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

RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013

       

      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 2 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
        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 3 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
          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 4 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
            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 5 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
              [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 6 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                
                 
                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 7 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013

                  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 8 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
                    
                    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 9 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013

                      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 10 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013

                         

                        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 11 of 22 , Jan 21, 2013
                          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.