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

RE: [GTh] Authorship and Dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Jan 20, 2013
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 22 , Jan 21, 2013
      View Source
      • 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.