- Nov 29, 2003
- 2,567
- 84
- 42
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
There's an interesting new contribution by hedrick, I'll quote it:
See also this earlier, current, post in this thread: Just found another Mt... I recommend that Mt -volume. It's still on a sale for another 2 or 3 days.
:The use of ad hominem is one of the classic failures in argumentation. It suggests someone whose handling of evidence is sufficiently biased that their judgments aren't credible. Somewhat surprisingly, even Tektonics thinks it wasn't written by Paul himself. (Authorship of Ephesians) I trust you would consider them Christian. (While they believe it was made under Paul's authority, they agree with many of the assessments of theological differences from genuine Pauline letters, suggesting that it was written by Timothy, and that he was influenced by Johannine theology in addition to Paul.)
Are you aware of anyone before Tertullian who attributes Ephesians to Paul? Occurrence of phrases from Ephesians doesn't count. First, there's no guarantee that they actually came from the the source you think they do. They could have been in common use among Christians. Second, many people think the pseudonymity was an accepted custom, so one could quote Ephesians even while knowing that it wasn't written by Paul. Third, use of someone else's expression doesn't necessarily mean that you accept them as a Biblical author.
There are competent critical scholars on both sides. However if I had to guess I'd guess against its authenticity.
I have qualms personally about whether writing in someone else's name discredits the author. But 1st Cent custom isn't the same as modern custom. There seems to be evidence that it was sometimes accepted, but also evidence that some people considered it misleading. If the most common critical view of Ephesians is right, it would have been produced after Paul's death. It's certainly possible that the circumstances of its distribution would have made it clear to the recipients that Paul himself didn't write it. That would relieve my concerns about the ethics of the author.
With respect to the OP, I don't think any of the letters attributed to Paul (or any other book in the NT) is Gnostic as that term is normally used. There are things in at least Paul and the Johannine letters that might have been directed against views that are similar to later Gnosticism, as noted in some of the postings above.
In fact meta-studies have shown that the scholarly consensus was never as assured about Colossians and Ephesians being non-Pauline as was often stated. For Ephesians (which as the weaker claim to be Pauline of the two) the peak was around the early '80s when about 60% of scholars regarded it as non-Pauline. Since them the move has been towards accepting these books are actually Pauline, as the reasons for rejecting that have been more critically examined. It's fair to say that now the majority is slightly in favour of Pauline authorship rather than against.
It's interesting that one of the reasons scholars (especially Protestant ones) have had problems win Colossians and Ephesians is because they have built a Pauline theology on Romans and Galatians and then have trouble fitting Colossians and Ephesians into that. The implication being, then, that the latter are not Pauline. But if one starts with Colossians and Ephesians and builds a Pauline theology from there one finds Romans and Galatians fit in just fine.
See also this earlier, current, post in this thread: Just found another Mt... I recommend that Mt -volume. It's still on a sale for another 2 or 3 days.
Upvote
0