Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
I don't have the research in front of me, but I have come across historical research that claims authorship in the name of mentor was a common and accepted practice back then, with no negative connotation. If that's the case, an objectively untrue "I, Paul" doesn't necessarily negate it as Scripture. It would, in my view, certain alter the way in which we interpret the epistle, however.
That said, though I have read a few compelling arguments that Paul was not the author of a few epistles which bear his name, I must admit there's a huge mental/internal barrier to getting into getting back into what is and what is not the insipired Word... That's just full disclosure - not an attempt to stiffle the inquiry...  |
I've known a couple of historians in my day. I've got the witness of the Spirit with my spirit. I'm fairly comfortable where I'm at as regards such matters.
As to the issue of whether this was a common and accepted practice back then, I do not know it, would not assume it would be the case in the case of Paul's epistles, and am suspicous, at least, that the existence of a common and accepted practice is not now common and accepted knowledge, if true.
That said, I'll vigorously defend traditional authorship, including Paul of Hebrews, for everything - except Titus. I'll get into that issue further one day, even here perhaps, but at this time I surely wouldn't base any great decision in my faith or practice on which direction the epistle to Titus cuts, if that is the sole witness on the point. I'd say it was a sloppy cut-and-paste job if they had been using word processors in first century Judea.