Lets say that the hypothetical debate is the authorship of 2 Tim.
Now, let's say that I strongly accept the fundamental doctrine of scriptural infallacy/inerrancy. I would naturally then to lean towards any evidence that 2 Tim as authentic - since it supports my established belief. Everything I contemplate is interpreted in light of that belief.
But now, let's say I am of an opposing camp, then natutrally I would want to lean towards any evidence that 2 Tim is a forgery, because doing so supports my established belief. (and I neatly get rid of any reference to "God-breathed" in my bible). Everything I contemplate is also interpreted in light of my established belief.
Both approaches are "biased". We all have bias to one extent or another. Bias is not necessarily bad but it can be. The challenge is to identitfy it in ourselves and try to approach things with that in mind. Maybe we should ask oursleves, is my bias getting in the way of my understanding?
Just some thoughts.
And they're very good and valid approaches. I agree. We all are indeed each biased, and such can "get in the way" of one's "understanding". Any information picked up along the way is bound to contribute toward the shaping of one's opinions. And it can be all the more interesting when one changes from one postion to another. I accepted the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles for many years with very little question.
If however, one sought to explore and question the authorship or authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, how might one attempt it in an objective manner?
Well, there's the question of style and grammar. From a literary question, do the Pastoral epistles resemble those oft uncontested epistles attributed to Paul ( Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians)? What results from even a cursory examination and comparison of the Pastorals with the uncontested material? What similarities do they share in words and expressions - and what differences? Does one get the general impression or "feel" that it is the same author behind all this material?
We may - if only temporarily - suspend the question of theology in this part of the examination (though ultimately I wouldn't recommend it when we consider further possible reasons behind their writing). In fact, the earliest study to call into question the authorship of the Pastoral epistles did so primarily on the basis of Greek grammar and syntax (P.N. Harrison, "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles").
A more recent study is Kenneth J. Neumann's "The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis" (SBL Dissertation Series 120, 1990 SBL). Admittedly, such studies tend to make for ponderous reading (lol), but they can be helpful in consulting when weighing the results of ones observations.
If one reaches a position of questioning the claim of Pauline authorhip on the basis of style, what other questions will we allow ourselves? Do the doctrinal expressions and ideas really ring with those we find in earlier material attributed to Paul? What possible reasons would one under the pseudonym of "Paul" have had for penning such material to begin with? What historical circumstances may have surrounded the creation of this material? Are there cases in history of the practice of pseudonymous writings, whether under the name of Paul or anyone else
For instance, consider the example you raised:
In its context, 2 Tim 3:16 refers specifically to OT scripture. Historically, it was many, many years later that the wirtings of Paul or any other NT writings (including 2 Tim 3:16) were considered to be the "God breathed, straight from the mouth of God, inerrant, infallible Word of God.
With which I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree.
I also think it does specifically refer to OT scripture.
But ask yourself the question:
what could have compelled the writer to even state this?
Was there someone (or many others) at the time stating contrary to that position,
that the OT was not "God-breathed", and "beneficial"?
Did they deny that the OT was useful for Christians?
What folks could these have been?
What may one gather from history?
To my observation (thus far, at least), the gnostics and the marcionites are striking candidates there. And quite consistent when considering other details about those whom the writer is warning:
1 Tim. 4:3
"Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created..."
(what group(s) do we know from history had abstained from marriage and meats?)
of course, it was important for the writer to add "which God hath created" (= the Creator god denied by Marcion and the gnostics) - because naturally, "every creation of God is good" - but what person or group was out and about denying such? These appear to me such plain - to the point of banal - statements for the writer to make.
If there are other possible (more appropriate) "candidates" besides those which meet the questions which I've raised, I would be quite interested in learning about them.
In the end, Goey, I think you're right. Neither I nor anyone else can "convince" or "prove" or "disprove" a position to the satisfaction of another, especially if their position derives primarily from that of "the faith".
Wouldn't certain writings reflect a growing in spiritual understanding?
In other words as Paul grew in Christ his style could change.
Not saying that they were not written by Paul or someone else.
But that it was to the individual addressed to and relating to their understanding.
Let me try to tackle that one and mininally abdress both sides of the issue. Danny is absolutely correct about about the style issues. It is much more obvious in the greek. But not only style, but vocabulary and grammar as well. There are over a hundred words in the pastorals that Paul did not use in his other writings or that appear no where else in the NT. Interesting - eh?
Spiritual growth could possibly affect language to some extent, but I highly doubt that it would affect grammar and style to the extent it does in the pastorals.
One way to address these language issues is to assume a different author. The style and language seem to imply it. So it is not unreasonable to question Pauline authorship of the pastoral based upon style,language, grammar.
Another way to address these issues is to consider the possibility of an amanuensis (secretary) writing for Paul. Here is a quote from Daniel Wallace - a fundamentalist theologian who holds (barely) to Pauline auhorship.
"... there is the distinct possibility that Paul used an amanuensis to whom he gave great freedom in the writing of these letters.
Longenecker (among several others) has shown that the nonliterary papyri display several different kinds of amanuenses at work—sometimes they wrote by dictation, other times, with greater freedom. His application to the Pauline epistles is illuminating: Just how closely the apostle supervised his various amanuenses in each particular instance is, of course, impossible to say. The nonliterary Greek papyri suggest that the responsibilities of an ancient secretary could be quite varied, ranging all the way from taking dictation verbatim to "fleshing out" with appropriate language a general outline of thought. Paul's own practice probably varied with the special circumstances of the case and with the particular companion whom he employed at the time. More time might be left to the discretion of Silas and Timothy (cf. 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) or to Timothy alone (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Phil. 1:1) than to Sosthenes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1) or Tertius (cf. Rom. 16:22)—and perhaps much more to Luke, who alone was with Paul during his final imprisonment (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11).
But of course language and style are not the only problems with the pastorals as far as Pauline authorship goes. They problems (real or aparent) can be divided in to groups, I'll use Wallace's groups to save time.
The Historical Problems.
Theological Problems.
Soteriology (Salvation)
Ecclesiology (Church Function)
The Linguistic Problems.
The pastorals have "problems" in all these areas to overcome or explain in order to hold to Pauline authorship. Objectively, it is difficult - but not too big a stretch.
I encourage looking at both sides objectively before comming to a hard conclusion. I am undecided on this issue but maybe lean towards Pauline authorship. (this month) But I accept that non- Pauline authorship is a definite possibility and not an unreasonable conclusion.
I think on this issue that the best someone can do is conclude what is "most likely" . After revieviewing the evidence on both sides I have a big problem with dogmatic assertations either way.
The link I gave above is a good one that allows you to see both sides of the issuse, even though it is from Dallas Theological Seminary which is quite fundamental.
I would provide a link from an opposing camp, but I coudn't quickly find one that fairly showed both sides and that was not seemingly emotional or frothy about the debate.....
Goey with all due respect, I wasn't out trying to prove anything about the Epistles (as far as I remember).
It's enough for me to just believe them at face value. They work for me and (seem) to fit in with the other writings and there is nothing in there that is 'outlandish' in any way.
To me they appear to flow with the other writings, something the gospel of Thomas, Judas and others don't.
Goey with all due respect, I wasn't out trying to prove anything about the Epistles (as far as I remember).
It's enough for me to just believe them at face value. They work for me and (seem) to fit in with the other writings and there is nothing in there that is 'outlandish' in any way.
To me they appear to flow with the other writings, something the gospel of Thomas, Judas and others don't.
Alan,
My challenge was rhetorical. It was to make a point concerning the debate process.
However, close scrutiny of the pastoral epistles, the language, the vocabluary, the soteriology, etc show distinct and big differences from Paul's other writings. Thus the dabate.
And yes, the Gospels of Judas/ Thomas definitey do not flow with what was declared canonical by early orthodoxy. This is why they were excluded from the canon by those that took it upon themselves to declare what was holy and what was not.
I would provide a link from an opposing camp, but I coudn't quickly find one that fairly showed both sides and that was not seemingly emotional or frothy about the debate.....
Danny may know of one though.
Hope this helps.
A very thorough and enjoyable post Goey. I can't really think at the moment of other links to add - much of the material I've read on the topic has been offline. However, I don't think anyone can go wrong by going to any search engine and typing into the search box "authorship of Pastoral Epistles", which will bring up an entire spectrum of possibilities.
CM:
Danny,
Wouldn't certain writings reflect a growing in spiritual understanding?
In other words as Paul grew in Christ his style could change.
Not saying that they were not written by Paul or someone else.
But that it was to the individual addressed to and relating to their understanding.
I think it's possible, though it seems to me a more compelling case (perhaps influenced in no small part by even past Way views on the topic) that Ephesians/Colossians represents a radical development of Pauline ideas, or, to bring up the theory Goey mentioned, that those writings might have been penned by an "amanuensis" to Paul. The style of Ephesians and Colossians (esp. the long, running sentences of Eph.) also have peculiar grammatical differences from the largely uncontested Pauline material of Romans/1 & 2 Corinthians/ Galatians. Of course the possibility remains that these too could have been penned by a writer (or writers) other than Paul after his death - but in my opinion, by someone who had a better grasp (or a different understanding, if you will) of Pauline ideas than the writer(s) behind the Pastorial material.
One may consider the possibility of the "deutero-Pauline" material as having originally come from different "schools" of "camps" (rival camps?) of Pauline interpreters. Perhaps Eph./Col. originated in circles more open to gnostic ideas than from whence emerged the Pastoral material. [ though we must also be aware of the theories that Paul used "gnostic" language to battle "[proto]gnostic" opponents in Eph. Col. - whereas another argument can be made that the original gnostic leanings of Eph./Col. were reworked (toned down) by orthodox opponents to render them suitable to their theology and canon].
It certainly is interesting to contemplate the different theories out there, and to explore the process these writings may have undergone in those early centuries. I don't think any of the material attributed to Paul - whether orthodox or gnostic - ought be considered akin to a carbon duplicate transmitted from the first century. These writings have a fascinating, largely unknown history behind them, for which we have little to lose in attempting to reconstruct their development. Without trying, we'll never know.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
10
18
10
Popular Days
Apr 11
18
Apr 12
18
Apr 10
17
Apr 16
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 12 posts
TheInvisibleDan 10 posts
templelady 18 posts
dmiller 10 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2006
18 posts
Apr 12 2006
18 posts
Apr 10 2006
17 posts
Apr 16 2006
9 posts
CM
Goey,
as usual i don't put everything i mean into a post
and it comes out rather harsh
so i apologize for that
certainly there are many things outside of ourselves to learn from
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
And they're very good and valid approaches. I agree. We all are indeed each biased, and such can "get in the way" of one's "understanding". Any information picked up along the way is bound to contribute toward the shaping of one's opinions. And it can be all the more interesting when one changes from one postion to another. I accepted the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles for many years with very little question.
If however, one sought to explore and question the authorship or authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, how might one attempt it in an objective manner?
Well, there's the question of style and grammar. From a literary question, do the Pastoral epistles resemble those oft uncontested epistles attributed to Paul ( Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians)? What results from even a cursory examination and comparison of the Pastorals with the uncontested material? What similarities do they share in words and expressions - and what differences? Does one get the general impression or "feel" that it is the same author behind all this material?
We may - if only temporarily - suspend the question of theology in this part of the examination (though ultimately I wouldn't recommend it when we consider further possible reasons behind their writing). In fact, the earliest study to call into question the authorship of the Pastoral epistles did so primarily on the basis of Greek grammar and syntax (P.N. Harrison, "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles").
A more recent study is Kenneth J. Neumann's "The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis" (SBL Dissertation Series 120, 1990 SBL). Admittedly, such studies tend to make for ponderous reading (lol), but they can be helpful in consulting when weighing the results of ones observations.
If one reaches a position of questioning the claim of Pauline authorhip on the basis of style, what other questions will we allow ourselves? Do the doctrinal expressions and ideas really ring with those we find in earlier material attributed to Paul? What possible reasons would one under the pseudonym of "Paul" have had for penning such material to begin with? What historical circumstances may have surrounded the creation of this material? Are there cases in history of the practice of pseudonymous writings, whether under the name of Paul or anyone else
For instance, consider the example you raised:
With which I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree.
I also think it does specifically refer to OT scripture.
But ask yourself the question:
what could have compelled the writer to even state this?
Was there someone (or many others) at the time stating contrary to that position,
that the OT was not "God-breathed", and "beneficial"?
Did they deny that the OT was useful for Christians?
What folks could these have been?
What may one gather from history?
To my observation (thus far, at least), the gnostics and the marcionites are striking candidates there. And quite consistent when considering other details about those whom the writer is warning:
1 Tim. 4:3
"Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created..."
(what group(s) do we know from history had abstained from marriage and meats?)
of course, it was important for the writer to add "which God hath created" (= the Creator god denied by Marcion and the gnostics) - because naturally, "every creation of God is good" - but what person or group was out and about denying such? These appear to me such plain - to the point of banal - statements for the writer to make.
If there are other possible (more appropriate) "candidates" besides those which meet the questions which I've raised, I would be quite interested in learning about them.
In the end, Goey, I think you're right. Neither I nor anyone else can "convince" or "prove" or "disprove" a position to the satisfaction of another, especially if their position derives primarily from that of "the faith".
:)
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Danny,
Wouldn't certain writings reflect a growing in spiritual understanding?
In other words as Paul grew in Christ his style could change.
Not saying that they were not written by Paul or someone else.
But that it was to the individual addressed to and relating to their understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Let me try to tackle that one and mininally abdress both sides of the issue. Danny is absolutely correct about about the style issues. It is much more obvious in the greek. But not only style, but vocabulary and grammar as well. There are over a hundred words in the pastorals that Paul did not use in his other writings or that appear no where else in the NT. Interesting - eh?
Spiritual growth could possibly affect language to some extent, but I highly doubt that it would affect grammar and style to the extent it does in the pastorals.
One way to address these language issues is to assume a different author. The style and language seem to imply it. So it is not unreasonable to question Pauline authorship of the pastoral based upon style,language, grammar.
Another way to address these issues is to consider the possibility of an amanuensis (secretary) writing for Paul. Here is a quote from Daniel Wallace - a fundamentalist theologian who holds (barely) to Pauline auhorship.
But of course language and style are not the only problems with the pastorals as far as Pauline authorship goes. They problems (real or aparent) can be divided in to groups, I'll use Wallace's groups to save time.
The pastorals have "problems" in all these areas to overcome or explain in order to hold to Pauline authorship. Objectively, it is difficult - but not too big a stretch.
I encourage looking at both sides objectively before comming to a hard conclusion. I am undecided on this issue but maybe lean towards Pauline authorship. (this month) But I accept that non- Pauline authorship is a definite possibility and not an unreasonable conclusion.
I think on this issue that the best someone can do is conclude what is "most likely" . After revieviewing the evidence on both sides I have a big problem with dogmatic assertations either way.
The link I gave above is a good one that allows you to see both sides of the issuse, even though it is from Dallas Theological Seminary which is quite fundamental.
I would provide a link from an opposing camp, but I coudn't quickly find one that fairly showed both sides and that was not seemingly emotional or frothy about the debate.....
Danny may know of one though.
Hope this helps.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Goey with all due respect, I wasn't out trying to prove anything about the Epistles (as far as I remember).
It's enough for me to just believe them at face value. They work for me and (seem) to fit in with the other writings and there is nothing in there that is 'outlandish' in any way.
To me they appear to flow with the other writings, something the gospel of Thomas, Judas and others don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Alan,
My challenge was rhetorical. It was to make a point concerning the debate process.
However, close scrutiny of the pastoral epistles, the language, the vocabluary, the soteriology, etc show distinct and big differences from Paul's other writings. Thus the dabate.
And yes, the Gospels of Judas/ Thomas definitey do not flow with what was declared canonical by early orthodoxy. This is why they were excluded from the canon by those that took it upon themselves to declare what was holy and what was not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Point taken !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Goey:
A very thorough and enjoyable post Goey. I can't really think at the moment of other links to add - much of the material I've read on the topic has been offline. However, I don't think anyone can go wrong by going to any search engine and typing into the search box "authorship of Pastoral Epistles", which will bring up an entire spectrum of possibilities.CM:
I think it's possible, though it seems to me a more compelling case (perhaps influenced in no small part by even past Way views on the topic) that Ephesians/Colossians represents a radical development of Pauline ideas, or, to bring up the theory Goey mentioned, that those writings might have been penned by an "amanuensis" to Paul. The style of Ephesians and Colossians (esp. the long, running sentences of Eph.) also have peculiar grammatical differences from the largely uncontested Pauline material of Romans/1 & 2 Corinthians/ Galatians. Of course the possibility remains that these too could have been penned by a writer (or writers) other than Paul after his death - but in my opinion, by someone who had a better grasp (or a different understanding, if you will) of Pauline ideas than the writer(s) behind the Pastorial material.
One may consider the possibility of the "deutero-Pauline" material as having originally come from different "schools" of "camps" (rival camps?) of Pauline interpreters. Perhaps Eph./Col. originated in circles more open to gnostic ideas than from whence emerged the Pastoral material. [ though we must also be aware of the theories that Paul used "gnostic" language to battle "[proto]gnostic" opponents in Eph. Col. - whereas another argument can be made that the original gnostic leanings of Eph./Col. were reworked (toned down) by orthodox opponents to render them suitable to their theology and canon].
It certainly is interesting to contemplate the different theories out there, and to explore the process these writings may have undergone in those early centuries. I don't think any of the material attributed to Paul - whether orthodox or gnostic - ought be considered akin to a carbon duplicate transmitted from the first century. These writings have a fascinating, largely unknown history behind them, for which we have little to lose in attempting to reconstruct their development. Without trying, we'll never know.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.