Latest JSNT includes Foster's Critique of Pseudonymous Views of 2 Thessalonians

Latest JSNT includes Foster's Critique of Pseudonymous Views of 2 Thessalonians November 30, 2012

The Dec 2012 issue of JSNT is online and has some very interesting articles including one by Paul Foster where he calls for a re-evaluation of the scholarly tendency to treat 2 Thessalonians as pseudonymous. Essentially, Foster says, due to developments in research, the very outdated arguments for why 2 Thess was not written by Paul are no longer convincing. I think Foster is right about this, and this also applies (I would argue) to Colossians.

"There is a typo in the 2nd paragraph where you quote Twelftree. You wrote "the ..."

What Exactly Is Paul’s “Gospel?” Graham ..."
"OK, I have to have your book now. I am currently studying the biblical covenants ..."

Paul and the Language of Faith, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Now that would be awesome to read. In his new book on forgery/counterforgery, Ehrman (of course) makes hay over 2 Thess.

  • (sigh) Oh Erhman…Well, so much of this has to do with historiography and the philosophy of historical inquiry. Markus Barth explains his underpinning philosophy with regards to the authorship of Colossians: “in dubio pro reo” (in doubt, [side] with the accused). Essentially, I am “Barthian” in this regard, folks like Erhman aren’t. Still, more and more commentators are open to Paul having written Colossians (like myself), Peter having written 1 Peter (Joel Green), and James having written James (deSilva, McKnight). I think Foster’s piece is simply one more push against the wall of skepticism borne out of a kind of petrified wall of confidence in the ability to detect a forgery.

  • Pingback: The Authenicities of the Pauline Corpus()

  • Pingback: Paul Foster’s Case for the Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians | Earliest Christianity()

  • Pingback: Paul Foster on the Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians()