bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: something interesting  (Read 9559 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« on: May 04, 2006, 10:36:19 PM »

here's a question.have any of you ever wondered if some of pauls epistles were really written by him.I bring this up in curiosity becuase some were probly not written by him.now i do have my on opinion but i'd like to know all of your opinions.here's every thing you need to know about them.
NOTE the ones that have been criticized are marked with (*) the other ones were most definetly written by him.i didn't include hebrews becuase of lots of confusion.

In the order they appear in the New Testament, the Pauline epistles are:

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians (*)
Philippians
Colossians (*)
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy (*)
Second Timothy (*)
Titus (*)
Philemon

and here's the arguments.


All of the epistles except the epistle to the Hebrews present Paul as the author. The epistle to the Hebrews is something of a special case, being anonymous. Authorship of Hebrews was disputed from the earliest, and few, if any, modern scholars would attribute it to Paul. Thus some classifications do not include Hebrews as a Pauline epistle, listing it instead with the general epistles.

Several of the letters are thought by a majority of modern scholars to be pseudepigraphal, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

The 7 letters considered genuine by most scholars (at the time of writing), and doubted by almost none:

Romans
Philippians
Galatians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The letters thought to be pseudepigrapha by the majority of modern scholars, according to recent standards of analysis and theoretical trends, are:

First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
An anonymous letter that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:

Hebrews



COLSSIANS
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. However, the epistle does use many idiosyncrasies that are used in several of the epistles, which lends weight to Paul's authorship, for example, phrases such as en christo (in Christ) and en kurio (in the Lord) are used in the same manner as elsewhere.

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.

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 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.

The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle to Philemon, making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. 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?

EPHESIANS

Traditional arguments for Pauline Authorship
It seems that there are few doubts in the early church that Paul was the author of the letter to the Ephesians. Early church fathers with authority use quotations from this letter in their writings. Examples can be seen in the writing of Tertullian (Against Marcion 5.22.17) , Clement of Alexandria ( Str 4.65) and St Irenaeus (Her 5.2.3). It is unlikely that such figures in the early church would have quoted the letter without believing that it carried the weight of Pauline authorship.

Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus. More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:

Considerably different style and vocabulary of the letter when compared to undisputed Pauline writing. What is outstanding is the length of the sentences. There are 50 sentences in the letter, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison scholars can make is the letter to the Romans which consists of 3 sentences of comparable length amongst a total number of 581. Coupled with this stylistic anomaly scholars can also find 116 words that do not appear in what is accepted to be authentic Pauline writing.
The theological viewpoint presented in the letter is markedly different to the other letters. The word ecclesia (church) is used for the first time to refer to the universal church rather than the local churches that Paul had founded. More significantly, the eschatology in the letter is very different to what scholars can normally see in Paul. The absence of the expectation of Christ’s imminent return, the mention of future generations, and the concern for social order seem contrary to Paul's belief stated in Romans and Corinthians that the end is very close.
The image of Paul in the letter is very strong; he is presented as being the prisoner for Christ, an exclusive use of the definitive article which seems to place Paul above any other persecuted Christian. Also there is, unusually for Paul, no mention of any other disciples or helpers, which appears to clash with the self-understanding of Paul that he is a co-founder of the Christian Tradition with the other apostles. This clash is more pronounced if the disputed status of Paul as an apostle and his own acute awareness of his role in the early persecution of the Church as Saul are taken into consideration. This exclusive portrayal of Pauline authority seems to belong much more to the vision of someone wishing to promote him after his death.
Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians seems to indicate that this is a letter written after his death, intending to restate and develop some of his theology. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. It is for this reason that some scholars consider Ephesians to be an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is the result of Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of dispute.
Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there. But this letter does not appear to contain any of the usual friendly greetings seen in Paul's other letters, where he greets to people he remembers in this church.
Modern rebuttals to arguments against authenticity
Standard academic rebuttals to the arguments above include the following:

If the Greek of Ephesians is so un-Pauline, why did none of the Greek Church Fathers notice this fact? Several of them noticed that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not sound like Paul.
The question of whether Paul expected Jesus' imminent return is widely debated. And even if Paul did expect this when writing his early letters, that does not rule out the possibility that he had adopted a longer-range view by the time he wrote his later letters.
There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180, quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, Irish prelate and scholar James Ussher (1581-1656) suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches.

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

Compared word-for-word, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have some very similar wording. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in three different ways by scholars:

Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians so soon after writing 1 Thessalonians that the same phrases were on his mind.
Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians nearby when writing 2 Thessalonians, and deliberately repeated some of the same phrases.
Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself, and a later writer wrote 2 Thessalonians in deliberate imitation of Paul's style.
Scholars who find the first two options unlikely generally support the third theory.

Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from 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. Moreover, Alfred Loisy has argued that it seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman has noted that the insistence of genuineness within the letter, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start, are ploys commonly used in forged documents.

Another issue often raised is that of context; for example, Norman Perrin claims that in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (a focus on Jesus did not become popular until the end of the first century); since 2 Thessalonians states may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ (3:5) in contrast to 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.... (3:13), this supposedly implies it was written sometime after Paul's death.

The main theological difference between the two epistles, according to these scholars, is that in 1 Thessalonians, the day of Christ is nigh, whereas the main body of 2 Thessalonians seems entirely dedicated to showing that it is not, and in fact many things must happen first. They think the reason for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was due to there not having been a second coming before Paul died, and that 2 Thessalonians has no other purpose. Others suggest that perhaps Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, and then later wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct misinterpretations of his earlier letter. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the two letters describe two different appearances of Christ: 1 Thessalonians describes the Rapture, while 2 Thessalonians describes the Second Coming.

Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2), and that even by the standards of the ancient world, a false signature (3:17) would constitute an unethical forgery.

[The Pastoral Epistles
The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus -- often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles -- are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.]

These epistles were rejected by Marcion, who considered only the other ten epistles by Paul and his version of the Gospel of Luke to be canon. Tertullian expressed his astonishment at Marcion's omission, and all the Church Fathers accepted these letters as being from Paul. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul.

Modern attempts to settle the issue center on textual criticism and comparison with the other Pauline epistles. Such issues are usually assigned by supporters of the view that Paul is the author to human variability.

The vocabulary used in the Pastorals is distinctly at variance with that of the other epistles, to the extent that it matches texts from general Hellenic philosophy more than any of the other Pauline epistles. Although statistical analysis never provides concrete argument, over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. However, the vocabulary is similar to that of 2nd century Christian writers, although Paul was a 1st century writer, for which there is much less similarity to the general vocabulary. However, scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged this analysis, claiming it is based on the arbitrary decision to lump these three epistles together as a unit. He argues out that this obscures the similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.

The style in which the vocabulary is used also differs, for example rather than having faith used on its own, faith becomes part of the body of Christian faith. Also, the Pastorals are described as noticeably meditative, and quiet, which is characteristic of literary Hellenistic Greek, rather than the dynamic Greek with dramatic arguments with outbursts and opponents that are used in the remaining epistles attributed to Paul. However, the situation in which Paul is set in the pastorals is one towards the end of his life, so these variations could be due to the change from middle age to an older man.

Norman Perrin has pointed out that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. Harnack, Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Moreover, the Catholic tradition, going back to ancient times, is that the imprisonment of Paul in the year 62 (described at the end of Acts of the Apostles) was not the imprisonment that led to his death. Paul was released, left Rome, went on an additional journey, and returned to Rome to be martyred in 66 or 67. If this tradition is correct, this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters.

In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (non-gnostic) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's time being immediate was current (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.

The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation, and character requirements for men who are chosen to be bishops and deacons. Also, the Pastorals lay out a peculiar ecclesiastical office, that of the widows (prayer connected to chastity). Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. Some 19th century Protestant scholars disputed the authenticity of these epistles out of doctrinal reasons because they viewed bishops (or "overseers"), deacons, and vows of chastity to be too "Catholic."

Another peculiarity is in regard to false teachers, which the pastorals seem particularly devoted to, in particular condemning Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism. Rather than engage in theological debate with the false teachers (as Paul describes doing in the other epistles attributed to him), the pastorals merely suggest quoting scripture. Scholars such as Kummel suggest that if the lack of debate with false teachers were only due to them not being worth contradiction, then there would be no necessity to warn people of them in the first place. 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. These would place the date of these epistles no later than the early second century or late first century.

Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul, and have long questioned scholarly methods such as higher and historical criticism, as well as questioning the theology of their opponents.


ALSO i don't believe we can just say well it's there and i'll just say he wrote them becuase that wouldn't be smart considering there were FAKES IN THE PAST such as these:Most, if not all, scholars reject their authenticity. They include

Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians

so what do all of you think.personally i think if most of these were discarded A LOT OF CONTRIVERSY WOULD CEASE.
Logged

theyachtman

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2006, 12:53:20 AM »

Perhaps we need to stop reading between the lines and focus on the lines themselves - they're quite powerful!

Someone once pointed out to me that the counterfeit currency experts in our Treasury Department sharpen their skills by studying NOT the counterfeit currency but the real thing.
Logged

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2006, 01:08:58 AM »

YES! YES! very good-very good indeed and with that i want you to really concintrate on some of these scriptures.i believe some of them were written by paul ,i'm not going to say wich ones it's my personal opinion,but don't some of them seem to try to put pacific meanings to past tense writtings of paul but if without them we may interpet them differently.i understand reading spiritually but false information that makes your thought seem contridictory toward theirs could mess you up.even ray has used some false scripture such as  "he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was not in the original from john 7:53-john8:11.interesting to know isint it?also with studing the real thing perhaps we should really use the ones that are known to be written by more than the contriversal ones but that doesn't mean we should abandend the contriversal ones.
Logged

rvhill

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2006, 03:50:38 AM »

Some of the later ones may simply differ in the fact that they were not written by Paul, but were dictated by him. Do not forget the fact that he had a sight problem, which may have gotten worse over time. Some of them may have been written by other at Paul's behalf. So even though the wording and the sentence structure may have changed, it does not mean that Paul was not the author.
Logged

nightmare sasuke

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2006, 04:49:25 AM »

Quote from: alucard
YES! YES! very good-very good indeed and with that i want you to really concintrate on some of these scriptures.i believe some of them were written by paul ,i'm not going to say wich ones it's my personal opinion,but don't some of them seem to try to put pacific meanings to past tense writtings of paul but if without them we may interpet them differently.i understand reading spiritually but false information that makes your thought seem contridictory toward theirs could mess you up.even ray has used some false scripture such as  "he who is without sin cast the first stone" story was not in the original from john 7:53-john8:11.interesting to know isint it?also with studing the real thing perhaps we should really use the ones that are known to be written by more than the contriversal ones but that doesn't mean we should abandend the contriversal ones.


John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?
Logged

Mickyd

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2006, 07:59:02 AM »

The only book that a really have doubts as to wheather it was written by Paul is the book of Hebrews. The style of writting is differant than the others. However, I'm no expert.....and I have doubts on anyone who claims to be an expert.

We're talking about 2000 year old writtings here....there is no one alive who knows for sure, and many of the Greek manuscripts are copies of other copies that have been translated from Latin (and other languages) then back into Greek.
Logged

eutychus

  • Guest
Re: something interesting
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2006, 10:14:44 AM »

Quote from: alucard
here's a question.have any of you ever wondered if some of pauls epistles were really written by him.I bring this up in curiosity becuase some were probly not written by him.now i do have my on opinion but i'd like to know all of your opinions.here's every thing you need to know about them.
NOTE the ones that have been criticized are marked with (*) the other ones were most definetly written by him.i didn't include hebrews becuase of lots of confusion.

In the order they appear in the New Testament, the Pauline epistles are:

Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians (*)
Philippians
Colossians (*)
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy (*)
Second Timothy (*)
Titus (*)
Philemon

and here's the arguments.


All of the epistles except the epistle to the Hebrews present Paul as the author. The epistle to the Hebrews is something of a special case, being anonymous. Authorship of Hebrews was disputed from the earliest, and few, if any, modern scholars would attribute it to Paul. Thus some classifications do not include Hebrews as a Pauline epistle, listing it instead with the general epistles.

Several of the letters are thought by a majority of modern scholars to be pseudepigraphal, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

The 7 letters considered genuine by most scholars (at the time of writing), and doubted by almost none:

Romans
Philippians
Galatians
Philemon
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
First Thessalonians
The letters thought to be pseudepigrapha by the majority of modern scholars, according to recent standards of analysis and theoretical trends, are:

First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
An anonymous letter that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:

Hebrews



COLSSIANS
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. However, the epistle does use many idiosyncrasies that are used in several of the epistles, which lends weight to Paul's authorship, for example, phrases such as en christo (in Christ) and en kurio (in the Lord) are used in the same manner as elsewhere.

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.

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 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.

The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle to Philemon, making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. 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?

EPHESIANS

Traditional arguments for Pauline Authorship
It seems that there are few doubts in the early church that Paul was the author of the letter to the Ephesians. Early church fathers with authority use quotations from this letter in their writings. Examples can be seen in the writing of Tertullian (Against Marcion 5.22.17) , Clement of Alexandria ( Str 4.65) and St Irenaeus (Her 5.2.3). It is unlikely that such figures in the early church would have quoted the letter without believing that it carried the weight of Pauline authorship.

Recent arguments against Pauline Authorship
The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus. More modern scholars point to a different author. Their arguments can be summarised into four main areas:

Considerably different style and vocabulary of the letter when compared to undisputed Pauline writing. What is outstanding is the length of the sentences. There are 50 sentences in the letter, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison scholars can make is the letter to the Romans which consists of 3 sentences of comparable length amongst a total number of 581. Coupled with this stylistic anomaly scholars can also find 116 words that do not appear in what is accepted to be authentic Pauline writing.
The theological viewpoint presented in the letter is markedly different to the other letters. The word ecclesia (church) is used for the first time to refer to the universal church rather than the local churches that Paul had founded. More significantly, the eschatology in the letter is very different to what scholars can normally see in Paul. The absence of the expectation of Christ’s imminent return, the mention of future generations, and the concern for social order seem contrary to Paul's belief stated in Romans and Corinthians that the end is very close.
The image of Paul in the letter is very strong; he is presented as being the prisoner for Christ, an exclusive use of the definitive article which seems to place Paul above any other persecuted Christian. Also there is, unusually for Paul, no mention of any other disciples or helpers, which appears to clash with the self-understanding of Paul that he is a co-founder of the Christian Tradition with the other apostles. This clash is more pronounced if the disputed status of Paul as an apostle and his own acute awareness of his role in the early persecution of the Church as Saul are taken into consideration. This exclusive portrayal of Pauline authority seems to belong much more to the vision of someone wishing to promote him after his death.
Strong evidence of the reliance on the authentic Pauline Epistle to the Colossians seems to indicate that this is a letter written after his death, intending to restate and develop some of his theology. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. It is for this reason that some scholars consider Ephesians to be an edited and reworked reproduction of Colossians, though whether this is the result of Paul seeking to emphasise particular meanings, or a forger trying to alter perception of Paul's teachings, is a matter of dispute.
Scholars know that Paul spent years in Ephesus building up the church there. But this letter does not appear to contain any of the usual friendly greetings seen in Paul's other letters, where he greets to people he remembers in this church.
Modern rebuttals to arguments against authenticity
Standard academic rebuttals to the arguments above include the following:

If the Greek of Ephesians is so un-Pauline, why did none of the Greek Church Fathers notice this fact? Several of them noticed that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not sound like Paul.
The question of whether Paul expected Jesus' imminent return is widely debated. And even if Paul did expect this when writing his early letters, that does not rule out the possibility that he had adopted a longer-range view by the time he wrote his later letters.
There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180, quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, Irish prelate and scholar James Ussher (1581-1656) suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches.

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

Compared word-for-word, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians have some very similar wording. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in three different ways by scholars:

Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians so soon after writing 1 Thessalonians that the same phrases were on his mind.
Paul had a copy of 1 Thessalonians nearby when writing 2 Thessalonians, and deliberately repeated some of the same phrases.
Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself, and a later writer wrote 2 Thessalonians in deliberate imitation of Paul's style.
Scholars who find the first two options unlikely generally support the third theory.

Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from 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. Moreover, Alfred Loisy has argued that it seems to reflect knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman has noted that the insistence of genuineness within the letter, and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start, are ploys commonly used in forged documents.

Another issue often raised is that of context; for example, Norman Perrin claims that in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God (the Father) as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus (a focus on Jesus did not become popular until the end of the first century); since 2 Thessalonians states may the Lord direct your hearts to ... the steadfastness of Christ (3:5) in contrast to 1 Thessalonians' may establish your hearts unblamable ... before God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.... (3:13), this supposedly implies it was written sometime after Paul's death.

The main theological difference between the two epistles, according to these scholars, is that in 1 Thessalonians, the day of Christ is nigh, whereas the main body of 2 Thessalonians seems entirely dedicated to showing that it is not, and in fact many things must happen first. They think the reason for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was due to there not having been a second coming before Paul died, and that 2 Thessalonians has no other purpose. Others suggest that perhaps Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians, and then later wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct misinterpretations of his earlier letter. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the two letters describe two different appearances of Christ: 1 Thessalonians describes the Rapture, while 2 Thessalonians describes the Second Coming.

Some scholars argue that it would be hypocritical for a pseudepigrapher to warn against forged letters (2:2), and that even by the standards of the ancient world, a false signature (3:17) would constitute an unethical forgery.

[The Pastoral Epistles
The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus -- often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles -- are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.]

These epistles were rejected by Marcion, who considered only the other ten epistles by Paul and his version of the Gospel of Luke to be canon. Tertullian expressed his astonishment at Marcion's omission, and all the Church Fathers accepted these letters as being from Paul. Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul.

Modern attempts to settle the issue center on textual criticism and comparison with the other Pauline epistles. Such issues are usually assigned by supporters of the view that Paul is the author to human variability.

The vocabulary used in the Pastorals is distinctly at variance with that of the other epistles, to the extent that it matches texts from general Hellenic philosophy more than any of the other Pauline epistles. Although statistical analysis never provides concrete argument, over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. However, the vocabulary is similar to that of 2nd century Christian writers, although Paul was a 1st century writer, for which there is much less similarity to the general vocabulary. However, scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has challenged this analysis, claiming it is based on the arbitrary decision to lump these three epistles together as a unit. He argues out that this obscures the similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.

The style in which the vocabulary is used also differs, for example rather than having faith used on its own, faith becomes part of the body of Christian faith. Also, the Pastorals are described as noticeably meditative, and quiet, which is characteristic of literary Hellenistic Greek, rather than the dynamic Greek with dramatic arguments with outbursts and opponents that are used in the remaining epistles attributed to Paul. However, the situation in which Paul is set in the pastorals is one towards the end of his life, so these variations could be due to the change from middle age to an older man.

Norman Perrin has pointed out that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. Harnack, Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Moreover, the Catholic tradition, going back to ancient times, is that the imprisonment of Paul in the year 62 (described at the end of Acts of the Apostles) was not the imprisonment that led to his death. Paul was released, left Rome, went on an additional journey, and returned to Rome to be martyred in 66 or 67. If this tradition is correct, this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters.

In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (non-gnostic) church thought, than those of the 1st century. In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's time being immediate was current (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.

The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation, and character requirements for men who are chosen to be bishops and deacons. Also, the Pastorals lay out a peculiar ecclesiastical office, that of the widows (prayer connected to chastity). Some scholars claim that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime. Some 19th century Protestant scholars disputed the authenticity of these epistles out of doctrinal reasons because they viewed bishops (or "overseers"), deacons, and vows of chastity to be too "Catholic."

Another peculiarity is in regard to false teachers, which the pastorals seem particularly devoted to, in particular condemning Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism. Rather than engage in theological debate with the false teachers (as Paul describes doing in the other epistles attributed to him), the pastorals merely suggest quoting scripture. Scholars such as Kummel suggest that if the lack of debate with false teachers were only due to them not being worth contradiction, then there would be no necessity to warn people of them in the first place. 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. These would place the date of these epistles no later than the early second century or late first century.

Regardless of the critical views of most scholars, conservatives continue to insist on the traditional view that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul, and have long questioned scholarly methods such as higher and historical criticism, as well as questioning the theology of their opponents.


ALSO i don't believe we can just say well it's there and i'll just say he wrote them becuase that wouldn't be smart considering there were FAKES IN THE PAST such as these:Most, if not all, scholars reject their authenticity. They include

Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians

so what do all of you think.personally i think if most of these were discarded A LOT OF CONTRIVERSY WOULD CEASE.




please referense from where you  copy and paste this information
thanks
Logged

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2006, 11:28:49 AM »

Quote from: nightmare sasuke
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?


you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.


Quote
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks


if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

plus there are many more websites that give the same information
Logged

eutychus

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2006, 11:37:46 AM »

Quote from: alucard
Quote from: nightmare sasuke
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?


you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.


Quote
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks


if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

plus there are many more websites that give the same information







 greetings ;-]

it has nothing to do with trust :wink:  its only fair that we include links to the info we give out.

 thanks!
euty/chuckt
Logged

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2006, 12:49:41 PM »

Quote from: bobbys43
I went to the link and read some of the article and then clicked on some of the names to get a background of who these theologines were and I see that most were in different religious denominations! There lies the problem for me when I see who those are that researched the New Testament! One based his on theory another was a catholic yet another was agnostic!
 I can't and won't take much of what is said by those theologines to seriously! I only view them as opinion! Every body has one!

bobby


that maybe true but it doesn't throw their arguments out along with the fact that it's not their argument alone but the arguments of many scholars,plus i never said that all of what their saying proves most of them false but you have to edmit some of it is really compelling.also you shouldn't throw there theories away becuase of their religious background.would you really feel better if a christian came up with it?it's as ray said once "it would probly be better if an athiest translated the bible"i'm paraphrasing but i think you can trust from a regular scholar than a christian scholar becuase the non-christian one would look for the truth,but the christian one would try to fit it in his truths.
Logged

Mickyd

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2006, 09:35:40 PM »

What everyone here seems to be overlooking is that "Spiritually" these books fit very well with the rest of the Gospel. The other so-called "Lost Books" do not. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they were written by the mind of God.... doesn’t really matter about the human hand holding the quill.
Logged

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2006, 09:43:54 PM »

Quote from: Mickyd
What everyone here seems to be overlooking is that "Spiritually" these books fit very well with the rest of the Gospel. The other so-called "Lost Books" do not. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they were written by the mind of God.... doesn’t really matter about the human hand holding the quill.


don't be so quick on your decision.have you ever read any gnostics?i have i don't think there right but they say some compelling things becuase THEY COPY REAL INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD to sound real and most of the episltes just as easily could been made by people that reviewed the real paul epistles
Logged

Kevin

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2006, 10:01:36 PM »

he said, she said,she said, he said.
Logged

lilitalienboi16

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2006, 11:38:11 PM »

Quote from: bobbys43
I went to the link and read some of the article and then clicked on some of the names to get a background of who these theologines were and I see that most were in different religious denominations! There lies the problem for me when I see who those are that researched the New Testament! One based his on theory another was a catholic yet another was agnostic!
 I can't and won't take much of what is said by those theologines to seriously! I only view them as opinion! Every body has one!

bobby


Amen brother, those who believe such nonsence specialy from agnostic, or other religious denominations or athiestic people are fooling themselves.

God is in complete controle, those writtings are there for a reason, for our admonation (SP?).

Has anyone ever thought the style of writting might differ because Pauls spiritual growth was so much greater in his later years, then when he first started out on his mission in Christ?

God bless,

Alex.
Logged

Mickyd

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2006, 11:40:00 PM »

Quote from: alucard
don't be so quick on your decision.have you ever read any gnostics?i have i don't think there right but they say some compelling things becuase THEY COPY REAL INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD to sound real and most of the episltes just as easily could been made by people that reviewed the real paul epistles


Yes, I've read several Gnostic works.....I personally don't think our God is evil.

I do however, agree with you on some points. There have been several groups of people to copy Biblical passages into their works and try and pass them off as inspired.

There are also some who believe the books of Matthew and Luke come from the same source document....although this "Q" document has never materialized. I keep waiting on somebody to say that it was among the Dead Sea Scrolls or better yet, locked up in the Vatican archives.

Remember....there are MANY,MANY people out there that will do ANYTHING to discredit the New Testament, and strangely enough, the ones that work at it the hardest are the ones that main stream Christianity support the most. They're just to blind to see it.
Logged

lilitalienboi16

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2006, 11:43:51 PM »

Quote from: Mickyd
What everyone here seems to be overlooking is that "Spiritually" these books fit very well with the rest of the Gospel. The other so-called "Lost Books" do not. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they were written by the mind of God.... doesn’t really matter about the human hand holding the quill.


Another amen, Hallelujah! :D
Logged

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2006, 12:32:59 AM »

Quote from: Mickyd
Quote from: alucard
don't be so quick on your decision.have you ever read any gnostics?i have i don't think there right but they say some compelling things becuase THEY COPY REAL INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD to sound real and most of the episltes just as easily could been made by people that reviewed the real paul epistles


Yes, I've read several Gnostic works.....I personally don't think our God is evil.

I do however, agree with you on some points. There have been several groups of people to copy Biblical passages into their works and try and pass them off as inspired.

There are also some who believe the books of Matthew and Luke come from the same source document....although this "Q" document has never materialized. I keep waiting on somebody to say that it was among the Dead Sea Scrolls or better yet, locked up in the Vatican archives.

Remember....there are MANY,MANY people out there that will do ANYTHING to discredit the New Testament, and strangely enough, the ones that work at it the hardest are the ones that main stream Christianity support the most. They're just to blind to see it.


you make good points.yes i know of all the people who try and discredit the NT but what i'm trying to get through are the fakes.earlier you stated that the only one you have a problem with is hebrew.well,it really isn't likely that he wrote that in fact i don't even know why people decided he wrote it doesn't even cliam an author but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it becuase it belongs with the other episltes in the bible not written by paul,and as i also stated there are fakes episltes that are proven to be fake and they seemed simular to the real epistles in some ways.why i posted this was because i wanted to see if anyone could make good arguments for me to consider and i have gotten some to consider such as:

Quote
Some of the later ones may simply differ in the fact that they were not written by Paul, but were dictated by him. Do not forget the fact that he had a sight problem, which may have gotten worse over time. Some of them may have been written by other at Paul's behalf. So even though the wording and the sentence structure may have changed, it does not mean that Paul was not the author.


that"s possible and one of yours was a good argument:

Quote
We're talking about 2000 year old writtings here....there is no one alive who knows for sure, and many of the Greek manuscripts are copies of other copies that have been translated from Latin (and other languages) then back into Greek.


not 100% becuase there might be a way to find out but a good argument.you also have to consider THERE WERE FAKE EPISTLES FORGED IN HIS NAME here's just a few of them:
Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for Armenian Orthodox)
Epistle to the Laodiceans (Roman Catholic apocrypha)
Third Epistle to the Thessalonians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle to the Ionians

and if we can find the fakes we'll find more truth

EDIT: about that q document i've heard of that i've even got info about it in my files.what really makes it a compelling theory is the gnostic gospel of thomas becuase it contains many sayings as the others, but until such a document is found it remains only a theory.i do have this to say about it though,if such a document is found many more outstanding words of god would be revealed
Logged

nightmare sasuke

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2006, 12:57:35 AM »

Quote from: alucard
Quote from: nightmare sasuke
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?


you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.


Quote
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks


if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

plus there are many more websites that give the same information


Why does Ray quote those Scriptures if they aren't inspired?
Logged

alucard

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2006, 01:15:51 AM »

Quote from: nightmare sasuke
Quote from: alucard
Quote from: nightmare sasuke
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?


you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.


Quote
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks


if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

plus there are many more websites that give the same information


Why does Ray quote those Scriptures if they aren't inspired?


well...he probly didn't know,i think he knows now,but i brought this one up specificly becuase he wrote a long passage on it and showing himself reading it spiritualy and the point i was trying to make is that anyone can be fooled by false scripture becuase some can really be sound inspirational and inspiried by real scripture.

NOTE:you can go here to get arguments for and against it  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6
but other sites just say it's fake plus the what little argument is for it is not very good.

ANOTHER NOTE: apparently corinthians 14:34-35 may not be original either i'm not sure yet but i'm checking and i'll tell you if i find anything,if it's not original it will probaly start a good bit of debating.

EDIT:this ones a little difficult but here's a good site people can view to know what i'm talking about with corinthians. http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/3e/1o/O_women_quiet1.htm

EDITED: for some spelling & correction
Logged

nightmare sasuke

  • Guest
something interesting
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2006, 02:25:10 AM »

Quote from: alucard
Quote from: nightmare sasuke
Quote from: alucard
Quote from: nightmare sasuke
John 7:53 and John 8:11 is not Scripture? Never knew that. Do you have any information on it? Where'd it come from?


you should be able to look any were on the internet and find information about it,you see aparently scribes in the later churches added it to give some more meaningfull stories to the gospel but it's unscriptual.


Quote
please referense from where you copy and paste this information
thanks


if you don't trust me then here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

plus there are many more websites that give the same information


Why does Ray quote those Scriptures if they aren't inspired?


well...he probly didn't know,i think he knows know,but i brought this one up specificly becuase he wrote a long passage on it and showing himself reading it spiritualy and the point i was trying to make is that anyone can be fooled by false scripture becuase some can really be inspirational.

NOTE:you can go here to get arguments for and against it  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6
but other sites just say it's fake plus the what little argument is for it is not very good.

ANOTHER NOTE: apparently corinthians 14:34-35 may not be original either i'm not sure yet but i'm checking and i'll tell you if i find anything,if it's not original it will probaly start a good bit of debating.

EDIT:this ones a little difficult but here's a good site people can view to know what i'm talking about with corinthians. http://www.helpmewithbiblestudy.org/3e/1o/O_women_quiet1.htm


Tell me if you do, I'm interested.

Do you have AIM? If so, add me: nightmare sasuke.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.092 seconds with 24 queries.