Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Disputed Pauline letters

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D." <smcginn AT jcu.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Disputed Pauline letters
  • Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 13:59:04 -0500


Jeff Peterson wrote:

> I'm wondering whether recent discussion of the authorship of the disputed
> Paulines
> has altered the assumptions and vocabulary employed in the study and
> teaching of
> Paul. E.g., do folks now refer to the "seven undisputed letters" rather
> than the
> "genuine letters"?

I don't know about others, but I do speak of the undisputed letters v.
disputed (Col,
Eph, 2Th) v. pseudonymous writings (Pastoral Epistles).

> And has anyone's mind been changed by e.g. Luke Johnson on the Pastorals or
> by
> Markus Barth on
> Ephesians and Colossians?

No, I am afraid not.

> I'll start the bidding by admitting that I presently see no grounds for
> denying 2
> Thess to Paul and very little for Colossians, and 2 Timothy seems quite
> debatable.

Here I will invite Frank Hughes to put in his 2 cents re: 2Th, since Frank's
argument
re: the spirit in 2Th is the most convincing argument I have yet seen for its
pseudonymity, and I have yet to see the argument refuted. The eschatology of
Col I
find nearly impossible for Paul, and the promotion of human lordship to a
cosmic level
absolutely inconceivable. Ad majorem to 2Tim.

So, CP, what say the rest of you?

Sheila McGinn





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page