Validity of the Bible as an Authentic Source (3)
Pastoral Epistles: Titus; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy
By Various Contributors to (www.islamlife.com)
Pastoral Epistles: Titus; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy
By Various Contributors to (www.islamlife.com)
These three letters have been authored (most probably) by the same author. According to the late Catholic scholar, Father Raymond Brown, "80 to 90 percent of critical scholarship" regards them to be "pseudonymous" and places them "toward the end of the 1st century (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament, 1997, Doubleday, p. 639). Briefly, “pseudonymous” are those writings which claim to have been authored by a particular person but which probably were not authored by the named individual................. Read More
Validity of the Bible as an Authentic Source (3)
Pastoral Epistles: Titus; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy
By Various Contributors to (www.islamlife.com)
Pastoral Epistles: Titus; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy
By Various Contributors to (www.islamlife.com)
These three letters have been authored (most probably) by the same author. According to the late Catholic scholar, Father Raymond Brown, "80 to 90 percent of critical scholarship" regards them to be "pseudonymous" and places them "toward the end of the 1st century (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction To The New Testament, 1997, Doubleday, p. 639).
Briefly, “pseudonymous” are those writings which claim to have been authored by a particular person but which probably were not authored by the named individual. In other words, the author pretends to be someone else when he is writing. In the case of the Pastorals (Titus included), the author claims he is none other than Paul. But, based on a variety of reasons, it is very unlikely that the author was Paul. Therefore, the pastorals are pseudonymous writings.
Pseudonymity: The practise of writing under a fictitious name, evident in a large number of pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings from antiquity (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2000, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 458).
This raises a theological problem: essentially, it means that the author was telling a lie when he claimed to be Paul in the above writings. Over the years, Christian scholars have come up with a number of "solutions" to this difficult problem.
Pseudonymous is different from anonymous. In the latter, an author has not been named. For example, the Gospels, Hebrews, 1 John and a few other New Testament writings, are anonymous and not pseudonymous since they do not name their authors.
The following quotes have been extracted from some evangelical conservative as well as catholic sources which conclude that Paul is very unlikely to be the author of the Pastorals. Do note that there are quite a few conservative scholars who argue in support of Pauline authorship, but the New Testament scholarly consensus is to dismiss Pauline authorship.
Rev. Wainwright was quite familiar with the arguments back and forth pertaining to the authorship of the Pastorals. While he was quite critical of certain arguments to dismiss Pauline authorship, carefully note his conclusion: The authorship of these letters [Pastoral Epistles] has been questioned more than that of the other Pauline letters. Some of the reasons brought forward against the Pauline authorship are not very convincing in themselves. It is pointed out that both the Church order and the doctrine of the Pastoral Letters would be well suited to a situation at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second. But it is not impossible that the order and the doctrine could belong to Paul's time. Another argument is that it is difficult to fit the historical information given in the letters into the known life of Paul. But it is possible that Paul was released from Rome after the events recorded in Acts 28, and that he made another missionary tour before he was finally imprisoned and put to death. It is noteworthy too that the Pastoral Letters treat Timothy and Titus as inexperienced young men, while the other Pauline letters give the impression that they were Paul's tried and trusted assistants. But an argument of this nature cannot decide the question of authorship. The most cogent reasons for doubting the Pauline authorship of the letters are based on a close examination of their vocabulary and style, which show important and striking differences from those of the other Pauline letters. It is chiefly on these linguistic arguments, which cannot be discussed here, that the question must be decided. The linguistic arguments against the Pauline authorship are so strong that the majority of modern scholars, apart from Roman Catholics and those who presuppose the inerrancy of the scriptures, believe that these letters were written some time after Paul's death by one of his followers, who wished to give the Church of his day the teaching which he imagined that Paul himself would have given, if he had been alive. Many of the scholars who reject the Pauline authorship believe that Titus 3 and several parts of 2 Timothy are fragments of genuine Pauline letters which have been incorporated into the Pastoral Letters. These passages contain typical Pauline language and have a spontaneity and artlessness which suggests they are genuine. Some of the scholars who accept the Pauline authorship suggest that Paul was in prison when the letters were written, and dictated their main themes to an unknown companion who was responsible for their present form and style. If Paul wrote the letters, they must have been written late in his life between A.D 63 and 64. But if he did not write them, they would have been written at any time between A.D 70 and 125. Many scholars argue that they were written early in the second century, but there can be no certainty about the matter. The view which is accepted in this book is that Paul himself did not write these letters. Once the Pauline authorship is rejected, the question arises of the morality of composing a letter in the name of a man who has not himself written or dictated it. In modern times such a procedure would be regarded as morally wrong, but in the ancient world different customs of authorship prevailed. A modern author might write a book about the message of Paul for the twentieth century, and in it he might apply what he believed to be Pauline teaching to modern problems. This is what the writer of the Pastoral Letters was doing. He was trying to state what he believed to be Paul's message for a later generation, and, by the literary custom of his age, he put it into the form of letters by Paul. (Rev. Arthur W. Wainwright, A Guide to the New Testament, 1965, London, The FP WORTH PRESS, pp. 238-240).
Catholic scholar Raymond Brown concluded: I agree with the vast majority of scholars that Paul is already dead and that, by writing in Paul's name, the unknown author is assuming the mantle of Pauline authority in order to meet post-Pauline problems (Raymond Brown, The Chuches the Apostles Left Behind, 1984, Paulist Press, footnote no. 45, p. 31).
A leading Evangelical and conservative scholar, I. Howard Marshall, author of a mammoth commentary on the Pastorals, also denies Pauline authorship and after thoroughly discussing the issue concludes: They [the Pastorals] are examples not of pseudonymity but of allonymity. Their composition was accordingly in no sense deceptive, in that it was known that that these were fresh formulations of Pauline teaching to take account of the changing situation. Nevertheless, with the passage of time the origins of the letters were forgotten and they were assumed to be from Paul himself. (I. H. Marshall, Philip H. Towner (Collaborator), The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (International Critical Commentary Series), 2004, T. & T. Clark International, p. 92).
Marshal suggests that the Pastorals are allonymous - that is, according to Marshall, “...writing in another person's name without intent to deceive…“ (ibid p. 84).
Jalal Abualrub wrote: In Islam, this is called ‘Tadlees’, but this Christian method is worse. The Mudallis ascribes a narration to someone while hiding the contact or link between him and that someone, because the hidden person is not reliable, so it appears he heard the narration from that someone while in fact he heard it from the unreliable undisclosed link between him and that someone. The Mudallis also mentions an unreliable narrator using an unknown title or nickname to hide the narrator’s true identity, etc. Here, a narrator lies and ascribes to Paul what Paul did not write. Yet, Christians still insist that this forgery is inspired. Mr. White claims there is no dispute about the Bible. He is saying the truth since there is no dispute that this is blatant lying and corruption of the Bible, as well as, ascribing to God what He did not reveal.
Ben Witherington also denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Though he says that it could be "possible" that 2 Timothy was dictated by Paul: In my view it seems likely that these documents [the Pastoral Epistles] were composed at or just after the death of Paul, perhaps by his sometime companion Luke or another such companion, based on authentic notes and/or oral comments from Paul while he was in Mamertine prison in the mid-60s. The person who penned these letters did so in his own hand style (there is a uniform style that these letters share), not attempting really to imitate the Pauline style, though at times (e.g., in 2 Timothy) we seem to hear the voice of Paul directly. ... the more conservative character of some of the ethical advice in these letters may reflect the fact that the author knows that the apostolic era is about over, and the Church leaders that were to follow apostles like Paul would not have the same authority as those who had either known Jesus during his earthly life or had seen the risen Lord. These letters could be said to help Pauline coworkers make the transition to a situation beyond the time of Paul. They are certainly closer in length and in character to other ancient personal letters than the rest of the Pauline corpus. It appears they were written from Rome in the mid to late 60s (Ben Witherington III, The New Testament Story, 2004, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 69-70).
Bruce M. Metzger, a conservative Evangelical scholar, wrote: Because the three Pastoral Letters differ from the generally acknowledged Pauline letters in literary style and vocabulary, as well as doctrinal emphasis, most scholars believe that they either were written by an amanuensis to whom the apostle gave great freedom in their composition, or, more probably, were drawn up toward the end of the first century by a devoted follower of Paul, who incorporated some fragmentary letters of the apostle that otherwise would have been lost (Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament, its background, growth and content, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p. 214).
Jalal Abualrub wrote: Sadly, these writing were not lost but instead were preserved so as to complete the Jewish job and plot designed by the enemies of Jesus and perfected by Paul to completely destroy the true message of Jesus and bring a creed never known to Jesus or his disciples. I ask the Creator of all things to guide Christians to the true faith that they may finally come to know who Jesus really is, a human prophet from Allah, human, not divine in any way or form. All thanks and praises are due to Allah, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be on all of His Prophets, starting with Adam and including Nu`h (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), and `Esa (Jesus), and ending with the Final and Last Prophet and Messenger from Allah, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Briefly, “pseudonymous” are those writings which claim to have been authored by a particular person but which probably were not authored by the named individual. In other words, the author pretends to be someone else when he is writing. In the case of the Pastorals (Titus included), the author claims he is none other than Paul. But, based on a variety of reasons, it is very unlikely that the author was Paul. Therefore, the pastorals are pseudonymous writings.
Pseudonymity: The practise of writing under a fictitious name, evident in a large number of pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings from antiquity (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2000, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 458).
This raises a theological problem: essentially, it means that the author was telling a lie when he claimed to be Paul in the above writings. Over the years, Christian scholars have come up with a number of "solutions" to this difficult problem.
Pseudonymous is different from anonymous. In the latter, an author has not been named. For example, the Gospels, Hebrews, 1 John and a few other New Testament writings, are anonymous and not pseudonymous since they do not name their authors.
The following quotes have been extracted from some evangelical conservative as well as catholic sources which conclude that Paul is very unlikely to be the author of the Pastorals. Do note that there are quite a few conservative scholars who argue in support of Pauline authorship, but the New Testament scholarly consensus is to dismiss Pauline authorship.
Rev. Wainwright was quite familiar with the arguments back and forth pertaining to the authorship of the Pastorals. While he was quite critical of certain arguments to dismiss Pauline authorship, carefully note his conclusion: The authorship of these letters [Pastoral Epistles] has been questioned more than that of the other Pauline letters. Some of the reasons brought forward against the Pauline authorship are not very convincing in themselves. It is pointed out that both the Church order and the doctrine of the Pastoral Letters would be well suited to a situation at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second. But it is not impossible that the order and the doctrine could belong to Paul's time. Another argument is that it is difficult to fit the historical information given in the letters into the known life of Paul. But it is possible that Paul was released from Rome after the events recorded in Acts 28, and that he made another missionary tour before he was finally imprisoned and put to death. It is noteworthy too that the Pastoral Letters treat Timothy and Titus as inexperienced young men, while the other Pauline letters give the impression that they were Paul's tried and trusted assistants. But an argument of this nature cannot decide the question of authorship. The most cogent reasons for doubting the Pauline authorship of the letters are based on a close examination of their vocabulary and style, which show important and striking differences from those of the other Pauline letters. It is chiefly on these linguistic arguments, which cannot be discussed here, that the question must be decided. The linguistic arguments against the Pauline authorship are so strong that the majority of modern scholars, apart from Roman Catholics and those who presuppose the inerrancy of the scriptures, believe that these letters were written some time after Paul's death by one of his followers, who wished to give the Church of his day the teaching which he imagined that Paul himself would have given, if he had been alive. Many of the scholars who reject the Pauline authorship believe that Titus 3 and several parts of 2 Timothy are fragments of genuine Pauline letters which have been incorporated into the Pastoral Letters. These passages contain typical Pauline language and have a spontaneity and artlessness which suggests they are genuine. Some of the scholars who accept the Pauline authorship suggest that Paul was in prison when the letters were written, and dictated their main themes to an unknown companion who was responsible for their present form and style. If Paul wrote the letters, they must have been written late in his life between A.D 63 and 64. But if he did not write them, they would have been written at any time between A.D 70 and 125. Many scholars argue that they were written early in the second century, but there can be no certainty about the matter. The view which is accepted in this book is that Paul himself did not write these letters. Once the Pauline authorship is rejected, the question arises of the morality of composing a letter in the name of a man who has not himself written or dictated it. In modern times such a procedure would be regarded as morally wrong, but in the ancient world different customs of authorship prevailed. A modern author might write a book about the message of Paul for the twentieth century, and in it he might apply what he believed to be Pauline teaching to modern problems. This is what the writer of the Pastoral Letters was doing. He was trying to state what he believed to be Paul's message for a later generation, and, by the literary custom of his age, he put it into the form of letters by Paul. (Rev. Arthur W. Wainwright, A Guide to the New Testament, 1965, London, The FP WORTH PRESS, pp. 238-240).
Catholic scholar Raymond Brown concluded: I agree with the vast majority of scholars that Paul is already dead and that, by writing in Paul's name, the unknown author is assuming the mantle of Pauline authority in order to meet post-Pauline problems (Raymond Brown, The Chuches the Apostles Left Behind, 1984, Paulist Press, footnote no. 45, p. 31).
A leading Evangelical and conservative scholar, I. Howard Marshall, author of a mammoth commentary on the Pastorals, also denies Pauline authorship and after thoroughly discussing the issue concludes: They [the Pastorals] are examples not of pseudonymity but of allonymity. Their composition was accordingly in no sense deceptive, in that it was known that that these were fresh formulations of Pauline teaching to take account of the changing situation. Nevertheless, with the passage of time the origins of the letters were forgotten and they were assumed to be from Paul himself. (I. H. Marshall, Philip H. Towner (Collaborator), The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (International Critical Commentary Series), 2004, T. & T. Clark International, p. 92).
Marshal suggests that the Pastorals are allonymous - that is, according to Marshall, “...writing in another person's name without intent to deceive…“ (ibid p. 84).
Jalal Abualrub wrote: In Islam, this is called ‘Tadlees’, but this Christian method is worse. The Mudallis ascribes a narration to someone while hiding the contact or link between him and that someone, because the hidden person is not reliable, so it appears he heard the narration from that someone while in fact he heard it from the unreliable undisclosed link between him and that someone. The Mudallis also mentions an unreliable narrator using an unknown title or nickname to hide the narrator’s true identity, etc. Here, a narrator lies and ascribes to Paul what Paul did not write. Yet, Christians still insist that this forgery is inspired. Mr. White claims there is no dispute about the Bible. He is saying the truth since there is no dispute that this is blatant lying and corruption of the Bible, as well as, ascribing to God what He did not reveal.
Ben Witherington also denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. Though he says that it could be "possible" that 2 Timothy was dictated by Paul: In my view it seems likely that these documents [the Pastoral Epistles] were composed at or just after the death of Paul, perhaps by his sometime companion Luke or another such companion, based on authentic notes and/or oral comments from Paul while he was in Mamertine prison in the mid-60s. The person who penned these letters did so in his own hand style (there is a uniform style that these letters share), not attempting really to imitate the Pauline style, though at times (e.g., in 2 Timothy) we seem to hear the voice of Paul directly. ... the more conservative character of some of the ethical advice in these letters may reflect the fact that the author knows that the apostolic era is about over, and the Church leaders that were to follow apostles like Paul would not have the same authority as those who had either known Jesus during his earthly life or had seen the risen Lord. These letters could be said to help Pauline coworkers make the transition to a situation beyond the time of Paul. They are certainly closer in length and in character to other ancient personal letters than the rest of the Pauline corpus. It appears they were written from Rome in the mid to late 60s (Ben Witherington III, The New Testament Story, 2004, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 69-70).
Bruce M. Metzger, a conservative Evangelical scholar, wrote: Because the three Pastoral Letters differ from the generally acknowledged Pauline letters in literary style and vocabulary, as well as doctrinal emphasis, most scholars believe that they either were written by an amanuensis to whom the apostle gave great freedom in their composition, or, more probably, were drawn up toward the end of the first century by a devoted follower of Paul, who incorporated some fragmentary letters of the apostle that otherwise would have been lost (Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament, its background, growth and content, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p. 214).
Jalal Abualrub wrote: Sadly, these writing were not lost but instead were preserved so as to complete the Jewish job and plot designed by the enemies of Jesus and perfected by Paul to completely destroy the true message of Jesus and bring a creed never known to Jesus or his disciples. I ask the Creator of all things to guide Christians to the true faith that they may finally come to know who Jesus really is, a human prophet from Allah, human, not divine in any way or form. All thanks and praises are due to Allah, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be on all of His Prophets, starting with Adam and including Nu`h (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), and `Esa (Jesus), and ending with the Final and Last Prophet and Messenger from Allah, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
| Comments |
|
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26
in News & views by Arwa, 31-07-10 13:24