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

Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.
        • 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.