Corpus-Paul

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>]

"Perry L. Stepp" wrote:

> -----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.
>

Having been "in on" the Xtalk discussion Jimi refers to, I think what he is 
really
asking is either how seriously is the thesis of the  old "Dutch School" that 
NONE of
the epistles attributed to Paul are authentic or how certain can we be that 
the
epistles as they stand have not been so seriously 
redacted/intepolated/rewritten by
the time of out first manuscript testimony that they are in any way 
representative of
what Paul first wrote?

Yours,

Jeffrey.

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net