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

Authorship and Dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.