Comments on: Inconsistency in Authorship or Not? http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/inconsistency-in-authorship-or-not/ Biblical Studies, Exegesis, Theology, etc. by Josh Mann Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:58:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Josh Mann http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/inconsistency-in-authorship-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-540 Josh Mann Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:21:45 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=773#comment-540 Yes, I'm sure Paul's vocabulary was reflective of what we know about his background. (And I hope my 10,000-20,000 word example above was understood as a bit of sarcasm!). Also, you make an interesting point regarding how the doctrine of inspiration might come into play here, though I'm careful not to assume that Paul's own view of the writing process was a well-formulated doctrine such as we have looking back. Yes, I’m sure Paul’s vocabulary was reflective of what we know about his background. (And I hope my 10,000-20,000 word example above was understood as a bit of sarcasm!). Also, you make an interesting point regarding how the doctrine of inspiration might come into play here, though I’m careful not to assume that Paul’s own view of the writing process was a well-formulated doctrine such as we have looking back.

]]> By: Thomas Overmiller http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/inconsistency-in-authorship-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-539 Thomas Overmiller Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:05:24 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=773#comment-539 While consistency in vocabulary and style should certainly be present in some measure, I also agree that it is far too easy for critical scholarship to oversimplify their expectations. One mark of a good writer happens to be the ability to diversify. This mark, for instance, would especially have been a benefit for scripture writing. Paul's educational background in particular would lend itself towards a greater vocabulary. The ability to articulate and express precisely what the Holy Spirit intended would have been absolutely necessary for truth to be clear. So much depends on it. The broader the writer's vocabulary and expressive ability, the better. While consistency in vocabulary and style should certainly be present in some measure, I also agree that it is far too easy for critical scholarship to oversimplify their expectations. One mark of a good writer happens to be the ability to diversify. This mark, for instance, would especially have been a benefit for scripture writing. Paul’s educational background in particular would lend itself towards a greater vocabulary. The ability to articulate and express precisely what the Holy Spirit intended would have been absolutely necessary for truth to be clear. So much depends on it. The broader the writer’s vocabulary and expressive ability, the better.

]]> By: Josh Mann http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/inconsistency-in-authorship-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Josh Mann Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:43:08 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=773#comment-536 Good point, Mike. Certainly considering the potential divergence that might result from the use of one amanuensis or another is significant. Regardless of how we understand the scribal process here (i.e., strict dictation or loose 'ghost writing'), the level of consistency we should expect is not so high as it is sometimes thought. [I just realized that 'ghost writing' looks like a pun! It's not 'Holy Ghost writing'... I only meant to refer to the process of minor editing of oral communication into writing.] Good point, Mike. Certainly considering the potential divergence that might result from the use of one amanuensis or another is significant. Regardless of how we understand the scribal process here (i.e., strict dictation or loose ‘ghost writing’), the level of consistency we should expect is not so high as it is sometimes thought.

[I just realized that 'ghost writing' looks like a pun! It's not 'Holy Ghost writing'... I only meant to refer to the process of minor editing of oral communication into writing.]

]]> By: mike http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/inconsistency-in-authorship-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-535 mike Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:54:26 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=773#comment-535 as i'm sure you're aware of, there's also the issue of paul utilizing different amenuenses (is that the plural of amenuensis/secretary?) for various letters. for example, although tons of NT scholars use vocabulary to insist the pastorals are not pauline, walter liefeld has noted dozens of words only used in the pastorals and luke-acts. he has also noted the regular of use of health/medical words, like "sound" and "soundness," in the pastorals, words which would might be used by, say, a physician. he suggests the possibility that luke was paul's amenuensis for the pastorals. i don't think he "proves" this (nor does he suggest that he proves it), but he at least demonstrates the plausibility that luke recorded paul's dictation for the pastorals. this implies, though, that paul shared thoughts and the amenuensis helped shape them into literary form (as opposed to paul dictating letters word for word). good subject for discussion as i’m sure you’re aware of, there’s also the issue of paul utilizing different amenuenses (is that the plural of amenuensis/secretary?) for various letters. for example, although tons of NT scholars use vocabulary to insist the pastorals are not pauline, walter liefeld has noted dozens of words only used in the pastorals and luke-acts. he has also noted the regular of use of health/medical words, like “sound” and “soundness,” in the pastorals, words which would might be used by, say, a physician. he suggests the possibility that luke was paul’s amenuensis for the pastorals. i don’t think he “proves” this (nor does he suggest that he proves it), but he at least demonstrates the plausibility that luke recorded paul’s dictation for the pastorals. this implies, though, that paul shared thoughts and the amenuensis helped shape them into literary form (as opposed to paul dictating letters word for word).

good subject for discussion

]]>