Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Pseudonymity

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: Pseudonymity
  • Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:10:20


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



  • Pseudonymity, David Amador, 04/28/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Pseudonymity, David C. Hindley, 04/29/1999
    • Re: Pseudonymity, Frank W. Hughes, 04/30/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page