Determining Biblical Authorship

[Tart]

This topic is to present evidence and/or reasoning to establish if Biblical Authorship is authentic or non-authentic... Although I have seen many post throughout the years claiming that, for example, some of Paul's epistles are fakes and some are real, I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other. Ill have to note a disclaimer right now, that I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm very interested in it, as this is important for Christianity... And I'm namely talking about the New testament, but if anyone would like to discuss a book in the Old Testament that would be ok as well.

Here is a website that I just google with a quick search that ill say I might agree as what they say is "The New Testament - A Brief Overview" on authorship, as a quick starting point. (and note, I don't know why they have 1 Peter and 2 Peter, I think that may be a mistake on their part, but lets assume it is all on Peter even though I have heard 2 peter is a fraud)

Are these claims of authorship true or not? Why?

https://www.bible-history.com/new-testa ... thors.html

(and as my computer time is running out at the library, ill put off posting the actual evidence of why I agree with some of these claims in the linked website, but will post it in a future date. Namely supporting the traditionally held authorship of the Gospels)

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 29 by Zzyzx]

liamconnor wrote:

this is the major problem with the thinking of hyperskepticism:

What does it take to qualify as a HYPER skeptic?

Beginning with a presupposition and defending that presupposition without consideration of contrary notions.

liamconnor wrote:

they simply do not think objectively.

Blanket statement.

Have you, Z, thought about the question of Biblical authorship objectively? Have you attempted to answer why the 2nd gospel was attributed to a certain Mark (objective thinking) or have you merely written it all off and not thought about it at all? If the second, then of course I don't think you have thought about the situation objectively?

In regards of the claimed resurrection of a certain Jesus: have you attempted to find an explanation for what happened in the 1st c. to lead certain people to claim that a certain Rabbis was raised from the dead and was now governing the world...(objective)...or have you simply written off the whole issue and not thought about it at all? If you have not seriously considered what happened in the 1st c. Palestine to lead to the claim (even if the claim was wrong) then why should you be considered to be an objective thinker about it?

An objective thinker would want to know what happened that eventually a Jew was credited with having risen from the dead, and was then transmuted to a different dimension
Do you care about 1st c. Palestine? Do you care about the activities of the Sicarii? Or the egyptian?

I will go with my blanket statement: hyperskeptics don't think objectively.

liamconnor wrote:

They don't want to know what actually happened;

Mind reading

Prove me wrong. Give a good historical assessment of how a bunch of Jews started claiming that their dead teacher came back to life. Make it historically reliable.

liamconnor wrote:

they just care to attack what others say happened.

Being asked for verifiable evidence to support claims can be viewed as ‘attack’ by those who lack verifiable evidence.

I continue to doubt whether Z knows what he means by "verifiable evidence". Perhaps Z can offer an example...? Perhaps Z can show one reason why he believes that Julius Caesar took an army across the Rubicon?

Can Z offer a single argument for believing anything he believes that happened prior to his own consciousness?

[Zzyzx]

.

What kind of evidence do you honestly think is available from the 1st-3rd century about ANYTHING!?

Exactly.

We have little to no evidence to support what was written by ancients.

What is a prudent course of action when we lack evidence?
Believe everything said?
Believe only that which appeals to us?
Believe what we have been taught or indoctrinated to believe?
Base life present decisions on what was said?

If an ancient document (a Midrash – an ancient commentary on part of the Hebrew scriptures, attached to the biblical text) tells of King Solomon and entourage traveling via a Magic Carpet, do we presume that to be true and accurate in the absence of corroborating evidence from other sources?

If an ancient document (Hebrew Bible) tells of Samson slaying a thousand warriors with a makeshift weapon and pulling down a temple by brute strength, do we presume that to be true and accurate in the absence of corroborating evidence from other sources?

If ancient documents (Old and New Testaments) tell of many instances of long-dead bodies coming back to life, do we presume that to be true and accurate in the absence of corroborating evidence from other sources?

If an ancient document (Koran) tells of Muhammad traveling from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged horse-like creature known as Buraq, do we presume that to be true and accurate in the absence of corroborating evidence from other sources?


Would knowledge of the world and reasoning lead us to conclude that the above are likely to be myths or folklore rather than literally / actually / factually accurate and truthful accounts?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 31 by liamconnor]

Kindly TRY to learn to debate the topic without making posts all about inappropriate personal remarks. It may be difficult to set emotion aside and focus on topics without personal remarks, but that is possible for most adults of honorable intentions.

What does it take to qualify as a HYPER skeptic?

Beginning with a presupposition and defending that presupposition without consideration of contrary notions.

That seems to describe those who begin with a presupposition that tales of supernatural entities and events are true – and defend such tales as literally / factually true and accurate accounts; in spite of real world ‘notions’ that snakes don’t talk, virgins don’t give birth, people don’t live in fish, and long-dead bodies don’t come back to life or fly away into the sky.

What, exactly, is the presupposition to which you refer in this case?

How is a ‘hyper-skeptic’ different from a ‘regular-skeptic’?

I don't believe your (generic term) god tales. Is that hyper-skeptic or regular-skeptic? I poke holes in claims of knowledge about supernatural characters and events. Is that 'hyper-skeptic'?

Have you, Z, thought about the question of Biblical authorship objectively?

I do not pretend to think of biblical authorship ‘objectively’. Do you?

Objective is defined as: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts� or “Not dependent on the mind for existence�

How does one think without a mind, feelings, opinions?

Have you attempted to answer why the 2nd gospel was attributed to a certain Mark (objective thinking) or have you merely written it all off and not thought about it at all? If the second, then of course I don't think you have thought about the situation objectively?

Many scholars and theologians, including those of Christian persuasion, suggest that names of famous persons were attached to gospels by churchmen of the second century or beyond. I do not disagree with that suggestion.

In regards of the claimed resurrection of a certain Jesus: have you attempted to find an explanation for what happened in the 1st c. to lead certain people to claim that a certain Rabbis was raised from the dead and was now governing the world…(objective)...or have you simply written off the whole issue and not thought about it at all?

I am aware that people make many claims that are at least of questionable validity – until or unless such claims are verified, I tend to be ‘skeptical’ – and would consider myself very naive and gullible to accept as truthful and accurate unverified ‘take my word for it, or his, or this book’ tales.

For those who are gullible and naive, there is oceanfront land for sale cheap in Iowa.

If you have not seriously considered what happened in the 1st c. Palestine to lead to the claim (even if the claim was wrong) then why should you be considered to be an objective thinker about it?

Again, I make no claim to be ‘objective’ (“not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts�).

I am aware of tales telling about people of the first century claiming that an empty tomb means that the deceased came back to life – and claiming that the deceased was seen alive and well. I do not put a great deal of confidence in the truth of said tales

I am also aware that during the latter part of first century Paul/Saul and associates wrote and preached about such things in the formation of a splinter group religion – and their ideas were rejected by Jews of the area but found favor (eventually) among Gentiles living far away.

An objective thinker would want to know what happened that eventually a Jew was credited with having risen from the dead,

A person capable of thinking (objectively or not) should realize that someone being credited with marvelous feats is not uncommon. Legends and myths abound in cultures worldwide.

and was then transmuted to a different dimension

Is that biblical? Or is it something just made up?

Do you care about 1st c. Palestine? Do you care about the activities of the Sicarii? Or the egyptian?

None of that is a major issue in my life or my decisions. However, I often debate people who have great emotional attachment to the era and its stories. Many actually devote their lives to tales told about supernatural sightings and happenings ‘long ago and far away’

I will go with my blanket statement: hyperskeptics don't think objectively.

One is entitled to their foolish notions.

I continue to doubt whether Z knows what he means by "verifiable evidence". Perhaps Z can offer an example...?

Verifiable: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof

If a claim is made that a feather and a rock fall at the same rate in a vacuum, verifiable evidence is a vacuum jar and pump, a feather and a rock. If (since) they fall at the same rate, the statement has been verified.

If a claim is made that an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, that can be verified with evidence from hundreds or thousands of independent sources worldwide, including military and government reports, civilian and news accounts, photographs, motion pictures, etc.

If a claim is made that many long-dead bodies came back to life but NO independent / disconnected evidence is supplied (only the tales themselves), the claim has not been verified. Understand the difference?

Perhaps Z can show one reason why he believes that Julius Caesar took an army across the Rubicon?

Notice VERY carefully (rather than making a foolish assumption) that Z has taken NO position regarding Caesar and the Rubicon. I couldn’t care less whether he did or did not cross – and darn sure don’t ‘believe’ one way or the other.

Kindly stop making up things and try to learn to deal with what is actually said.

Can Z offer a single argument for believing anything he believes that happened prior to his own consciousness?

Z accepts (‘believes’ in your talk) that Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 and thereby started WWII. Although that was three months before I was born, there is overwhelming evidence from independent, disconnected, credible worldwide sources that the event occurred.

It might be wise to shift focus from the personal level to focus on the topic “Determining Biblical Authorship.�

Inappropriate personal remarks do not make your case (whatever that might be). Readers are watching – 580 views so far for this thread.

[SallyF]

No one knows which human hands put quill to parchment.

Not a single author of a single booklet has ever been identified.

Yet some folks will INSIST they hold the "Word of God" in their hands.

That is just ONE of the reasons, many years ago, that I put "God" in the same place as I had put Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny not so long before.

[Difflugia]

Well that is certainly interesting. Thanks for the reply. Now im might make this hard on you, but bear with me.

Do your worst. I expect you to do your share of the work, though.

Because in order to establish a valid belief we would need valid reasoning. For example, saying "this is what scholars believe" without actually knowing why they believe it, wouldnt really be a valid reason to establish any belief... So im going to try to get some details.

That seems an odd statement to me. Whether or not I intend to look into a subject deeper, I'm going to first trust those who study the topic for a living. There are subjects on which I disagree with experts, but I feel that's only justified once I understand why the scholars have the opinion they have and I've at least examined the same data.

If I have to choose between dogma and "what scholars believe," though, the scholars win every time.

Your reference says:

"Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century ce when Paul was no longer alive."

Can you give any verses to establish this from these Epistles? And/or outside evidence of these practices after Paul's death?

I'll humor you for the moment, but the quote is straightforward enough, comes from a trustworthy enough source, and can be established by materials likely enough to be at your disposal that if you're going to challenge it, I think it's reasonable to expect you to justify your disagreement without my help.

• ...presume an institutionalized leadership...

1 Timothy 3:1-13 discusses bishops and deacons in a way that is overtly institutional (i.e. there are specific requirements for the jobs) and implicitly heirarchical (part of the requirement is to establish an ability to rule over a church).

• ...internal dissent over issues of faith and practice...

1 Timothy 5 is entirely about how an established church ought to deal with (vv. 1-2) organizational heirarchy and (the rest of the chapter) corporate (rather than individual) dealing and responsibility with widows that require financial assistance from the church. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 is about how slaves and their owners should deal with each other when both were members of the church.

• ...fits a period late in the first or early in the second century CE...

We have a number of early church documents (the letters of Ignatius and pseudo-Clementine homilies, for example) that were written in the second and third centuries. Polycarp, writing at the end of the first century or beginning of the second, seems only to know of one church officer, the "deacon" (perhaps "presbyter," but he seems to mean one of the Apostles). Ignatius, writing in the second century, discusses "deacons" and "bishops," matching the Pastorals. The pseudo-Clementines of the third or fourth century writes of "deacons," "presbyters" as a position appointed by a bishop, and "bishops." Since the Pastorals seem to have a more advanced organization than the rest of the Paulines and Polycarp, a similar structure to that known by Ignatius, and less advanced than the pseudo-Clementines, the conclusion puts it sometime between the end of the first century and the middle of the second.

• ...when Paul was no longer alive...

Eusebius wrote that Paul was martyred in 64 AD.

Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers."

Can you give the verses in the Pastoral Epistles that can establish that they "minimize or lack" these characteristics, and verses that emphasize on adherence to tradition? Any evidence will do.

The verses that emphasize tradition: 1 Timothy 4 is all about continuing in the doctrine (which itself isn't much of a Pauline concept; he otherwise speaks of his "gospel") that is tried and true. 6:3-10 is, once again, an exhortation against following new doctrine (rather than his "gospel").

The verses that "minimize or lack" these characteristics: all of them.

"Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul's trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership."

Any verse or evidence will do.

1 Timothy 2

"Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,� the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul's death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul's genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard."

Any verses or evidence will do

We can talk about 2 Timothy next, if you want. I just didn't chop up the paragraphs about the Pastorals as a whole.

"Still, the prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix� his legacy (in both senses of the term)."

Any verse or evidence will do.

Now I'm not sure what you're looking for. The paragraph itself is a respected, scholarly opinion on the state of the scholarship. If you don't agree that it's the "prevailing view of scholars," that's up to you to justify. Any verse or evidence will do.

"The argument is based on hapax legomena, which just means words unique to a particular work within a larger corpus. Harrison calculated the number of hapax legomena for each book in the New Testament. He compared the Pauline epistles and each of the Pastoral epistles has a much larger number of hapax legomena than the others. He reasoned that an author writing multiple times on similar topics should exercise roughly the same sort of vocabulary in each work. This is true for the other ten Pauline epistles. Furthermore, when ordered by the number of hapax legomena, the other epistles line up roughly in the order that they were likely written. Harrison sees this as characteristic of an author becoming more experienced and slowly expanding his working vocabulary. The Pastorals, on the other hand, have more than twice as many hapax legomena as would be expected based on this pattern."

Id really like to know the actual words if possible..."

Those are all laid out in the appendicies of the book I linked. As I said before, the whole thing's available for download.

Would it matter? I suppose it would have to be judged based on the words used... What do you think?

It's predominantly a statistical argument, but the author painstakingly ennumerates the words he considered. If you can find a pattern that would somehow explain why the vocabulary of the Pastorals is so different, yet have the same author, I'd love to hear it.

Now it's your turn. Before you ask me to do yet more work, you at least should explain why you agree or disagree with what I've presented.

If your argument is going to boil down to "you can't prove it to my satisfaction, so I'll stick with the dogma," please let me know now.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]


There are two major difficulties for assessing the traditional authorship of the contents of the Bible: one is fundamentalism. there are fundamentalists on both sides of the divide here: fundamentalist skeptics will rule out anything a priori that may support Christianity; fundamentalist Christians will accept anything that is likely to support it.

But there is another: and that is historical methodology. On this terrain it is the fundamentalist skeptics who commit the greater error. They for some reason think that only if a all possible alternative theories are ruled out, the traditional attributions have no credit.

Let me explain with details:

The traditional position is that the gospel of Mark was written by an associate of Peter, and perhaps that Mark so named John Mark in the N.T. The argument in favor of this attribution is:
1) If the book was known NOT to have been written by Mark, then assigning it to Mark yields zero motive: he was not a disciple or even apostle. Later Christian writings show a trend in assigning texts to actual disciples.

2) The gospel of Mark is never, anywhere, attributed to anyone else. As soon as historians see attribution, it is linked to a "Mark".

3) A 4th c. historian cites earlier memoirs (those of Papias) which link Mark and Peter.


Against this the hyperskeptics have nothing other than hyper skepticism. There is virtually no conflicting evidence. We have, therefore, a conflict of motive: there is motive, on the side of the skeptics, to remove the second gospel as far as possible from any primary sources; on the other hand, if the early church scratched its head at an unassigned gospel, and wondered, "who wrote this thing, it's damn good", what REASONABLE motive would they have, when inventing an attribution ex nihilo, for attributing it NOT directly to Peter!? Why make up Mark, even if they could find a Mark associated with Peter? They could have named anyone! ANYONE! They could have said "The gospel of Jesus, who wrote this just prior to his entry into Jerusalem."

this is the major problem with the thinking of hyperskepticism: they simply do not think objectively. They don't want to know what actually happened; they just care to attack what others say happened. And that makes them very, very poor thinkers: for they do not carry out their own position ad absurdum.

To the bold:
Says the guy who is trying to defend a book with talking animals, global floods, reanimating corpses and all sorts of other nonsense.

"What, you don't believe that snakes and donkeys can talk! You're just a hyperskeptic that doesn't thing objectively, you don't actually want to know what happened and just want to attack what others say. Oh, and you are a very, very poor thinker!"

Any poison left, or is it all in the well?

Your failure is that you are trying to defend this religious promotional material as if it is historical.
(Some is of course)

You said:
"fundamentalist skeptics will rule out anything a priori that may support Christianity"

This does not seem to be accurate either, or at least way to broad of a brush. Many people, quite reasonably I would say, reject seemingly mythical claims about demi gods, virgin births, and the absurdities mentioned above.

Are you a hyperskeptic when it comes to Greek gods for example, or are you just being reasonable?

[Tart]

Difflugia, thanks for the thoughtful response. These issues are all new issues to me as I have not studied this before, I find it interesting and I think my perspective when reading the scripture will now be a little bit different with these things in the back of my mind.

Well that is certainly interesting. Thanks for the reply. Now im might make this hard on you, but bear with me.

Do your worst. I expect you to do your share of the work, though.

Because in order to establish a valid belief we would need valid reasoning. For example, saying "this is what scholars believe" without actually knowing why they believe it, wouldnt really be a valid reason to establish any belief... So im going to try to get some details.

That seems an odd statement to me. Whether or not I intend to look into a subject deeper, I'm going to first trust those who study the topic for a living. There are subjects on which I disagree with experts, but I feel that's only justified once I understand why the scholars have the opinion they have and I've at least examined the same data.

I feel the same way, we can accept a scholars opinion if we chose to but understanding why they have that opinion, or the evidence itself, is much more valuable for establishing a solid belief.

If I have to choose between dogma and "what scholars believe," though, the scholars win every time.

Your reference says:

"Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century ce when Paul was no longer alive."

Can you give any verses to establish this from these Epistles? And/or outside evidence of these practices after Paul's death?

I'll humor you for the moment, but the quote is straightforward enough, comes from a trustworthy enough source, and can be established by materials likely enough to be at your disposal that if you're going to challenge it, I think it's reasonable to expect you to justify your disagreement without my help.

Ya so one thing that is very important in this subject would be to understand the organization of the church within the first century, and second century. I aggre that it would be likely that as time goes on, so does the development of a hierarchy state of regulations... But in reality, this is kind of guessing what the church was like in its early years, unless we have good evidence that, for example, the organization of its leadership developed in the "period late in the first or early in the second century"... Is it possible that these things developed while Paul was still alive? Which according to your source was thirty years after the churches first began to get started, in 64ad.

Within 30 years of development, is it possible that these churches began to develop these issues?

I think it could be possible, but there certainly isnt any definitive evidence one way or the other... Or is there?

• ...presume an institutionalized leadership...

1 Timothy 3:1-13 discusses bishops and deacons in a way that is overtly institutional (i.e. there are specific requirements for the jobs) and implicitly heirarchical (part of the requirement is to establish an ability to rule over a church).

What do you think about this quote from Philippians 1? Do you think it is possible that these things existed in this organized manner while Paul was still alive?

1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:

2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

• ...internal dissent over issues of faith and practice...

1 Timothy 5 is entirely about how an established church ought to deal with (vv. 1-2) organizational heirarchy and (the rest of the chapter) corporate (rather than individual) dealing and responsibility with widows that require financial assistance from the church. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 is about how slaves and their owners should deal with each other when both were members of the church.

Yes so I read this chapter again to refresh my understanding, and honestly this sounds like Paul's words, from other Epistles... Now if I knew about this subject before hand I might be able to create a complete list, but certainly Paul has taken this tone in others, Galatians for example is a letter to a Church where Paul is rebuking for false teachings, or 1 Corinthians is a letter where Paul also lays out similar constructions of hierarchy perhaps 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul says

"28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues."

or another example in 1 Corinthians is where Paul talks of how people should behave in the church, like wives, woman, men and husbands... It is very similar.

• ...fits a period late in the first or early in the second century CE...

We have a number of early church documents (the letters of Ignatius and pseudo-Clementine homilies, for example) that were written in the second and third centuries. Polycarp, writing at the end of the first century or beginning of the second, seems only to know of one church officer, the "deacon" (perhaps "presbyter," but he seems to mean one of the Apostles). Ignatius, writing in the second century, discusses "deacons" and "bishops," matching the Pastorals. The pseudo-Clementines of the third or fourth century writes of "deacons," "presbyters" as a position appointed by a bishop, and "bishops." Since the Pastorals seem to have a more advanced organization than the rest of the Paulines and Polycarp, a similar structure to that known by Ignatius, and less advanced than the pseudo-Clementines, the conclusion puts it sometime between the end of the first century and the middle of the second.

Id refer to my quote above from Philippians, where Paul says he is with "together with the overseers and deacons"... What do you feel about that?

The very important question to establish any conclusion would be when were these things established... It looks like they, at least began to be establish, before Paul died... When Philippians was written, which has been dated as early as 50ad, like 10 to 15 years before Paul's death (according to your source)

• ...when Paul was no longer alive...

Eusebius wrote that Paul was martyred in 64 AD.

On a side note... I just find it interesting that you would point to this reference from Eusebius, who wrote it in the fourth century... Im not saying he wrong, just curious why we would believe some late authors and not others? You dont think this is a double standard do you? Or is his words more believable based on some kind of evidence?

Theologically these letters minimize or lack characteristic Pauline themes (such as justification by faith, and the church as the body of Christ) in favor of a new emphasis on adherence to tradition and regulation as signs of the Christian piety they seek to inculcate in their readers."

Can you give the verses in the Pastoral Epistles that can establish that they "minimize or lack" these characteristics, and verses that emphasize on adherence to tradition? Any evidence will do.

The verses that emphasize tradition: 1 Timothy 4 is all about continuing in the doctrine (which itself isn't much of a Pauline concept; he otherwise speaks of his "gospel") that is tried and true. 6:3-10 is, once again, an exhortation against following new doctrine (rather than his "gospel").

The verses that "minimize or lack" these characteristics: all of them.

So i read 1 Timothy 4 again, to refresh my knowledge, and i really didnt find anything that teaches what you are saying.. Maybe im wrong? I read the NIV, and there isnt any word saying "continuing", nothing saying "tried and true" of the Gospel...

This quote from 1 Timothy 4 says;

"4 they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain."

I dont think any of this is new doctrine, all of this, like the love of money, strife, envy, malicious talk, etc... That has been condemned all the way back to even Jesus himself... Hasnt it?

"Although Timothy and Titus had been Paul's trusted co-workers for decades, the first letter to Timothy and the letter to Titus present the recipients as needing basic instructions for community leadership."

Any verse or evidence will do.

1 Timothy 2

Ya i agree this restates some things about women, and i suppose the argument would be made that why would Paul restate this to Timothy as if he needs to hear it again, even though Paul restated many things in his epistles... idk...

Another case could be made that, this sounds a lot like Paul writes...

"Second Timothy is less concerned with regulating the life of the Christian communities than Titus and 1 Timothy. It has been described as a “testament,� the last words of the apostle to a close associate. It looks forward to the difficulties facing Timothy and others after Paul's death with foreboding, and bears some similarity to the Paul's genuine letter to the Philippians in this regard."

Any verses or evidence will do

We can talk about 2 Timothy next, if you want. I just didn't chop up the paragraphs about the Pastorals as a whole.

"Still, the prevailing view of scholars is that these letters were not written by Paul but are later compositions seeking to “fix� his legacy (in both senses of the term)."

Any verse or evidence will do.

Now I'm not sure what you're looking for. The paragraph itself is a respected, scholarly opinion on the state of the scholarship. If you don't agree that it's the "prevailing view of scholars," that's up to you to justify. Any verse or evidence will do.

No in this case i was asking about what exactly these letters "fix" from Paul's older teachings... Has any passages been given for this question as evidence? I didnt notice any..

"The argument is based on hapax legomena, which just means words unique to a particular work within a larger corpus. Harrison calculated the number of hapax legomena for each book in the New Testament. He compared the Pauline epistles and each of the Pastoral epistles has a much larger number of hapax legomena than the others. He reasoned that an author writing multiple times on similar topics should exercise roughly the same sort of vocabulary in each work. This is true for the other ten Pauline epistles. Furthermore, when ordered by the number of hapax legomena, the other epistles line up roughly in the order that they were likely written. Harrison sees this as characteristic of an author becoming more experienced and slowly expanding his working vocabulary. The Pastorals, on the other hand, have more than twice as many hapax legomena as would be expected based on this pattern."

Id really like to know the actual words if possible..."

Those are all laid out in the appendicies of the book I linked. As I said before, the whole thing's available for download.

Would it matter? I suppose it would have to be judged based on the words used... What do you think?

It's predominantly a statistical argument, but the author painstakingly ennumerates the words he considered. If you can find a pattern that would somehow explain why the vocabulary of the Pastorals is so different, yet have the same author, I'd love to hear it.

Well im certainly not some kind of linguistic expert... Do you think other authors around the world could have experienced the same thing? Or is this just like a phenomenon in Paul's writings?

Now it's your turn. Before you ask me to do yet more work, you at least should explain why you agree or disagree with what I've presented.

If your argument is going to boil down to "you can't prove it to my satisfaction, so I'll stick with the dogma," please let me know now.

No man, i am really interested in this issue, i assure you... Im not even convinced these documents were written by Paul, however I do feel they have a feel to them that echoes Paul's words... Im just interested in the evidence...

That said, I wouldnt conclude these are forgeries, and you'd agree too, right? It isnt fully conclusive.. Or what do you think?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 37 by Tart]

Besides perhaps the vocabulary argument (which is easy enough to understand in outline and looks compelling) the clearest point I've seen against Pauline authorship of the pastorals (or at least 1 and hence presumably 2 Timothy) is 1 Timothy 5:18: "For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,� and “The worker deserves his wages.�"

The first quote is from Deuteronomy, no problem there, but the second is from Luke 10:7. Given its literary dependency on Mark (written sometime after 65 CE) and Josephus (War of the Jews was written c. 76 CE), and its own internal evidence suggesting authorship long after the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24), the good news according to Luke didn't even exist during Paul's lifetime, and almost certainly would not have been considered Scripture alongside the Torah even if it had existed. One might speculate that Paul was quoting Jesus' words directly; but firstly the quote and the whole story it's in are found nowhere else and may be Luke's invention to begin with, but secondly and more importantly the term 'scripture' (graphe) refers specifically to written material and on the only occasions I recall that Paul does refer directly to words or teachings of Jesus, he does not use that term but instead clearly attributes them to 'the Lord' (1 Cor. 7:10 and 1 Cor. 11:23ff).

So either
- 1 Timothy was written well after Paul's death,
- or we must find some passage in the Tanakh (or Septuagint at least) matching Paul's quotation,
- or we must find not just an explanation, but a combination of explanations for how Luke's words came to be quoted as Scripture by Paul (eg. Paul really died much later than believed and Luke's partly-fabricated story of Jesus was accepted as authoritative Scripture at an unprecedented rate)

[Tart]

[Replying to post 38 by Mithrae]

Ya, I have heard this argument before about the "scripture", and i dont think there is a definite answer... I do believe it is possible that documents that depict, at least parts of Jesus life could have been in circulation, perhap document Q for example... But im not sure. And It would be likely this meant some kind of written word, opposed to the very early chants that the Christians developed.. Even though i suppose the chants themselves could have been written down..


But besides the point, I dont think Luke 21:24 is a good way to date the Gospel to after the fall of the temple. This certainly could have been a prophecy and they say Jesus spoke these words himself... We also have Jesus saying "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations..." And no one will date it based on those words becuase we know for a fact those words existed before they were fulfilled...

[Tart]

by the way, what is the evidence for the dating of the earliest gospels? And do they suggest to be after Paul's death?