Thread: Kerygmania: Does it matter if Paul wasn't the author? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000967
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
This question arises out of a series of exchanges in Hell. To keep the OP length down, I'll post the relevant bits in a second post on this thread.
Sometimes people cite the non-authorship by Paul of various epistles, or of various controversial restrictive bits in some of even the acknowledged epistles, as a reason to take those controversial bits less seriously than the rest of the epistles.
I'll lay my cards on the table and say I agree on not taking those controversial bits as prescriptive for us. But I disagree that Paul's non-authorship is a good reason for doing so. After all, they were accepted into scripture, same as Paul's undisputed writings, by the early church.
And even beyond the non-controversial bits, I believe we should read the non-Pauline (but traditionatlly attributed to Paul) epistles as seriously as we read the Pauline epistles.
On the other hand, I do think it is of use to consider what Paul probably did and didn't write, because it allows us to look at the development and the variety of thought in the Bible.
What do you think? Does it matter what Paul wrote and didn't write? And if it does matter, in what ways?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:04: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Here are quotes from the other thread:
The seed is in fluff's post:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
Well there are some "good bits" in Paul aren't there. When he's not going on about the queers and the women and all kinds of stuff that doesn't seem particularly related to what Jesus has just said in preceding chapters - there's that very beautiful section about "love".
Geneviève then provokes my question with:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
And of course, many biblical scholars [...] believe Paul did not write all the epistles attributed to him,and that some of the oft cited proscriptions and prescriptions were added later.
Wood adds:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Re. Pauline authorship:
It's been a pretty accepted part of academic theology for a good century or more. Wikipedia (approach with caution) tells me that the first modern theologian to express doubts was back in 1785. Meanwhile, some Pauline epistles were not accepted as canonical by parts of the early church for a very long time — even back in the time when they were still figuring out what was in the Bible and what wasn't, lively debate occurred as to whether these letters were actually written by the Apostle.
Off the top of my head, as to why, there's stuff in the content and style of Ephesians and the pastorals that leads the critic to conclude they were the work of a later writer. The way he argues about gnosticism. The differing attitudes towards the roles of women. A few other things.
There's a lot more to it than that, but those are the salient points as far as I remember.
But on the other hand, he points out that:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
And of course, many biblical scholars (obviously not scholars of whom Saul would be aware)believe Paul did not write all the epistles attributed to him,and that some of the oft cited proscriptions and prescriptions were added later.
Do bear in mind that the bits Paul has about homosexual practice — really, the only unequivocal anti-gay passages in Scripture — are in Romans and 1 Corinthians, which are undisputed as to Paul's authorship by everyone.[/QB]
Geneviève counterpoints thus:
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
Ok, from the New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version (1991)
p. 300 in the NT section, which is the introduction to First Timothy: "The two letters to Timothy and the one to Titus, commonly called the Pastorals, are similar in character and in the problems they raise concerning authorship. It is difficult to ascribe them in their present form to the apostle Paul......
p.296 in the intro to 2nd Thessalonians: .."Other scholars find it difficult to think that Paul would shift the emphasis of his apocalyptic teaching so abruptly [compared to 1st Thessalonians], and such scholars also stress stylistic features of the letter that point to a different author"....
p. 285 into to Colossians discusses whether or not this is a Pauline epistle.
This is just basic bible introductory information. From what I have read, the Pastorals are the most questioned.
Further, many of the books in the bible have redacted sections. I did not make an extravagant claim.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Itr matters because the NT canon was decided on the basis that the writers were witnesses to the life of Jesus. That's where we get our word "martyr" from, the Greek for "witness". The meaning shifted because so many of the apostles were murdered. All sorts of other books might be interesting or true or useful to read but we can't claim they bear diect witness to Jesus Christ.
Its about revelation, not personal opinion or theological speculation. Whatever authority the New Testament has - or any holy scripture has - derives from God in Jesus, not from Paul or any other apostle. The authors are telling us what they saw, what God revealed to them.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Good call starting this, Mr. Road.
I would add that the question of authorship is only cut and dried unless it's a matter of faith; if you believe as a point of doctrine that Scripture is inerrant, of course you're going to accept that if an epistle says it's by the Apostle, it's by the Apostle (as opposed to the epistle to the Hebrews, which it's easy to change foot on — it might once have been considered the fourteenth Pauline epistle by the likes of heavy hitters S. Augustine, but it doesn't say, so it doesn't have to be).
So we're already on dangerous ground, because immediately the question of authorship gets raised, so do hackles, because this pretty basic piece of classical scholarship carries with it an implicit and vexing question of the authority of the Scripture canon.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Further, one further counterpoint to suffix to Genevieve's point: it's fairly basic introductory information in the NRSV, but you're never going to find that sort of thing in an NIV.
We can't assume that people know this stuff or that it's uncontroversial just because one translation of the Bible (admittedly, IMNAAHO, the best one and the most scholarly sound one) includes it in its notes. With the exception of outsider things like Good As New, I can't think of any other widely used translations that do.
[ 03. March 2011, 15:44: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
The sense in which Pauline authorship matters to me is historical rather than theological. For example, I have a hard time envisioning the pastoral letters as coming from Paul because I have a hard time imaging such an established heirarchy during Paul's lifetime. It just seems too established to be consistent with my expectations. I find the timeline much more congenial if the pastorals were from the end of the century.
I should add that I have a relatively low view of scriptural authority generally, so I don't feel the need to find loopholes in the text before I feel free to dismiss the unfortunate view of women or homosexuality in the Church. I am quite content to dismiss such lines of thought in the epistles as being products of their day and not expressions of the Holy Spirit, whether they are authentically Pauline or not. So there isn't a lot riding on the authorship issue for me beyond idle curiosity.
--Tom Clune
[ 03. March 2011, 17:27: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
ken, I know the canon was decided on the basis of witness. But if current scholarly opinion is that some books were written much later -- e.g. The Epistle of Peter -- and so couldn't have been eyewitnesses: then should we ignore them too?
Paul wasn't a physical eyewitness, but an after-the-fact recipient of revelation. How do we know that the non-Pauline parts weren't revealed also to their authors? I include here all the parts traditionally ascribed to Paul, but now doubted to be by him -- not just the controversial bits.
Luke isn't an eyewitness, but works from accounts that he's drawn from others, who themselves might not be eyewitnesses either. Might not the non-Pauline parts traditionally ascribed to Paul have similar provenance?
wood, I don't think the question is only a debate between inerrantists and non-inerrantists. I'm definitely a non-inerrantist, but my point is that given that some traditionally-Pauline bits are not by Paul, that doesn't automatically mean they're less authoritative than the true Pauline bits. On the other hand, I do think it's useful, even important, information whether we think various bits were by different people or not.
(I contrast this with the attitude of most of the people in my EfM group over the years, who very occasionally find source criticism interesting, but almost never find it useful.)
__Ms. Road
[cross-posted with tclune]
[ 03. March 2011, 17:29: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I don't think ignore is the right word to use here. After all, as has been noted, all these books made it into the canon...so according to the group discernment of the Church, their understanding of the texts' pedigree, their general use in the Christian community -- according to all those things, the Church has discerned that these books are important and worthy of inclusion in the canon.
Which is not at all the same as saying that everything that's said in them must be taken at face value or is a universal truth for all Christians at all or times, or is somehow context-free...or that even is right.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
It might prove to be a millstone around his neck but I am with tclune.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
wood, I don't think the question is only a debate between inerrantists and non-inerrantists.
No, it most certainly isn't, but if you're not super-careful, this can very easily get turned into that argument, and it gets you nowhere.
quote:
Ms. Road
Oops. Sorry. Gender duly noted.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The sense in which Pauline authorship matters to me is historical rather than theological. For example, I have a hard time envisioning the pastoral letters as coming from Paul because I have a hard time imaging such an established heirarchy during Paul's lifetime. It just seems too established to be consistent with my expectations. I find the timeline much more congenial if the pastorals were from the end of the century.
And that would put you firmly in line with most modernist theologians in the German tradition.
Hi, Tom, by the way. Since I came back, I keep seeing the old... um... avatars. Yeah.
quote:
I should add that I have a relatively low view of scriptural authority generally, so I don't feel the need to find loopholes in the text before I feel free to dismiss the unfortunate view of women or homosexuality in the Church. I am quite content to dismiss such lines of thought in the epistles as being products of their day and not expressions of the Holy Spirit, whether they are authentically Pauline or not.
See, that's interesting.
Because I've long held that everyone, even the people who are into scriptural authority in a big way, necessarily prioritises/disregards bits of scripture depending on their prejudices/assumptions/subconscious desire to be more consistent than the actual Bible is. I suppose that what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how you view scriptural authority — you inevitably end up picking and choosing anyway.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
It might prove to be a millstone around his neck but I am with tclune.
So am I.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I don't think ignore is the right word to use here. After all, as has been noted, all these books made it into the canon...so according to the group discernment of the Church, their understanding of the texts' pedigree, their general use in the Christian community -- according to all those things, the Church has discerned that these books are important and worthy of inclusion in the canon.
Good point LC.
I don't think it is an either/or situation.
Yes we should engage with current scholarship about authorship. However, neither should we ignore the fact that current scholars are discussing authorship 2000 years after the fact. That doesn't mean that there is no new light to shed but it should inject a massive dose of humility into such findings.
Posted by fluff (# 12871) on
:
I don't find that my response to the bits in Paul that I like and the bits I don't like is necessarily influenced by whether he wrote them or not. If I was saying only the "good bits" in Paul were written by him that would be assuming the inerrancy of Paul. Which I don't believe in.
I have read an account of the New Testament which implies that the sections which seem to have been composed by other writers might have been supervised by him, or commissioned by him in some way. Is there any evidence for this?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes we should engage with current scholarship about authorship. However, neither should we ignore the fact that current scholars are discussing authorship 2000 years after the fact. That doesn't mean that there is no new light to shed but it should inject a massive dose of humility into such findings.
This is largely true, but people undervalue scholarship and assume scholars are just joyless pedants, but it's scholars who, with the help of the Dead Sea Scrolls, figured out what the earliest version of Isaiah looks like, which is the one in the NIV.
Going to a secular example, it's scholars who were able to reconstruct the poems of Catullus from a massively corrupted MS tradition.
I know an awful lot of people in this university in which I work who appreciate fully what a physicist or an engineer does and why it's so hard but who never fully understand the intricate science of what a literary scholar does beyond reading a lot of books and talking gobbledigook.
It's scholars, by the way, who were able to prove that the MS traditions of the New Testament canon are pretty sound, and for a lot of reasons less prone to corruption than a lot of secular texts.
So yes, massive does of humility, quite, but the fact is that we do actually know more about the literature of the ancient world than the people of the middle ages or even the early Fathers did (you only need to look at the anachronism-stuffed goodness of some of the early hagiographies and apocryphal acts to see that).
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Also: the inclusion of a book in the canon does not guarantee its authorship. The epistle to the Hebrews was considered, right up until after the King James period, to be the fourteenth letter of Paul. We have traditions as to the authors of Jude, Matthew, and Mark, for example but the texts themselves give us no clue as to who those writers actually were.
Even back in the day, Hebrews, the pastorals, Jude, James, Revelation and, um, a couple of others who slip my mind right now were hotly disputed. Luther moved some NT books to an appendix of his own Bible version for that very reason: he wasn't convinced as to their provenance and value.
These things aren't cut and dried, really they're not.
And that's why I personally don't think wondering who wrote the pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians, is necessary a threat to scripture's authority... but I understand why people do, since the texts say Paul wrote them... and to many, their factual provenance being called into question also calls into question their claim to Truth (and I'm saying that with the assumption that Truth and facts are not always the same thing).
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Crossposted with this, which I should respond to because it's interesting:
quote:
Originally posted by fluff:
I don't find that my response to the bits in Paul that I like and the bits I don't like is necessarily influenced by whether he wrote them or not. If I was saying only the "good bits" in Paul were written by him that would be assuming the inerrancy of Paul. Which I don't believe in.
And (to supplement your point, not disagree) it's not cut and dried, because the bits us godless liberals don't "like" are not distributed among the books that are disputed and the ones that are undisputed.
Ephesians might have icky stuff about slaves and First Timothy might have the misogyny, but the stuff about homosexual practice are in First Corinthians and Romans; First Corinthians has that silly bit about head coverings... and so on.
And likewise, Ephesians has that great bit about the Full Armour of God...
There is not a convenient map of "disputed" and "leaves a nasty taste in the mouth". Both the disputed and undisputed letters of Paul have moments of beauty and genius and parts that you really wish (if you're a godless liberal like me etc.) that the apostle hadn't committed to paper.
[ 04. March 2011, 09:02: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
This is largely true, but people undervalue scholarship and assume scholars are just joyless pedants, but it's scholars who, with the help of the Dead Sea Scrolls, figured out what the earliest version of Isaiah looks like, which is the one in the NIV.
Shhhhh. Oh, too late.
Listen Wood, if you receive a parcel in the mail and the sender is listed as either Leo or tclune then DON'T OPEN IT ... if you value your life.
(As Leo will tell you the NIV is an invention of Satan and simply anti-semitic propaganda.)
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
So yes, massive does of humility, quite, but the fact is that we do actually know more about the literature of the ancient world than the people of the middle ages or even the early Fathers did (you only need to look at the anachronism-stuffed goodness of some of the early hagiographies and apocryphal acts to see that).
True and I wasn't denying that.
However, there is a downside to modern scholarship too. Not everyone can dig up the dead sea scrolls and produce more actual evidence. The way western scholarship works every PhD thesis is under pressure to produce something novel. Hence a lot (but not all) of modern scholarship is simply trying to run with older theories. I've had to endure flicking through far too many doctorates that are conjecture based on supposition based on theory. Nothing wrong with that, some of them have been quite useful, but do frequently exaggerate their significance.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Johnny, I don't think we're necessarily on too different a page on the question of the value of scholarship. Sometimes we speak a different language, you and I, but I think we're not actually contradicting each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(As Leo will tell you the NIV is an invention of Satan and simply anti-semitic propaganda.)
Don't get me wrong: I don't think the NIV is a very good Bible translation, but the point stands — the evangelical translators of the NIV relied on current scholarship to do their thing.
The inadvertent anti-semitism of the thing is not a question we should go into on a thread about the authorship of Paul.
[ 04. March 2011, 09:15: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Listen Wood, if you receive a parcel in the mail and the sender is listed as either Leo or tclune then DON'T OPEN IT ... if you value your life.
Not at all, Johnny. I recognize that even a broken clock is right twice a day...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Further, one further counterpoint to suffix to Genevieve's point: it's fairly basic introductory information in the NRSV, but you're never going to find that sort of thing in an NIV.
I've never seen an NIV that includes any sort of description of the books at all. I've just checked my big NIV with chain references and everything else, and you have to poke around in the very back to find a synopsis of each book - it includes the conventional author but no discussion of when the book was written or anything else you'd find in a commentary.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Further, one further counterpoint to suffix to Genevieve's point: it's fairly basic introductory information in the NRSV, but you're never going to find that sort of thing in an NIV.
I've never seen an NIV that includes any sort of description of the books at all. I've just checked my big NIV with chain references and everything else, and you have to poke around in the very back to find a synopsis of each book - it includes the conventional author but no discussion of when the book was written or anything else you'd find in a commentary.
The NIV Study Bible -- the one with the commentary that runs on the bottom half of the page -- does.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And that's why I personally don't think wondering who wrote the pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians, is necessary a threat to scripture's authority... but I understand why people do, since the texts say Paul wrote them...
Do they? In my Bible it says that Paul and Timothy wrote Colossians and Phillipians.
Joint authorship is implied, not just dictation to a secretary. But no-one ever wonders if there is a Timothine Theology in there...
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And that's why I personally don't think wondering who wrote the pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians, is necessary a threat to scripture's authority... but I understand why people do, since the texts say Paul wrote them...
Do they? In my Bible it says that Paul and Timothy wrote Colossians and Phillipians.
Joint authorship is implied, not just dictation to a secretary. But no-one ever wonders if there is a Timothine Theology in there...
Well, all right, Paul, with Timothy.
But let's face it, no one does ever wonder about a Timothine theological stand - and no one ever has. There's no real tradition of it, as far as I am aware.
[ 05. March 2011, 18:42: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I smell a new Dan Brown franchise...
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I smell a new Dan Brown franchise...
Don't mention Dan Brown. Your wouldn't like me when people mention Dan Brown.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Slowly, I turned!
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Listen Wood, if you receive a parcel in the mail and the sender is listed as either Leo or tclune then DON'T OPEN IT ... if you value your life.
Not at all, Johnny. I recognize that even a broken clock is right twice a day...
--Tom Clune
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This is a huge tangent so happy to drop it but the reason why I made that comment was that I seem to remember that you held up Isaiah as your prima facie case of why the NIV was so terrible.
Likewise Leo claims that the NIV deliberately goes for anti-semitic readings. Interesting since, as Wood points out, the Dead Sea scrolls give us a complete book of Isaiah and one that the NIV is abased on.
Ummh. I might even start a thread on Isaiah, chapter 7 especially.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I think Hebrews is a very good case to consider. As has been said, for a long time there was a tradition that it was written by Paul. There was also quite a long tradition of people doubting this was the case. Nowadays, though, a belief that it was written by Paul is a pretty rare thing.
Does that change the significance of Hebrews as a book?
Having said that, I think Wood raised another interesting point as well: does it make a difference whether a book SAYS who wrote it? Is there a difference between mistaken attribution by others, and mistaken/false attribution by the text itself?
[ 06. March 2011, 03:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think Hebrews is a very good case to consider. As has been said, for a long time there was a tradition that it was written by Paul. There was also quite a long tradition of people doubting this was the case. Nowadays, though, a belief that it was written by Paul is a pretty rare thing.
Does that change the significance of Hebrews as a book?
Having said that, I think Wood raised another interesting point as well: does it make a difference whether a book SAYS who wrote it? Is there a difference between mistaken attribution by others, and mistaken/false attribution by the text itself?
Depends.
I think there is a difference between a mistaken attribution and a false attribution in the text.
Likewise it is one thing to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews (which almost certainly he didn't) and quite another to say that it was written by a plumber in the 5th century called Nigel.
Two of the major factors in deciding the canon was Apostolicity and Catholicity. A book may have been accepted because it contained Apostolic teaching - i.e. it came from churches founded by Apostles, and was generally accepted by other churches to be so.
Hence if Hebrews was written by Barnabas (my current favourite) then it would easy to see why it was thought to be written by Paul and also why it was accepted into the canon. (However, it if it really was Nigel then all bets are off!)
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I'm not a biblical scholar. (Getting the disclaimer out of the way straight up...)
I've always heard that it wasn't uncommon to write pseudonymously during the Second Temple period, and that it was a way to carry an author's thought forward, or to put yourself in their school of thought. Does anyone know if that's true? It might just be an assumption re: biblical & related texts (e.g., Enoch) to make sense of the fact that there is pseudonymous literature.
Anyway, as for the OP:
If Paul did write everything traditionally attributed to him, then whatever he wrote later should represent his mature thought (assuming he didn't lose the plot in his old age like, e.g., Tertullian did), and his mature thought should be given more weight than the earlier. So it affects how we read the whole Pauline corpus, I should think.
If Paul didn't write some of the books, then all you're looking at is reconciling, to whatever degree necessary, the writings of different authors.
If we can figure out the historical situation of some of those writings, then we have more to go on. For example, I read an article that persuaded me that the Pastor was responding to an imperial "family values" campaign, where, just like Falwell after 9/11, the Roman emperor was worried the empire was losing the gods' favor because of impiety, which extended to home life. The Pastor, then is pushing a strategy of accommodation (v. resistance)—maybe because he agrees with the empire's family values, or maybe to make life easier for Christians and preserve the Church from too much persecution. In other words: Rome's family values weren't unlawful for Christians, so why not go along? Pick your battles.
That's a completely different reading than you get if you assume an older, mature Paul wrote those books and intended them (as they sound, especially if they come from the pen of the Apostle) to be principles for Christians to follow at all times and everywhere.
This sort of exegesis is completely at home in all but the most fundamentalist circles, AFAIK: when I was at an Evangelical college, while we didn't question the traditional authorships, we were taught to be very interested in cultural settings and how that affected what was written and how it should be understood in our own context.
Oy, I guess I'm saying whether Paul wrote the books or not either matters or it doesn't, depending on the specifics. I firmly take that position.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
It's also a question of what he was writing. The pastoral epistles all seem to be written to individual people. The more commonly accepted epistles were written to entire churches. I've heard an argument that Ephesians was actually something more like a pamphlet that was distributed to lots of different churches. It just happens that the copy we had for a long time was addressed to Ephesus.
I have heard churchgeek's view too, that the pastoral epistles were less dogmatic and more accomodationist, though there's similar language in 1 Peter (an interesting case, I think) and I think in 1 Cor or somewhere (would have to check.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Listen Wood, if you receive a parcel in the mail and the sender is listed as either Leo or tclune then DON'T OPEN IT ... if you value your life.
Ah. but there are many Leos.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
This is a huge tangent so happy to drop it but the reason why I made that comment was that I seem to remember that you held up Isaiah as your prima facie case of why the NIV was so terrible.
It is a tangent, so I don't want to do more than mention that the reference to a virgin in Isaiah 7 is not specific to the NIV. I find it an unfortunate confusing of LXX and MT texts, but sticking to the LXX alone is pretty much limited to the Orthodox Bibles and sticking to the MT is limited to a few theologically diverse translations (the NET Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the NRSV come to mind as exmples of that diversity).
The picking and choosing based not on the inscrutability of one text type, but preferring its content in specific verses is generally something I find troubling, but it is not an NIV innovation. What bothers me specifically about the NIV is the various weasel-wordings that it innovated and appear to serve a specific theological agenda without having warrant from the original text. FWIW
--Tom Clune
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
For a much earlier discussion of what's wrong with the NIV see this Limbo thread.
Moo
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm not a biblical scholar. (Getting the disclaimer out of the way straight up...)
FWIW, I have an MPhil in late classical lit (which means mostly Christian writing not in the Bible). Which means I know a bit about scholarship, but I'm not really a theologian either. I have a good idea about the parts of this discussion that fall in that Venn Diagram intersection between Biblical studies and ancient language lit-crit, but that doesn't make me an expert.
quote:
I've always heard that it wasn't uncommon to write pseudonymously during the Second Temple period, and that it was a way to carry an author's thought forward, or to put yourself in their school of thought. Does anyone know if that's true? It might just be an assumption re: biblical & related texts (e.g., Enoch) to make sense of the fact that there is pseudonymous literature.
Yes, there is pseudonymous literature, but the problem we have is that the stuff that's pseudonymous that isn't in the canon... isn't in the canon.
quote:
If Paul did write everything traditionally attributed to him, then whatever he wrote later should represent his mature thought (assuming he didn't lose the plot in his old age like, e.g., Tertullian did), and his mature thought should be given more weight than the earlier. So it affects how we read the whole Pauline corpus, I should think.
Or he did lose it in later life, depending on what you think of those disputed epistles. And Tertullian IMHO is only really considered to have lost the plot in the hindsight because he backed the wrong theological horse. He was no less mental than some people who were orthodox (e.g. I think it might have been Clement of Alexandria who gave the Church CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Jesus never pooed. I forget).
But I digress.
quote:
If Paul didn't write some of the books, then all you're looking at is reconciling, to whatever degree necessary, the writings of different authors.
Yes and no.
Yes you are, obviously. This is part of the question, though.
Because the title of the thread is "does it matter"? The simple answer is "it does to an awful lot of people". The complex answer is... well, that's what the thread's for.
quote:
If we can figure out the historical situation of some of those writings, then we have more to go on. /quote]Yes, and there are hints in all the NT books of their writing.
[quote]That's a completely different reading than you get if you assume an older, mature Paul wrote those books and intended them (as they sound, especially if they come from the pen of the Apostle) to be principles for Christians to follow at all times and everywhere.
But then, that's part of the reason why those early Church fathers were so very, very keen on allegorising everything. They knew that the epistle-writer was writing to a time and place, and felt that they had to make universal principles come out of that.
quote:
This sort of exegesis is completely at home in all but the most fundamentalist circles, AFAIK: when I was at an Evangelical college, while we didn't question the traditional authorships, we were taught to be very interested in cultural settings and how that affected what was written and how it should be understood in our own context.
Yes. I'm familiar with that sort of viewpoint, and it's really not without merit. It's really the modern equivalent of Augustine and Ambrose and all those others were doing back then.
quote:
Oy, I guess I'm saying whether Paul wrote the books or not either matters or it doesn't, depending on the specifics. I firmly take that position.
Yes. Exactly.
I kow you had your tongue in cheek there, but yes, you're right. It matters if you take some stuff into account. Or it doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
It's also a question of what he was writing. The pastoral epistles all seem to be written to individual people. The more commonly accepted epistles were written to entire churches. I've heard an argument that Ephesians was actually something more like a pamphlet that was distributed to lots of different churches. It just happens that the copy we had for a long time was addressed to Ephesus. [/qb
Yes, I've heard that one too. I don't know enought to comment, though.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QB] I think Hebrews is a very good case to consider. As has been said, for a long time there was a tradition that it was written by Paul. There was also quite a long tradition of people doubting this was the case. Nowadays, though, a belief that it was written by Paul is a pretty rare thing.
Does that change the significance of Hebrews as a book?
I don't know.
But I think that a lot of the people who would otherwise be inclined to have a real problem with a turn-around of that level didn't, because the text doesn't say it was by Paul. I think that if you are into scriptural authority a way that a lot of people are, it's easy to jettison the assumption that Paul wrote Hebrews because you don't accept tradition as being equal with the cold print of the big fat book. It doesn't say who wrote it there in the book... so you don't have to make your mind up.
quote:
Having said that, I think Wood raised another interesting point as well: does it make a difference whether a book SAYS who wrote it? Is there a difference between mistaken attribution by others, and mistaken/false attribution by the text itself?
Which brings me onto this.
And I think it really, really does make a difference... depending on to whom we're talking.
To you and me, probably not so much. I'd like to ask Johnny S what he thinks on this point, though. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I have an inkling where he might stand on the point.
I have spent years and years in settings where the letter of the text is the final arbiter. The point is that some people (and just for the sake of clarity and fairness, I need to say that I am not thinking specifically of Johnny or anyone else here) naturally think, "if it is lying about who wrote it, how can I trust it? And if I cannot trust this book that is in the canon, how can I trust the canon?" Suddenly, if one is this way inclined, it becomes a thread that unravels the whole theological woolly jumper.
And that's the thing. When it's in the canon, it immediately becomes a different sort of book.
Even if you're hellbound like me, it's still a different sort of book, because I exist in its context. If it's in the canon, you have to approach it with care. You have to accept that the fat leatherbound book on the lectern/end of the pew/middle of the longest bookshelf (delete as appropriate) is privileged. Because it's in the canon. Because it has going on two millennia of baggage attached to it. Because it's in the canon.
And yes, this one goes round and round and round.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I'd like to ask Johnny S what he thinks on this point, though. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I have an inkling where he might stand on the point.
You're going to find it hard to put words in mouth if I've got my tongue in my cheek. Or something like that.
Actually I don't think my position is that dissimilar from yours Wood. (If I've understood you correctly.) Pseudepigraphy doesn't necessarily bother me - although I have to say that many claims to it seem to fail Ockham's razor.
Rather like you (if I've got you right) for me it comes down, largely, to the canon. The church has made that decision and we are stuck with it. And that gets me in trouble with some over, for example, keeping the ending of Mark. The arguments over these kind of decisions are actually complex and often involve weighing up lots of factors.
Similarly I'm often not that fussed over the redaction of Isaiah or Ecclesiastes, or whatever. In the canon the book of Isaiah has been edited into a coherent unit of one book. Whether it was written by one or three people doesn't make a huge difference to me. The final editor had a story to tell though.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I'd like to ask Johnny S what he thinks on this point, though. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I have an inkling where he might stand on the point.
You're going to find it hard to put words in mouth if I've got my tongue in my cheek. Or something like that.
Let's not extend this line of discussion any further. it could get icky.
quote:
Actually I don't think my position is that dissimilar from yours Wood. (If I've understood you correctly.) Pseudepigraphy doesn't necessarily bother me - although I have to say that many claims to it seem to fail Ockham's razor.
OK, that's interesting in its own right, though, because I've seen the opposite argued.
I believe the most basic line of argument goes: Several of the Pauline Epistles don't seem to make consistent sense with the others, are written in a different style and back when the canon was being formed, were disputed as to true Pauline authorship. Therefore, one might conclude that they were written by someone other than Paul.
I don't think that the line of agument is all that counterintuitive.
quote:
Rather like you (if I've got you right) for me it comes down, largely, to the canon. The church has made that decision and we are stuck with it.
And this is why it matters. Because you can't screw with the canon. if you could, it wouldn't be a canon. Luther tried it; it didn't stick. Meanwhile, I don't see Good As New, which also messes with the Canon, making itself a monster hit.
I mean, OK, there are those OT deuterocanonical books, but that's something else.
quote:
And that gets me in trouble with some over, for example, keeping the ending of Mark. The arguments over these kind of decisions are actually complex and often involve weighing up lots of factors.
Yes, in that I agree.
(Honestly, what harm does it do to keep that bit at the end of Mark anyway? even the NIV has a little note saying it's not in the oldest versions.)
quote:
Similarly I'm often not that fussed over the redaction of Isaiah or Ecclesiastes, or whatever. In the canon the book of Isaiah has been edited into a coherent unit of one book. Whether it was written by one or three people doesn't make a huge difference to me. The final editor had a story to tell though.
Again, with you.
This makes me recall a Bible study I was in once, years ago, where the questions were about First Timothy, chapter 3, and the leader asked how one might use First Timothy 3 to respond to an argument that the Bible had no authority. I earned her wrath by telling her in my usual direct fashion that it was a stupid question, because you cannot prove that a book has authority by appealing to its own claims of authority.
But people do, and the authorship of the Pauline epistles is important because to those who depend on the internal authority of Scripture, the Bible cannot be mendacious. Mistaken is one thing, but outright lying? Right. Out.
And it matters to those of us who are a bit less definite on the question because of what it says about the canon, and its authority, and the relative value we place on it.
This canon we have here is, like it or not, between one third and nine tenths of the foundation on which we base our religion. Questions of its provenance raise questions about the foundations of our belief.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I believe the most basic line of argument goes: Several of the Pauline Epistles don't seem to make consistent sense with the others, are written in a different style and back when the canon was being formed, were disputed as to true Pauline authorship. Therefore, one might conclude that they were written by someone other than Paul.
I don't think that the line of agument is all that counterintuitive.
I don't think so either. I was just calling for it to be done on a case by case basis. Also I'd point out that 'doesn't seem to make consistent sense' can be a rather slippery fish when we consider the fact that often the writer seems to contradict himself in the same letter.
Take anybody's letter written over a period of years and to completely different contexts and you'd expect a lot of difference. Again, I'm not saying that this rules out your argument above just that a lot of the criteria end up being very subjective. These are letters after all not systematic theology textbooks.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And this is why it matters. Because you can't screw with the canon. if you could, it wouldn't be a canon. Luther tried it; it didn't stick. Meanwhile, I don't see Good As New, which also messes with the Canon, making itself a monster hit.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I mean, OK, there are those OT deuterocanonical books, but that's something else.
Let's not go there. I did in purg recently and I'm not sure Mousethief or Isaac David have forgiven me yet.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think so either. I was just calling for it to be done on a case by case basis. Also I'd point out that 'doesn't seem to make consistent sense' can be a rather slippery fish when we consider the fact that often the writer seems to contradict himself in the same letter...Again, I'm not saying that this rules out your argument above just that a lot of the criteria end up being very subjective. These are letters after all not systematic theology textbooks.
I admit it, this is a very good point.
quote:
Let's not go there. I did in purg recently and I'm not sure Mousethief or Isaac David have forgiven me yet.
Agreed. Let's focus on the canon that everyone agrees on.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Let's focus on the canon that everyone agrees on.
Err, Wood, that was exactly what I said to draw their ire.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I just wish that Paul, whoever he or they were, had been reminded they were writing scripture when they dashed off those letters, and that he (they'd) checked the files of the old ones before writing the new ones.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Johhhhnny... best to leave behind other threads and focus on the thread at hand, hmm?
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I just wish that Paul, whoever he or they were, had been reminded they were writing scripture when they dashed off those letters, and that he (they'd) checked the files of the old ones before writing the new ones.
Assuming that he did etc.
But it raises an interesting point. I mean, Paul had a good idea of his significance (or did he? No commentary to hand. In which epistles does Paul call himself an Apostle?) but how many of the writers of the NT actually knew they were writing Scripture?
Even First Timothy, which has of course that bit everyone likes to quote about inspiration (3:16) doesn't actually consider itself scripture.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
how many of the writers of the NT actually knew they were writing Scripture?
Even First Timothy, which has of course that bit everyone likes to quote about inspiration (3:16) doesn't actually consider itself scripture.
Oh, oh, I know this one.
quote:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3: 16
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Another 2 3 16 - The Scripture Code
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
how many of the writers of the NT actually knew they were writing Scripture?
Even First Timothy, which has of course that bit everyone likes to quote about inspiration (3:16) doesn't actually consider itself scripture.
Oh, oh, I know this one.
quote:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3: 16
Another 2 3 16 - The Scripture Code
Ohhh. That's a good one.
But that's "Peter", writing about Paul. Did Paul consider himself Scripture?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Question for Greek scholars: could the word translated 'scriptures' in 2 Peter 3:16 be equally well translated 'writings'?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Question for Greek scholars: could the word translated 'scriptures' in 2 Peter 3:16 be equally well translated 'writings'?
Yes and No.
Literally the Greek word means 'writings' but it is the same word that is used throughout the NT when quoting the OT 'scriptures'.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But that's "Peter", writing about Paul. Did Paul consider himself Scripture?
Don't know.
I think the way he bangs on (and on and on and on) about his Apostolic authority makes it likely though.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Question for Greek scholars: could the word translated 'scriptures' in 2 Peter 3:16 be equally well translated 'writings'?
Yes and No.
Literally the Greek word means 'writings' but it is the same word that is used throughout the NT when quoting the OT 'scriptures'.
That could go both ways, you know.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
That could go both ways, you know.
You've lost me.
That one issue of 'writings' could go each way, but this is the same word used in the proof-text of all proof texts (2 Timothy 3: 16).
Paul thought 'scripture' was inspired by God. If he meant all writings then this would be strange since the context of 2 Tim 3 is a warning against being deceived by false teaching.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
That could go both ways, you know.
You've lost me.
That one issue of 'writings' could go each way, but this is the same word used in the proof-text of all proof texts (2 Timothy 3: 16).
Paul thought 'scripture' was inspired by God. If he meant all writings then this would be strange since the context of 2 Tim 3 is a warning against being deceived by false teaching.
But then, if one took that to the furthest extremity, one might argue that it's another nail in the coffin of " Timothy being authoritative.
Or at the very least, that the Greek word for writings/scripture having differing meanings based on context.
I'm playing devil's advocate though. I think you're actually right on the "writings" vs. "scripture" question.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But that's "Peter", writing about Paul. Did Paul consider himself Scripture?
Don't know.
I think the way he bangs on (and on and on and on) about his Apostolic authority makes it likely though.
Most of the times he bangs on about his apostolic authority is when he's talking to churches that he either started or invested a lot of time in, and who have gone a bit astray.
When he's writing to people he doesn't know (Romans) he's not that heavy on the apostle stuff, but more interested in trying to persuade them with an argument.
When he's writing to people who seem to be doing ok (Philippians) he doesn't even mention it.
When he's writing to people who have royally screwed up (Galatians), he rams it down their throats.
He changes his language in other ways too, calling the Galatians 'children' and the Philippians 'brothers' or 'friends'.
So you could say that the way Paul saw himself as having apostolic authority was very dependent on context - that he saw his authority in the context of his ministry to the Gentiles, and to those churches where he spent a lot of time in particular. So maybe he saw his letters as 'scripture' to those congregations, but wasn't really interested on whether it was scripture for anyone else (including us).
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So maybe he saw his letters as 'scripture' to those congregations, but wasn't really interested on whether it was scripture for anyone else (including us).
I don't think that works.
The OT prophets saw their messages very much as God's Word for a specific people and time, and yet the Jews (incl. Jesus) saw their words as 'scripture'.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Ah, but that's not equivalent. I was talking about how Paul saw his writings, not how later generations see them. Just as Jesus saw the prophets' writings as scripture, we now see Paul's writings as scripture. But that doesn't say anything about how Paul saw his own writings.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Its pretty clear he saw his writings as authoritative to the community, in an instructional way. Whether that meant they were seen to be as important to decision making as the prophets isn't clear.
But given the move towards a different interpretation of the law and of grace, I'm not sure Paul saw the prophets as important as the working out of faith within the Christ following communities he was corresponding with.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I don't think anyone in NT times had a concept of scripture quite like any you can find today. The question is not a binary one - did Paul regard his writings as scripture or not? - but has to enquire exactly how he regarded his writings, how he expected them to be used, by whom, for how long, and so on.
One thing that has often struck me about Paul is that he endlessly explains. He doesn't usually just pronounce, but appeals to people's judgement, and offers reasons and arguments of many different sorts. He is a great persuader.
If he felt his conclusions needed such careful support, that suggests he didn't have a very strong view of the authority of his writings.
On the other hand, he makes quite a big deal about himself, his status as an apostle, and the various experiences he has gone through. The letters read to me like continuations of the discussions he would have had face to face, and in the flesh and on papyrus I think he believes that his personal authority is significant.
That suggests to me that Paul would think authorship was a significant question. It matters to him that he has been beaten for the gospel, shipwrecked, and that he had the encounter on the Damascus road.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That suggests to me that Paul would think authorship was a significant question. It matters to him that he has been beaten for the gospel, shipwrecked, and that he had the encounter on the Damascus road.
Yes. This.
And of course, that's why someone who wasn't Paul would put his name on a writing, and why it matters; the question of authority doesn't just extend to the signature, it's about the assumption of the individual and unique apostolic authority assigned to Paul himself in the text, isn't it?
It's not like you can take the name off it and it'll be the same — the letters are written in character, so to speak.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
So if we had conclusive proof (or pretty indisputable proof) that one if the letters doubted at present wasn't written by Paul, should it be removed from the canon?
Conversly, if the letter to laodicea was found (or the one in existence proved genuine), should it be added to the canon?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So if we had conclusive proof (or pretty indisputable proof) that one if the letters doubted at present wasn't written by Paul, should it be removed from the canon?
Conversly, if the letter to laodicea was found (or the one in existence proved genuine), should it be added to the canon?
No on both counts, in my opinion. Just because a letter is thought to have apostolic authority, it doesn't automatically follow that everything else written by the same person must also have apostolic authority.
But being written by Paul isn't the only way that a letter may have come to have apostolic authority in the first place either.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At an Orthodox study weekend, I once asked Bishop Kallistos Ware whether we would have to accept Paul's letter to the Laodicean's as canonical should an archaelogist ever find it and it be proven to be the genuine article.
His answer was that, whilst it was obviously a hypothetical question, if it could be established that the letter was genuine and if the Church as a whole (by which he meant the Orthodox Church of course) and wider Christendom were involved too - RC and Protestant scholars etc - then we would conceivably accept it into the canon.
I don't think any of us knew what the answer would be if the letter did turn up and it flatly contradicted some of the things we've traditionally taken from the Pauline corpus as a whole.
Now that would be interesting ...
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So if we had conclusive proof (or pretty indisputable proof) that one if the letters doubted at present wasn't written by Paul, should it be removed from the canon?
What Jessie said.
Plus what would actually constitute pretty indisputable proof?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So if we had conclusive proof (or pretty indisputable proof) that one if the letters doubted at present wasn't written by Paul, should it be removed from the canon?
What Jessie said.
Plus what would actually constitute pretty indisputable proof?
Quite. There's no such thing, really, in any field of ancient lit crit; when faith comes into the equation, proof becomes completely redundant.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Fair do's, it was a hypothetical question to get at the principles behind. So that in mind:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
But being written by Paul isn't the only way that a letter may have come to have apostolic authority in the first place either.
What are some of those reasons?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Fair do's, it was a hypothetical question to get at the principles behind. So that in mind:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
But being written by Paul isn't the only way that a letter may have come to have apostolic authority in the first place either.
What are some of those reasons?
I think that's best explained by re-iterating something Johnny S said further up:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Likewise it is one thing to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews (which almost certainly he didn't) and quite another to say that it was written by a plumber in the 5th century called Nigel.
The point at which I differ from Johnny S is that I think this applies to the whole of the New Testament; not just Hebrews.
Okay, I grant that a lot of letters do seem to say that they were written by "Paul". But so what? All that does is it raises questions about who we think Paul was. How do we know there was only one Paul? And how do we know that some letters aren't actually composites of two or more pre-existing writings, in much the way that Isaiah and Daniel are commonly thought to be? Even if Paul was the one who brought the letter together into its final form, how do we know that he hasn't liberally quoted from another source that was actually written by someone else, but which is now lost to us? Would it matter if he had?
We have a modern notion of authorship which is partly shaped by copyright laws, and the plagiarism policies of universities and research journals. As a result, whenever someone claims to have written something themselves, but which is actually quoted extensively from another source without attributing it or clearing it for permission first, we tend to think of it as a kind of fraud.
However, I don't think we can safely assume that authorship was seen in the same way at the time the New Testament books were written.
Indeed - perhaps people aren't that fussed about authorship nowadays either. How many people would dispute the claim of Eugene H Peterson to be the author of "The Message", on the grounds that The Message is a little bit similar to a pre-existing book known as "The Bible"?
My point is, authorship claims do have a context. Simply saying that Paul was the author of a particular epistle does not necessarily mean that the content of the epistle was entirely original.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
how many of the writers of the NT actually knew they were writing Scripture?
Even First Timothy, which has of course that bit everyone likes to quote about inspiration (3:16) doesn't actually consider itself scripture.
Oh, oh, I know this one.
quote:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3: 16
Another 2 3 16 - The Scripture Code
IIRC, 2 Peter, because of its huge reliance on Jude, and because of its very late date of authorship and acceptance, is the most obvious case of pseudepigraphy in the entire NT.
Just sayin'... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 11. March 2011, 21:45: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Okay, I grant that a lot of letters do seem to say that they were written by "Paul". But so what?
I think it is reasonable to accept that a letter was written by Paul if:
1. It says so.
2. There is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise.
I agree there are plenty of fundamentalists who want to fight tooth and nail over every single letter for Pauline authorship. However, I don't find them any less credible than those who reject authorship simply because "it's a cool theory" and "I get a PhD out of it."
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Just sayin'...
Just saying - what?
I quoted it as evidence that the early church viewed Paul's letters as scripture, no more, no less.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Okay, I grant that a lot of letters do seem to say that they were written by "Paul". But so what?
I think it is reasonable to accept that a letter was written by Paul if:
1. It says so.
2. There is no reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise.
I agree there are plenty of fundamentalists who want to fight tooth and nail over every single letter for Pauline authorship. However, I don't find them any less credible than those who reject authorship simply because "it's a cool theory" and "I get a PhD out of it."
I agree with you. However, just because we can't always be sure who wrote what and when, doesn't mean there's mileage to be had in re-crafting the canon.
Just because the church has traditionally always thought proposition X to be true, but that scholars have recently cast doubt on proposition X, does not mean that alternative proposition Y absolutely must have been true all along, and that we have only just now re-discovered it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Okay, I grant that a lot of letters do seem to say that they were written by "Paul". But so what?
I think it is reasonable to accept that a letter was written by Paul if:
1. It says so.
No, because it was common for writers to use the name of their teacher when writing books.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Just sayin'...
Just saying - what?
I quoted it as evidence that the early church viewed Paul's letters as scripture, no more, no less.
Early church, but pretty well after Paul. I'm not sure if we're arguing about the church's view or Paul's here. I wouldn't assume the two are always consistent, especially since Paul wasn't always particularly consistent with himself, especially if you take the pastorals as Pauline.
As I observed in a paper that hinted at some of the flaws in the "non-Pauline authorship" arguments, they don't really get rid of the problem for inspiration that Paul seemed to have changed his mind on certain things, especially to a viewpoint that likes to quote a few verses as a "just so!" argument.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, because it was common for writers to use the name of their teacher when writing books.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
How is that not covered in my second point?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Backing up a bit ... quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That one issue of 'writings' could go each way, but this is the same word used in the proof-text of all proof texts (2 Timothy 3: 16).
Paul thought 'scripture' was inspired by God. If he meant all writings then this would be strange since the context of 2 Tim 3 is a warning against being deceived by false teaching.
I was looking at this passage this morning in the NRSV, which has:
quote:
All scripture is inspired by God and is* useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
But if you [uncheck "omit footnotes" and] put your mouse over the asterisk, you get an alternative reading:
quote:
Every scripture inspired by God is also [useful for teaching ...]
Is anyone with a better knowledge of the Greek able to comment?
FWIW, the version in the footnote seems a bit tautologous to me, but I don't know anything about the Greek.
[ 13. March 2011, 13:51: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, because it was common for writers to use the name of their teacher when writing books.
How is that not covered in my second point?
I do not see the relevance of your second point.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW, the version in the footnote seems a bit tautologous to me, but I don't know anything about the Greek.
It doesn't look good to me.
I presume the confusion arises because the verb 'to be' needs to be supplied. Literally verse 16 begins, "All scripture inspired...' Therefore I suppose the discussion is between "All scripture is inspired" or "All of the scripture which is inspired"
However, the former is almost certainly correct since it literally continues "... and useful." i.e. "All scripture inspired and useful..."
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, because it was common for writers to use the name of their teacher when writing books.
How is that not covered in my second point?
I do not see the relevance of your second point.
The fact that pseudepigraphy did occur is no help at all in determining authorship. It merely tells us that it is a possibility. Questions of authorship must turn on evidence.
I repeat, if a letter says it was written by Paul it is perfectly sensible to assume it was written by Paul without clear evidence to the contrary.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
If I pick up a violin in a charity shop and see that there's a label inside that says Stradivarius, I don't therefore conclude that it really is a Strad. That isn't a reasonable assumption to make, because of the number of copies that have been made (and I don't suppose the real Stradivarius put little paper labels inside his violins). I have no direct evidence about this violin to counter the claim on the label, but I still won't believe it.
I don't know how common pseudepigraphy was, but my judgement about that will affect my judgement about the authorship of, say, Colossians.
But going back to 2 Timothy, what understanding of inspiration is there here? Inspired scripture, it says, is
useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
It doesn't say infallible, morally binding, above question, absolute in authority, or to be whole-heartedly accepted, obeyed, believed and trusted. It says useful. A modest view of inspiration.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If I pick up a violin in a charity shop and see that there's a label inside that says Stradivarius, I don't therefore conclude that it really is a Strad. That isn't a reasonable assumption to make, because of the number of copies that have been made (and I don't suppose the real Stradivarius put little paper labels inside his violins). I have no direct evidence about this violin to counter the claim on the label, but I still won't believe it.
Come on Hatless, you don't really think that is a fair comparison do you?
If you came across a Strad labelled violin you'd want to check whether it was real (i.e. made by the Stradivarius family business) or a fake. I find it very hard to believe that you wouldn't care.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't know how common pseudepigraphy was, but my judgement about that will affect my judgement about the authorship of, say, Colossians.
That is a pretty big thing to admit considering your comments above about Stradivarius. Your argument rests on the assumption that it was as common as Stradivarius imitations.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But going back to 2 Timothy, what understanding of inspiration is there here? Inspired scripture, it says, is
useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
It doesn't say infallible, morally binding, above question, absolute in authority, or to be whole-heartedly accepted, obeyed, believed and trusted. It says useful. A modest view of inspiration.
True, you'd have to look elsewhere to discuss those other things.
Although you've truncated the sentence - "so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" - is how it continues. From that I think it is legitimate to conclude the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture.
[ 14. March 2011, 04:48: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The point I was making, and I may have misread you, is that our judgement of the likelihood of false attribution does affect how we assess the claimed attribution. You seem to be saying that only hard evidence pointing in the other direction should make us question the claimed attribution.
Actually, my own opinion that the Pastorals are not by Paul, is based on the content of the letters. The thought is just not Pauline, in my opinion. Similarly with Colossians, though style also plays a part there. Philippians I think is, probably, by Paul, because I think I detect his personality behind the words, especially in the lovely awkwardness with which he deals with the personal matters at the end of the letter. Philemon I'm in two minds about, but the style just swings it in favour of authenticity.
But taking the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians as later works makes the letters as a whole make more sense to me. I can see the development (decay?) of the gospel in them.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't know how common pseudepigraphy was,
Really, really common.
And not just for apostles. And often it was very successful.
For example. A work called the Homilies AKA Recognitions was attributed to Clement of Rome, the reputed companion of the Apostle Peter and his successor as Bishop of Rome. Although a late 2nd/early 3rd-century piece of Ebionite* propaganda, the Homilies still ended up getting a semi-official translation by Rufinus of Aquileia, who wrote a preface saying "some of this stuff says things about God that a small brain like me can't understand... so I cut them out." Which is code for "this is clearly heretical, but everyone believes Clement wrote this, so I've taken on some damage limitation."
But there's a metric crapload** of pseudepigrapha out there, some of it blatantly, obviously not real (Pseudo-Matthew, for instance; the Acts of Andrew AKA The Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals and so on), and some of it much less obvious (most people think the Gospel of Barnabas to be late-written nonsense, but no one who cares thinks it's boring).
And some stuff wasn't popular, but might actually not be spurious — Thomas, for instance (honestly, though, although Thomas has a couple of nice bits, I am glad it's not canonical, because it's got some horrible misogyny and the craziest parable ever***).
__________
* Early Judaist heresy. The Homilies has lengthy sermons that say unorthodox stuff and slurs on Paul, whom the Ebionites hated. You can tell when it was written because it has a bunch of obvious anachronisms, esp. about buildings in Rome that weren't built and stuff like that.
** 2.2 Imperial or American craploads.
*** "The Kingdom of Heaven is like an assassin in training." Uh-huh.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, my own opinion that the Pastorals are not by Paul, is based on the content of the letters. The thought is just not Pauline, in my opinion. Similarly with Colossians, though style also plays a part there. Philippians I think is, probably, by Paul, because I think I detect his personality behind the words, especially in the lovely awkwardness with which he deals with the personal matters at the end of the letter. Philemon I'm in two minds about, but the style just swings it in favour of authenticity.
But taking the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians as later works makes the letters as a whole make more sense to me. I can see the development (decay?) of the gospel in them.
And you're not alone in this. This argument was prominent in the early church, and has been in currency in the modern age for a long, long time.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
One little thought which strikes me about discussions of authorship: in many contexts today we actually do not care about authorship, nor consider a work to be lying if it wasn't written by its purported "author".
I have long worked in the public sector. Letters are commonly signed by the head of the department, but written by underlings. If you examined the (purported) writings of the one department head, you would find many different styles and conceptual frameworks. The point is, no one cares about the "authenticity" of a business letter the way that they care about the authenticity of a work of art.
If you have a painting alleged to be by Picasso, then you want all the brush strokes on that painting to have been put there by the actual hand of Picasso, and not the whole thing done by a student, family member or friend honouring him by painting in his style. You want an "authentic" Picasso.
But if you have enquired of a government department whether you are entitled to a benefit, you don't care whether the head of the department composed a single word in the letter of reply, you just care whether the department will stand behind the reply. You want "authority", not "authenticity".
Did the early churches want a "genuine Pauline" epistle in the "work of art" sense? Or did they want something that Paul would have stood behind and supported? If the latter, then "who cared" back then if the letter was actually composed by a Silas or a Timothy? It was all from "the Department of Saint Paul".
In other words, "authentic authorship" depends on genre, and on cultural expectations. We don't expect it or value it in some genres, but we do care aboout it in works of art. But in former ages many great works of art were anonymous (eg Beowulf) which today would have brought their author great celebrity. Knowing the author is more important today than it was in the early Middle Ages.
Maybe it is something about the modern emphasis on individuality.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
But if you have enquired of a government department whether you are entitled to a benefit, you don't care whether the head of the department composed a single word in the letter of reply, you just care whether the department will stand behind the reply. You want "authority", not "authenticity".
I was all ready to disagree strenuously with you but by the end of the post, I thought, wait, this is a really good point.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, my own opinion that the Pastorals are not by Paul, is based on the content of the letters. The thought is just not Pauline, in my opinion. Similarly with Colossians, though style also plays a part there. Philippians I think is, probably, by Paul, because I think I detect his personality behind the words, especially in the lovely awkwardness with which he deals with the personal matters at the end of the letter. Philemon I'm in two minds about, but the style just swings it in favour of authenticity.
But taking the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians as later works makes the letters as a whole make more sense to me. I can see the development (decay?) of the gospel in them.
And you're not alone in this. This argument was prominent in the early church, and has been in currency in the modern age for a long, long time.
Have you got any references for this? I thought it was a more modern line of thinking.
If that view was prominent in the early church, did it have any effect on the formation of the canon?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Have you got any references for this? I thought it was a more modern line of thinking.
If that view was prominent in the early church, did it have any effect on the formation of the canon?
Sadly, I am at work (shh don't tell anyone) and I do not have my library to hand.
(Oh, Library, I miss you. Do you miss me? Wait for me, my love...)
Ahem.
Anyway. It did have a formation on the canon, inasmuch as it took 400 years or so to get some sort of agreement and there were still a few people arguing about it well into the 500s AD.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The point I was making, and I may have misread you, is that our judgement of the likelihood of false attribution does affect how we assess the claimed attribution. You seem to be saying that only hard evidence pointing in the other direction should make us question the claimed attribution.
That last sentence seems rather circular to me. I probably would soften it a bit from 'hard' but I'm equally puzzled by what else you would use to question the claim than evidence? (And then it comes down to how good the evidence is.)
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, my own opinion that the Pastorals are not by Paul, is based on the content of the letters. The thought is just not Pauline, in my opinion. Similarly with Colossians, though style also plays a part there. Philippians I think is, probably, by Paul, because I think I detect his personality behind the words, especially in the lovely awkwardness with which he deals with the personal matters at the end of the letter. Philemon I'm in two minds about, but the style just swings it in favour of authenticity.
But taking the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians as later works makes the letters as a whole make more sense to me. I can see the development (decay?) of the gospel in them.
Again, I don't have a problem with this approach per se but it seems very circular to me. Presumably you build up the personality of Paul first of all from the letters you are confident of authorship and move on from there? That's hardly an exact science is it?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The point I was making, and I may have misread you, is that our judgement of the likelihood of false attribution does affect how we assess the claimed attribution. You seem to be saying that only hard evidence pointing in the other direction should make us question the claimed attribution.
That last sentence seems rather circular to me. I probably would soften it a bit from 'hard' but I'm equally puzzled by what else you would use to question the claim than evidence? (And then it comes down to how good the evidence is.)
I'm still confused, I'm afraid! Do you mean that we should accept that a letter that says it is by Paul really is by Paul unless we have some other, contrary evidence about this letter? Because if so, I'm disagreeing on the grounds that the practice of pseudepigraphy, whilst it isn't evidence about any particular letter, does count against the assumption of Pauline authorship, and might tip the judgement when added to other factors such as style and content.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Actually, my own opinion that the Pastorals are not by Paul, is based on the content of the letters. The thought is just not Pauline, in my opinion. Similarly with Colossians, though style also plays a part there. Philippians I think is, probably, by Paul, because I think I detect his personality behind the words, especially in the lovely awkwardness with which he deals with the personal matters at the end of the letter. Philemon I'm in two minds about, but the style just swings it in favour of authenticity.
But taking the Pastorals, Ephesians and Colossians as later works makes the letters as a whole make more sense to me. I can see the development (decay?) of the gospel in them.
Again, I don't have a problem with this approach per se but it seems very circular to me. Presumably you build up the personality of Paul first of all from the letters you are confident of authorship and move on from there? That's hardly an exact science is it?
No exact sciences here! 1 Corinthians, Romans and Galatians seem to me to be sufficiently similar in style and theology to read them as the work of one person. Despite great differences in the three letters, there is still coherence of thought, and a personality emerges: combative, prickly, rhetorical, warm, honest, with a sure grasp of the deep implications of the gospel he is bearing.
Other letters contribute to, or fit with that theology and personality more or less well. Some really don't. Is that circular? You could start the other way round, I suppose, and then you might decide that Paul wrote only 1 and 2 Timothy and 2 Thessalonians, and that all the others are by some other guy with the same name.
I have to say, though, that if I was an officer in the ancient Roman CIA I wouldn't be in the least worried about whoever wrote to Timothy, but the author of 1 Corinthians would wake me with a start in the small hours.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
But if you have enquired of a government department whether you are entitled to a benefit, you don't care whether the head of the department composed a single word in the letter of reply, you just care whether the department will stand behind the reply. You want "authority", not "authenticity".
Did the early churches want a "genuine Pauline" epistle in the "work of art" sense? Or did they want something that Paul would have stood behind and supported? If the latter, then "who cared" back then if the letter was actually composed by a Silas or a Timothy? It was all from "the Department of Saint Paul".
I agree. One of the criteria used for the canon was Catholicity - was the letter generally accepted across all the churches as being 'from the department of St Paul'.
Which of course raises questions about the methodology which looks for a change in Paul's thinking. Even if the Pastoral Epistles were written later the church at the time either didn't see a big change in thinking or saw any changes as in keeping with the gospel.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Because if so, I'm disagreeing on the grounds that the practice of pseudepigraphy, whilst it isn't evidence about any particular letter, does count against the assumption of Pauline authorship, and might tip the judgement when added to other factors such as style and content.
I don't think we are disagreeing about the process at all.
I'm just quibbling over words like 'might'. I'm not suggesting that you are doing this Hatless, but I frequently come across the lazy argument that might means should.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
But if you have enquired of a government department whether you are entitled to a benefit, you don't care whether the head of the department composed a single word in the letter of reply, you just care whether the department will stand behind the reply. You want "authority", not "authenticity".
Did the early churches want a "genuine Pauline" epistle in the "work of art" sense? Or did they want something that Paul would have stood behind and supported? If the latter, then "who cared" back then if the letter was actually composed by a Silas or a Timothy? It was all from "the Department of Saint Paul".
I agree. One of the criteria used for the canon was Catholicity - was the letter generally accepted across all the churches as being 'from the department of St Paul'.
Which of course raises questions about the methodology which looks for a change in Paul's thinking. Even if the Pastoral Epistles were written later the church at the time either didn't see a big change in thinking or saw any changes as in keeping with the gospel.
To speak of "the church" as a united body with one mind at that point in history is rather anachronistic.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
To speak of "the church" as a united body with one mind at that point in history is rather anachronistic.
At what point in history?
I was talking about when the canon was formed. A while after the pastorals were written, that is true, but still over 1600 years closer than we are.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
To speak of "the church" as a united body with one mind at that point in history is rather anachronistic.
At what point in history?
I was talking about when the canon was formed. A while after the pastorals were written, that is true, but still over 1600 years closer than we are.
They were closer, but they were also at least as fractious. Even Paul seemed to be dealing with conflicts almost constantly.
The formation of the canon wasn't a single event, but a process spanning several centuries.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
They were closer, but they were also at least as fractious. Even Paul seemed to be dealing with conflicts almost constantly.
I'm confused, as I said was talking about the 4th century onwards - you don't think Paul wrote Corinthians then do you?
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The formation of the canon wasn't a single event, but a process spanning several centuries.
Agreed. But it was a process that had a conclusion (apart from some parts of Orthodoxy) and that end point is still a whole lot closer to the original events than we are.
[ 20. March 2011, 05:02: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
They were closer, but they were also at least as fractious. Even Paul seemed to be dealing with conflicts almost constantly.
I'm confused, as I said was talking about the 4th century onwards - you don't think Paul wrote Corinthians then do you?
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The formation of the canon wasn't a single event, but a process spanning several centuries.
Agreed. But it was a process that had a conclusion (apart from some parts of Orthodoxy) and that end point is still a whole lot closer to the original events than we are.
And the church that was closer to the original events wasn't of one mind with itself. Every gospel writer, even, has its own take on things. Peter and Paul were almost enemies at some points. I'm not sure where this "one mind" was.
And as written, Paul couldn't even agree with himself on matters such as eschatology. Is it imminent? Or do we have to dig in and settle down for a while? Hmm...
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Peter and Paul were almost enemies at some points.
And even if they themselves weren't, their partisans (according to some documents) certainly were for a time.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
And the church that was closer to the original events wasn't of one mind with itself. Every gospel writer, even, has its own take on things. Peter and Paul were almost enemies at some points. I'm not sure where this "one mind" was.
We're going in circles here. Who said they were of 'one mind'? All I said that 2 Peter recognised Paul's writing as scripture. The book of Acts is pretty candid about disagreements in the church.
I don't see what point you are making.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0