RE: Pauline authorship (was Re: Science, Women, and Paul)

From: Shuan Rose (shuanr@boo.net)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 12:22:36 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "No one believes proteins are the first form of life."

                    Hi Mike,
    I know your feelings on this, but I suggest that you look at the critical
    literature on this, at least with a view to understanding their arguments,
    before you dismiss this out of hand. At least nead a good introductory text
    book on the NT first. I don't know what your scientific specialty is, but I
    am sure that studying ancient literature is not part of it. You sound like
    someone who could be openminded about understanding Scripture, so at least
    read about why NT scholars think the way they do.
    The conservative, yet critical viewpoint is championed by FF Bruce at

    http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

    but you should read scholars such as Raymond Brown and Pheme Perkins.A list
    of NT introductory materials can be found at
    http://camellia.shc.edu/theology/NewTestament.htm#Intro
    Just look at the evidence before deciding

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of george murphy
    Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:12 AM
    To: MikeSatterlee@cs.com
    Cc: shuanr@boo.net; asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Pauline authorship (was Re: Science, Women, and Paul)

    MikeSatterlee@cs.com wrote:

    .......................................................
    You wrote: [Some suggest] that the Pastoral Epistles were written by a

    > "conservative" disciple of St. Paul.
    >
    > All of the letters which are now widely understood to have been written
    by
    > Paul are now identified as Paul's work because the text of each one of
    those
    > letters clearly identifies Paul as its author. If they were not written
    by
    > Paul, then they contain false information. If they do we, how do we know
    what
    > in them, if anything, can be trusted?

          ...........................................................
              By the same argument at least part of the Book of Enoch was written
    by
    the antedeluvian patriarch Enoch because Jude 14-15 ascribes a quotation
    from
    that book to him. This is, to say the least, highly implausible. Scholars
    generally consider the material in this book to be no earlier than ~150 B.C.
              Deutero-Pauline writings would contain "false information"
    only if their
    purpose was to give us information about who actually wrote or dictated
    them.
    But if the ascription to Paul was intended to say that this material
    was faithful
    to the teachings of Paul then the situation is different. The
    pastoral epistles
    suggest that they were composed in & for a situation in the life of the
    church
    somewhat later than St. Paul. They probably do contain some material from
    Paul
    himself but it's quite likely that the final composition of these letters
    was
    later in the first century.

    ............................................................................
    ....

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 21 2002 - 13:16:18 EDT