yalla

I just remembered that the real or fake paul suggests fakery is afoot in 2 Thess 3.17.
It is taken by some to be one of the indicators of forgery.

yalla

The thread "Non-axe grinding Books'' in this forum illustrates why I have problems with the "majority" position.

Zeichman

I think once a level of "canonization" started happening, pseudonymous writings began to be viewed less favorably. The only/best example that comes to mind is the story of a monk who was writing 3 Corinthians, iirc. Also, reading, Stephen Harris advocates the same position on pseudonomity as does Mack.
Since there were so many different people appealing to Paul's authority (albiet implicitly), I think provides evidence that there was some form of Pauline school. The three non-Pastoral contested works are, if non-Pauline, little more than revisions of his theology- whether or eschatology, a new idea of Union and Christ. Reverence for Paul is evident in Colossians, especially 1:21; the author advocates a similar freedom from the Law in 2:20-22, and is familiar with Philemon, or a tradition from it (1:7,4:14// v Phlm. 23). And I think it is fairly obvious the author of 2 Thess thinks a lot of Paul to duplicate half of a previous epistle only to revise the eschatology. Ephesians 3:8 reeks of a Pauline disciple, and the author regurgitates a Pauline metaphor (5:23// 1 Cor 11:3); of course, if one were to grant that the author of Ephesians was under the impression Paul wrote Colossians, more parallels would jump out. Either way, I don't think it can be demonstrated that the ideas within these three epistles differ so greatly from Paul's theology that they couldn't be said to be of a Pauline school.

I'm not sure this could be said of the Pastorals, as much as I love 'em.

And, while I can understand your objections to Christians as Biblical scholars, however, those are the referees that come with the game.

By no means, I wasn't sure if someone else in the thread had the same first name as I and you were talking to them. Feel free to use it. Perhaps I just came off as snapping via the internet. My apologies.

yalla

Gidday Zeichman,
You seem to be a fan of Burton Mack so I will criticise the concept of a Pauline "school'' using his book "Who Wrote the N.T.?".

You are correct, Mack clearly states frequently that he thinks there was a school.

He thinks someone from this school, not Paul, wrote 2 Thess.
Quote ''A second letter to the Thessalonians is not Pauline." p.112.
Ok, it's fake but from the school.
Mack says this author's ''eschatology reflects a development of Christian apocalyptic thinking of the kind that took place only after Roman Jewish war around the turn of the first century....adds nothing to our knowledge of Paul's gospel", and that this author "had no trouble attributing new ideas to him" ibid.

Why did this bloke write 2 Thess in Paul's name?
"..he thought to USE Paul's AUTHORITY to VALIDATE his own version of the eschaton" p.113. My emphasis.
That's significant. The motive is not to develope the thought of the revered "teacher" but to exploit the name, to borrow the prestige and attach it to something non Pauline.
Thats not the work of a disciple, it's the work of an exploiter.

Next Colossians and Ephesians.
" Post-pauline tradition documented in the letters to the Colossians and Ephasians".p.175
"Paul's [sic] letters to the Colossians and Ephasians are not authentic" p.183.
"Both letters show however that the influence of Paul's memory and letters did not extend to his IDEAS or THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM" p.183
"...something must have happened to the Pauline Christ"
"Paul would not have liked this hymn" [Col 1.15-20]
A telling comment "...one feature distinguishes both these letters of Paul[sic]. It is the occurence of ethical instructions for ordering the household [details follow]"p 187
Another "..the supervision of local leadership". p.188
The picture is one of political control of the emerging church being authenticated by persons via these forged "Pauline letters.
Sure doesn't sound like a school member to me.
Ok i could go on. I didn't look at the 3 Pastorals cos I think we are agreed they are forgeries.

So Mack says an extra 3 are also forgeries and although he likes to think of them as from a Pauline school the descriptions he gives paints a picture of usurptation of Paul's name in ways unbefitting to a school of religious philosophical thought.

I don't think I have taken Mack out of context but you can check.
Gotta go.

Zeichman

While you certainly present a pretty damning case for one of my points, I don't think that a Pauline school is mutually exclusive against these observations.

I don't think I have the qualifications to rebut this with success, so cheers man. Good show.