Corpus-Paul

["David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>]

> >Dear Dave,
> >
> >It is quite possible that Onesimus and Onesiphorus are the same person. I
> >am not sure, however, that the reference to 'chains' is a valid
> >connection. It might be if all three letters (Col, Phlmn, 2 Tim) were
> >written from the same prison but this is not certain. Personally I suspect
> >that 2 Tim was written during Paul's second imprisonment in  Rome and
> >shortly before his death (in 64) while Col and Phlmn were written and
> >posted (with Ephesians) from prison in Ephesus in 62 (Following Paul's
> >release from Rome at the end of Acts).
> >
> >Kym Smith
> >Adelaide
> >South Australia
> >khs AT picknowl.com.au
> 
> Have you considered at all the heavy reasons for considering all 
> three of these as deutero-pauline letters? Read one of the recent 
> introductions to the NT, say that of Raymond Brown or Udo Schnelle. 
> There are very strong reasons to think they are not by Paul--which 
> says nothing about their canonical and theological significance.
> 
> And have you asked whether the two names may not have different 
> significations?
> 
> Of course, if you have thought these through well, then you are not 
> just following a traditionalist approach.

Edgar,

Although I believe your reply was directed to Kym, I would like to answer
on my own behalf. I believe I am aware of all of the arguments for and
against the status of the Paulines (although of course I haven't read
everything there is to say on the matter).  My understanding is that the
prevailing opinion regarding these 3 letters is not as cut-and-dried as
you suggest, and is actually as follows:

Philemon:    Most likely by Paul
Colossians:  Probably not by Paul
2 Timothy:   Almost certainly not by Paul

My own opinion is that none of the evidence I have seen makes a strong
enough case to overturn the presupposition that these letters are genuine,
and that all the 'evidence against' is in fact explainable in terms of
Pauline authorship.  If I can briefly talk about 2 Tim, I largely follow
the reasoning of Dan Wallace regarding the pastorals in general (see
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1timotl.htm), although I would make a
stronger case that 2 Tim should not be 'lumped in' with 1 Tim and Titus
when discussing authenticity.

In particular I side with Dan on the issue of motive.  Once someone had
forged 1 Tim, why would anyone then forge Titus (which mostly covers the
same issues), and even more so, why then forge 2 Tim as well?  Also, why
write a letter mentioning so many of Paul's companions (or people he had
met) - 20 if I've counted correctly?  Every additional person mentioned
adds to the risk that some reader of 2 Tim would know (of have information
about) that person, increasing the risk that the letter would be exposed
as a forgery.  Sorry, but I really can't see it.

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA