Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Acceptable Pseudonymity?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Perry L. Stepp" <plstepp AT flash.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Acceptable Pseudonymity?
  • Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:00:07 -0400


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








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page