Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke

Post by lclapshaw »

John2 wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 1:19 pm
lclapshaw wrote: Sat Feb 11, 2023 2:38 am
davidlau17 wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:44 pm
rgprice wrote: Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:18 am Philemon is a very short letter, and quite odd. It appears to be a purely personal letter with little or no theological value. Why is it considered "authentic"?
I think you answered your own question. I agree that this is a weak basis for authenticity. With its list of named figures and its prison letter context, Philemon seems to belong to the same letter set as Colossians and Ephesians; it seems to be no more authentic than these two.

I suspect there is also an apologetic reason Philemon's treatment. It is the only "authentic" letter to mention Luke as a companion of Paul. If Philemon fails, so does Luke's apostolic authority.
Right, the other two letters with Luke are Colossians and 2 Timothy. Both highly suspect.

But what if Timothy wrote them? He is named as a co-author of Colossians and was in a better position than anyone to pass himself off as Paul (and all the more so in the two letters addressed to himself).

Would Colossians and 2 Timothy be less "suspect" if someone as close to Paul as Timothy wrote them? It would be the next best thing to Paul, since Paul says "I have nobody else like him" and "you know Timothy’s proven worth." And Colossians says outright that Timothy co-authored it.

And it would make sense for Timothy to know Luke since Col. 4:14 says that Luke was a physician and 1 Tim. 5:23 tells Timothy to "Stop drinking only water and use a little wine instead, because of your stomach and your frequent ailments."
You might have fun with this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10382
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke

Post by rgprice »

Philemon certainly seems to me not to be "genuine". It has all the hallmarks of the other letters that are deemed inauthentic.

In it Paul claims to be a "prisoner", as is also mentioned in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals. It mentions the same groups of people as are mentioned in Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals.

Two of the agreed to be inauthentic letters all have closings very similar to Philemon.

2 Thessalonians 3:
17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write. 18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.


Colossians 4:
8 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my imprisonment. Grace be with you.


Philemon 1:
19 I, Paul, have written this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well).

I guess I just don't understand why Philemon is considered "authentic" and what the case for its authenticity is. It seems to share far more qualities with the other inauthentic letters than the so-called authentic ones.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke

Post by Giuseppe »

Even Carrier rejects it as not authentic.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke

Post by John2 »

rgprice wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 8:00 am
I guess I just don't understand why Philemon is considered "authentic" and what the case for its authenticity is. It seems to share far more qualities with the other inauthentic letters than the so-called authentic ones.

I could take or leave Philemon, but the arguments I've seen for it seem decent enough to me (not that the ones against it seem shabby). And since it's a prison letter, what I cited of Dunn makes sense to me, given that Timothy is mentioned as a co-author and knew Paul better than anyone. And Timothy's "frequent ailments" would explain his friendship with Luke ("the beloved physician"), and Philemon and Colossians were Paul-like enough (and early enough) for Marcion to accept them.


We may, for example, envisage Paul outlining his main concerns to a secretary (Timothy) who was familiar with the broad pattern of Paul's letter-writing and being content to leave it to the secretary to formulate the letter with a fair degree of license, perhaps under the conditions of his imprisonment at that point able only to add the briefest of personal conclusions ... If so, we should perhaps more accurately describe the theology of Colossians as the theology of Timothy; or, more accurately still, the theology of Paul as understood by Timothy.
Post Reply