A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Brown, the "majority" of Scholars do not consider Ephesians authentic (by 80%) which I mentioned in the last post and you ignored, and few scholars today back 2 Thes as authentic, with an assessment of a 60/40 split on Colossians. At the very least, 5/13 are clearly ruled out "by the majority", with data on 2 The that is most likely more against it if an exact count was taken today.
"
As for 2 Thes, I'd say the split would have to be thoroughly counted for modern scholars to see who still backs it.
Well, Brown never said how he got those numbers, and I suspect that he didn't have the time or the will to read everything in the patristics, the Reformers, and every generation of scholars in every language from the dawn of Christianity until today for the sole purpose of determining the consensus opinion of everyone who has written on the topic. That project would have taken at least 15 years -- and he'd have the good sense not to do such a stupid thing.
I see your standards are very, very low for the conclusions that you draw, but that is hardly surprising.
No one is going to attempt an exact count because it doesn't matter. Consensus is important, but you only need enough to establish a camp or a particular viewpoint that influential scholars espouse. In the case of the Pauline literature, we agree (not me and you) that some Pauline epistles are authentic, some are disputed, and some are simply not Pauline. There's no need to have percentages - or at least put any effort into it - because these percentages change so fast and people like you misinterpret them.