Religion may not survive the internet

[Northwestcoug]

Dig deep enough, and you'll find somebody who will think they're all pseudepigraphs. But the most commonly challenged ones are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, both Timothys, and Titus. Of those six, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are the least-challenged.

EDIT: I'm not including Hebrews in that list, by the way, because I don't even know that it qualifies as a pseudepigraph.

Why is that? Maybe I'm not understanding the word pseudepigraph, but I thought the general (non-Mormon) consensus was that Hebrews was not written by Paul.

[Topper]

Dig deep enough, and you'll find somebody who will think they're all pseudepigraphs. But the most commonly challenged ones are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, both Timothys, and Titus. Of those six, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are the least-challenged.

EDIT: I'm not including Hebrews in that list, by the way, because I don't even know that it qualifies as a pseudepigraph.

I was aware that 2 Thessalonians was less challenged but wasn't aware that Colossians was.

[Topper]

Why is that? Maybe I'm not understanding the word pseudepigraph, but I thought the general (non-Mormon) consensus was that Hebrews was not written by Paul.

Because no scholar really considers to be Paul's. The Greek is too different, the subject matter so varied and overall, it appears to have been written much later. It was perhaps the first letter rejected as not from Paul

[All-American]

Why is that? Maybe I'm not understanding the word pseudepigraph, but I thought the general (non-Mormon) consensus was that Hebrews was not written by Paul.

Because Hebrews itself doesn't claim to be Pauline. I'm more inclined to call it a work of anonymous authorship than pseudepigraphy.

[All-American]

I was aware that 2 Thessalonians was less challenged but wasn't aware that Colossians was.

Less so. 2 Thessalonians is the real standout.

[Topper]

Because Hebrews itself doesn't claim to be Pauline. I'm more inclined to call it a work of anonymous authorship than pseudepigraphy.

Why was it ever grouped as Pauline? I know JS made a loose comment about it, which is why many LDS consider it Pauline.

[Moliere]

I thought both were considered pseydepigraphical.

[All-American]

Why was it ever grouped as Pauline? I know JS made a loose comment about it, which is why many LDS consider it Pauline.

Because SOMEBODY had to have written it. It looks better if you just say it was the guy who wrote all the other ones.

[Northwestcoug]

Because Hebrews itself doesn't claim to be Pauline. I'm more inclined to call it a work of anonymous authorship than pseudepigraphy.

got it.

[Pelado]

Dig deep enough, and you'll find somebody who will think they're all pseudepigraphs. But the most commonly challenged ones are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, both Timothys, and Titus. Of those six, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are the least-challenged.

EDIT: I'm not including Hebrews in that list, by the way, because I don't even know that it qualifies as a pseudepigraph.

I was aware that 2 Thessalonians was less challenged but wasn't aware that Colossians was.

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information:

Authorship of six of the Apostle Paul's letters has been questioned by some scholars, according to E.P. Sanders.[9] The six disputed epistles are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. They internally claim to have been written by Paul, but that assertion has been questioned by most scholars.[7] These letters are sometimes referred to as deutero-Pauline letters meaning "secondary letters of Paul".

Theologian Felix Just says about 80% of scholars agree that four of the disputed epistles were not written by Paul himself, but by one of his followers after his death. However, Just reports less agreement among scholars concerning two of the generally disputed epistles. He estimates only about half of scholars dispute Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians and Colossians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

[All-American]

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

Well, there you have it.

I know Pelado is too kind to ever call my integrity into question, but just for the record, I took a class at BYU-- Greek 411R-- in which we read all of the Pauline epistles, minus the four most-commonly challenged pseudepigraphs, in Greek. I also wrote a paper on the pseudepigraphy claims analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the claims for various epistles. (My conclusions, by the way, were 1. who knows, and 2. who cares.)

[FMCoug]

Well the one thing that is pretty clear from the correlated version of Paul's writings that I have been spoonfed is that there was definitely some miscommunication and/or freelancing by some of the various congregations that had to be corrected.

Remember the words of Solon though, some of what you are reading is not from Paul. Many of the epistles were forgeries.

Was Paul trying to correct some trouble-makers that had strayed from centralized authority or was he simply competing with other Christian sects in the cities in question?

We like to think that things started out with centralized control and tight organization and then descended into chaos, culminating in the ultimate apostasy with Constantine. But the historical record seems to indicate the opposite. Christianity was all over the map with numerous sects pushing different sets of beliefs and styles of worship. Constantine ended up consolidating the religion and normalizing the core set of beliefs and practices.

You guys are all much more well-read on this stuff than I am so I have fixed my statement above.

[Pelado]

Well, there you have it.

I know Pelado is too kind to ever call my integrity into question, but just for the record, I took a class at BYU-- Greek 411R-- in which we read all of the Pauline epistles, minus the four most-commonly challenged pseudepigraphs, in Greek. I also wrote a paper on the pseudepigraphy claims analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the claims for various epistles. (My conclusions, by the way, were 1. who knows, and 2. who cares.)

Far be it from me to challenge integrity. I thought I was just displaying my lack of knowledge, and willingness to learn/feed at the trough of Wikipedia.

[All-American]

Far be it from me to challenge integrity. I thought I was just displaying my lack of knowledge, and willingness to learn/feed at the trough of Wikipedia.

Yeah, the real takeaway is that I spent four years learning what you can read in ten minutes on Wikipedia.

[Pelado]

Yeah, the real takeaway is that I spent four years learning what you can read in ten minutes on Wikipedia.

Four years? How many times did you take Greek 411R?