Corpus-Paul

["Perry L. Stepp" <plstepp AT flash.net>]

I wrote:

>> I remain unconvinced by the arguments articulated in support
>> of the pseudonymity of the Pastorals.


Frank W. Hughes replied:
>One question that occurs to me is this:  what would it take for you to be
>convinced?  If one swallow doesn't make a stream and one stone doesn't
>make a wall, how many do?


1.  Pseudonymous authorship was acceptable in several genres in antiquity.
One even finds pseudonymous letters--or pseudonymous pseudo-letters--used in
the philosophical schools as one of the types of philosophical discourse.

Pseudonymous authorship was acceptable in certain genres in both Greco-Roman
and Jewish (and hybrid) settings.  For example, Jewish testamentary
literature is usually pseudonymous, and the pseudonymity was an accepted
device (witness the attribution of a quote to Enoch in Jude.)

However, there are no examples of pseudonymous Jewish letters of religious
content.  Aristeas and Jeremy don't count, because they aren't real letters.

I would find the pseudonymity conclusion easier to swallow if it could be
shown that the practice/device was accepted in first-century or earlier
Jewish letters of religious content.

2.  I haven't really worked through this point yet, so bear with me.
There's an argument in here somewhere.

I am uncomfortable with applying the same methodologies across the board to
all of the letters of the canonical Paul.  Ephesians or Colossians are, it
seems to me, very different from the PE in regard to pseudonymity because of
the differing amounts of personal information.  In fact, in some ways I
think the PE should be considered of another epistolary subgenre from the
other letters of the canonical Paul simply because of 1. the purported
individuals as addressees and 2. the amount of personal information.  This
is most strongly present in 2 Tim, perhaps that letter should be isolated
from the other 2 of the PE.

Put another way, compare the purported settings of the PE and Romans.
Romans is written to a group of people, many of whom Paul does not know.
The PE, at least on the face, are written to individuals with whom Paul is
extremely close.  Romans is a more general epistle, the PE are personal
letters.  SOME kind of distinction needs to be made here.

Now compare the PE with Ephesians.  *Completely* different settings, a
general audience for Ephesians (not even limited to a single church or city,
if one takes Ephesians to be a circular letter).  In the generic features
I'm looking at, Ephesians is much closer to the Platonic or Cynic Epistles
than are the PE.

3.  The pseudonymous letters I've read-admittedly not a huge collection, and
I don't have much such material here to check, so I'm relying on memory--did
not include the amount of personal information included in the PE,
especially 2 Timothy.  I welcome corrections (with supporting text from
letters universally regarded as pseudonymous--the Cynics, Platonics,
etc.--of course) on this point.

These are the major "bricks" that stand between me and my accepting the
position of critical orthodoxy--the other major sticking point is that all
the majority arguments seem so tenuous and fragile when examined in
isolation.  I don't find "Look at what a huge pile of tenuous arguments
we've amassed!" to be all that persuasive a conclusion.  I'd like to see one
argument that really held water all around--but that's beside the point (of
*this* post, at least.)

And that's all I can write at the moment anyway--I'm supposed to be in the
sanctuary at a meeting right now!

Grace,

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*
********************************************************************