Corpus-Paul

["Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D." <smcginn AT jcu.edu>]

George Goolde wrote:

> I practice canonicity before I practice exegesis.
>

I don't follow this at all.  As a previous poster mentioned (I forget who), 
the canon
is a given.  I am not the "rule" for the canon; rather, the canon provides 
the "rule"
for me.  And, it is an historical given, therefore, I need to understand its 
materials
in light of its history of development.

> I do understand that to be considered the "Word of God"  a writing must be
> authentic, that is, it must be what it purports to be.
>

My sense is that the folks who composed the NT canon were interested in the 
authority
of the content; that is what they would mean by a writing "being what it 
purports to
be," i.e., the word of God (not Paul, or Mark, or whomever).

> If the PE were not authored by Paul, then whoever authored lied about their 
> source ....
>

My understanding of the widespread use of pseudonymity in the ancient world 
suggests
that your conclusions here are idiosyncratic.  The "source" of this teaching 
was
"Paul," it is just that Paul himself never said it in so many words.  The 
common
predilection of young Christians in the US to use "WWJD" as a rule of thumb 
is a
better comparison with the practice of pseudonymous letter-writing.  Now, 
someone may
very well be mistaken about an assertion that, in a given situation, behavior 
X really
IS what Jesus would do.  That doesn't make their assessment a "lie."  It may 
be
ill-founded, confused, or a variety of other things; duplicity need not enter 
into it
at all.

Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Biblical Studies & Early Christianity
John Carroll University
Cleveland, Ohio 44118
smcginn AT jcu.edu
www1.jcu.edu/religion/mcginn/mcginn.htm

"It didn't take long to see morality as the quickest way to avoid 
self-loathing."
     Sue Grafton, "L" is for Lawless (New York: Holt, 1995), 205.