Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Disputed Pauline letters

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "J.E.Harding" <BSP97JEH AT sheffield.ac.uk>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Disputed Pauline letters
  • Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:27:32 +0100



I am currently writing on 2 Timothy, and trying to remain
non-committal on the question of authorship. My reasons for remaining
non-committal relate to my fundamental problem with method in
determining the authenticity or pseudonymity of a particular letter.

There can be no doubt that differences in church organisation,
theology and language exist within the Pauline corpus. However,
basing arguments aginst Pauline authorship of a particular letter on
such issues is problematic. I assume the following: (1) Paul was a
figure who preached and wrote letters with particular audiences in
mind, and it different points in his ministry. This alone means that
arguments which are based on differences in theology are
problematic-Paul was not a systematic theologian, and his
persepectives developed to meet specific situations. (2) Paul would have
had no difficulty in writing in different kinds of Greek to suit a
particular situation: language alone would not be an appropriate
argument in denying 2 Tim (say) to Paul. (3) Paul's use of language
and his preferred metaphors altered as his ministry developed. (4)
Not all churches founded by Paul would have had identical structures,
and the church organization of a particular community could develop
quite quickly. Different church organizations alone are not adequate
to deny (e.g.) 1 Cor and 2 Tim to the same author. In fact, I believe
1 Cor and 2 Tim may be read very well as by the same author.
(5) Acts is of dubious relevance as a source of
*facts* and is not an appropriate source of evidence for the
authenticity issue.

In any case, the Pauline corpus is tiny. How, on the basis of such a
tiny amount of evidence, given that Paul may have dictated letters
over a period of several years (e.g. 50-64), to a variety of
audiences with different concerns, and given that his own theology
would have developed (not necessarily *changed*), as would his stock
of metaphors and linguistic signs, can we possibly hope to make a proper
decision on the authenticity issue in any given case?

James Edward Harding
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield
>bsp97jeh AT sheffield.ac.uk<




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page