Corpus-Paul

[JOxford AT net1plus.com (Jim Oxford)]

At 10:06 5/10/99, Perry L. Stepp wrote:

>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.)

Hi Perry,

Do not the non-disputed Pauline letters themselves evince that there
existed among the nascent churches disputes over matters pertaining to
sabbath observance, circumcision, end times, etc.?  I'm not so sure that I
concur with your assumption about homogeneity "from the earliest days."
Furthermore, why is it necessary for you to assume such homogeneity?  It
seems to me that one does not have to assume anything, but does have to
demonstrate that on the particular issue of pseudonymous letter writing,
there existed either approbation or disapprobation (or both?) for the
practice.

I hope things are progressing well with your dissertation.

Regards,

Jim


Jim Oxford
Ph D candidate in NT
Baylor University
joxford AT net1plus.com