Corpus-Paul

[Christopher Hutson <crhutson AT salisbury.net>]

Thanks to Jim, Perry, Bob, Frank and others for the interesting
conversation on pseudonymity.

I have been swamped this week and have fallen behind, but several have
made useful observations.

I would like to reply to a couple of points that Perry raises:


>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.

I'm not so sure why we must find a Jewish analog in order to
understand some NT letters as pseudonymous.  I appreciate that early
Christianity had deep roots in Judaism, but I also recognize that
Christianity was moving outward into various gentile contexts.  Paul
especially  worked hard to find ways to express his Jewish-derived
beliefs in categories that would be understandable to gentiles.  I see
no difficulty in assuming that his followers and other early
Christians did the same.  Pseudonymous letters were a known and
accepted genre in Greco-Roman contexts.  Why isn't that enough?  To
the extent that Judaism was hellenized (previous thread), I don't
think most Jewish readers would have had trouble understanding or
working with that genre.  But the question is moot, if we assume that
the "apostle to the gentiles" really was writing to and for gentiles. 
A pseudonymous third-generation heir of Paul would  have been doing
the same thing in writing the PE, and he may even have been a gentile
himself.  I don't think that everything can or needs to be explained
in terms of Judaism.


>
>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.

I agree that the rhetorical situation of the PE is different from that
of Eph and Col.  But I do not think that personal references get in
the way of pseudonymity at all.  I wouldn't base my argument for or
against pseudonymity on personalia.  I certainly think that is a
superficial basis on which to isolate 2 Tim from 1 Tim-Tit.

>
>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.

Okay, consider the Letters of Crates (Malherbe, ed., _The Cynic
Epistles_, SBLSBS 12 [1977]), a collection of letters dated to the 1st
or 2nd century, CE, purportedly from Crates (4th cent, BCE).

Letter 1.  To Hipparchia:  Return quickly.  You can still find
Diogenes alive (for he is already near the end of life; yesterday, at
any rate, he all but expired) in order to gree him for the last time
and to learn how much philosophy can do even in the most terrifying
circumstances.

Letter 30.  To Hipparchia:  I am returning the tunic that you wove and
sent to me because those of us who live a life of perseverance are
forbidden to wear such things, and I do so in order that I may cause
you to desist from this task which you have undertaken withmuch zealso
that you might appear to the masses to be someone who loves her
husband.  Now if I had married you for this reason, you would
certainly be acting properly and your zeal would be very apparent to
me in this.  But since I married you for the sake of philosophy, for
which you yourself have yearned, renounce such pursuits and try to be
of greater benefit to human life.  For this you learned both from me
and from Diogenes.

Letter 32.  To Hipparchia:  Some have come from you bringing a new
tunic, which, they say, you made so that I might have it for the
winter.  Because you care for me, I approved of you, but because you
are still uneducated and not practicing the philosophy for which I
have tutored you, I censure you.  Therefore, give up doing this right
now, if you really care, and do not pride yourself in this kind of
activity, but endeavor to do those things for which you wanted to
marry me.  And leave the wool-spinning, which is of little benefit, to
the other women, who have aspired to none of the things you do.

Letter 22.  To Hipparchia:  To hear that you have given birth--and
that quite easily, for you have said nothing to me.  Thanks be to God
and to you. . . (Ps-Crates, trans. by R. F. Hock).


Letters of Diogenes, dated to the 1st-2nd centuries, CE.

Letter 4.  To Antipater:  Do not find fault with me for not heeding
you when you summoned me to Macedonia, or for judging the men of
Athens a salt preferable to your table.  For I did not do this out of
arrogance or love of glory. . .

Letter 16.  To Apolexis, greetings:  I asked you about a dwelling. 
Thank you for undertaking to arrange one.  But when I saw a snail, I
found a house to keep off the wind.  I mean the earthenware jug in the
Metroon.  So consider yourself discharged from this service and
rejoince with me over my discovery of nature. (Ps-Diogenes trans., by
B. Fiore).


And so on and on.  Admittedly, not all the letters contain such
personalia, but many do, scattered among those that are more general
in content.  The PE seem quite at home in this sort of setting.


So, Perry, if you're looking for bricks to build with, I commend these
to you.

XPIC

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