This analysis evaluates the historical method used in authorship claims of New Testament epistles, suggesting potential fragility in the amanuensis hypothesis.
The amanuensis hypothesis has long been a popular method of defending traditional authorship claims of disputed NT epistles. Scholars who espouse this view maintain that, in the Greco-Roman world, secretaries were afforded the freedom to (extensively) shape the letters they transcribed. As a result, proponents contend that authenticity judgments cannot be based on the style or content of a given letter. While various objections have been leveled against the theory over the years, its methodological underpinnings have been largely overlooked. With a view toward the standard objectives and processes that define the historical method, I examine how the amanuensis hypothesis has been constructed. I seek to demonstrate the (methodological) fragility of the theory by focusing on its historiographic aims, argumentative logic, and evidential basis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Travis B. Williams (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: