The authenticity of Philemon is taken for granted by the vast majorityof academics today, with almost no attempts to justify its inclusion among thetraditionally accepted seven epistles. The present article seeks to problematizethat assumption. Instead, it is concluded that there is not enough evidence to concludethat Philemon is authentic based on the current arguments which have beenoffered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christopher M. Hansen (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: