Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
. . . . So unless someone can poke a hole in my assertion that Paul authored the rough draft of the book and Luke wrote the final version, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I arrived at my conclusion not from Lee, but by reading historians such as Schaaf. (Volume I, #100, pp. 808-824) Sorry if you don't like it.
|
And there you have it. Someone asserted reason for it being Paul. And others assert reasons for others.
If you are holding this out as an opinion — much like everyone else — then there is nothing to "poke a hole in" unless someone claims to have the definitive answer. Your opinion is noted.
But your challenge speaks of certainty. And you have provided nothing that is certain. Only reference to one author, and to a fact that may or may not be relevant to the query at hand. You have therefore provided nothing through which to poke a hole.
And therefore the challenge is reversed. If you are certain that it is so, it is on you to establish the particulars. And being close to Timothy, coupled with knowledge of the OT and mastery of Greek does not make for more than a plausible explanation. Not a bad one. But insufficient to stand as certainty.
If, on the other hand, it is merely an opinion, then unless someone thinks they have the proof of contrary authorship, there is nothing about which to make a challenge.
I accept your position as a reasonable opinion, even if not the majority opinion (both at the end of the fist century and today). As I said, it is irrelevant. If it is inspired, the lack of clear attribution of authorship means little if the inspiration was truly from God.