published<\/em> about it. Perhaps the same can be said about the Pastoral Epistles, and if so, then Foster\u2019s point may have more to be said for it than initially appears.<\/p>\nWhat do others think? How does one gauge the scholarly consensus on a particular subject? My own inclination, when it comes to a matter such as the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, would be to look at (1) textbooks, (2) introductions to the New Testament, (3) the treatment of authorship in commentaries, and finally (4) scholarly monographs specifically on this subject.<\/p>\n
My sense is that the consensus on the Pastoral Epistles is that they are not authentically Pauline. And I suspect that deep down, Witherington knows this. If someone were to write a scholarly book or present a conference paper, and assumed the Pastoral Epistles are not Pauline, they would not even need to mention the point explicitly. If they wanted to claim that they are authentically Pauline, they would have to argue the case strenuously.<\/p>\n
Perhaps that<\/em> more than anything else gives a clear sense of what the scholarly consensus is on a topic \u2013 what you can genuinely\u00a0take for granted\u00a0without discussion or dispute when writing\u00a0a book, article, or conference paper?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0062012614\")
<\/span><\/em>. While Ehrman\u2019s book is by no means above criticism, Witherington\u2019s suggestion that that Ehrman misrepresents the scholarly consensus about the Pastoral Epistles seems to me to be off target. But this is perhaps an excellent opportunity to ask that perennial question: How does one gauge the scholarly consensus on a particular matter? <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-81270362594593643?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"