Toto

My own opinion, although I haven't looked into this in detail, is that the opinion that the Pastorals are non-Pauline is based primarily on the differing theology and personal style, and to a lesser extent on language, and to an even lesser extent on precise statistics. The numbers just back up an opinion that was reached on a gut level. But science has now recognized that these gut level decisions can be more accurate than long, drawn out analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk).

In addition, it is not clear exactly how much of the so-called genuine Pauline letters was actually written by one person, and how much is interpolation. I think you could come up with a variety of different answers, depending on your assumptions.

TedM

That may be accurate. My impression is that the numbers are given a fairly high amount of importance (I think that is human nature--the mystery of math is attractive..), and that they perhaps should not be used to back up anything about authorship other than to confirm that the style is different....at least not yet.

My gut says 2 Timothy is very authentic to Paul, less so for 1 Timothy, have to re-read Titus..

Very true.

Vorkosigan

There is no inauthenticity bandwagon but instead there is sober scholarly analysis -- scholarly analysis of the (1) linguistic problems (2) historical contradictions (3) different uses for the same technical terms (4) later church organization (5) preoccupation with social arrangements in this world and Christian respectability in the eyes of outsiders, against the urgent insistence in Paul that the End is Coming soon (6) the idea of a canon of writings as evidenced by 2 Tim 3:16 and 1 Tim 5:18 -- there was no canon in the time of Paul. That is why the vast majority of scholars have rejected these epistles, and the only scholars that do accept them do so because they are a priori committed to them. In other words, no argument exists that would convince a mind that is reasonably rational about the issue. That is why liberals like Ehrman and conservative middle of the roaders like Schnelle not only reject them, but refer to the consensus as overwhelming.

To give one example of twisting in your texts, Ehrman points out that not only are there the stylistic differences, but the different words are those used by second century texts, a point your citations seem to have missed.

This is a settled issue buttressed by at least six different vectors of evidence, sound methodology, and scholarly tacit knowledge.

Vorkosigan

Gamera

I can't disagree with this reasonable approach, Ben. But methodological shortcomings are methodological shortcomings. So cumulative evidence based on dubious methods don't add up to more than the sum of the parts. I think the purpose of the topic post was to express that concern.

I'm not saying this disposes of the issues surrounding the Pastorals. I am saying that I just can't see statistical analysis of stylistic elements adding anything to this debate. The method seem ungrounded. So that eliminates one line of evidence, in my opinion.

Vorkosigan

None of the statistical arguments have been addressed by scholars working with accepted methodologies in peer-reviewed journals. So your skepticism is not warranted by any argument yet made.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Ehrman, Intro p336

"....apart from personal names, there are 848 different words found in the pastorals; of these, 306 occur nowhere else in the Pauline corpus of the New Testament (even including the Deutero-Paulines). This means that over one-third of the vocabulary is not Pauline. Strikingly, over two-thirds of these non-Pauline words are used by Christian authors of the second century."

As Ehrman notes:

"Of course the argument from vocabulary can never be decisive in itself. Everybody uses different words on different occasions, and the Christian vocabulary of Paul himself must have developed over time. The magnitude of these differences must give us pause, however, particular since they coincide with other features of the letters that suggest the were written after Paul had passed off the scene."

Case closed. Except, of course, for those who are committed to the position that they are true Paulines because they are found in the NT, and not because of any features of the letters themselves.

Vorkosigan

mountainman

I believe that last word should be inference.
You are welcome to call it inferred knowledge.

Please correct me if this distinction is implied and
understood by (the consensus) of scholars.



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Vorkosigan

I am talking about another type of knowledge. This is knowledge that one acquires through working with an object, but which is not formally expressed. There's an instructive debate about it here.

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/...knowledge.html

TedM

My OP indicated that the many scholars found the linguistic evidence to be a deciding factor. I think that shows their flawed reasoning, since it was premature to claim such a thing from Harrison's work. That isn't "sober scholarly analysis". That's jumping on a non-scientific bandwagon out of ignorance. I speculated that such mistakes in judgement have continued to this day.



If "reasonably rational" minds were persuaded by the numbers of Harrison without reasonable comparison basis, why should I accept the idea that their analysis of the other 5 items you mention is any more sober? If you really know that the "vast majority" of scholars would have rejected these epistles without ANY scholarly analysis of the linguistic differences, then you are correct, but my impression has been that the linguistic differences are seen to be the most or one of the most convincing pieces of evidence among scholars.


I don't see any twisting there. From what I've read those different words were not widely used by second cntury texts at all, and most were known from works existing in the first century, so this seems a weak point by Ehrman. Nomad addressed this some a while back, as does the link from CE. There is no good reason therefore to consider them as evidence of a 2nd century source instead of a 1st century source. In fact there are 50 words in the pastorals that are found in the 10 other Pauline letters and nowhere else. Nowhere. Why not consider THAT as evidence for Pauline authorship? No, it must be a good con-job instead, right?


As presented, this isn't a closed case at all! Why? Because there is absolutely no comparison made here with other letters allegedly written by Paul! How many of the words in Romans do not occur elsewhere in the Pauline corpus? What percentage? What percentage of THOSE words (which Ehrman misleadingly labels "non-Pauline") are used by Christian authors of the second century? What percentage of the 542 "Pauline" words are also used by Christian authors of the second century? Do you see how completely empty his argument is as presented above by you? There isn't even a single comparison to another alleged Pauline work, so how can any conclusion be drawn as presented here? It can't. You can't just say "Oh, 1/3 is a high amount, it must be non-Pauline." or, "Oh, 2/3 of those words are also used later so they must not have been used earlier!", yet I suspect that it is exactly this kind of flawed reasoning that many scholars have used.

How about this argument for each of the Pastorals having a DIFFERENT author based on the few hapaxlegomena they have in common?

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/1Tim.htm

ted

Vorkosigan

What? Another citation from a bogus unaccredited Baptist educational institution dedicated to a priori belief in the status of the NT texts? If the Pauline letters to Seneca had been canonized, these places would all be defending them and you would be here attempting to discredit the arguments against them. Note in typical twisting style, the site leaves out crucial pieces of evidence (the non-Pauline vocab is second century) and leaves out the historical contradictions (which can't exist because they believe that the Bible never contradicts itself).



Schnelle cites another author who writes that "The Pastoral epistles...with their total of 3484 words would normally have a distinctive vocabulary somewhere between that of 2 Corinthians and Galatians, i.e. around 130 distinctive words. In fact, however, they have 335 words not found elsewhere in Paul, a good 50 more than Romans, which is twice as long."

In other words, the rate of distinctive words is more than twice that of Romans.

Comparative. work. is. out. there. Did you you really think a non-peer reviewed website from a shit Baptist prep school whose purpose is to kill the brains of its students and control their bodies would really have a serious and probing examination of the issue?

Vorkosigan