Did not the references I provided demonstrate that most scholars concede the point? The reasons for this conclusions are within those poosts. they explain that the Fundementalist arguements depend upon things not in evedence nor probable. Your argument is then not with me but those researchers. The term 'ghost writers' seems very appropriate. the style, vocabulary, and theological changes are significant. So significant that simply describing the writer as a secretary or penman is misleading. But if you prefer, feel free to reread my posting inserting "secretary with broad liberty to reword, restyle and add to the dictated thoughts of Paul" where I have used "ghostwriter". It changes nothing. Besides I thought you were gone and were ready to let your arguments stand for the readers to decide upon.
The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles
by ThiChi 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
LT..sorry I just googled the topic and it came up. I don't know if it is online in it's entirety anywhere. If I could say this tho, I have yet to find any such broad coverage type referece works to be concise or up to date with the latest research. They are mass marketed, and as such generally avoid statements that offend the religiously sensitive. When they do present a controvertial consensus, they leave wiggle room to appease nearly everyone. They are close to worthless IMO.
-
ThiChi
Agian:
The uncertainty of these scholars is itself evidence that they really have nothing substantial to offer by way of refutation. As such, you must do better than quote the mere opinions of scholars who offer nothing but mere conjecture.
So formidable have the objections appeared to many scholars that there is an aptitude to write off as special pleading or as undue submission to the demands of the Canon any attempt to answer them. Yet a not inconsiderable number of recent scholars have supported authenticity in spite of these objections. The case for Pauline authorship must of necessity be presented largely on the defensive since the onus of proof rests with the challengers. If each objection can be answered in a satisfactory way in agreement with the self-claims of the Epistles to be written by Paul, the authenticity may be regarded as established. Only if in the course of investigations facts come to light which appear conclusive for non-authenticity will the onus of proof pass to the defenders.
-
ThiChi
""Your argument is then not with me but those researchers""
LoL, do I have to repost your "defacto claims" made throughout this site? I give up.....
-
Euphemism
try reading up on the provided reference source that first coined the term in the first place......
Actually, you didn't provide a reference source, merely an author's name.
Looking at Gilbert's bibliography, however, I presume that you are referring to the book "How to win an argument"? Given that the book was published in 1996, I am extremely dubious that Gilbert coined the term 'false cause fallacy'.
Of course, I find it entirely possible that the book was your personal introduction to the term.
Really, this is a straw man
No; a straw man would be if I attacked an argument that you weren't making. I believe the term you actually had in mind was "red herring."
do I have to repost your "defacto claims"
A de facto claim would be something that is a claim for all practical purposes, while masquerading as something else. I believe that the term you actually had in mind was "factual claims."
-
ThiChi
E:
Funny, I believe you don?t really know what we are arguing about, do you? Again, you are proceeding from a number false assumptions and claims that proves zero to the topic at hand..
I stand by my observations, and your tactics fits the descriptions given.... I only regret I have been diverted off topic by the likes of someone like you...
As an Example:
Though you give an overly simplistic definition of "Straw Man" lets use your logic and claim:
"""No; a straw man would be if I attacked an argument that you weren't making. I believe the term you actually had in mind was "red herring.""""
My claim was in relationship to the off topic track you seem to enjoy, or "arguments I was not making." The argument I was making is Paul?s writings, not the rant of observations you seem to enjoy. How does your off topic remarks prove of disprove my claims? They don't...... As such, I am correct.
The Fallacy of Straw Man is committed when a position is distorted...I cite your posts as proof.
PP: Your are right, I did state I would post no further. I just can?t resist "pot-shots" that demand a reply.... sorry.
-
ThiChi
E:
""De Facto: A term meaning "in actual fact," regardless of legal or normative standards, and refers to an action or a state of affairs, which for all practical purposes, must be accepted, but which has no formal legal basis.""
You excluded most of the term (what's new?)..fits most of your "claims" to a tee.............................
Change your handle to petito principii....lol
-
Euphemism
The argument I was making is Paul?s writings, not the rant of observations you seem to enjoy.
Tit-for-tat, my friend, tit-for-tat. Do you really want to get into a discussion of who got off topic first? Because I'm quite ready to do so, if you want to. It would be even more pointless than the discussion we're already in, but just as entertaining.
refers to an action or a state of affairs, which for all practical purposes, must be accepted, but which has no formal legal basis
And was anyone forcing you to accept the claims? Of course not.
fits most of your "claims" to a tee
Well I guess you forgot that you actually addressed that particular slur to peacefulpete, not to me. But with so many people to argue with, we can't really expect you to keep track of them all, now can we?
-
Leolaia
I'm not up-to-date on research on the Pastorals as my interests have not yet taken me to study them as closely as some other matters, but I do agree with ThiChi on their linguistic dissimilarity with the accepted Pauline corpus. Moffitt and others do consider that genuine Pauline fragments may be embedded therein, though short and contained within a later context. One possibility I've thought about is whether these were written by Timothy himself or another second-generation associate of Paul who mixed material from private notes they might have received from Paul into their own general epistles written to the churches but released under the name of Paul. That would explain how they were so quickly accepted as genuine, if Timothy or some other leader of the late first century vouched for them. I think they were written no later than the 90s since they were very obviously used by Polycarp of Smyrna in his epistle to the Philippians. This is the main reason why I don't agree with a date as late as 125.
-
onacruse
Leolaia, the linguistic characteristics of the Pastorals do suggest a 'change of writer', although perhaps rather subtle. If anything, Hebrews is by far and away the most obvious example of 'interpretive dictation.'
Abingdon's adds:
There are marked divergences from the Pauline writings in vocabulary and in other linguistic features. For a detailed study of these divergences, see Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Most of these divergences could be accounted for by the character of the subject matter and by Paul's increasing age.
And as an interesting historical perspective:
Altogether, therefore, the evidence is favorable to the Pauline authorship. After all, the problem of the Pastorals is not primarily one of Pauline dictation but of Pauline mind and spirit.
Craig