Corpus-Paul

[Christopher Hutson <crhutson AT salisbury.net>]

Stephen,

I think Jim has summarized some important factors that point to
pseudonymity, although, as I have said, I do not found my case upon
them.  Let me respond to some of your points.

>My basic point is that arguments against the authenicity of the 
>so-called Pastoral Epistles have been uncritically accepted as fact, 
>leading to much overstating of cases.  I would be equally concerned
at 
>someone asserting that 'everyone knows' the PE's are written by Paul,

>although on the prima facie evidence this view would be quite 
>understandable.

I appreciate your intentions to be evenhanded here, but the
"uncritical" charge amounts to no more than an ad hominem argument.  I
would prefer that, in the name of evenhandedness, we assume that all
the participants on this list have, do and will continue to critically
examine evidence for the various positions they espouse.  It would be
more profitable to engage the substance of the arguments than merely
to accuse our opponents of being "uncritical."  


So then, on to the substance of the debate:

>A.  Jack Kilman suggests "[the PE's] reflect church structures not in

>place till long after Paul's death...".
>
>The immediate question to ask is how we know?  I agree that there is 
>Second century evidence for developed ecclesiasticity, particularly 
>with the Ignatian epistles, but we do not know when this development 
>began.  I Clement, from the 1st century, suggests an ecclesiastical 
>hierarchy too.  Jack's argument betrays a common ciruclarity, vis:

I'll let Jack speak for himself on your charge of circularity. 

As for me, I would prefer to push aside all the talk about church
order.  I do not see the PE as analogous to the Didache, for example. 
I think that to focus on church structures as the heart of the PE is
to misread them.  The PE are not about putting churches in proper
order. Rather, the PE are about putting church leaders in proper
order.  These are letters to youthful leaders offering instruction and
advice for ministry.  At best, attention to church structures is a
secondary issue in the PE.


>Upon what basis do we make historical judgements about Paul?  On the 
>basis of Acts?  Kummel is the classic case.  He spends several pages 
>arguing, on the basis of the incongruity of the historical
information 
>(derived from Acts), that Paul cannot have written the PE's.  Yet in 
>the same book, he maintains that Acts is not to be views as a
reliable 
>history! So which goes?  Acts or PE's?  This needs to be considered 
>with care.

A good question.  My post was necessarily bried, and you will find
much more detail in my dissertation and also in my article "Was
Timothy Timid?" (_Biblical Research_ 42 [1997], 58-73).  I would say
that we should look first to the Pauline letters for evidence about
the relationships between Paul and his proteges.  We should look
second to Acts, which often provides correlation and/or confirmation.

>In general I am unconvinced by the 'Youth' argument, although have
not 
>seen such a comprehensive statement as Chris's.  As an example, I 
>refer to Dibelius and Conzelmann (themselves by no means supportive
of 
>Pauline authorship) who write:
>
>"In 4:11, the exhortation to the leader of the congregation, which
was 
>begun in 4:6, is continued.  The problem here is the youth of the 
>addressee (cf. Ign. Mag. 3.1).  That this problem is raised does not 
>argue against authenticity, for the historic Timothy need not have 
>been born before 30AD"  (Hermeneia Commentary, 70)

With all due respect to D&C, they don't really present the "youth"
argument, at least not as I am presenting it.  For me, the actual ages
of the addressees is only part of the equation.  I think that the PE
reflect a stereotype of youth (late teens/early twenties) in the way
they address "Timothy" and "Titus."  The Greco-Roman stereotype of
youth was widely held in the ancient world and was certainly reflected
in the hellenized Judaism of the first century (nod to the thread on
Judaism and Hellenism).  But for me, it is also important to see that,
regardless of their chronological ages, the addressees of the PE are
addressed as if they are relatively INEXPERIENCED church leaders. 
They are beginners.  No matter when you think Timothy was born, it is
hard to see how the same Paul who writes about him so glowingly in 1
Cor 4  and Philippians 2 could then turn around and write such
elementary advice about how he ought to "conduct himself in the Church
(non-Pauline usage of EKKLHSIA) of the living God."  Nor is it
possible to see why the historical Paul would insist to the historical
Timothy that he is "not lying" when he says he was appointed a herald
and an apostle.  Is it possible that the historical Timothy would
doubt that, after so many years of difficult labor with Paul and on
Paul's behalf?

>A further consideration is the artificiality of talking of the 
>Pastoral Epistles as a chronological corpus.  Perhaps it would be 
>wiser to look at them individually, as there is not really any reason

>other than that of convenience necessarily to group them together.  
>More on this anon.

I tried to break them up but couldn't.  There has been a bandwagon
effect on this issue, led by LT Johnson, and followed by M Prior, J
Murphy-O'Connor, and the recent SBL "Theology of the Disputed
Paulines" group.  But I find the arguments unconvincing.

Against these, I would recommend:

Benjamin Fiore, _Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral
Epistles_, who demonstrates quite convincingly that the PE are all
paraenetic epistles.

Richard Pervo, "Romancing an Oft Rejected Stone..." in Journal of
Higher Criticism 1 (1994), 25-47. This provocative and stimulating
article wrongly concludes that the PE are an epistolary novel, but
rightly tries to find a theory of how they cohere.

C R. Hutson _My True Child:  The Rhetoric of Youth in the Pastoral
Epistles_ (Ph.D., diss, Yale, 1998). I argue in detail that the PE
cohere as a group of letters aimed at training the next generation of
youth for leadership in the community.  I take as an analogy Seneca's
Moral Epistles.  


>Finally, it is my contention that even if the balance of evidence
does 
>favour Pseudenonimity (of which I am as of yet unconvinced) that this

>comes far from solving the problems of the PE's.  Consider an 
>adolescent with an untidy bedroom. . . 


I like your colorful analogy.  I need to get my book in print so you
can see more clearly another alternative.  I have tried to make a case
that we need to reconsider the form and function of the PE, and I
think my focus on the youthful addressees should be taken into account
regardless of one's view on authorship.  Simply going back and forth
on authorship will not explain the PE.  We need to look more carefully
at the literary and sociological dimensions of these texts.

Thanks, Stephen, for considering and reacting to my arguments.

Now I sense that your question about authorship is preliminary to some
research you are conducting on the PE.  If so, could you tell us what
aspect of the PE you are preparing to explore beyong authorship?


XPIC

------------------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
          Hood Theological Seminary
          Salisbury, NC  28144
crhutson AT salisbury.net
------------------------------------