John Dominic Crossan in In Search of Paul writes “…scholars generally agree that, although certain of the letters attributed to Paul are authentically Pauline, several others are post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline, that is to say, were not written by him but were attributed to him by later writers….In this book we accept, therefore, the general scholarly consensus that the following six letters are inauthentic and post-Pauline. 1-2 Timothy and Titus(very strong consensus), Ephesians(strong consensus), Colossians(less strong consensus) and 2 Thessalonians(weak consensus)…The problem is whether that pseudo-Pauline history and theology is in valid continuity with Paul himself or is, as we will argue, an attempt to sanitize a social subversive, to domesticate a dissident apostle, and to make Christianity and Rome safe for one another. Put another way, are those inauthentic Pauline letters just pseudo-Pauline, post-Pauline, or para-Pauline or are they actually and deliberately anti-Pauline?”
John Dominic Crossan in In Search of Paul writes “…scholars generally agree that, although certain of the letters attributed to Paul are authentically Pauline, several others are post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline, that is to say, were not written by him but were attributed to him by later writers….In this book we accept, therefore, the general scholarly consensus that the following six letters are inauthentic and post-Pauline. 1-2 Timothy and Titus(very strong consensus), Ephesians(strong consensus), Colossians(less strong consensus) and 2 Thessalonians(weak consensus)…The problem is whether that pseudo-Pauline history and theology is in valid continuity with Paul himself or is, as we will argue, an attempt to sanitize a social subversive, to domesticate a dissident apostle, and to make Christianity and Rome safe for one another. Put another way, are those inauthentic Pauline letters just pseudo-Pauline, post-Pauline, or para-Pauline or are they actually and deliberately anti-Pauline?”
ReplyDelete