Corpus-Paul

[Patrick Nugent <nugenpa AT earlham.edu>]

Title: Re: authenticity of 2 Tim?

Jim West wrote:

>If one were to assign 1 and 2 Tim to him
>(which no one does, do they?)

Living in rural Indiana, I can tell you that plenty of people do!  Let me suggest that perhaps you mean "no non-literalist academics" do, and even then there are exceptions; Brown, Intro. to NT, 674, lays out the options and gives relevant bibliography.

On the other hand, it is certainly the majority position among non-literalist academics that all three pastorals are non-authentic.  Responding to THAT, I'd note:

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, in his recent biography of Paul, argues that if we look at 2Tim in isolation from 1Tim and Titus, the grounds for pseudonymity fall away.  O'Connor thinks it likely that 2 Tim is authentic.

Murphy-O'Connor argues this point at greater length in an older piece, "2 Timothy Contrasted with 1 Timothy and Titus," RB 98 (1991): 403-418.  Brown in his Introduction to the NT  sifts very nicely through the evidence and arguments, but concludes himself (p. 674) that 2 Tim is pseudonymous, but not by the same author as 1Tim/Titus.

On the other hand, I'm puzzled by Steven Nelson's puzzlement about Jim's claim that the Pastorals are not authentic.  This is not new news, and it's been the majority position among non-literalist academics for quite some time.  Having asked some elementary questions on this list, I can't complain about elementary questions, but it seems to me that a quick reference to a basic, widely-respected scholarly introduction (Kummel, Koester, Brown?) would be perfectly appropriate.

If, after becoming familiar with that widely-available information, we wanted to conduct a debate over whether the majority position is correct, or offer different and original arguments on pseudonymity, that would be another thing.

* * *

Having drafted the above, I have since read Christopher Hutson's arguments.  I nonetheless let the above stand, at least as a footnote to CH's comment about Michael Prior's conviction that 2 Tim is authentic; he's not the only one who thinks so. 

I'd ask the experts here to comment on what they think of the arguments for the authenticity of 2 Tim.

__________________________________
Patrick J. Nugent
Department of Religion
Earlham College
Richmond, Indiana 47374 USA

(765) 983-1413
nugenpa AT earlham.edu
__________________________________