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

Re: [GTh] L65 - Meier's Gnostic Speculation

Expand Messages
  • Tom Reynolds
    Mike-   I think my point is that the sayings as reported in the Synoptics are not Gnostic and it is easy to read the redactions in Thomas without adding any
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 12, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike-
      I think my point is that the sayings as reported in the Synoptics are not Gnostic and it is easy to read the redactions in Thomas without adding any Gnostic intent. I do not see the redacted text as unusual. I see it as the vinyard-owner making a second attempt without assigning malice to the vinyard-renters.
      There is much in this parable that doesn't make sense including the vinyard-renters killing the slaves, then the heir, and expecting to gain from these actions. The entire parable seems contrived, not just the GT redaction. My understanding is that a parable is designed to make a point, not reflect reality. Parables are contrived to make their point. In the Synoptics the message is clear to the hearers and adding the lines from GT to the Synoptic text would not change the theme or cloud the hearers understanding�at all. Further, I don't see the theme in Thomas as knowing/not knowing. The theme appears identical to the Synoptics theme.
      I see this as Meier, having decided that Gt is Gnostic, is trying to find hidden Gnostic meaning in the text. This, to me, is the theory driving the facts.� I find this tendency common and disturbing. (We have a 2nd century of a Commentary on Jn and a 21st century of Jn intrepreting Jn as Gnostic when many other scholars see Jn as a refutation of Gnosticism and most orthodox scholars not seeing Gnosticism as significent in intrepreting Jn.)
      If I am to accept that this is a later redaction of the Synoptic story or, alternatively, a redaction of an earlier Thomas, then I need to assign the last redactor of GT as someone other than Thomas. However, as the GT text says Thomas is the author, I am unwilling to do this based on the flimsy evidence Meier presents here.
      Tom Reynolds
    • Mike Grondin
      ... Well, I think there are two errors of reasoning here. The first is to place too great a reliance on the authorship claim within the text, and the other is
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        
        [Tom Reynolds]:
        > If I am to accept that this is a later redaction of the Synoptic
        story or,
        > alternatively, a redaction of an earlier Thomas, then I
        need to assign
        > the last redactor of GT as someone other than Thomas.
        However, as
        > the GT text says Thomas is the author, I am unwilling to do
        this based
        > on the flimsy evidence Meier presents here.
         
        Well, I think there are two errors of reasoning here. The first is to place too great
        a reliance on the authorship claim within the text, and the other is to infer that if
        the text had been redacted by anyone other than the original author, it would have
        said so. As to the first, note that there are NT texts which claim to have been
        written by someone, when in fact they probably weren't. This is basic stuff, but
        the following is from Harper's Bible Dictionary, the article on Paul:
         
        > Thirteen Letters in the NT are ascribed to Paul, but modern scholarship
        > believes some of these were written by later followers of the apostle
        > (especially Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus).
         
        Now I myself very much doubt whether the apostle Thomas wrote the original
        GThom, but let's suppose he did. It doesn't follow that it couldn't have been
        redacted later by someone else, especially when it was translated into another
        language. And the redactor(s) certainly wouldn't have said so - they never did.
        So that is the second error that I see in the reasoning quoted at top. That wasn't
        the whole of your note, of course, nor, I hope, what you considered an essential
        part. Which is not to say that I agree with Meier's hypothetical Gnostic inter-
        pretation, but there are valid ways of objecting to it, and others not so good.
         
        Cheers,
        Mike G.
      • Tom Reynolds
        Mike-   My reliance on an internal authorship of a 1st century work is more based on my analysis of the evidence behind other scholarly refutations of
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike-
          My reliance on an internal authorship of a 1st century work is more based on my analysis of the evidence behind other scholarly refutations of internal authorship claims such as the one you referenced.
          Some scholars believe that Ephesians and the Pastoral letters were not written by Paul because the office of Bishop is mentioned. These scholars believe that this office did not develop in Christianity until after Pauls death. However, upon investigation, one finds that their "evidence" is that none of the other letters of Paul are addressed to a Bishop. Notice here an argument from silence overriding the obvious evidence that the office of Bishop DID develop during Paul's life precisely because of the evidence contained in these letters.
          Another example that may be more relevant to GT is the dating of the book of JN. In the mid-20th century Jn was dated about AD 120 because it was a refutation of Gnosticism which did not develop until that time. /span>
          A third is the J, D, E and P theory about the construction of Genesis. Some modern scholars argue quite convincingly that there is an internal consistancy in Genesis and a parallel relationship between sections of Genesis that are attributed to different authorship groups that negate this theory.
          Obviously reasonable��men disagree on the weighting of various pieces of evidence. My experience is that this "basic stuff" which one finds in a Bible Dictonary (or even a Bible Commentary) is, unfortunately,�not something to take at face value. When we move to the 2nd century yes, we have false internal claims of authorship. However, the evidence is�thin�that this existed in the 1st century.
          Why do I think the dating of GT is so importent? If GT is a 1st century Palestinian Jew's work, then the overall intent and original intrepretation of the first hearers of the text is likely to be very different than if it is an early 2nd century work to a Greek audiance.
          Regards,
          Tom Reynolds
          PS: I am in Indonesia scuba diving until February you get the last word on this subject.

          [ed note: I've changed the title of this note, as it's going off in a different direction from the original thread. - MWG]
        • Mike Grondin
          Since Tom Reynolds isn t immediately available, I won t engage him directly at this time, but I don t think that his assertions should be left uncountered. I
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            
            Since Tom Reynolds isn't immediately available, I won't engage him directly at
            this time, but I don't think that his assertions should be left uncountered. I don't
            recall that we ever discussed this before, but it doesn't seem off-topic to discuss
            whether there are questions about the authorship of some NT texts analogous
            to questions about the authorship of GThom. After all, some readers may believe
            (along with Tom) that the titular authorship of 1st century NT texts is unquestioned,
            so that if one does question the authorship of GThom, one is virtually denying that
            it's a 1st century text. But Tom's assertion that "the evidence is thin that [false internal
            claims of authorship] existed in the 1st century" is simply not true, IMO - or at least
            the evidence is no thinner than that for a lot of conclusions on which NTscholars
            agree. I'm not expert in this area, so the best I can do is to quote material from
            reputable sources - in this case, the New Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV Edition)
            - that indicate what evidence has led NT scholars to question the authorship of
            half a dozen NT letters (all of which say in their titles that they're from so-and-so):
             
            1. The Pastorals:
            > The two letters to Timothy and the one to Titus, commonly called the
            > Pastorals, are similar in character and in the problems they raise concerning
            > authorship. It is difficult to ascribe them in their present form to the apostle
            > Paul. The vocabulary and style of the letters differ widely from the acknow-
            > ledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological ideas are entirely absent
            > ... and some expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary
            > usage ...
             
            [note that there is no mention of the word 'bishop', which Tom represents as
            being the sole basis for questioning Pauline authorship of these letters]
             
            > A few scholars, attempting to maintain Pauline authorship, account for the
            > differences by assuming changes in his environment as well as modifications
            > in his vocabulary, style, and thought. But in view of the widespread custom
            > of pseudonymous authorship in antiquity it is easier to assume that a loyal
            > disciple of Paul used several previously unpublished messages of the apostle
            > and expanded them to deal with conditions confronting the church a generation
            > after Paul's death. [emphasis mine; both quotes from p.1440, intro to 1 Tim]
             
            Assuming a generation = 20 years, "a generation after Paul's death" would be
            about mid-80's, comfortably 1st century. Since the author of the above refers
            to his intro to 2 Peter on pseudonymous authorship, we'll go there next:
             
            2. 2 Peter
            > The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned
            > in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. ... Most
            > scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply
            > indebted to Peter and who published it under his master's name early in the
            > second century. ... In antiquity pseudonymous authorship was a widely
            > accepted literary convention. Therefore the use of an apostle's name in
            > reasserting his teaching was not regarded as dishonest but merely a way of
            > reminding the church of what it had received from ... that apostle.
             
            comment: Although 2 Peter is dated here to early 2nd century, there's no
            indication that the comment about pseudonymous authorship relates to that
            date. To confirm that, we turn to the same author's comments on James:
             
            3. Letter of James
            > Of authorship and date not much is known. The tradition that it was
            > written by James the brother of the Lord has little support from ancient
            > times. The indications of the letter itself - its excellent Greek with vivid
            > metaphor and facile use of idiom, its apparent knowledge of 1 Peter ...
            > and of certain letters of Paul - suggest a Hellenistic Christian as its
            > author and a date toward the end of the first century. [emphasis mine]
             
            Here again (as in item #2), I've stressed that it's not just modern-day
            scholars who doubt the authorship of these NT items. Nor is there any
            sharp dividing line between 1st and 2nd centuries with respect to authorial
            conventions. So if one argues, e.g., that the third-person references to
            Thomas in L13 indicate that he didn't write it, one is not necessarily
            implying anything about the date of the original work or its redaction(s).
             
            Cheers,
            Mike Grondin
          • Tom Reynolds
            To: Mike and all From: Tom in Bali. It is certainly true that the authorship of NT works are questioned and are potential forgeries. I simply assert that the
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 19, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Mike and all
              From: Tom in Bali.
              It is certainly true that the authorship of NT works are questioned and are potential forgeries. I simply assert that the evidence is thin. Observe the evidence presented by Mike and see the assumptions contained within.
              The analysis assumes that a verbal author does not change his ideas or the words he uses over time. I suggest that this is simply untrue. You, I, everyone does this. If you have ever written a book, go back and reread it. You’ll see what I mean. If not read Plato and see how his ideas evolve. Or read Karl Bart.
              In addition the letters were written by probably different scribes who had different linguistic styles and abilities. If one is old enough to have watched a secretary trained to�take dictation you know that the substance of the verbal author is captured, not the exact words. After the secretary typed the letter the verbal author proof read it. Typically, if the intent was captured he signed it. it was too a lot of work to retype a letter. Does anyone really think a scribe using 1st century writing instruments is more accurate that these mid-20th century scribes were?
              In addition, scholars take the letters of Paul far too seriously in comparison to the author himself. Paul was writing letters, not Scripture. These letters were dictated and read orally, not poured over and over-analyzed by scholars looking for some fresh scholarly insight from them to impress their colleagues.
              And the evidence of “But in view of the widespread custom of pseudonymous authorship in antiquity” is where? Why their own flawed analysis of course.
              My advice is to not accept the analysis of those using their chosen specialty to analyze NT or any works. They are like a hammer seeing everything like a nail. My advice is to do one’s own analysis trying to ascertain the author’s purpose and the original hearers of the text in order to date it.
              The pastorals
              The internal evidence in the Pastorals indicates that Timothy and Titus have the office known as Bishop or Pastor. They appoint elders and are advised to not lay hands of ordination on quickly.
              James
              The internal argument of James is anti-Pauline and typical of that period. It is often seen as a very early letter, not late.
              2 Peter
              I have not analyzed this letter in detail so I won’t comment on it.
              Tom Reynolds
              PS: Leaving Bali for Southeast Salawesi tomorrow
            • Mike Grondin
              I ve just perused the NIV Study Bible, and zowie, is their take different! Though acknowledging authorship questions, in each and every case (even those
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 19, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                
                I've just perused the NIV Study Bible, and zowie, is their take different!
                Though acknowledging authorship questions, in each and every case
                (even those doubted in early Christian writings) they plunk for authenticity.
                But when I look at the NIV pedigree, I think I know why. After all,
                one of the two originating sponsors of the NIV translation was the National
                Association of Evangelicals, and, although (as stated in the intro) " ... the NIV
                Study Bible is the work of a transdenominational team of Biblical scholars,"
                this is immediately followed by "All confess the authority of the Bible as God's
                infallible word to humanity." (emphasis mine). There are no doubt different ways
                to understand this statement, but if it's taken to mean 'infallible in every detail',
                then it seems that no NT letter that says it was written by X can fail to have been
                written by X.
                 
                Mike G.
              • Mark M. Mattison
                Mike, that s one reason I tend not to use the NIV Study Bible! :-) -Mark Mattison
                Message 7 of 22 , Jan 19, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike, that's one reason I tend not to use the "NIV Study Bible!" :-)

                  -Mark Mattison

                  On 1/19/13, Mike Grondin wrote:
                  > I've just perused the NIV Study Bible, and zowie, is their take
                  > different! Though acknowledging authorship questions, in each and
                  > every case (even those doubted in early Christian writings) they
                  > plunk for authenticity. But when I look at the NIV pedigree, I think
                  > I know why. After all, one of the two originating sponsors of the
                  > NIV translation was the National Association of Evangelicals, and,
                  > although (as stated in the intro) " ... the NIV Study Bible is the
                  > work of a transdenominational team of Biblical scholars," this is
                  > immediately followed by "All confess the authority of the Bible as
                  > God's infallible word to humanity." (emphasis mine). There are no
                  > doubt different ways to understand this statement, but if it's
                  > taken to mean 'infallible in every detail', then it seems that
                  > no NT letter that says it was written by X can fail to have been
                  > written by X.
                  >
                  > Mike G.
                • Tom Reynolds
                  To: Mike and all From: Tom from Bali   A great deal of NT scholarship is based on the scholar s particular brand of faith.  Literally, absolutely true and
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jan 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To: Mike and all
                    From: Tom from Bali
                    A great deal of NT scholarship is based on the scholar's particular brand of faith.� "Literally, absolutely true and inerrant" is only one way to view the NT. There are others like Ehrdman who are agnostic and lean the other way, almost seeing the entire history as a fairy tale. Then those who are in between. One must understand the faith of the scholars to intrepret their conclusions. Understanding the value and limitations of hermeneutics and lingusitic study is critical to developing a personal perspective on what is true.
                    I personally do not view the NT as inerrant and many would call me a heretic.
                    In general, however, scholarship has shifted to an earlier dating of NT works based on solid evidence. Today the consensus is that the Pastorals are likely Pauline, Hebrews is NOT and James is old. 2 Peter is at least suspicious. It only seems reasonable to treat GT in the same way.
                    Mark, Mike- [this is a 2nd note combined with above by editor]
                    The NIV is a dynamic equivilent which lends itself to significent intrepretation by the translators/authors. However, when it comes to authorship/date there is massive disagreement about certain texts. The process that I learned (and sent the coursepack to Mike) argued that one should simply read the text repeatedly and get an overview of the authors purpose, then evaluate each paragraph in light of your overview adjusting your overview as necessary to develop an understanding of the authors purpose. It is a long process called text mapping and one should not use a dynamic equivilent for this execise.
                    Even having done this exercise, reasonable minds still differ but at least your view is your own, not somebody elses.

                    [Tom Reynolds]

                  • Judy Redman
                    Mike says: I ve just perused the NIV Study Bible, and zowie, is their take different! Though acknowledging authorship questions, in each and every case (even
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment

                       

                      Mike says:

                      I've just perused the NIV Study Bible, and zowie, is their take different!

                      Though acknowledging authorship questions, in each and every case

                      (even those doubted in early Christian writings) they plunk for authenticity.

                       

                      FWIW, Raymond Brown did a survey of the literature and suggests that:

                      critical scholars have reached a near consensus that Paul wrote: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. 

                      About 90% agree that he did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus

                      about 80% that he did not write Ephesians

                      about 60% that he did not write Colossians is

                      Slightly more than 50% that he did not write 2 Thessalonians

                      And I realise that  I need to go hunting for the source of this because it has become separated from the information that I use on a PowerPoint slide when I am teaching. J Obviously it was done a few years ago, so things may have changed.

                       

                      Judy

                       

                      --

                      Judy Redman
                      PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
                      University of New England
                      Armidale 2351 Australia
                      ph:  +61 2 6040 4571
                      mob: 0437 044 579
                      web:  http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                      email:  jredman2@...
                       

                       

                       

                    • Tom Reynolds
                      to: Judy Raymond Brown would not be my choice of an unbiased survey taker. However, more importent is the various scholars basis for their view. tom reynolds
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        to: Judy
                        Raymond Brown would not be my choice of an unbiased survey taker. However, more importent is the various scholars basis for their view.
                        tom reynolds
                        From: Judy Redman
                        To: "gthomas@yahoogroups.com"
                        Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:43 AM
                        Subject: RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating
                        FWIW, Raymond Brown did a survey of the literature and suggests that:
                        critical scholars have reached a near consensus that Paul wrote: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans.
                        About 90% agree that he did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus
                        about 80% that he did not write Ephesians
                        about 60% that he did not write Colossians is
                        Slightly more than 50% that he did not write 2 Thessalonians
                        And I realise that� I need to go hunting for the source of this because it has become separated from the information that I use on a PowerPoint slide when I am teaching. J Obviously it was done a few years ago, so things may have changed.
                      • Moon John
                        I am frequently surprised by the claims of authorship during the lifetimes of the writers, It seems to me that these people insisted on being the Living
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am frequently surprised by the claims of authorship during the lifetimes of the writers, It seems to me that these people insisted on being the Living witnesses Of the life and times of Jesus Christ,

                          Paul of course was an exception since he was not a actual witness,but wrote from his experience on the road to Damascus.

                          However,,,,I would say in that day and time , While the apostles yet lived.Including James who died in ad 62( or 69 (in another source).
                          What need did they have of written Manuscripts UNTIL the apostles themselves could no longer travel?

                          Was that not why, the Pauline letters were so treasured? Circular letters, Because they were the rare references
                          of the time.

                          So since all these apostles had followers,and the times suggest that the mode of writing of the times was to have others, educated write for you.( Scribes).
                          Why the surprise,That this or that letter was not actualy penned by the person 'dictating it.Is that really a disqualified for authenticity?

                          Why the surprise that The Gospel or letter is published after the death in better Greek that the education of the person attributed to actualy had.

                          Consider from all accounts James was a very busy man.Head of the church of Jerusalem . At prayer in the temple every day. Focused on The new Church , and the spiritual.
                          So , can you imagine a man like that sitting down,,,,,,and writing a letter, when he himself could actualy go here or there. from all accounts he was still very active when he was murdered.

                          IM simply making an observation, that in the end,Who wrote down the actual text due to the times and the way things were authored .( Either by scribes or by the schools of the founders of a particular group) .Should not be the way one determines authenticity.I know the great relevance some make on it actualy coming from the pen, of this author or that……..in the new testament….but is this realistic, for that day and time?

                          Regards
                          John Moon
                          Springfield, Tenn 37172
                        • Mark M. Mattison
                          Judy, that sounds about right to me. I personally would not agree with Tom s assessment that Today the consensus is that the Pastorals are likely Pauline.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Judy, that sounds about right to me. I personally would not agree with
                            Tom's assessment that "Today the consensus is that the Pastorals are
                            likely Pauline." That may be true among evangelicals, but my sense is
                            that the consensus among biblical scholars as a whole runs the other
                            direction. And as I understand it, more scholars are even beginning to
                            explore the possibility that Luke-Acts is second-century. Of course,
                            as a late first-century or early second-century text, Thomas isn't
                            that far removed from the texts of the NT in terms of chronology at
                            least, right?

                            -Mark

                            On 1/20/13, Judy Redman wrote:
                            >
                            > FWIW, Raymond Brown did a survey of the literature and suggests that:
                            > — critical scholars have reached a near consensus that Paul wrote: 1
                            > Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and
                            > Romans.
                            > — About 90% agree that he did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus
                            > — about 80% that he did not write Ephesians
                            > — about 60% that he did not write Colossians is
                            > — Slightly more than 50% that he did not write 2 Thessalonians
                            > And I realise that I need to go hunting for the source of this because it
                            > has become separated from the information that I use on a PowerPoint slide
                            > when I am teaching. ☺ Obviously it was done a few years ago, so things may
                            > have changed.
                          • rickhubbardus
                            [Tom Wrote:] And the evidence of `But in view of the widespread custom of pseudonymous authorship in antiquity is where? Why their own flawed analysis of
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              [Tom Wrote:]

                              "And the evidence of `But in view of the widespread custom of pseudonymous authorship in antiquity" is where? Why their own flawed analysis of course".

                              [Rick Replies]

                              Being more or less "bookless" for the time being, I can't drill down to the specific evidence in the primary sources that is used to argue that pseudonymous authorship was common in middle-late antiquity. I can however, just off the top of my head, point to an excellent study by Charles M. Stang (_Apophasis and Pseudonymity in Dionysius the Areopagite_ [Oxford Press, 2012]) in which the author examines how various scholars have identified the phenomenon of Pseudonymous writing in Jewish and Christian contexts. The evidence for pseudonymous writing is hardly "thin" as you assert. It might be helpful, Tom, for you consult Stang's work (at least as a point of departure toward the work of other scholars) before broadly condemning conclusions as you do here:

                              "My advice is to not accept the analysis of those using their chosen specialty to analyze NT or any works. They are like a hammer seeing everything like a nail. My advice is to do one's own analysis trying to ascertain the author's purpose and the original hearers of the text in order to date it. "

                              Rick Hubbard
                            • sarban
                              Hi Judy This may be relevant to current views of which Pauline letters were actually written by Paul
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                
                                 
                                Hi Judy
                                 
                                This may be relevant to current views of which Pauline letters were actually written by Paul
                                 
                                Andrew Criddle
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:43 AM
                                Subject: RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

                                 
                                <SNIP>

                                FWIW, Raymond Brown did a survey of the literature and suggests that:

                                critical scholars have reached a near consensus that Paul wrote: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. 

                                About 90% agree that he did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus

                                about 80% that he did not write Ephesians

                                about 60% that he did not write Colossians is

                                Slightly more than 50% that he did not write 2 Thessalonians

                                And I realise that  I need to go hunting for the source of this because it has become separated from the information that I use on a PowerPoint slide when I am teaching. J Obviously it was done a few years ago, so things may have changed.

                                Judy

                              • Judy Redman
                                Thanks, Andrew. Very useful. Now if someone will do a survey of US and European scholars for me… ☺ Judy From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  Thanks, Andrew.

                                   

                                  Very useful. Now if someone will do a survey of US and European scholars for me… J

                                   

                                  Judy

                                   

                                  From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sarban
                                  Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 3:27 AM
                                  To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

                                   

                                   

                                  

                                   

                                  Hi Judy

                                   

                                  This may be relevant to current views of which Pauline letters were actually written by Paul

                                   

                                  Andrew Criddle

                                   

                                  ----- Original Message -----

                                  Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:43 AM

                                  Subject: RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

                                   

                                   

                                  <SNIP>

                                  FWIW, Raymond Brown did a survey of the literature and suggests that:

                                  critical scholars have reached a near consensus that Paul wrote: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. 

                                  About 90% agree that he did not write 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus

                                  about 80% that he did not write Ephesians

                                  about 60% that he did not write Colossians is

                                  Slightly more than 50% that he did not write 2 Thessalonians

                                  And I realise that  I need to go hunting for the source of this because it has become separated from the information that I use on a PowerPoint slide when I am teaching. J Obviously it was done a few years ago, so things may have changed.

                                  Judy

                                • Mike Grondin
                                  Hi Rick, You re far more charitable than I would have been with Tom s absurd advice. To repeat it here (leaving out the severely inapt hammer simile): My
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    
                                    Hi Rick,
                                     
                                    You're far more charitable than I would have been with Tom's absurd
                                    advice. To repeat it here (leaving out the severely inapt hammer simile):
                                     
                                    "My advice is to not accept the analysis of those using their chosen specialty
                                    to analyze NT or any works ...  [but rather] to do one’s own analysis trying to
                                    ascertain the author’s purpose and the original hearers of the text in order to date it."
                                     
                                    The idea that anyone at all can properly date a text just by reading it in a
                                    certain way is, as I say, absurd. One needs a lot more knowledge than can
                                    possibly be gained in that way. Broad knowledge about the history of early
                                    Christianity, among other things. But this is the kind of knowledge that
                                    specialists have, and Tom advises not accepting their analyses. (Beware
                                    of gaining that kind of knowledge yourself, cuz then you can't accept your
                                    own analyses :-)
                                     
                                    Another weird aspect of this is that Tom says elsewhere that one shouldn't
                                    consult a "dynamic equivalence" translation. As I understand it, this is just
                                    about every translation there is, with the sole exception perhaps of a few
                                    word-for-word translations occurring in interlinears. So one has to either 
                                    find one of those, or read the text in the original language, I suppose. Gosh,
                                    isn't the latter what specialists do? But pay no attention to them, saith Tom
                                    (except when he thinks that their opinions agree with his own.)
                                     
                                    Mike Grondin
                                  • Judy Redman
                                    Tom says: to: Judy Raymond Brown would not be my choice of an unbiased survey taker. However, more importent is the various scholars basis for their view. tom
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Tom says:

                                      to: Judy

                                      Raymond Brown would not be my choice of an unbiased survey taker. However, more importent is the various scholars basis for their view.
                                      tom
                                      Reynolds

                                      [Judy:]

                                      And of course, people could have different reasons for their opinions. The link Andrew posted was to Stephen Carlson’s website where he reported on a survey that Paul Foster conducted at the British New Testament Conference in September 2011. Paul presented a paper on the authorship of 2 Thessalonians and then asked those who attended their opinion on the authorship of the various epistles attributed to Paul. He estimates that about 70% of those who attended responded. Obviously, these people do not provide their reasons and not everyone answered every question, but again the pastoral epistles do not score anywhere near consensus. The article is Paul Foster “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem,” JSNT 35 (2012): 150-175 – the table is on p 171 and I have reproduced it below for the benefit of those who don’t have easy access to JSNT.

                                       

                                      BNTC – Results of Pauline Authorship Survey

                                      Was Paul the author of the following epistles?

                                       

                                      Yes

                                      No

                                      Uncertain

                                      Total

                                      Romans

                                      109

                                      0

                                      0

                                      109

                                      1 Corinthians

                                      109

                                      0

                                      0

                                      109

                                      2 Corinthians

                                      109

                                      0

                                      0

                                      109

                                      Galatians

                                      109

                                      0

                                      0

                                      109

                                      Ephesians

                                      39

                                      42

                                      28

                                      109

                                      Philippians

                                      108

                                      1

                                      0

                                      109

                                      Colossians

                                      56

                                      17

                                      36

                                      109

                                      1 Thessalonians

                                      109

                                      0

                                      0

                                      109

                                      2 Thessalonians

                                      63

                                      13

                                      35

                                      111

                                      1 Timothy

                                      23

                                      59

                                      25

                                      107

                                      2 Timothy

                                      26

                                      58

                                      24

                                      108

                                      Titus

                                      25

                                      62

                                      21

                                      108

                                      Philemon

                                      108

                                      0

                                      1

                                      109

                                      Hebrews

                                      0

                                      100

                                      9

                                      109

                                       

                                    • Judy Redman
                                      Mark says: Judy, that sounds about right to me. I personally would not agree with Tom s assessment that Today the consensus is that the Pastorals are likely
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                         

                                        Mark says:

                                        Judy, that sounds about right to me. I personally would not agree with
                                        Tom's assessment that "Today the consensus is that the Pastorals are
                                        likely Pauline." That may be true among evangelicals, but my sense is
                                        that the consensus among biblical scholars as a whole runs the other
                                        direction.

                                        [Judy:] I must admit that this is not an area where I’ve done a lot of work, but I am happy to believe the people who have, and it seems to me that there is no consensus on the pastorals.

                                        And as I understand it, more scholars are even beginning to
                                        explore the possibility that Luke-Acts is second-century. Of course,
                                        as a late first-century or early second-century text, Thomas isn't
                                        that far removed from the texts of the NT in terms of chronology at
                                        least, right?
                                        [Judy:] It depends on when you date it, of course. Mark Goodacre in his new book says it’s definitely post 70 CE and probably post 135 CE. It also depends on whether you buy the rolling corpus theory and if so what you’re dating – the earliest part (DeConick’s Kernel) or the text as we have it. I am still thinking about this. J

                                        Judy


                                        -

                                      • Mike Grondin
                                        John Moon raises several questions relating to what is meant by authenticity, and by what we mean when we ask whether X wrote T. I ll take a crack at answering
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jan 21, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          John Moon raises several questions relating to what is meant by authenticity,
                                          and by what we mean when we ask whether X wrote T. I'll take a crack at
                                          answering those questions, hoping that, although I'm speaking of my own
                                          understanding, it also reflects those of others.
                                           
                                          The most easily answered question is whether the identity of the actual inscriber
                                          of an original is relevant. Briefly put, it isn't. If X dictated T to scribe S, then
                                          we should still say that X "wrote" T, meaning that X was the author of T.
                                          It gets a little stickier if T was written in a language (say, L) unknown (or
                                          poorly known) to X, with the result that S was translating X's words from
                                          another language into L. Even in that case, though, I think it would still be true
                                          to say that X was the author of T. (Hence, in both cases, that T was authentic.)
                                           
                                          What about the case where the original of a text T is explicitly attributed to X,
                                          but actually authored by a follower (or "the school") of X (presumably, after X's
                                          death). I think it's clear that in this case T wasn't "written" (meaning, as above, 
                                          'authored') by X, but I also think one might argue that it's "authentic" in some
                                          sense - depending on how closely the ideas in T resemble those of X. The
                                          problem, of course, is that there's often no way of judging that. If the ghost
                                          author can be determined to be someone very close to X, the presumption
                                          might be that T is a reflection of X's thinking. On the other hand, one might
                                          argue that the ghost author was illegitimately using X's name to lend credence
                                          to an of extension of X's thinking to a new situation that X never encountered.
                                          Questions about "authenticity" can thus be a can of worms in a case like this,
                                          unless we make clear what sense of 'authenticity' is involved. If it's taken to
                                          be equivalent to the question of authorship, the answer is clear, otherwise not.
                                           
                                          What about redaction? Since redactors never identified themselves, if we find
                                          that a text has been redacted, we can only question whether the original of T
                                          was authored by who T says it was (assuming that T specifies an author).
                                          Unfortunately for GThom, it isn't clear what the original looked like or when
                                          it was first written. If one dates it 1st century, it could have been authored by
                                          Thomas (with L13 presumably being redaction), while later dating quickly
                                          reduces the chance of that to zero, since the apostle would probably have
                                          been about 85 years old in 100 CE, if he was still alive.
                                           
                                          Mike Grondin
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.