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

RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.