corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Perry L. Stepp" <plstepp AT flash.net>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:44:20 -0400
From: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
>Likewise, the disciples of Paul would not have, for a moment, had a qualm
at
>all about putting words into his mouth. Tacitus wrote speeches for his
>personalities. Homer did it. They all did it. The problem with doing
such
>a thing is ours, not theirs.
Regarding the disciples of Paul, your statements assume what has not been
proven, and what may in fact not be the case (or may not in fact be the case
for the PE, in contrast to a letter like Ephesians). I accept as historical
fact that the disciples/successors of teachers, prophets, etc., wrote/spoke
"in the name of" their predecessors. This practice was an accepted part of
the function of their schools in antiquity.
But in our application of this fact we must be sensitive to differences in
genre. What Tacitus and Homer (or Luke) did has no direct bearing on what
the followers of Paul did or did not do--same milieu, but different genres.
You universalize what may not be universal.
The Paul of the accepted letters clearly took great pains, at certain
points, to show that he was the author/source of what was written in his
name (to paraphrase, "see how I have written this with my own hand, in such
large letters," etc.)
The fact that his assertions of identity come in a different setting than
what we envision for the PE--Paul was apparently concerned with people
writing/saying things in his name that were contrary to his teaching, while
the critical orthodoxy envisions Paul's disciples, a couple of generations
removed, writing things that the master himself would in their opinion have
written for the new situation--doesn't change the fact that the identity of
the author *was* for Paul (and thus for other early Christians) a
significant facet of a pronouncement's claim to authority. This concern,
which you wrongly label an anachronism, cannot be dismissed so glibly.
PLStepp
********************************************************************
Senior Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
DCC's webpage: http://come.to/DeSotoCC
Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
#1 Cowboy Fan
Does it not concern us that God's name is often
dishonored because of poor theologies of God?
--Clark Pinnock, *The Openness of God*
********************************************************************
-
Unconvinced of Pseudonymity,
Perry L. Stepp, 04/26/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Christopher Hutson, 04/26/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Jim West, 04/26/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Frank W. Hughes, 04/26/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Robert Kraft, 04/27/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Perry L. Stepp, 04/27/1999
- RE: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Liz Fried, 04/27/1999
- RE: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Jim West, 04/27/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Perry L. Stepp, 04/27/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, yonder moynihan gillihan, 04/28/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Christopher Hutson, 04/29/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Christopher Hutson, 04/29/1999
- Re: Unconvinced of Pseudonymity, Perry L. Stepp, 04/29/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.