Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>]

Mr David Amador wrote:

>>Let's turn it around: who would have forged a Pauline letter after 
Paul's
lifetime? That seems to me to be a very dubious "ethos" risk. And yet, I
can think of several reasons why Paul would have been worried to hear that
teaching purporting to be coming from him had disturbed the 
Thessalonikoi.<<

I am reminded of Eusebuis' Church History, Bk IV, Ch XXIII, quoting 
Hegesippus to the effect: "And first we must speak of Dionysius,  1 who was 
appointed bishop of the church in Corinth ... 4 ... And there is extant 
another epistle of his addressed to the Nicomedians, in which he attacks 
the heresy of Marcion, and stands fast by the canon of 5 the truth [does he 
mean approved NT books?]. [...] 10 [...] In this same epistle he makes 11 
mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had 
been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are 
as follows: "To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have 
read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to 
draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written 'to us 
through Clement." The same writer 12 also speaks as follows concerning his 
own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: "As the brethren 
desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of 
the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding 
others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at 
if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings [???] also, since 
they have formed designs even against writings which are of less 
accounts."

It is hard for me to say whether Dionysus is still defending the "canon of 
truth" against the editing of Marcion, or some other text, as either 
Eusebius or Hegesippus seems to have quoted Dionysus out of context. Even 
so, it does suggest that Dionysus' own epistles were being altered in his 
own lifetime, and implies that much the same was being done to the "Lord's 
writings" <whatever he may mean by that>.

It seems to me that there is little difference between the motivation for 
an "apostle of the devil" to alter epistles of living authors, than for a 
dead one. It would probably be easier, seeing that the author is not able 
to defend himself.

As for the whole corpus of Pauline epistles themselves, I also have to ask 
myself whether the passing of time would have made forgery, or even 
outright embellishment, all the more easier.

This might be especially true if the author of the epistles was for a 
period unpopular, and then was rehabilitated. It would then be a tempting 
thing for a publisher to "update" the old letters to conform with current 
orthodoxy, or to present Paul as a kind of mentor to new church leaders by 
creating plausable epistles to that effect.

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, OH, USA
Dhindley AT compuserve.com