Corpus-Paul

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

It seems to me that one of the facets of our discussion(s) of pseudonymity
and the canonical Pauline corpus deserves to be unpacked further.  To wit:
what evidence is there that pseudonymity was an accepted device in the
developing church in the first century?  (And yes, I'm assuming the
existence of a generally "orthodox", homogenous body of Christianity from
the earliest days.)

There is a group of studies of which I'm aware which attempt to answer this
question on the basis of roughly contemporaneous evidence--Donelson, Meade,
even Bauckham's commentary on 2 Peter in the WBC series.

The general read I get from these is that there may have been forms of
non-deceptive pseudonymity that were accepted in the early church (i.e., 2
Peter is a testament, pseudonymity was accepted in testamentary literature,
ergo 2 Peter could have been accepted as a document with non-deceptive
pseudonymous authorship).  But there is no evidence (apart from the oft
assumed pseudonymity of the PE, etc.) that the church accepted non-deceptive
pseudonymity in the production of letters.  Correct or incorrect?

If my understanding is correct, then aren't many left where Donelson
was--i.e., trying to justify intentionally deceptive pseudonymity?

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