Wow, a whole lot of pejorative terms there. Is that what your're doing, apologizing for your dogma? So what, we decide based on facts presented, not a bio. I disagree with him. Now what? More people apologizing for their dogma. See how that works? What do they know that the early church fathers didn't? We agree on that, although I reject your premise that 'serious' belongs only to people who agree with you. That is a view nobody had prior to 1,400, and that even today isn't a majority opinion. Here are some similarities between a letter of 1 Clement and Ephesians: First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: (1) Clement 36 “By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvelous light.”< Ephesians 1:18 “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints.” (NASB) Ephesians 4:17-18 “This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind,having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (2) Clement 38 “Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbor, according to the special gift bestowed upon him.” Ephesians 5:21 “…be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” (NASB) (3) Clement 46 “Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ?” Ephesians 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” CRITICAL scholarship, i.e. people who agree with you and who begin with an anti-supernatural bias. On Timothy from Wikipedia: "The authenticity of Pauline authorship was accepted by Church orthodoxy as early as c. AD 180, as evidenced by the surviving testimony of Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian. Possible allusions are found in the letters from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (c. 110) and Polycarp to the Philippians (c. 130), though it is difficult to determine the nature of any such literary relationships. Modern scholars who support Pauline authorship nevertheless stress their importance regarding the question of authenticity: I. H. Marshall and P. H. Towner wrote that "the key witness is Polycarp, where there is a high probability that 1 and 2 Tim were known to him". Similarly M. W. Holmes argued that it is "virtually certain or highly probable" that Polycarp used 1 and 2 Timothy. Late in the 2nd century there are a number of quotations from all three Pastoral Epistles in Irenaeus' work Against Heresies. The Muratorian Canon (c. 170–180) lists the books of the NT and ascribes all three Pastoral Epistles to Paul. Eusebius (c. 330) calls it, along with the other thirteen canonical Pauline Epistles, "undisputed". Exceptions to this positive witness include Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr turned heretic, as well as the Gnostic Basilides." We can go back and forth, but is someone other that Paul wrote the epistles it does not follow that they are therefore not divinely inspired. So is it academic fraud when your guys don't mention the traditional view? Be specific, which posts are you talking about? And while you're at it, in which posts did you ever answer my questions: 1. How good do you have to be? 2. What if God's standard is just a little bit higher than yours? 3. Why did Christ have to die on the cross if we can earn our way to heaven? Try to keep up, I did discuss that, and you didn't prove anything, you gave my your opinion, which I reject. Here is NT Wright on Pauline authorship of these disputed books, one of many scholars who would agree with me: "Arguments from style are clearly important in principle. But they are hard to make in practice. We have such a tiny sample of Paul’s writing, hardly an adequate database for definite conclusions about authorship. Those who have done computer analyses of Paul’s style come up with more ‘conservative’ results than we might have expected. In fact, if it’s stylistic differences we want, the most striking are, in my opinion, the radical differences between 1 and 2 Corinthians. The second letter to Corinth is much jerkier; its sentences are dense and convoluted, bending back on themselves, twisting to and fro with language about God, Jesus Christ, and Paul’s ministry. The organization of the material is much less crisp. There is a far greater difference between those two Corinthian letters that there is between Galatians and Romans on the one hand and Ephesians and Colossians on the other; yet nobody for that reason cast doubt on 2 Corinthians. As John A.T. Robinson pointed out from personal experience a generation ago, a busy church leader may well write in very different styles for different occasions and audiences. The same person can be working simultaneously on a large academic project with careful, ponderous sentences and a short, snappy talk for Sunday school. It has not be unknown for senior biblical scholars to write children’s fiction [in fn.135 ...Among NT scholars who have written children's fiction we might mention C.H. Dodd and R.J. Bauckham]. More directly to the point, it has recently been argued strikingly that Ephesians and Colossians show evidence of a deliberate ‘Asiatic’ style which Paul could easily have adopted for readers in Western Turkey. I regard the possibility of significant variation in Paul’s own style as much higher than the possibility that someone else, a companion or co-worker could achieve such a measure of similarity. Other historical examples of that genre do not encourage us to suppose they would have been so successful." –Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Vol. 1, pg. 60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright Is Wright not a serious scholar?