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: "Chris Cutler" <Chrisc AT powercall.co.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Disputed Pauline letters
  • Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:00:43 +0100


James Harding wrote
>
> 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.
>
Chris:
Questions of authorship are as problematic as they are fascinating. Even if
you were watching me write this you could not be certain I was not writing
at someone else's direction. Proving or disproving authorship almost two
millenia later would appear impossible. Surely the benefit lies in what we
learn about Paul in the process, not the conclusions we draw.

James:
> 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.

Chris:
Agreed. Absence of Pauline terms such as 'body' (of Christ); 'cross';
'freedom'; 'covenant' cannot imply an alternative author any more than I
can tell you what terms you should include in your current work by studying
the style of your previous writings.

James:
(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.

Chris:
I'm not so sure. If we take 1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus as a body of pastoral
letters, one would expect at least 1 & 2 Tim to be similar in style. The
assumed ability of the author to be a master of diffferent styles (which I
do not dispute) is not relevant if the addressee is the same. If you follow
Spicq (Saint Paul: Les Epitres Pastorales, 1969) or Kummel (Introduction to
the New Testament, 1975) you can demonstrate a similarity between 1 Tim and
Titus. Murphy-O'Connor develops this in RB 98: 403-18 "2 Timothy contrasted
with 1 Timpothy and Titus" which strongly suggests a difference in
authorship between 1 & 2 Tim.

James:
(3) Paul's use of language
> and his preferred metaphors altered as his ministry developed.

Chris:
I venture to suggest that time (?61-4 for 1 Tim, 65 for 2 Tim) and distance
(?Macedonia - Rome) are insufficient to account for alterations in
preferred metaphors.

James:
(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.

Chris:
Kenny (A Stylometric Study of the New Testament, 1986) would agree with you
when he writes "2 Timothy, one of the commonly rejected Pastoral Epistles,
is as near the centre of the [Pauline] constellation as 2 Corinthians,
which belongs to the group most widely accepted as authentic"

James:
> (5) Acts is of dubious relevance as a source of
> *facts* and is not an appropriate source of evidence for the
> authenticity issue.
>

Chris:
On this at least there can be little doubt.

James:
> 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?
>
Chris:
Probably not, but we can have fun trying!

Thank you for a most interesting post.

Chris
--------------------------
Chris & Cutler
"Auditeur Libre"

What liberates is the knowledge of who we were, what we became; where we
were, whereinto we have been thrown; whereto we speed, wherefrom we are
redeemmed; what birth is, and what rebirth." (Exc. Theod. 78.2)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page