https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c2ad/9 ... ca6e6f.pdf
The author of this article contends that it wasn't acceptable to attribute letters falsely to an apostle but that, as we all know, some inauthentic letters won wide enough recognition as if they were authentic anyway: at least, for example Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, plausibly Colossians and Philemon. And of course, later on, the three personal letters called "pastorals" (maybe the personal address functions in part to explain them being omitted from earlier publications of Paulines).
The shape of the early Pauline epistolary literature is as follows:
A large cluster consisting of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. This appears to have one common author.
A smaller group of Colossians-Philemon, which is based on the previous and plausibly has a different author.
Ephesians, based on all the previous but especially Colossians, with a different author. It tried to pass itself off as written by the same person who had written the previous letters.
2 Thessalonians, based especially on 1 Thessalonians, which likewise tried to pass itself off as written by the same person who had written the previous letters.
Considering two scenarios:
(1) The large cluster comes from authorial entity A. Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians come from authorial entities B1 and B2, respectively. These are different entities in that they are not fully contemporary (B1 and B2 coming after A) and intimately familiar with each other's work. All the texts together are published and falsely assumed to be fully authentic by readership entities, for example, C.
(2) The large cluster comes from authorial entity A. Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians come from authorial entity A. All the texts together are published and known to be inauthentic by readership entity A.
The second scenario is comparatively incoherent in two ways. First, obviously, it violates the principle that non-authentic texts were considered forgeries and thus not acceptable and respected texts if known to be such. This principle implies a separation between the known-to-be-secondary authors (of Ephesians and of 2 Thessalonians) and of their readership. The readership is successfully deceived by the forgers, about whom they are ignorant.
Second, there is by necessity a separation between the authorship of the large cluster and of 2 Thessalonians and of Ephesians. Stylometric analysis already indicates separation of authorship, but separation of literary circles is further indicated by the different aims of each respective text. For example, 1 Thessalonians is written in anticipation of an imminent parousia. Meanwhile, 2 Thessalonians, which attempts to pass itself off as having the same authorship as 1 Thessalonians, has a task of articulating that it may not come that quickly. These imply different authorial settings, most plausibly different chronological settings.
The second scenario is certainly simplistic and cannot be faulted for not being parsimonious. The issue is that it doesn't successfully capture a parsimonious theory that is supported by the evidence. Similarly imagine that someone solved the synoptic problem by saying that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were successive drafts by the same author. That might seem like a simple theory with fewer assumptions, but it doesn't satisfactorily explain the texts that we have. Our interest in understanding these texts demands that we look for better answers.
The author of this article contends that it wasn't acceptable to attribute letters falsely to an apostle but that, as we all know, some inauthentic letters won wide enough recognition as if they were authentic anyway: at least, for example Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, plausibly Colossians and Philemon. And of course, later on, the three personal letters called "pastorals" (maybe the personal address functions in part to explain them being omitted from earlier publications of Paulines).
The shape of the early Pauline epistolary literature is as follows:
A large cluster consisting of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians. This appears to have one common author.
A smaller group of Colossians-Philemon, which is based on the previous and plausibly has a different author.
Ephesians, based on all the previous but especially Colossians, with a different author. It tried to pass itself off as written by the same person who had written the previous letters.
2 Thessalonians, based especially on 1 Thessalonians, which likewise tried to pass itself off as written by the same person who had written the previous letters.
Considering two scenarios:
(1) The large cluster comes from authorial entity A. Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians come from authorial entities B1 and B2, respectively. These are different entities in that they are not fully contemporary (B1 and B2 coming after A) and intimately familiar with each other's work. All the texts together are published and falsely assumed to be fully authentic by readership entities, for example, C.
(2) The large cluster comes from authorial entity A. Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians come from authorial entity A. All the texts together are published and known to be inauthentic by readership entity A.
The second scenario is comparatively incoherent in two ways. First, obviously, it violates the principle that non-authentic texts were considered forgeries and thus not acceptable and respected texts if known to be such. This principle implies a separation between the known-to-be-secondary authors (of Ephesians and of 2 Thessalonians) and of their readership. The readership is successfully deceived by the forgers, about whom they are ignorant.
Second, there is by necessity a separation between the authorship of the large cluster and of 2 Thessalonians and of Ephesians. Stylometric analysis already indicates separation of authorship, but separation of literary circles is further indicated by the different aims of each respective text. For example, 1 Thessalonians is written in anticipation of an imminent parousia. Meanwhile, 2 Thessalonians, which attempts to pass itself off as having the same authorship as 1 Thessalonians, has a task of articulating that it may not come that quickly. These imply different authorial settings, most plausibly different chronological settings.
The second scenario is certainly simplistic and cannot be faulted for not being parsimonious. The issue is that it doesn't successfully capture a parsimonious theory that is supported by the evidence. Similarly imagine that someone solved the synoptic problem by saying that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were successive drafts by the same author. That might seem like a simple theory with fewer assumptions, but it doesn't satisfactorily explain the texts that we have. Our interest in understanding these texts demands that we look for better answers.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Sat Jan 11, 2025 3:04 pm