Corpus-Paul

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

From: Jim Oxford <JOxford AT net1plus.com>


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


Ox responded:
>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."

My point in referring to homogeneity is that some, following Baur (e.g.,
Ehrman, *Orthodox Corruption*) paint such a diverse picture of early
Christianity that it's often absurd to suggest that even a majority of
"early Christendom" held any single attitude about anything.  (I exaggerate
slightly to make my point.)

I agree that there was a great deal of diversity in 1st century
Christianity.  But I do not think that acknowledging the existence of said
diversity means we cannot look for a core of orthodoxy adhered to by most
first-century churches.

And I suggest that part of that orthodoxy, as relates to this issue, was a
shared attitude toward the locus of authority in the authorship of personal
epistles and a distrust of pseudepigraphy.

PLStepp