Jax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:47 pm
Just for clarity this is the type of information that I seek.
The great majority of NT scholars accepts (more or less) the seven as authentitc. They range from mainstream theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx and Raymond E.Brown, to the liberal authors like Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack. Generally, the more liberal the writer, the greater the propensity to consider Collossians and Ephesians completely forged, and Phillipians to a degree. The mythicist G.A.Wells, following the radical German scholarship of the Tuebingen school, considered only the four "main letters" (die Hauptbriefe) - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, and Galatians as authentic material.
As for methodology, the authenticity is established by complex textual analysis, which examines the consistency of language used by the letters (i.e. frequency of words, stylistic preferences, and even scaling patterns). The content of the letters is also examined in what is known of the church organization in Paul's time CE40's-60's vis-a-vis the later church. E.g. the 'monarchic episocopate' alluded in the so-called pastorals (the Timothys and Titus) is generally deemed much later than Paul's time, or at any rate not fitting with Paul's other letters and the Acts. That is why they are almost umniversally set aside as Pauline pseudepigrapha.
There are theological considerations. 2 Thessalonians and Collossians have markedly different eschatological expectations than the authentic Paul (especially 1 Thess) .
Other analytical tools may be added: e.g. habits of thought, cognitive struction, attitudes. I hope to provide a convincing psychological portrait of Paul and show that because of his condition, he truly felt he was "overwhelmed" by the Christ in his body. He dissociates his ego from the "glory" that visits in an internally consistent manner, which controls the expression of Paul's dominance ploys. From the point of view of psychological authenticity, e.g. one sees a pronounced dissociative "personna" which is omnipresentin the genuine writings: see eg Gal 5:10 (I have confidence in the Lord that you take no other view than mine, and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment). Paul is small, weak, incompetent (depressed); the Lord (who takes over the manic Paul) is almighty. Note the absence of this ego-restraining schema in a similar venting of 1 Ti 20 ....Hymenaeus and Alexander; ...I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. It is of course possible that Paul forgot in the Timothy letter that not he but the Lord was the final judge of souls, but the probability of that would be very low, IMHO.
From
http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearch ... tcount=195
I think your link to frdb is out of date.
There is lots available online and in print regarding which letters may be authentic or not, and how they relate to Acts.
If one treats "occasional" letters as more reliable than a kind of a history book like Acts purports to be, then the details in the letters are to be preferred over details in Acts (where they are different, that is). Chances are then that Acts would be later, but may or may not be based on things written in the letters. If Acts is based on details in the letters, why are some details so different or even contradictory?
Of course, if Acts was written first (say, as a resume of Christian traditions about Paul) then the letters could have been based on Acts (again, asking ourselves why the details are different).
A third option might be that the letters (if not genuine) AND Acts are BOTH based on a common independent source or sources.
Now what I meant earlier about "circular reasoning" in identification of letters as "authentic" and "inauthentic" is that this must be based on some criteria. Should it be theology? If so, then you have already decided what theology was authentic to a Paul, which is somewhat arbitrary. The theology is already choppy like iceberg lettuce in a salad. Same goes for "style." The tail wags the dog.
This is the reason why I try to trace ideas and themes. One can be reading about some theme in a letter, then there are these lengthy digressions that intervene. The theme may pick up again later, but maybe not. I can make continuous sense of the themes about having faith like Abraham's to inherit the promised land on equal footing with natural born Judeans, but this is much harder to do with the Christology. This is why I had come to the conclusion that the faith of Abram talk was more original, and the Christology was more like "commentary."
The role that Marcion played in the formation or preservation of the Pauline cannon is another wrench that has been thrown into the works. No one knows for sure what Marcion's "NT" looked like because no one has ever found a codex or roll with it, or even a large fragment like a book or two. While early Christian authors like Tertullian talked like Marcion's "version" *must* have had this or that in it, but it seems to me that these things had to be in his "version" in order to make it a better straw-man to knock down. I do not think that his proto-orthodox critics really had anything more than his commentary, the
Antitheses. IMHO, Marcion had simply made a case that the sacred writings revered by the proto-orthodox Church, which contained doctrines about the Good God from the mouths of Jesus and his true apostle Paul, had been contaminated by doctrine related to the creator God's covenants with Judeans (ritual law and circumcision). In his mind these two things were like oil and water: they just do not mix.
What in the letters of Paul, or the "gospel" (the good news about the unknown God of goodness and love), did he think was part of Jesus' preaching? I think it was something to do with the high Christology stated on the letters and implied in the Gospel (of Luke). However, like many modern critics, he also thought that this high Christology was the very basis of what the Gospel and the letters of Paul had to say, before having been contaminated by Judaic ideas. Unfortunately, this is not what we find (a consistent and relatively unified Christology interrupted by Judaic interpolations).
As I noted above, in my opinion the exact opposite situations occurs at least in the Pauline letters: The theme that gentiles can love the Judean God and inherit the promised land along with Abraham's physical descencedents, sort of like "spiritual" half-siblings or foster-siblings, is most complete and systematic, with the Christology being the interrupting interpolations.
What I think Marcion encountered were, with regard to the letters of Paul, what I consider the original letters about a form of pious Judeo-Hellenic "we can be brothers, really!" type teaching that had been interpolated to introduce the divine redeemer mystery that gentile Christians had developed. The latter Christological theology was decidedly anti-Judaic, with this overlay most clearly seen in the story of Abram, Sarah his wife, their son Isaac & Abe's concubine and her son Esau. In the original, they are contrasted so Esau is a son born without sure hope of fulfillment of this promise, while Isaac is born out of faith that God would fulfill by granting a child by his own wife. The interpolator took this, stood it on its head, and declared that Abraham's physical children are typified by Esau and the spiritual sons were typified by Isaac, which is not anywhere near the same thing.
What you may have to do is just read up on these options and see what makes the most sense to you.
DCH
Edgar J. Goodspeed and
) when Acts has a very different picture altogether, where the disciples stay in Palestine and the new faith is preached by Greek speaking foreigners in the world.