Corpus-Paul

["Perry L. Stepp" <plstepp AT flash.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jimi Fosdick

>> I have for some time been aware of the general scholarly concensus that
>> the so-called "pastoral" epistles (I&II Tim, Titus) are not authentically
>> Pauline, which is to say not written by HP. I am wondering what the
>>degree
>> of certainty is regarding the other letters of the Pauline corpus.

I don't know if we can really talk about "certainty"--some of us still
regard the Pastorals as proceeding from the historical Paul.  I might point
out that I. Howard Marshall (author of the forthcoming International
Critical Commentary on the Pastorals) falls into that camp, as do/did
Bruce, Fee, Spicq, Guthrie, E. E. Ellis, and Luke T. Johnson--all respected
scholars.

We *can* say something about consensus, however: the *vast* majority of NT
scholars accept Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1
Thessalonians, and Philemon as proceeding from the historical Paul.  NT
scholars view the following with increasing degrees of suspicion
(percentages of consensus drawn from Brown's *Introduction*):

2 Thess (50% regard as pseudonymous),
Colossians (60%),
Ephesians (80%),
2 Timothy (80% (implied by Brown)),
1 Timothy (90% (implied by Brown)),
Titus (90% (implied by Brown)).

To be honest, I think Brown's percentages are a little high.  But they *are*
his published estimates, and can be quoted and cited as such.

Perry L. Stepp

***************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church
Ph.D. Candidate (ABD), Baylor University
#1 Cowboy fan

"There's not a library in the world that couldn't
be improved by the omission of a few of her
books."
                    --Mark Twain, on Jane Austen

***************************************************