@Nathaniel I'm not sure how useful the distinction is, but I went ahead and submit tag usage instructions for both since they are around and have been typically been used a bit differently.
I have recently been inspired to reexamine this passage and have changed my thoughts a bit. I am leaving, rather than editing, my original answer since it has been around for several years.
A video version of this answer with some additional information can be found on my YouTube channel.
Th...
Pay close attention to the words and what they are referring to here:
1 Samuel 1:1
There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.
Samuel, and even his father, wer...
Life goes on as usual for all the cardinal of the Church after the election of a new Pope. They must obey the new Sovereign Pontiff in filial joy and reverence. Nor do any of the cardinals have to worry about any chance of a reprisal if some had indeed voted for another candidate. In the Apostoli...
One of the points of theology that has traditionally separated some Protestants from our Roman and Eastern brothers and sisters is the question of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary. The argument is usually cast as a typical reformed – catholic debate with the issue of biblical authority...
In Hebrew, Genesis 2:24 reads:
עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמֹּ֑ו וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתֹּ֔ו וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד
The fully understand what the verse means, it is helpful to look at a few key words more closely.
וְדָבַ֣ק
Comparing several translations, there is a wide va...
The Narrow Context
The ESV translation highlights the language a bit better here I feel:
Jacob fled to the land of Aram;
there Israel served for a wife,
and for a wife he guarded sheep.
By a prophet
the LORD brought Israel up from Egypt,
and by a prophet he was guarded.
In t...
Just FYI, I read just about every answer posted on this site, including yours. I have only felt the need to object to a small fraction of your answers and have upvoted more than I've complained about. (To be clear, I do disagree with a large percentage, but that is not the same as feeling they need commented on/corrected or downvoted.)
@DickHarfield Dropping the By the beginning of the current century, the consensus of scholars was very much that Colossians is pseudepigraphical.sentence would suffice.
It is certainly true that most scholars consider Colossians non-certain. Your statement implies, however, that most consider the matter settled against Pauline authorship. I don't think Barclay means to state that.
If you want to rephrase to say DeMaris says the majority has risen since then, that is fine as well. But your current statement to me implies a 90/10 situation, similar to say the Pastorals.
If you want to say it is not Pauline, that is fine. You can do that without overstating the level of agreement on the point. I have no problem with you saying he most likely did not write it. I have a problem with you implying it is a settled point in scholarship
I will make this simple - I think you can simply say the letter is disputed by many scholars without trying to nail it down further without changing the meat of your answer. That would remove my objection.
Barclay is of course correct that truth is not decided by majority vote, so it that respect the number of scholars who hold a given view is not actually meaningful. However, this is not an argument about the truth of who wrote Colossians. If you are going to claim the majority is "very much" one way, then it better actually be that way. It isn't. You have misrepresented consensus by implying that it is a strong majority situation - the only way one could actually come up with a strong majority in this case is by dismissing opinions they disagree with (which no doubt some on both sides do).
Again, unless you think Barclay believes the only two possibilities are "near certain Pauline" or "near certain non-Pauline", then he is not saying that nearly all scholars think it is non-Pauline. Even if he was, he would be wrong. The Oxford Annotated Bible, for example, which accurately reflects the state of consensus on other letters (e.g. pastorals: "most scholars today regard them as pseudographical"), says opinion is split....
I don't think your assessment that "the consensus of scholars was very much that Colossians is pseudepigraphical" is accurate. Your own source only intends to say it is disputed - not that there is a consensus against authenticity. He goes on to say the case against is "not nearly as strong as [other disputed letters]" and "not decisive" and that "strong arguments can be mounted for Pauline authorship." A fair assessment of the consensus would be that it is an open question, not that it has been decided to be most likely inauthentic.