by reference to such confusions as the
                          Farmer position on Markan priority, denies in effect that these analyses
                          have an outcome.

                          2. In the same commentary, Barth repeats the oft-made observation that
                          Ephesians has similarities to Hebrews, 1 Peter, and John. He denies that any
                          conclusion can be reached about the date of 1 Peter, or about the
                          directionality of the 1 Peter / Ephesians contacts. He denies that any of
                          these texts (Ephesians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, John) can be proved to have been
                          aware of each other. Again, he denies in effect that these observations
                          permit any usable conclusions about the authenticity of Ephesians.

                          I sum these up as not a use of critical methods, but as a denial that
                          critical methods work. This is not what we normally mean by "critical
                          scholarship." A thousand commendatory adjectives doubtless apply to Barth's
                          work, but to make "critical" the thousand and first is to misuse the word
                          "critical."

                          3. I think it is obvious that the latter objection in particular is without
                          merit. Suppose that none of Ephesians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and John in fact
                          knew of any of the others. Then to what should we attribute these admitted
                          similarities? All that is left is a general context of thought, and that
                          context cannot be the generation in which Paul himself lived. That is, the
                          residue of Barth's objections is still enough to prove inauthenticity. A
                          critical scholar, in the usual sense of the term "critical," would probably
                          have noticed this implication.

                          4. As to James and Paul, of course much work has gone into the idea that
                          James is misrepresenting Paul, or even that Paul in Romans is
                          misrepresenting himself. That is beside the point. To make the point, I
                          repeat my previous challenge. Given that the passages I cite from James are
                          not Jewish paraenesis, but Christian argumentation (diatribe), and waiving
                          the question of what "James" this may be, against whom (against what, and I
                          quote, "foolish fellow"), is the said "James" arguing?

                          Bruce
                        • David Mealand
                          Please - it is not Laodicenas , even if constant repetition on this list looks like becoming ineradicable ... David Mealand, University of Edinburgh --
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 29, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Please - it is not "Laodicenas",
                            even if constant repetition on this
                            list looks like becoming ineradicable



                            ---------
                            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                            --
                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.