NT books and their origins

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Timreason

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 4:09:48 AMJul 17
to

Madhu

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 10:29:49 AMJul 17
to
* Timreason <tb0g2a$3m64s$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 17 Jul 2022 09:08:43 +0100:

> I don't endorse the site referenced below, but thought it could be a
> topic for conversation:
>
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2019/03/sorry-christians-our-bible-contains-fake-letters-from-paul-and-peter/
>
> (Hope the long link works OK)

I snipped everything after the first ? (question mark character) and the
url will work. usually that's safe - the extra stuff is just tracking
material - unless it has some login information which will work only for
you.

The article has nothing new, I think it just panders to a lurking
"antichristian" sentiment and depends on some "antichristian"
assumptions and conditioning to carry it through.



Timreason

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 11:59:47 AMJul 17
to
From my POV, it's a reminder that the canon is 'Tradition', and indeed
it's accepted that (for example) John's Gospel was written decades after
the events.

Tim.





Madhu

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 1:19:42 PMJul 17
to

* Timreason <tb1bih$3p8vc$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 17 Jul 2022 16:58:10 +0100:
> On 17/07/2022 15:26, Madhu wrote:
>> * Timreason <tb0g2a$3m64s$1 @dont-email.me> : The article has nothing
>> new, I think it just panders to a lurking "antichristian" sentiment
>> and depends on some "antichristian" assumptions and conditioning to
>> carry it through.

"antichristian" is probably the wrong word.

> From my POV, it's a reminder that the canon is 'Tradition', and indeed
> it's accepted that (for example) John's Gospel was written decades
> after the events.

Any and every introduction to the NT deals with the matter presented in
the article, and I believe the sort of textual criticism presented goes
back to the earliest commentators.

The tone of the article is the problem. It requires that the reader be
1) unacquainted with the NT (in the sense noted above) and 2) subscribe
to a stereotypical belief that the authorship is sancrosanct and regard
any suggestions to the contrary to lead to aggrevation (projected on a
hypothetical target group which the author and the reader hold in
derision), and 3) rejoice and share a laugh with the author when the
position is successfully attacked. An honest author would just present
the facts.









Madhu

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 1:39:49 PMJul 17
to
* I Wrote on Sun, 17 Jul 2022 22:48:33 +0530: <m3k08bfyja.fsf
@leonis4.robolove.meer.net> :
If that's too harsh I apologize, but I didn't see the point. The point
was made that

"Your Bible is chock-full of pseudepigrapha. However, this doesn’t mean
that these books should be removed from the Canon. Nor does it suggest
that they are not inspired by the Holy Spirit."

Then he questions the inspiration of the pastoral epistles, (and I can be
sympathetic) then the he concludes that

"The trick is to learn which writings are God-breathed and which are
not."

[and points directly to Jesus, with unimpeachable advice by itself]

But here seems he has widened the non-inspired portions from a portion
of the pseudepigrapha (the pastorals) to cast doubt on a other parts of
the bible. but the basis for this is that "Paul did not write XXX as it
says on the cover" but that question of disputed authorship that was
never in dispute and wasn't the point.

OK I'll stop now.


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 3:29:47 PMJul 17
to
On 17/07/2022 09:08, Timreason wrote:

> I don't endorse the site referenced below, but thought it could be a
> topic for conversation:

The arguments he gives for why certain letters were not written by Paul
are so pathetic you wonder about the guys intelligence. For example:

"Ephesians and Colossians use a different word for 'reconcile' from
Paul's word."
Er - how do they know that it is Paul's word? Did they ask him? Did he
take a Roman era copyright on it?

"Ephesians is similar to Colossians ar many places."
Which, surely, is an argument for common authorship? Paul obviously has
something on his mind so he writes to *both* places dealing with the issue.

"Ephesians contains no mention of charismatic gifts."
In the first place, so what? In the second place the idiot has clearly
not read Ephesians, where 4:11 contains a list of the gifts of the Spirit.

In short, the guy is a carrot. (Use Google Translate to find out what
the Welsh word for 'carrot' is.)

God bless,
Kendall K. Down


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 17, 2022, 3:39:47 PMJul 17
to
On 17/07/2022 18:36, Madhu wrote:

> OK I'll stop now.

How about both you and Tim think critically about his nonsensical
arguments instead of just swallowing them wholesale?

As an author myself, I know full well that I use different vocabs and
different styles in my books. Using the supposed "proofs" of textual
criticism, you would not believe that the same author (me) wrote the
Capelburgh series and "Alexamenos and Alkmilla".

If anyone thinks they know better, I will gladly supply you with the
ascii text of both and you can play around with them to prove that I
didn't write them both.

Madhu

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 2:59:44 AMJul 18
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <tb1o0i$3qodj$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 17 Jul 2022 20:30:26 +0100:
> On 17/07/2022 18:36, Madhu wrote:
>> OK I'll stop now.
>
> How about both you and Tim think critically about his nonsensical
> arguments instead of just swallowing them wholesale?

I was only trying to demonstrate that the arguments are not valid. The
bible is an exceptional literary work and it would be wrong not to
subject it to textual criticism. By doing that there emerge a bunch of
facts are interesting enough to consider. This does not mean I accept
the arguments or conclusions based on the facts. I understand the
conclusions are necessarily tentative and can only be so.

This article regurgitated some of the facts and some routine "liberal"
conclusions and then tried to put a "jesus" spin on top of it, which is
what I found disagreeable


Madhu

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 3:09:44 AMJul 18
to

* Madhu <m34jzeg...@leonis4.robolove.meer.net> :
Wrote on Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:24:49 +0530:
> * "Kendall K. Down" <tb1o0i$3qodj$1 @dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Sun, 17 Jul 2022 20:30:26 +0100:
>> How about both you and Tim think critically about his nonsensical
>> arguments instead of just swallowing them wholesale?
>
> I was only trying to demonstrate that the arguments are not valid. The
> bible is an exceptional literary work and it would be wrong not to
> subject it to textual criticism. By doing that there emerge a bunch of

"textual criticism" is the wrong word for the sort of literary analysis
(word frequencies), i'll look up the correct word later

> facts are interesting enough to consider. This does not mean I accept
> the arguments or conclusions based on the facts. I understand the
> conclusions are necessarily tentative and can only be so.
>
> This article regurgitated some of the facts and some routine "liberal"
> conclusions and then tried to put a "jesus" spin on top of it, which is
> what I found disagreeable

Timreason

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 3:19:44 AMJul 18
to
On 17/07/2022 18:36, Madhu wrote:
At this point I'll remind everyone that I made it clear that I do NOT
endorse the site !!

However, some people are over-rigid about scripture and are convinced
all the letters are genuine 1st Century letters. (Actually, I had in
mind a certain '1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist')

Tim.




Timreason

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 3:19:45 AMJul 18
to
On 17/07/2022 20:30, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 17/07/2022 18:36, Madhu wrote:
>
>> OK I'll stop now.
>
> How about both you and Tim

I said I did *NOT* endorse the article, I just threw it into the hat for
discussion.

It was more to do with challenging Jeff's views than anything!

Tim.




Timreason

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 3:29:41 AMJul 18
to
On 18/07/2022 07:54, Madhu wrote:

>
> This article regurgitated some of the facts and some routine "liberal"

Wish you would refrain from saying "liberal". Kendall is,
theologically, fairly liberal, for example. You, even more so since you
seem to mix in all sorts of different theological traditions! Even I am
not as "liberal" as you.

Tim.





Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 2:09:43 PMJul 18
to
On 18/07/2022 07:54, Madhu wrote:

> I was only trying to demonstrate that the arguments are not valid. The
> bible is an exceptional literary work and it would be wrong not to
> subject it to textual criticism.

Except that "textual criticism" is nonsense and resides solely in the
eye of the beholder.

I remember years ago reading a book (called, I think, "Pentateuch") by a
rabbi called Cassuto in which he compared the history of textual
criticism of Moses and of Homer. First of all "scholars" decided that
there was no Homer, twenty years later no Moses. Then they decided that
there were two authors for Homer, twenty years later two authors for
Moses. Then multiple authors, then a long period of verbal tradition
before it was written down, then multiple redactors, and then ...

In short, it was just scholastic fashions, being applied to Homer and
then, slavishly, to Moses, and had not relationship to the reality of
either work.

> This article regurgitated some of the facts and some routine "liberal"
> conclusions and then tried to put a "jesus" spin on top of it, which is
> what I found disagreeable

I found the whole article disagreeable - and also disagreeable that
anyone takes it seriously enough to post about it.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 2:09:43 PMJul 18
to
On 18/07/2022 08:03, Madhu wrote:

> "textual criticism" is the wrong word for the sort of literary analysis
> (word frequencies), i'll look up the correct word later

It's not just a question of word frequencies; there is also word
associations - one word being habitually used with another, or certain
phrases appearing regularly.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 2:09:43 PMJul 18
to
On 18/07/2022 08:20, Timreason wrote:

> Wish you would refrain from saying "liberal".  Kendall is,
> theologically, fairly liberal, for example. You, even more so since you
> seem to mix in all sorts of different theological traditions! Even I am
> not as "liberal" as you.

The contrast, when talking about the Bible, is between "conservative"
and "liberal", where conservative scholars and theologians tend towards
divine authorship through named individuals, and liberal scholars and
theologians tend towards purely human composition by multiple unknown
authors, complicated by editors and redactors of amazing stupidity.

There are other areas where the terms have slightly different meanings,
as you have pointed out.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 2:19:44 PMJul 18
to
On 18/07/2022 08:17, Timreason wrote:

> I said I did *NOT* endorse the article, I just threw it into the hat for
> discussion.

Praiseworthy, but on a par with introducing flat earth theories into a
discussion group on astronomy.

> It was more to  do with challenging Jeff's views than anything!

I don't recall Jeff's views on literary criticism.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 2:19:45 PMJul 18
to
On 18/07/2022 08:15, Timreason wrote:

> However, some people are over-rigid about scripture and are convinced
> all the letters are genuine 1st Century letters. (Actually, I had in
> mind a certain '1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist')

Church tradition accepts that they are; it is up to those who disagree
to prove their case.

Mike Davis

unread,
Jul 18, 2022, 5:49:44 PMJul 18
to
What, then, do you make of II Peter?

(Especially in relation to 'all of Paul's letters' 2 Peter 3:15-16 which
were not gathered together until the end of C1st, long after Peter was
martyred.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 12:39:44 AMJul 19
to
On 18/07/2022 22:48, Mike Davis wrote:

> What, then, do you make of II Peter?
> (Especially in relation to 'all of Paul's letters' 2 Peter 3:15-16 which
> were not gathered together until the end of C1st, long after Peter was
> martyred.)

Assuming you are correct in claiming that there was no collection of
Paul's letters until that date, there is still no problem. Peter refers
to all the letters known to him and cannot be blamed if there were some
of which he was ignorant.

A researcher might write today that he has "read all the Horatio Nelson
letters to Lady Hamilton", but no one would get too excited if, a few
years later, another letter or two are discovered in someone's private
collection. No one would accuse the researcher of lying or try to use
the discrepancy to redate his original article.

Timreason

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 3:09:44 AMJul 19
to
Yes, and it's important also to remember it's 'non-binary'!

Noting your words above, for example, 'Named individuals'. The
authorship of some writings is debated. I hold the view that some of
Paul's letters (for example) were 'commissioned' by Paul, but actually
penned by others. He may have said, "Send a letter to XXX and tell them
YYY", and left the actual wording to the person themselves. ISTR that
Paul sometimes positively identified himself, stating that it is written
in his own hand. Maybe that meant that others wrote claiming to be him?
Maybe sometimes the message he sent by others did not get relayed as he
intended? I don't know, I'm just speculating.

But as you say, there is a 'Tending towards' on both sides, so I suppose
few people are totally one way or the other.

With regard to the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative', I don't like the
implication that 'liberal' somehow means 'soft'. Maybe it can in some
circumstances, but they certainly are NOT synonyms.

Tim.

Madhu

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 4:49:44 AMJul 19
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <tb1o0i$3qodj$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 17 Jul 2022 20:30:26 +0100:
> On 17/07/2022 18:36, Madhu wrote:
>> OK I'll stop now.
> As an author myself, I know full well that I use different vocabs and
> different styles in my books. Using the supposed "proofs" of textual
> criticism, you would not believe that the same author (me) wrote the
> Capelburgh series and "Alexamenos and Alkmilla".
>
> If anyone thinks they know better, I will gladly supply you with the
> ascii text of both and you can play around with them to prove that I
> didn't write them both.

There was a contest proposed in 1991-92 by Richard A O'Keefe on
soc.religion.christian, to test the Documentary Hypothesis. He prepared
a composite text assembled from 2 sources, with 2 authors, provided some
demographic info and writing samples of the 2 authors, and challenged
the newsgroup to figure out which sentences were from which author.

I think Mike Simeon took up the challenge after a few months, and earned
the $10 reward by getting 7 of 14 sentences right, and impressed the
organizer with his method.

[I wasn't on usenet in 1992 -(I was reading it on the now defunct
nntp.olduse.net) but I think Charles Lindsey was there at that time.

The defunct olduse.net only ran articles upto 1991. Later I rememberd
that the 90s I remember I learnt about TCP/IP from 2 text files prepared
by the then-moderator of the group at Rutgers. When I looked him up
last year it looked like he was still active though he presumably
retired -- so it wasn't a case of a moderated group being inaccessible
because the moderator was deceased]


John

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 6:09:44 AMJul 19
to
I was already aware what a carrot translates to in Welsh, and for
readers who didn't look it up, it's a swear word which rhymes with hunt.

I'm highly surprised that any Christian, let alone a former minister,
would use such derogatory language against another someone else, whether
they disagreed with their views or not.

it's against the charter, but more importantly (ironically as we are
discussing the very chapter you mention above) goes against Paul's
instructions to Christians in verses 29-32




Timreason

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 6:19:42 AMJul 19
to
I notice he seems to have ceased to post in e.r.c now. But his claims to
be authentic to the 1st Century seem odd, since there would have been
all sorts of writings around back then, none of which we have originals
of today, and no formal canon was decided until later centuries. So
there were probably several "1st Century Traditions" in existence back then!

Tim.

Charles Lindsey

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 10:29:42 AMJul 19
to
On 19/07/2022 09:41, Madhu wrote:

> There was a contest proposed in 1991-92 by Richard A O'Keefe on
> soc.religion.christian, to test the Documentary Hypothesis. He prepared
> a composite text assembled from 2 sources, with 2 authors, provided some
> demographic info and writing samples of the 2 authors, and challenged
> the newsgroup to figure out which sentences were from which author.
>
> I think Mike Simeon took up the challenge after a few months, and earned
> the $10 reward by getting 7 of 14 sentences right, and impressed the
> organizer with his method.
>
> [I wasn't on usenet in 1992 -(I was reading it on the now defunct
> nntp.olduse.net) but I think Charles Lindsey was there at that time.

Yes, I used to follow soc.religion.christian, but I do not recall that topic.

But as regards the Pauline Epistles, the late Prof. F.F. Bruce was quite
satisfied that Ephesians was not written by Paul, but that it indeed it
expressed Paul's views. He also had some interesting Speculations that Onesimus
had a hand in it.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At my New Home, still doing my own thing------
Tel: +44 161 488 1845 Web: https://www.clerew.man.ac.uk
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail-mail: Apt 40, SK8 5BF, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 3:09:43 PMJul 19
to
On 19/07/2022 08:00, Timreason wrote:

> Noting your words above, for example, 'Named individuals'. The
> authorship of some writings is debated. I hold the view that some of
> Paul's letters (for example) were 'commissioned' by Paul, but actually
> penned by others. He may have said, "Send a letter to XXX and tell them
> YYY", and left the actual wording to the person themselves. ISTR that
> Paul sometimes positively identified himself, stating that it is written
> in his own hand. Maybe that meant that others wrote claiming to be him?

No, it means that he often employed scribes to do his writing for him,
probably owing to his poor eyesight. The reference to his own
handwriting refers just to a signature at the end.

Did scribes have a broad licence to put whatever they liked or did they
merely take down dictation? It was sort of half-way in between. You
could always tell in India if a job application was written by a
professional letter writer - they tended to use distinctive phrases and
it was clear that the person employing them had accepted their advice on
how to phrase the English application.

That, for example, I think explains why the Greek in the Gospel of John
is better than the Greek in Revelation: he had a professional amenuensis
to polish his Greek when he wrote the gospel, but out on Patmos he
didn't have a scribe he could trust.

However I do doubt that Paul simply gave a broad outline of what he
wanted said and left it all up to the scribe. I think he more or less
dictated but accept emendation (where necessary - he was pretty
cultured, you know).

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 3:09:44 PMJul 19
to
On 19/07/2022 11:09, Timreason wrote:

> I notice he seems to have ceased to post in e.r.c now. But his claims to
> be authentic to the 1st Century seem odd, since there would have been
> all sorts of writings around back then, none of which we have originals
> of today, and no formal canon was decided until later centuries. So
> there were probably several "1st Century Traditions" in existence back
> then!

Presumably he has tired of casting pearls.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 3:59:42 PMJul 19
to
On 19/07/2022 15:22, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> But as regards the Pauline Epistles, the late Prof. F.F. Bruce was quite
> satisfied that Ephesians was not written by Paul, but that it indeed it
> expressed Paul's views. He also had some interesting Speculations that
> Onesimus had a hand in it.

It's wonderful the weird ideas that people come up with once they reject
the common opinion (common in time as well as extent).

Presumably he had a genuine epistle by Onesimus which he could compare
with Ephesians in order to reach that conclusion?

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 3:59:42 PMJul 19
to
On 19/07/2022 10:59, John wrote:

> I was already aware what a carrot translates to in Welsh, and for
> readers who didn't look it up, it's a swear word which rhymes with hunt.

Your Welsh is not as good as you think it is, for the Welsh word for
"carrot" most certainly does not rhyme with "hunt".

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 3:59:42 PMJul 19
to
On 19/07/2022 09:41, Madhu wrote:

> I think Mike Simeon took up the challenge after a few months, and earned
> the $10 reward by getting 7 of 14 sentences right, and impressed the
> organizer with his method.

Don't you mean that he got 7 of 14 sentences wrong?

I've no idea why the organiser was impressed. 50% is chance. That is
why, on a True/False test, if you get one wrong you are docked two marks
because you were clearly guessing and may have been guessing on others
that you got right.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 19, 2022, 5:19:43 PMJul 19
to
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 19:59:56 +0100, "Kendall K. Down"
<kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 19/07/2022 08:00, Timreason wrote:
>
>> Noting your words above, for example, 'Named individuals'. The
>> authorship of some writings is debated. I hold the view that some of
>> Paul's letters (for example) were 'commissioned' by Paul, but actually
>> penned by others. He may have said, "Send a letter to XXX and tell them
>> YYY", and left the actual wording to the person themselves. ISTR that
>> Paul sometimes positively identified himself, stating that it is written
>> in his own hand. Maybe that meant that others wrote claiming to be him?
>
>No, it means that he often employed scribes to do his writing for him,
>probably owing to his poor eyesight. The reference to his own
>handwriting refers just to a signature at the end.

And there is, of course, the famous side-remark by Paul's scribe in
Romans 16:22. I do wonder sometimes whether Paul gave him permission
to put that in, or whether he just did it off his own bat.

Mark


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 1:39:45 AMJul 20
to
On 19/07/2022 22:12, Mark Goodge wrote:

> And there is, of course, the famous side-remark by Paul's scribe in
> Romans 16:22. I do wonder sometimes whether Paul gave him permission
> to put that in, or whether he just did it off his own bat.

Given that Paul was writing personal letters, not Scripture, I don't
suppose anyone was terribly worried at the time. It is only now, when
the letters are regarded as Holy Writ, that people get exercised over
such questions.

Madhu

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 4:29:44 AMJul 20
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <tb5c91$s50l$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 19 Jul 2022 05:34:42 +0100:
> On 18/07/2022 22:48, Mike Davis wrote:
>> What, then, do you make of II Peter?
>> (Especially in relation to 'all of Paul's letters' 2 Peter 3:15-16
>> which were not gathered together until the end of C1st, long after
>> Peter was martyred.)
> Assuming you are correct in claiming that there was no collection of
> Paul's letters until that date, there is still no problem. Peter
> refers to all the letters known to him and cannot be blamed if there
> were some of which he was ignorant.

Or Peter was sufficiently acquainted with Paul that he did not expect
Paul to ever write anything which didn't "have some things [which were]
hard to be understood, etc." and was safely expressing his exasperation.

Maybe that could even be a test for the authenticity of Paul's
authorship.

Charles Lindsey

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 5:39:41 AMJul 20
to
No, but I think we may reasonably suppose that he was given his freedom by
Philemon as requested and went on to become a valued member of the Collossian
church.

Moreover, it seems that a little later there was a bishop of Ephesus named
Onesimus who was quite likely the same person, and Prof. Bruce's speculation was
that it was he who gathered together all the letters Paul had written to
churches around the world into the collection we now have. As a person who had
served as a companion of Paul, he was well placed to do that, and it is possible
that Ephesians is assembled from various scraps of text left over and his own
memories of things Paul may have said.

John

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 6:39:45 AMJul 20
to
On 19/07/2022 20:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 10:59, John wrote:
>
>> I was already aware what a carrot translates to in Welsh, and for
>> readers who didn't look it up, it's a swear word which rhymes with hunt.
>
> Your Welsh is not as good as you think it is, for the Welsh word for
> "carrot" most certainly does not rhyme with "hunt"

Ah, serves me right for not checking it first. A couple of years ago I
remember seeing a video showing someone saying Alexa, what is [name]
carrot 100 in Welsh, and it came back as as [name] moron cant (1), only
it sounded like the swear word and seeing your post I associated carrot
with it. My apologies.

That said though, is it acceptable to call a fellow Christian an idiot
and a moron, either under the charter or Ephesians 4:29-32?

(1) Only reason I now know it was cant and not the other word was
because I did actually check it before replying,




Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 3:39:43 PMJul 20
to
On 20/07/2022 10:33, Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> Presumably he had a genuine epistle by Onesimus which he could compare
>> with Ephesians in order to reach that conclusion?

> No, but I think we may reasonably suppose that he was given his freedom
> by Philemon as requested and went on to become a valued member of the
> Collossian church.

Agreed.

> Moreover, it seems that a little later there was a bishop of Ephesus
> named Onesimus who was quite likely the same person, and Prof. Bruce's
> speculation was that it was he who gathered together all the letters
> Paul had written to churches around the world into the collection we now
> have. As a person who had served as a companion of Paul, he was well
> placed to do that, and it is possible that Ephesians is assembled from
> various scraps of text left over and his own memories of things Paul may
> have said.

Baseless speculation. Completely baseless. Why people grasp at such
convoluted nonsense instead of a simple, "Paul wrote it", I really do
not know.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 3:39:44 PMJul 20
to
On 20/07/2022 09:21, Madhu wrote:

> Or Peter was sufficiently acquainted with Paul that he did not expect
> Paul to ever write anything which didn't "have some things [which were]
> hard to be understood, etc." and was safely expressing his exasperation.

Possibly.

> Maybe that could even be a test for the authenticity of Paul's
> authorship.

So if you can understand it, it isn't Pauline?

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 3:39:45 PMJul 20
to
On 20/07/2022 11:38, John wrote:

> Ah, serves me right for not checking it first.  A couple of years ago I
> remember seeing a video showing someone saying Alexa, what is [name]
> carrot 100 in Welsh, and it came back as as [name] moron cant (1),  only
> it sounded like the swear word and seeing your post I associated carrot
> with it. My apologies.

I can't imagine what the person was saying, as "cant" means "100". Is
there a song about 100 green carrots, growing on the bryn?

> That said though, is it acceptable to call a fellow Christian an idiot
> and a moron, either under the charter or Ephesians 4:29-32?

If someone, apparently seriously, makes an argument that is demonstrably
false - like claiming that in Ephesians Paul doesn't mention the gifts
of the Spirit - I am not sure what other term would be appropriate.

Now of course, if you can demonstrate that there is a missing smiley and
he was writing a parody of textual criticism, I will gladly retract my
comment.

John

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 4:29:41 PMJul 20
to
On 20/07/2022 20:36, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 20/07/2022 11:38, John wrote:



>> That said though, is it acceptable to call a fellow Christian an idiot
>> and a moron, either under the charter or Ephesians 4:29-32?
>
> If someone, apparently seriously, makes an argument that is demonstrably
> false - like claiming that in Ephesians Paul doesn't mention the gifts
> of the Spirit - I am not sure what other term would be appropriate.
Paul mentions what the charismatic gifts of the Spirit are in 1
Corinthians 12 7-11.

> Now of course, if you can demonstrate that there is a missing smiley and
> he was writing a parody of textual criticism, I will gladly retract my
> comment.

Ephesians refers to callings within the Church. so in fact the writer is
correct.


Madhu

unread,
Jul 20, 2022, 10:09:45 PMJul 20
to
* "Kendall K. Down" <tb9l8q$1qgbs$2 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 20 Jul 2022 20:32:43 +0100:
Yes. Though I thought the "Pauline epistles" to be all the epistles
that are "traditionally" attributed to Paul, including Hebrews, so those
which you can understand easily without dispute would be pseudepigraphal
:)



Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 2:09:44 AMJul 21
to
On 21/07/2022 03:04, Madhu wrote:

> Yes. Though I thought the "Pauline epistles" to be all the epistles
> that are "traditionally" attributed to Paul, including Hebrews, so those
> which you can understand easily without dispute would be pseudepigraphal
> :)

The trouble is that someone has only to switch from the KJV to - say -
the NIV and suddenly none of Paul's epistles were written by him.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 2:19:42 AMJul 21
to
On 20/07/2022 21:26, John wrote:

>> If someone, apparently seriously, makes an argument that is
>> demonstrably false - like claiming that in Ephesians Paul doesn't
>> mention the gifts of the Spirit - I am not sure what other term would
>> be appropriate.

> Paul mentions what the charismatic gifts of the Spirit are in 1
> Corinthians 12 7-11.

So?

> Ephesians refers to callings within the Church. so in fact the writer is
> correct.

1. A meaningless distinction, which is not supported by the text.

2. Paul, in Ephesians, not only lists exactly the same things as are
listed in 1 Corinthians 12 (though not as exhaustively) but identifies
them as "gifts" (Ephesias 4:8 plus the word "give" in v. 11, which is
the verb form of the word translated as "gifts").

In what sense, exactly, do you think the writer is correct? Even his
spelling was American ...

steve hague

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 4:09:43 AMJul 21
to
I mostly use the NASB, which credits Paul with most of the epistles,
Hebrews of course being a little contentious. Personally I don't think
he wrote it, the style isn't his, but I could be wrong, it happens
occasionaly.
Steve Hague



Charles Lindsey

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 4:49:44 AMJul 21
to
Because many scholars have claimed, after due research, that Paul's authorship
is dubious. F.F. Bruce was a well-respected theologian, more so than Kendal
Down, so his opinions cannot so easily be ignored.

John

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 6:29:44 AMJul 21
to
On 21/07/2022 07:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 20/07/2022 21:26, John wrote:
>
>>> If someone, apparently seriously, makes an argument that is
>>> demonstrably false - like claiming that in Ephesians Paul doesn't
>>> mention the gifts of the Spirit - I am not sure what other term would
>>> be appropriate.
>
>> Paul mentions what the charismatic gifts of the Spirit are in 1
>> Corinthians 12 7-11.
>
> So?
>
>> Ephesians refers to callings within the Church. so in fact the writer
>> is correct.
>
> 1. A meaningless distinction, which is not supported by the text.
>
> 2. Paul, in Ephesians, not only lists exactly the same things as are
> listed in 1 Corinthians 12 (though not as exhaustively) but identifies
> them as "gifts" (Ephesias 4:8 plus the word "give" in v. 11, which is
> the verb form of the word translated as "gifts").

I think you're getting mixed up between the gifts of the Spirit, which
are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, and callings to the church,
which are mentioned in both boooks.

I hadn't realised you were using 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 rather than
verses 7-11 but in the latter verses Paul mentions the order

Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers

then miracles

then the gifts of the Spirit.

In Ephesians the *charismatic* gifts aren't mentioned. Now they may be
gifts, although personally I don't think so, as you are making a tenuous
link to tie the two, but they aren't the *gifts* of the Spirit.

To further support my reasoning that these are callings rather than
gifts is 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, where Paul mentions different kinds of
gifts, different kinds of service (ie roles within the body of Christ)
and Ephesians 4:11 where Jesus (not the Holy Spirit) has called some to
be Apostles etc.

Personally, I would say that Jesus has given the Apostles, Prophets,
Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers as gifts to the body to enhance their
spiritual life.


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 8:09:44 AMJul 21
to
On 21/07/2022 09:44, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> Because many scholars have claimed, after due research, that Paul's
> authorship is dubious. F.F. Bruce was a well-respected theologian, more
> so than Kendal Down, so his opinions cannot so easily be ignored.

That he should doubt Paul's authorship may be excused. That he should
come up with all this nonsense about Philemon and Onesimus, may not be
excused.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 8:09:44 AMJul 21
to
On 21/07/2022 11:24, John wrote:

> I hadn't realised you were using 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 rather than
> verses 7-11 but in the latter verses Paul mentions the order

Is there a difference?

> In Ephesians the *charismatic* gifts aren't mentioned. Now they may be
> gifts, although personally I don't think so, as you are making a tenuous
> link to tie the two, but they aren't the *gifts* of the Spirit.

If you think that preaching is not a) a gift, and b) Spirit-inspired,
you are very wrong. The same goes for effective teaching. Prophecy
should go without saying and I think Paul would be the first to claim
that apostleship is a gift.

Where do you get the idea that apostleship etc are not "charismatic"?

> Personally, I would say that Jesus has given the Apostles, Prophets,
> Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers as gifts to the body to enhance their
> spiritual life.

And Paul makes it plain that speaking in tongues is given to the body,
not to individuals (that is, although individuals do the preaching or
speaking in tongues, it is the church, not the individual preacher or
speaker, which benefits).

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 8:09:44 AMJul 21
to
On 21/07/2022 09:02, steve hague wrote:

>> The trouble is that someone has only to switch from the KJV to - say -
>> the NIV and suddenly none of Paul's epistles were written by him.

> I mostly use the NASB, which credits Paul with most of the epistles,
> Hebrews of course being a little contentious. Personally I don't think
> he wrote it, the style isn't his, but I could be wrong, it happens
> occasionaly.

My comment was directed towards the "if it's easy to understand it can't
be Pauline" idea.

I'm happy to accept Pauline authorship of Hebrews, but I do like the
idea that it was really Apollos.

Mike Davis

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 10:59:43 AMJul 21
to
May I just step in here, without taking sides (as I've never formally
analysed which letter says which), but I have been teaching some of this
for some 40 years.

There is a distinction between (charismatic) 'gifts' and 'ministries';
in general, I would say that a 'gift' is given to a believer in order to
witness to the Lord's presence in a particular situation. On the other
hand, some people are called by the Spirit regularly to exercise certain
gifts, and I would call those 'ministries' and thus the people so gifted
'ministers' of that particular gift/set of gifts.

So while I have been used to heal people, someone who is called to the
Ministry of healing will probably find themselves using:- healing,
discernment of spirits, knowledge and counsel, and even miracles, as a
"set of gifts" that go together in their ministry.

Equally there are 'word gifts' that accompany the ministry of Teaching
and Evangelism.

One gift that intrigues me (that I've never heard formally taught) is
that of 'alms-giving' (2 Cor 9:6-13); is it a Spiritual gift or not?

As I think I've said before, I once counted some 42 different gifts in
the NT either as individual charisms or as parts of the ministerial gifting.

Not arguing, just adding some thoughts to the discussion.

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 2:49:44 PMJul 21
to
On 21/07/2022 15:50, Mike Davis wrote:

> There is a distinction between (charismatic) 'gifts' and 'ministries';
> in general, I would say that a 'gift' is given to a believer in order to
> witness to the Lord's presence in a particular situation. On the other
> hand, some people are called by the Spirit regularly to exercise certain
> gifts, and I would call those 'ministries' and thus the people so gifted
> 'ministers' of that particular gift/set of gifts.

The difference, however, does not lie in the gift but in its duration.

Take, for example, 2 Chronicles 20:14, where a certain man is given the
gift of prophecy. He spoke God's word for that situation, his prophetic
word was fulfilled and Israel was delivered from its enemies. After that
we never hear of him again.

In contrast we have Isaiah or Jeremiah, who were called to a life-long
exercise of the prophetic gift, but there was no difference in degree or
quality between the gift they received and that given to Jahaiel. They
spoke God's word for the situation, the prophetic word was fulfilled
(mind you, in this case Israel was handed over to its enemies!)

You make rather the same point with regard to your own experience of
healing and that of someone who has a life-long gift. There is no
difference in the degree or quality of the healings in either case,
merely in the duration during which the gift is exercised.

You call it a "gift" and a "ministry"; I would call it a temporary gift
or temporary ministry, v. a permanent gift or ministry. Giving it
different names, as you do, leads to a misunderstanding of God's gifts
and a false dichotomy between the temporary and the long-lasting.

Mike Davis

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 5:09:44 PMJul 21
to
No, I would maintain just the opposite.

ALL Christians are, I believe, called to 'use' the charismatic gifts in
their lives. SOME are called to a specific *role* in the Church to
Evangelise, to heal, to be Prophets, etc. - it is these latter roles
that I would call 'Ministries'. It by no means denies that all are
equipped for whatever the Lord leads them into. Most of the problem
today is actually getting people to step out in faith, for unless they
do they never discover what ministry they may be called to,

Mike
--
Mike Davis


Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 22, 2022, 2:49:45 PMJul 22
to
On 21/07/2022 22:00, Mike Davis wrote:

> Most of the problem
> today is actually getting people to step out in faith, for unless they
> do they never discover what ministry they may be called to,

I would agree with that. A surprising number of potential treasurers are
lacking in faith ...
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages