Secretaries and the Authorship of New Testament Epistles: Evaluating the Historical Method behind the Amanuensis Hypothesis

Key Points

The amanuensis hypothesis supports traditional authorship claims of disputed New Testament epistles.
Proponents argue secretaries in the Greco-Roman world could significantly shape letters they transcribed.
The analysis highlights the methodological concerns surrounding the amanuensis hypothesis' historiographic foundations.
Objections against the theory often overlook its foundational approaches and evidential strengths.

Abstract

Abstract: 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.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay