Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Authorship of the Pauline epistles has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Statistics

I wonder where this figure came from? A majority of scholars (about 2/3) consider that Colossians is not written by Paul. Sound as if it came from a particular survey of the field of scholars; if so, that would be a helpful citation. Thanks. Wesley 04:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its one of the references in the references section of the page. Unfortunately I have forgotten which, although it will be one of Richard Heard, Udo Schnelle, Norman Perrin. The exact statistic expressed in the reference is 60% (2/3 is 66.66666(etc.)%). CheeseDreams 18:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me. But that makes it 2/3 of all the scholars you mentioned. So write it as such. You haven't written about every scholar who has ever published someting about the Pauline Epistles!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You don't seem to have understood my response. The statistic is mentioned by one of the authors I refer to above, I didn't mean that the statistic was the authors I referred to above. It is in fact a 2/3 of ALL biblical scholars everywhere statistic, which is, I believe, how I wrote it in the article. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then cite who believes it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, Raymond E. Brown in his An Introduction to the New Testament offers percentages of the "critical scholarship" who believe whether Paul wrote which Epistle. For the ones where there is serious doubt, here are Brown's numbers:

  • 2 Thessalonians -- "evenly divided"
  • Colossians -- 60%
  • Ephesians -- 70 to 80% (with Erasmus mentioned as one)
  • Titus -- 80 to 90%
  • 1 Timothy -- 80 to 90%
  • 2 Timothy -- 80 to 90%
  • Hebrews -- almost all scholars, with Origen & Tertullian being 2 early sceptics.

Brown's book is an excellent guide to the issues (both textual & of content) of the NT, & should be consulted by everyone who wants to contribute to New Testament articles. Although he admits at the beginning of this book that he is a Catholic scholar (& wrote extensively about the Johannine books before his death), he makes his own POV very clear, & provides intelligent discussions of POVs opposing his. -- llywrch 23:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

llywrch, thank you very much for the source. Can I assume that those percentages of "critical scholarship" that do not believe that Paul wrote the book in question? Also, I presume based on the fact that ranges are given, that these figures are not the result of an actual survey but rather Brown's general impression of what "critical scholarship" thinks. Is this a fair assessment? Wesley 03:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wesley, I'm not sure I understand your question, so forgive me if I don't properly answer it.
Nowhere in his book does Brown explain how he arrived at these numbers; I would assume, for lack of better evidence that it was based on his extensive reading of the secondary literature & years of associating with other NT scholars. In other words, these numbers are not hard & verifable, but provide a useful gauge of just how likely Paul wrote each one of these works. I find his numbers a better tool than the usual Wikipedia practice of either stating something along the lines of "a concensus", "many people believe", "some people believe", or "an articulate minority believe" -- plus we're quoting the opinion of an acknowledged expert, rather than an anonymous Wikipedian's unverifiable impression.
And these numbers only tell one piece of the story -- which is why I made the pitch to read his book. (And do -- I believe that it has something of value for every student of the NT, despite her/his beliefs.) Brown spends a chapter explaining the complex issue of authorship at the time these works were written: while admitting that it is possible that some of these works were not the direct work of Paul -- either by his hand or a scribe by dictation -- he emphasizes that they were very likely written by his own followers who wanted to preserve some of his ideas that had not been set down in writing. In other words, very much like the difference between a professor's own essay & a student's paraphrase based on that professor's works. -- llywrch 20:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, you answered my question. I agree that Brown's general impression is probably far more accurate than most based on his involvement in the given field, as you say. I'm sure it's a fine book, but I can't be sure when I'll get to it, as I'm already behind on my personal reading list. Thanks for the recommendation though. Wesley 17:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcion?

"When Marcion (the 2nd century founder of Marcionism, similar to gnosticism) listed the epistles by Paul, he did not mention the pastorals (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). The author of Ephesians itself draws on most of Paul's epistles in its style but seems to lack any reliance on 2 Thessalonians or the pastorals. For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars."

Wow. Marcion was opposed by many people. That doesn't even cop a mention. I'm marking this as totally disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he was opposed. But, he was the first person ever to list any New Testament canon. (Which is the significance of his list - i.e. the sentence is basically "When the first list of Canon was drawn up, it did not include the pastorals amongst it"). It was because of Marcion's list's existance that the others decided it necessary to draw up a canon. Marcion's list was first. B.t.w. His list only included the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. CheeseDreams 18:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will rewrite that bit so that that is clear CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll tell you what. Why don't we just move this to "The totally false and misleading Pauline Epistles", cause that's the way the article reads. At least this would be honest. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chill out, man. If Marcion was the first to list them, this is a fact. No problem with facts, surely? It's not at all disputed if it's true. Now if some other guy listed them ten years later and included them all, you put him in and Bob's your uncle. The "disputed" tag is for disputes now, not disputes then! Dr Zen 02:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, actually he didn't. The next person missed out some others, but included certain epistles, and Shepherd of Hermas. Later ones also added 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, still later ones added 3 Corinthians. Shepherd of Hermas, and Barnabas, were held to be canon by the majority for absolutely ages (and discounted Revelations). It was only really sorted out into the exact set we have now at some time in the late 3rd/ early 4th century. I think the first time the actual canon used now was listed was at the Synod of Laodicea (or somewhere with a similar sounding name) at about this time. But since this is about the fact that it is suspicious that they weren't listed at the start of the 2nd century, or in fact even mentioned at all until the end of the second century (by Irenaeus, who is the first to mention the pastorals ever), I don't see how that is relevant. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 27 books we have in the New Testament were first listed as a group by Athanasius in one of his pastoral letters in the mid fourth century. They were then agreed on in a series of synods, and yes I think the Syond of Laodicea was one of those, in the last half of the fourth century. I think it's fine to mention Marcion's canon, but it's also well worth noting that no one else paid much attention to it (besides the Marcionsites) and his list was controversial even then, and not just because of the pauline epistles. I'll do some checking into when the pastorals were first mentioned; do you happen to have a reference saying Irenaeus was the first, just to save me some time? Thanks, Wesley 17:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

I dispute the merge.

This article, like Authorship of John, is about textual criticism, and is fairly seperate to the main article on these epistles. This is also quite a large page, as is the Pauline epistles page, merging them would push the page quite high. Further, this page is linked from many textual criticism pages, it would be quite odd to be directed to a page discussing the content, in the same way as merging Markan priority with Gospel of Mark would be really quite odd. I have no issue with a small summary being placed there though. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page totally disputed? Try it yourself. Seperate the two sets of epistles (the 7 undisputed, vs. those that are not the 7 undisputed). Read one whole set, then read the other. It is really quite different.

I totally dispute it because you are pushing a POV. See the next section that I wrote below. Oh, and btw. The Authorship of John article is pretty NPOV, even if it has got stuff I don't agree with in there. You should read NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Totally disputed requires npov AND factual accuracy disputes. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have altered this. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What factual accuracy do you dispute?

You can check the epistles yourself if you want, the points made in the article are true. The language is different, the greek does have large differences, the theology and style does have large differences. The vast majority of most scholars do consider that Paul did not write the pastorals. Most do not think that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How interesting that you are still making sweeping statements. There are many, many Christian Bible scholars who believe that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. So that proves your assertion false. Also, you haven't given me sources for your claims. Do you expect me to wade through all your books? If this was submitted as a college paper you'd fail. Why should we treat you any differently here? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not really. I didn't assert that they were Christian. Christians are only a subset of the set of all Biblical scholars. If it was submitted as a college paper, my college would wonder what I was doing submitting academic work to them rather than to the university. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. I thought Americans called Univeristy college. I must have been wrong. Still, this would most definitely fail as a university paper. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could compromise by saying that most non Christian scholars believe that the evidence of textual criticism indicates that Paul did not write some of these epistles? As for reading them for myself, it's easy to imagine that someone might adopt a different style when writing to a bishop or apostle, then when writing to a congregation; this alone would easily explain the pastorals. As for different phrasings, perhaps he dictated his letters and some scribes didn't write down his words precisely word for word, altering the style or grammar slightly. I'm no expert so I won't make these suggestions in the text, but let's at least agree that we are not likely to convince each other, and also agree for the sake of civility that the other person's beliefs about this are not completely without merit. Wesley 13:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not really, the Pastorals are particularly extreme in their differences. (This is somewhat obscured by translation though). It is as likely as George W. Bush, with his standard and style of english, writing The Remains of the Day, with its. That's the level of difference in the pastorals. Which is basically the reason that virtually all scholars who do not let their religion get in the way of their objectivity are totally convinced that the pastorals are fakes. It is essentially easier to prove that George Bush wrote one of the most eloquent pieces of english ever written (the aforementioned book) than it is to show that Paul wrote the pastorals. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right. I'm pulling out of this one (as suggested by Dr Zen). Let the article be written the way you want it. Let it remain a blight on Wikipedia, at least it'll be clear that you are pushing a POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Let me say this a little bit differently. We need to agree that we subscribe to different theories about the authorship of the Pauline epistles, and more importantly, agree that scholars also disagree about their authorship. My favorite theory, your favorite theory, and whoever else's favorite theory need to be presented neutrally, and objectively. This is how NPOV works on wikipedia. CheeseDreams, do you agree with this approach? If not, can you be specific about the flaws you see in this approach? Wesley 06:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Why does this not appear neutral?

This is the majority opinion. But the text still contains the counter arguments. What is not neutral? CheeseDreams 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not neutral because you don't even bother to present the opposing view!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is why other editors exist. Put the opposing case, Ta bu. If CheeseDreams reverts it without good reason, I will support you. But what you put in must be of an equivalent standard to be fair. Dr Zen 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, listing some opposing views will help the article. It would also be helpful to further qualify "majority of scholars" as to which scholars are really intended. You probably don't want to include every monk and priest among this group of scholars, for instance, even though many of them spend a great deal of time studying the Bible and related early texts. However, they don't all employ the tools of textual criticism. So how could we neutrally describe "most scholars" to indicate the scholars you do mean? Wesley 13:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There must be some opposing scholars surely. For Collosians, it only just scrapes close to 2/3 so there must be a sizable minority (1/3) who think it genuine. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Non-religious" scholars? I'm not sure it's all that controversial that Paul might not have written some of the epistles though, even among religious scholars who are not fundamentalists (literalists, if you prefer -- sorry, evangelicals just doesn't work for me!), just as we accept that the gospels were not necessarily the work of the apostles.Dr Zen 23:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Most religious scholars accept that Paul did not write the (anonymous) epistle to the Hebrews. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merging and POVness

I think that this would be better merged with Pauline Epistles. Firstly, this is a general article that has to do with authorship, however this should be covered in the main article! It should be merged. As it is, this piece is a gigantic POV piece by one author. The central thesis of the piece is that the epistles weren't written by Paul and that most if not all scholars agree with this. No attempt at giving an opposing POV has been written although there is plenty of it around, especially amongst Christian scholars.

It sounds like an interesting debate and it would be great if you could fill in the other side!

Cheesedreams uses phrases such as the following: "For this reason, authorship of many of the epistles traditionally attributed to Paul have been in doubt for many centuries by critical scholars. By the end of the 20th century, the majority of scholars had rejected all but 7 as genuinely by Paul (consequently these 7 are known as the undisputed epistles)." and also "The pastorals were subjected to the level of computer analysis used in criminal trials for similarity of authorship, and failed that analysis." I have removed these comments as they are unsubstantiated and POV.

You what? My understanding is that this is absolutely correct. Only seven of the epistles are considered to be undisputed. That doesn't mean that the others definitely weren't written by Paul, but that only these seven are accepted by all to have been. I'm no Biblical scholar but I do know that the provenance of much of the New Testament is contested. I know this is difficult ground for believing editors, but please, try to get it into perspective.

More POV words are "weaker" and "stronger" arguments. We should not be calling them this, as we don't make value judgements!

Edit them out.

I have :) Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a basic tenant of Wikipedia, and CheeseDreams would do well to read about NPOV. Regrettably, no attempt at reading of this policy has obviously been made, and she's been busy stinking up many articles to do with Christianity. As it says on her user page "I edit controversial articles. They are usually more controversial after I start editing them." [1]

They ought to be more controversial though. They should not present a Christian POV as if it were neutral.

They should not be more controversial. They should be well referenced, and they should fairly state all points of view. This article doesn't even come close. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look, if an article does not present at all anywhere, even the existence of a critical case against Jesus' existence, and suddenly it does, to say that isn't controversial, even if it is NPOV, is nonsense. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Say that again? I didn't understand any of that. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 2/3rd argument has been removed also. There is no source for this, and it seems dubious at best. I have changed it to "Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians." You'll notice I've removed "However, such before their time issues can be explained by Paul being the source of these concepts, rather that merely a redistributer of them (although this can also be used to argue that Paul made them up himself, rather than reflecting the faith)." because this appears to be original research. I've also marked this section as dubious as it now employs weasel words (I was forced to because of the dubiousness of CheeseDreams claims).

I agree that CheeseDreams must source the 2/3rds assertion. Hit the books, CheeseDreams, because you know that that will be contentious enough to need referencing.

Its referenced in the references section, as I mentioned right at the start of this talk page.
Maybe so. But which particular reference were you referring to? We need to know who said it, and where you got that information from. Something in the form of (Author last name, [publication] (optional), [year]). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've also removed any reference to "disputed" and "undisputed" epistles as this seems to be the POV of CheeseDreams.

No. This is common enough that even I've heard of it.

But where? I'd not be disputing this if I had a reference to the dispute, but I don't have any. Until then, can we agree to keep them out? If you or CD can give me references, then go ahead and put them in. After all, by the very nature of a dispute, then there must be parties who disagree over the authenticity. So let's say who they are! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If an epistle is disputed, we should mention it in the section that talks about the epistle, we shouldn't be confirming or denying the status of the epistle as this statement in itself is disputed by many Christians.

I have to disagree. Saying something is "disputed" simply describes it as being under dispute. It doesn't make a judgement about whether it should be disputed etc. It distinguishes those epistles that are agreed by all to be written by Paul from those that are disputed; no more, no less. I think that if you were able to step back and look at that idea from a more neutral standpoint, you'd see that it's not as bad as you seem to think. I can fully understand your sensitivity though. I imagine the outrage of Moslems if it were suggested that some of the Koran was of disputed authorship. Trying to convince them that saying it's true that it's disputed is different from saying that it *should be* disputed would be a very difficult task.

It has been. Actually, many liberal Muslims are open to the idea. You see, Uhlman (not sure how to spell that), who collected together the Koran from the various different versions of it, and unified it (very very early on in its history), himself writes of passages no longer in the Koran. Uhlman (or whatever his name is) may have (intentionally or otherwise) not chosen all the true verses, or added others. For example, the Satanic Verses. Many liberal Muslims are not sure about the validity of all of this collation process, and wonder whether certain parts are dubious, though it happened earlier in its history, than did Christianity (within about 50 years), so has a greater chance of being accurate (as there is less time to produce myths/counter-myths and forgeries, as well as rival lists of texts). CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is true. I'm a bit sensitive about this topic. I don't like being misrepresented. Noone does. That's why I've always tried to write from a NPOV on Islam, even though I totally disagree with it. I don't think I'm a POV pusher. But again, as I've said above, can we find sources please? And say who the parties who dispute these facts are? If only because I'd like to look up those references and verify them. Which I will most likely do. After all, that's one of the reasons why this place is meant to be so good: we treat each side fairly and from a neutral POV. Part of that process is that we must give a reference to those points of view!!! And we don't make up our own material. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The references section. Read the references section. Why do you think I put it in? CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh wow! the reference section. You expect me to trawl though all of those books to find certain bits of information? Try doing that with a Univeristy essay. And that's the quality we expect on this site. So if you don't provide it, then expect to have people question your work. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I notice quite a few claims have not been substantiated. For instance: "Those who contest Paul's authorship state that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine." Who contested Paul's authorship?

This guy wrote a book about the "undisputed epistles". This implies he at least thinks the rest are "disputed".

Well, this is a start. See, if we could add this material, then I'll not dispute it! Only... who is he disputing against? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He is disputing against the orthodoxy (due to tradition) of the idea that Paul did write them CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the "(possibly forged)" because this is not substantiated and appears to be the view of the author. Again this is a POV statement. However, now the paragraph reads:

"The extensiveness of the development of the theology in the epistle compared to that of other epistles has led many scholars to the opinion that if it is genuine, then it must be very late. However, due to the apparant consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then most scholars think that if Colossians is forged, it is very early."

Again, no scholars are quoted and it is made out like this is an accepted fact, which it is not, especially amongst Christians.

There were quite a few "facts" in there. Which one in particular don't Christians accept? I've run out of time. I think some of your points are valid, Ta bu, and I agree that this article can be much improved. But *work with* CheeseDreams, hey? This antagonistic approach doesn't help at all.

I don't accept unattributed facts. Why don't I just write: most Biblical scholars accept the veracity of the Bible? You think I'd get away with this? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Then attribute your talk page, and Quills and Motor Car and Harry Potter and Mobile Phone and Path Integral Formulation and Pythagorus and Leonardo Da Vinci and Mormonism and Kibo and Australia and LIBOR and Inflation and Privy Council and Court and Paper and Qin dynasty and Cheese.....
CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams, I do not have to attribute my user page!!!! Good grief women, the user page is an introduction on who you are and resides in the User space. Not in the main article space! And as for those other article: yes, they should all be attributed. Read Wikipedia:No original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "facts" in that paragraph seem to be:
  1. The theology in that epistle is extensively developed, compared to the other ones.
  2. Many scholars believe that, if it is genuine, it must be very late. They do so because of the supposed development.
  3. The author of Ephesians thinks it is genuine.
  4. Most scholars believe that, it it is forged, it must be very early. They do so because of the latter reference.

Ben Standeven 21:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now we get to Ephesians. It says that "Ephesians bears a strong similarity to Colossians, to the extent that over 40 areas of the text can be identified in Colossians which Ephesians reproduces, expands upon them and adding." No attempt at telling us any of the 40 areas of text are identified! So marking this as dubious. However, the rest of the paragraph reads: "It is for this reason that almost all scholars think that Ephesians is an edited reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is due to Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or whether it is down to a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of more dispute, about 2/3 of scholars choosing the latter." almost all scholars think that? great, what a POV sweeping statement. So I've also rephrased this to "many scholars", however this now means I've had to add a weasel word. I also dispute the "about 2/3 of scholars choosing the latter." bit, so I've removed it. So now it reads:

You should add it back, because they do. Removing it suggests a POV motive for suppressing the fact that most scholars (2:1 margin) consider it true, and instead implying that a number of them, which is sizable, do. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you add it back in again, then you need to cite who says this. In a format like "such and such says that two thirds of all scholars believe..." - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It is for this reason that many scholars think that Ephesians is an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is due to Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or whether it is down to a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of more dispute."

Yet this is still not very good, because a) no scholars are mentioned (you expect me to take this on faith?!) b)no sources are given c) I have no way of verifying this information and how to rebutt it or provide an alternative POV. So this is totally POV still. So again, I've marked is as dubious.

"Many terms found in parts of the new testament which are considered to have been written after Paul's death are found within Ephesians, though not in other epistles, and for terms that are, the author makes a different choice of usage, for example linking pistis with kurios rather than just christos." I don't even know where to start with this paragraph. Firstly, you'll notice that I've removed the "disputed" bit. Its almost impossible for me to understand what is being said in this sentence because it's so convuluted! I've attempted a copyedit, but I don't know how well I've suceeded. Hint for CheeseDreams: Greek has a capital letter. So does New Testament. Part of my copy edit to the paragraph was to change it to "Such variations occur to the extent that many scholars think that, though Paul's authorship is not impossible, if Paul did write such a letter, someone else rewrote it." Funny however that no scholars are given and we're just expected to accept what is written here.

"One of the more noticable differences between Ephesians and other epistles is the distinct lack of any reference to an impending occurrance of the day of Christ. Also, the image of marriage as an heavenly union between the church and Christ contrasts noticably with 1 Corinthians' suggestion that marriage is to be avoided if possible."

No source. Original research.

"The general nature of the epistle itself, unlike those of the undisputed, is more a general homily, than anything directed at a particular community (such as the Ephesians themselves). To textual critics, such as Richard Heard, such variations are suspicious, in particular phrases such as holy apostles seeming completely out of place, except to a writer from a more developed church (such as that of the second century)."

And now we get to the absolutely beautiful bit. This bit kills me.

"2 Thessalonians is considered by scholars, such as Udo Schnelle <!-- do we really have to put in "supported by X" it just looks sloppy and unreadable, it's in the bibliography -->, to be significantly different in style to the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing, and, according to scholars, such as Alfred Loisy, seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Further reason for scepticism, such as that of Bart Ehrman{{nowiki></nowiki>, derives from the insistence of genuineness within it, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start (a ploy commonly used in forged documents)."

We have two comments in the text (I notice not on talk!) "do we really have to put in "supported by X" it just looks sloppy and unreadable, it's in the bibliography" and "again, I object to "according to X" on grounds of poor style" Allow me to be the first to point out to you that all statements on Wikipedia must be qualified. Allow me to be the first to point out to you that we loathe weasel terms. So, yes! you need to include these in the text! And please don't discuss "style". So far I've noticed the poor style that this article has been written in. No wonder this article is so disputed! Sheesh.

Now, does Bart Ehrman argue that it is (a ploy commonly used in forged documents)? This isn't clear. Want to substantiate this further? Sounds dodgy, but if he says this then we should make it clear.

"Another issue often raised is that of context, for example, in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (as Christians nearer the end of the first century started to), which to scholars, such as Norman Perrin, <!-- this according to X thing just really looks ridiculous--> suggests that 2 Thessalonians stating may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ unlike 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, implies it having been written during times after Paul's death."

No, CheeseDreams, it doesn't look ridiculous. It's part of NPOV and a part of removing weasel words. It stops disputes.

It does look ridiculous, since "Some people, including X, believe" is redundant. I've rewritten these paragraphs to fix this; "X believes". We still need to say where these people claim these things, though ("in a book" isn't good enough). That's a pretty basic rule of attribution. Ben Standeven 21:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of the worst written articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I've read a few. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not nice. -- Dr Zen in italicsDr Zen 03:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe so, but its also the truth. The POV hits you like you would not believe. I'll try to play nicer though. It's just that I've been sorely tried by CheeseDreams, who does not appear to be writing from a NPOV. I'll go to Moore Theological College and do some digging. Regrettably they are closed for the Christmas holidays. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Now you said to me that you had copied in my responses to the above from my talk page, so where are they? CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry? Where did I say this?! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've never liked hiding commentary or questions in HTML comments. I think it's poor style. If the comment is complaining about something being poor style, then change it, or discuss it here on the Talk page where others can agree or disagree. If there's a question to ask, ask it here where a reply can be posted. Replying in the HTML comments would be especially poor style, for instance. Wesley
The interpretation of 1 Corinthians being completely against marriage is but one way to read it, considering the same book also vigorously defends the right of apostles to be married. I agree with Ta bu shi da yu that this, and other parts, appear to be original research, which is inappropriate. Wesley 23:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The standard interpretation of Paul amongst non-Christians is of a self-hating (possibly gay, Timothy being one of his boyfriends) prude, or, as someone expressed to me, a self-loathing old queen. This is precisely because Paul is seen by them as SO against marriage and SO pro celibacy. CheeseDreams 02:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
P.s. it should be noted that the standard intepretation by non-Christians is not that that the gnostics held - they explained the apparant loathing of the flesh as the gnostic ideal that the flesh is intrinsicly evil (being created by the devil), thus hatred of sexuality, and anything else like that.
Rather, created by the demiurge. Who they believed to be a lesser God who got it wrong and thus created the physical world: a pale shadow of the spiritual realm. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Paul were completely against marriage, then surely he would have criticized Peter for being married, rather than defend his marriage? He certainly wasn't shy about criticizing Peter on other grounds, when he felt it was warranted. But really, if that's the standard interpretation among gay non-Christians, that's fine. As always, all I ask is that such interpretations be attributed appropriately rather than stated as fact. So, what would be the most appropriate attribution? Wesley 23:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] would you like a real Biblical scholar's opinion?

I am a seminary student and actually have studied with one of the foremost Pauline scholars in the Biblical scholarship world. Are you interested in my comments? I think that a lot of the arguments presented here show a demonstrated lack of understanding of the field of Biblical scholarship. There is so much here though, that I'm not sure where to start.
Where could my skills and knowledge best be put to use? --Shanneranner 01:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. This is just what I've been waiting for! Please, go ahead and edit this. Just remember to adhere to NPOV :-) Also, don't take away opposing viewpoints, just back up your own and note when opposing viewpoints are disputed. Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it would be welcome, although I express reservations about the fact that you are a seminary student, and therefore not neutral (and not meant to be, otherwise it would be hard to see how you could pass through the seminary).
Start wherever you think is best. CheeseDreams 19:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I also wish to express my reservations that you are a secular atheist and therefore are not neutral. I mean BIG DEAL! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just want to chip in briefly here. The scholarly website Early Christian Writings contains clear links to pages on the various Pauline letters, and discussion of their contents and possible authorship presented clearly and concisely, with numerous references to the scholars advocating the positions, and links to further offsite resources. It should hopefully be useful to those here complaining about the lack of citable sources for various agruments.

For example, the entry for Colossians not only mentions that it was Raymond Brown who supplied the 60% statistic discussed at the top of the page, but also mentions that it features on page 610 of his "An Introduction to the New Testament"--MockTurtle 03:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] I have Reworked Ephesians ....

Hello, i have to say I am dissapointed with the general tone of discussion on this page. I think if we work together a bit more on it we can move it of the disputed list.

I am studying a second degree in theology in Madrid at the moment and am working on an exegesis of Ephesians so I have tried to start the ball rolling by rewriting the section on Ephesians. I have attempted to present a wider presentation of current academic opinion, not just from the English Speaking World, in a more objective tone. I will be interested to see what you think. Please dont let this descend into bickering. --Timsj 17:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think your rewrite of the Ephesians section is a great improvement. Could you add any references for it, or perhaps a couple of general references to the end of the article that cover the general field? Thanks for your work. Wesley 16:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge request

Is there still any interest in merging this article with Pauline epistles? If not, I think the mergerequest tag can probably be removed. Wesley 16:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I vote strongly against this proposal. Most Wikipedia articles complain if they get too long. Keeping these articles separate makes sense.
I haven't seen anyone pushing for it for a while. So I am removing the tag. Lawrence King 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Analysis

I believe recent computer analysis of word frequency and patterns in the epistles has come to the conclusion that he only wrote the first 4 epistles, regarded as his major ones, plus probably Hebrews. The others are all by different authors, except the the 2 to Thessalonians are by the same author, as are the 2 to Timothy. This view at least deserves a mention. A very small number of theologians did already hold this view. PatGallacher

Can you give details or substantiation? I'd be amazed if a statistical study claimed Hebrews and Galatians were by the same author. And statistical studies have been done before, never showing this. Of course, the best statisticians have said that of Paul's letters are too short for definitive statistical analysis, but these results still should be mentioned if they are significant. Lawrence King 06:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Undisputed epistles

The following is the article's complete text bearing on this subject:

Virtually every scholar, ancient and modern, attributes the following epistles to Paul: [list]

This announcement contains very little information. The reasons for the universal acceptance of the undisputed epistles would provide the reader information. And some thought to this subject would correct the current imbalance focussed on disproving all textual and history-based reservations. I'd do this myself if I were capable. --Wetman 00:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A good point...I too wish I could contribute something. Would it be better to cite authorities or provide something like computer analyses? I don't know whether the former would be more controversial (who is an authority?) or the latter (analysis can often be very subjective while appearing objective). I can do some searching in this regard but I don't know how much I'll find -- what little I've read usually focuses (naturally) on the "disputed" epistles. Jwrosenzweig 06:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
We have had a very similar discussion on the Galatians page -- Talk:Epistle to Galatians#Authorship of Galatians. Do you think I should move a lot of the material in that discussion thread into this article?
One problem, as I see it, is how much should these issues be centralized? The question of the authorship of a single letter (e.g. Galatians) is a subset of the question of the authorship of the Pauline letters, which is a subset of the question of the authorship of all Biblical books, which is a subset of the question of the authorship of ancient documents in general. I wonder if the general principles should be under an article such as Pseudepigraphy or Writer or Forgery or Authenticity. Then in any specific article a link can be made to that, and how it applies in this case can than be stated. Is this a reader-friendly solution?
If not, then perhaps the reason most scholars accept the seven "undisputed" letters as being from Paul belongs on this page, and the individual pages for the seven letters should just point here when discussing authenticity? Lawrence King 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Lawrence, I really like that material from the Galatians talk page as a starting point for the section in question in this article. I am sure it bears some smoothing and adding to, but in general it seems very knowledgable and clear, and it at least partially establishes the rationale behind authenticity. I hope you'll move as much of it as you think applies into the section at your leisure.
As far as the long-term centrality discussion, I personally think that this is one of Wikipedia's toughest points. Being paper-free encourages depth, but it also creates these problems of locating information. I do like the solution posed in your final paragraph--perhaps a brief paragraph in each of the seven articles summarizing the case (and perhaps providing more detail about that particular letter...what details are most convincing, most in agreement with Acts, etc.) with a link to the section in this article. Ideally that would be our solution, I think. If that works for you, I'd encourage you to make it happen. Thanks so much to both you and Wetman (and the other contributors) for your work here--I'm feeling good about this article this summer, and that hasn't been true for a long time. Jwrosenzweig 07:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The title "Authorship of the Pauline epistles" suggests to me that the whole question is meant to be handled here, with specifics that concern only individual epistles handled at the various articles, under a Main article at Authorship of the Pauline epistles header. Those brief summarizing paragraphs Jwrosenzweig mentions could be here, as this is a trunk article on this question, and each of the individual articles have many other issues to address, on content, etc.. Some overlap is always desirable, so that thoughts may be complete. Surely a report on individual scholars' reasons for recognizing Paul's undisputed hand, even quoting them, makes a useful encyclopedic report. And the computer studies throw fresh light. But, as for the subsets of broader questions, my sense is constantly that the broadest questions just don't suit encyclopedia format. They need whole books, or they dissolve into airy generalities: that is, History of Europe will never be as satisfactory as Merovingians. This current article is the highest level I can imagine encompassed in a Wikipedia article. --Wetman 08:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


I agree with both of you about the issues involved in locating information. And I especially agree that broad questions are very difficult to address here. I try to avoid broad articles (sometimes unsuccessfully), and I try to avoid constantly churning disputed articles because they are just endless flame wars. Yet I'm still amazed how much good stuff there is on Wikipedia despite all the difficulties.
I'll follow Wetman's suggestion that the current article is the highest level that should be used here. Give me a couple days to move this stuff in, and then we'll see how the other Wikipedians update it! Lawrence King 02:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think some of the stuff is the section starting with This entire procedure is subject to criticism towards the end of Talk:Epistle to Galatians#Authorship of Galatians would be a good addition to this article. As an evangelical christian I have my prejudices of course ;-), but applying statistics to such short letters letters would in my eyes seem to be the same as applying statistics to Hamlets Act I Scene 1 and Act I Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, and concluding that they were written by different authors. (Comparison is not ideal, I know, scene 1 of the Merchant has about 1500 words, Ephesians in an average modern translation about 3000). However, some arguments of opponents of this approach might be mentioned for npov sake. TeunSpaans 02:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General issues

It seems to me that in this article views aren't attributed nearly as much as they should be. As I understand it, besides the seven "undisputed" epistles, only Colossians and 2 Thessalonians have had any serious scholars in the last 70 years or so who support Pauline authorship. The Pastorals and Ephesians seem to be generally agreed to not be the work of Paul, in the same way that nobody really believes that Peter wrote the Gospels attributed to him, or that James brother of Jesus wrote the Epistle attributed to him. The article as it stands seems, like so many wikipedia articles on early Christian themes, to present the case as one between "skeptics" who don't accept much of anything, and conservative Christians who except the traditional attributions. If we're going to do this, each questionable Gospel ought to quote the specific scholars who argue specific points, rather than lengthy disquisitions. Material at earlychristianwitings.com would probably provide useful summariez, and so forth, of the various debates (they conclude that, besides the 7 undisputed gospels, only Colossians might plausibly be the work of Paul. john k 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. I feel the problem lies in the black/white approach many Christians take towards the Bible: either a given work was written by its putative author, & thus was created under divine inspiration & is undeniably authoritative in what it says; or it was not written by that person, & therefore has no more validity than the mutterings of a schizoprhenic homeless person. (Maybe this is a little overstated, but when people seriously claim that denying that the world was created in 6 days or that a Biblical Flood never occured means the rest of this work is therefore a lie, it is hard not to believe that many devout Christians think these are the only 2 choices available to them.)
Raymond Brown (who is quoted in the article & by me above) points out that it was the tradition for authors in the ancient world to publish their works under the name of their more famous (or authoritative) teachers, because they sincerely believed they were expounding their teacher's ideas & opinions: for example, the Pastoral Epistles may not have been written by Paul, but they were written by people who knew him, & thus at least some of the material comes from Paul. Of course, a view like this requires the student to think for her/himself, & many students -- I believe out of a lack of confidence -- are unwilling to do so: thus the insistence that these works be labelled either authentic or forgeries. -- llywrch 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Peter Kirby runs earlychristianwitings.com, maybe he might like to look over the article?

As for R Brown's argument, it could equally be said that it was written by people who didn't ever come within 1000 miles of Paul but who sincerely believed they were expounding his ideas (possibly due to schizophrenia, misplaced self-worth, or just plain old pious self-delusion), and consequently the Pastorals may not have been written by people who knew Paul, but by people who thought they did (or by people who deliberately lied). While R Brown's argument is interesting, its a bit of a damp squib - it doesn't really add anything; while it demonstrates that the epistles might have a connection to Paul even if not written by him directly, it also leaves wide open the possibility that they have none whatsoever.

More importantly, R Brown's argument doesn't address the substantial difference in theology between the Pastorals and the remainder; if someone else wrote it and it has noticeably different theology to the remainder, then occam's razor says that its more likely that it doesnt derive from the same writer as the rest, not even via people who knew him.

Clinkophonist 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words

section

opening paragraph

"Nearly every modern scholar agrees that Paul was the author of the seven letters"

"but are disputed mainly by many scholars today"

"The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which does not bear Paul's name) had been disputed in the early centuries of the church, and very few modern scholars (even conservatives) believe Paul to be its author"

Criteria used by scholars "Scholars use a number of methods"

"However, scholars often disagree about how to weigh these criteria in a specific instance. For example, suppose two letters use similar vocabulary."

The undisputed epistles "Almost every scholar, ancient and modern, conservative and liberal, attributes the following epistles to Paul:"

"Traditionally the Roman imprisonment was assumed, but recent scholars have suggested that Paul could have been briefly imprisoned during his time in Ephesus"

"Although Philemon has connections to Colossians, even those scholars who believe Colossians to be inauthentic accept that Philemon was written by Paul, because a forger would have had no motive to create this short, personal note with little theological import"

Colossians

"Some scholars consider that Colossians was not written by Paul. One group of arguments against Paul's authorship relate to differences in vocabulary and style."

"Other arguments rely on the polemical content of the letter, certain concepts, and false-teacher arguments, not expressed by other Christian writers until the end of the first century, making an appearance in Colossians."

"However, due to the apparent consideration of the letter as genuine by the author of the Ephesians, then those scholars who claim that if Colossians is forged, it is very early."

"Those who contest Paul's authorship claim that such parallels are merely due to a careful forger, deliberately introducing unnecessary additional greetings for the purpose of making the text appear more genuine. Scholars who advocate Paul's authorship point out that since Philemon was a personal letter, it is unlikely that it was as widely copied as Paul's more famous letters. So if a forger wanted Colossians to sound like Paul, argue supporters, why not include personal names from his more famous letters instead of names from a minor letter."

Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship

"More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:"

"Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians"

"Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there."

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians "Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2),"

The Pastoral Epistles

"Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul".

"Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime."

"Thus scholars of this view claim that the early church faced a serious threat from such teachers, as the prior epistles either supported or accepted their view, and thus the church fabricated the Pastoral Epistles to support their case."

"In the 19th century, Europe-based scholars claimed that the Pastoral Epistles must have been written in the late 2nd century. Today, scholars generally agree that these epistles were known by Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, and may have also been known by Clement of Rome."

"Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives"

Hebrews

"Most individuals, even strongly conservative and religious scholars, have rejected Pauline authorship of Hebrews"

"Scholars are divided about the significance of Marcion's omission of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews.

Could someone NAME these scholars, please. Thanks LoveMonkey 04:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rewrite

I have attempted to rewrite the first section of the article and intro so as to include references and remove such words. Personally, I find the current state of the article embarrassing. Arguments were made with no reference at all, and sound almost whimsical. I hope this page gets its needed attention soon. I will try, but more and differing opinions are needed. Lostcaesar 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read through the discussion page and wanted to express my appreciation for the efforts of the people involved to get to a high quality article. It seems to me that you have succeeded at least to some degree. This is a link to an article with a POV about the authorship that I enjoyed. If somebody felt there was some value they might consider adding it in as an external link. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/epistles.html I thought the Wikipedia article did a better job of covering most of the tobin's points though. Davefoc 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"..,W M Ramsey entertained the time of Paul's Roman captivity,.." What was meant?Rich 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The following has been deleted: "Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul." Is that not the essence of the conservative view, that the critical reading is dismissed in favor of the traditional attribution? Has deleting this sentence truly been done with a view to enlightening the reader? --Wetman 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet made any changes to the Pastoral Epistles section, it still needs much work imo. Lostcaesar 09:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in defence of the genuineness

The citation given is from a source that I do not believe meets the requirements of a "reliable source". To state that the citation covers "various scholars" seems misleading. I understand that there are probably seriously scholars who argue for genuineness, but I would seriously prefer a much more scholarly citation to support the claim. I was not trying to create a strawman, but instead have the wording accurately represent the citation. If we are going to cite Tekton, the POV needs to be qualified. Hope this explains the reasoning behind my edit, and hopefully inspires someone to find a more reliable source!--Andrew c 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize we were dealing with a source (that ref must be new). My apologies. The strawman I wish to avoid is as follows: the implicit claim that scholars hold X position, while only apologists (obviously based on religious preconceptions rather than scholarly work) think something else. In some cases, like new earth creationism vs evolution, this might be the case. But, when it comes to authorship of the pastorals, there are good reasons to think Paul wrote them, and other reasons to think he did not, and scholarship falls on both sides generally speaking. While there are apologists (particularly those who think that apostolic authorship is essential to inspiration) in the fray, there are just as many people with a different axe to grind against who join in the debate "on the other side". And besides that, the ivory tower of scholarship is not above such concerns and predispositions. Scholarly trends come and go, especially since criticism of the current view (whatever that may be at the time) is considered edgy, and in areas such as this were certainty is not possible based on available evidence this is more the case. I don't think we can place scholars into one group which agrees to have settled the matter of authorship of the Pastorals (Hebrews, for a counterexample, is a text where we can - really the only text in this article where we can); Lostcaesar 06:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pastorals

Just so we aren't only citing Ehrman, I found this "...(3)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, but II Tim was written not long after Paul's death as a farewell testament by someone who knew Paul's last days, so that the biographical details therein would be largerly historical, even if dramatized with some license. Titus and I Tim were written pseudonymously later, most likely towards the end of the 1st century, partly in imitation of II Tim. A "second career" was created. (4)All three Pastorals are pseudonymous, written in the order Titus, I-II Tim most likely towards the end of the 1st century. A "second career" was shapred (probably fictionally) for Paul with a second Roman imprisonment, so that he might speak final words about issues now troubling areas once evengelized by the apostle.... Although the majority of scholars favors a variant of (4), in my judgement (3) best meets some of the problems listed in Chapter 30 above in discussing the authorship of Titus and I Tim, and the implications of pseudeprigraphy." Brown, Raymond E. Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible; 1ST edition (October 13, 1997) ISBN: 0385247672 p.675.

As for how we should present dissent among scholars, I feel that we should represent the majority view, and then have one sentence regarding minority views (instead of having a rebuttle to each statement). Just a thought. --Andrew c 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tagged sentences removed

For history's sake, I have moved sentences that have been tagged for over a month to talk:

  • It has even been theorized that Onesimus, the slave referred to in Philemon, delivered both letters, and that Philemon was part of the Colossian church.
  • Attempts to resolve this issue whilst accounting for its undisputed Pauline theology produced the argument that the difference was due to Paul having been assisted, for example by Luke or Clement of Rome.

And we still need a citation of the one tradition cited in antiquity for the so-called 'second career' of Paul.--Andrew c 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If Brown just says there was 'one tradition cited in antiquity' without naming the source, it sounds like you would need to contact Brown directly to obtain that citation. (No, I haven't checked Brown's book or gone over his bibliography to look for it.) Wesley 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look through Brown, and the only relevant statement I could find was a footnote on page 672: "The first clear reference to a second imprisonment in Rome occurs early in the 4th century in Eusebius, EH 2.22.2." I didn't see anything relevant to anything being cited in antiquity on page 675. -- Cat Whisperer 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look through Brown myself and found:
Most scholars who accept Paul as the writer of Titus or at least the accuracy of the details given in Titus posit a "second career" for the apostle in the mid-60s dfuring which he was released frollowing this two-year captivity in Rome narrated in Acts 28:30 (AD 61-63) and went back east, namely to Crete, Ephesus, and Nicopolis. II Tim is brought into this theory to posit a terminus of Paul's second career in another ROman captivity and execution there in 65-67. (Sometimes the affirmation that Paul wore chains seven times (1 Clement 5:6) is invoked as evidence for this: yet Quinn contends that it stems simply from a count of the seven available NT works that emtniosn imprisonment...) 641
Paul's life situation pictured in Titus and 1 Tim, as we saw, could not be fitted into his "original career" known from Acts and the undisputed Pauline letters. Consequently in each case scholars posit a "second career" (actual or fictional) for Paul after his being released from the Roman captivity of 61-63. 672
I guess I missed the footnote one 672. I removed the sentence from the article because Brown made it sound like the second career was a creation of modern scholars. Feel free to change the article.-Andrew c 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is Eusebius:
Festus was sent by Nero to be Felix's successor. Under him Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner. And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without restraint. Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and that upon coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom. In this imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy, in which he mentions his first defense and his impending death.
Footnote 242 is also on topic.-Andrew c 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the tradition is derived from 1 Clement:
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.
Even so, Clement doesn't say explicitly that Paul had a second career. Some scholars argue that Clement, writing from Rome, means "Spain" when he says "the West". The idea of a second career, then, is a modern interpretation of an ancient tradition.
But I could be wrong. Aardvark92 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAuthorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles_017a.html"