Corpus-Paul

[Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku AT globalserve.net>]

On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Perry L. Stepp wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimi Fosdick
> 
> >> I have for some time been aware of the general scholarly concensus
> that >> the so-called "pastoral" epistles (I&II Tim, Titus) are not
> authentically >> Pauline, which is to say not written by HP. I am
> wondering what the >>degree >> of certainty is regarding the other
> letters of the Pauline corpus.
> 
> I don't know if we can really talk about "certainty"--some of us still
> regard the Pastorals as proceeding from the historical Paul.  I might
> point out that I. Howard Marshall (author of the forthcoming
> International Critical Commentary on the Pastorals) falls into that
> camp, as do/did Bruce, Fee, Spicq, Guthrie, E. E. Ellis, and Luke T.
> Johnson--all respected scholars.

Dear Perry,

It is interesting that so many modern scholars, including presumably
yourself, still regard the Pastorals as authentic. And I suppose this can
be seen as a positive thing -- an indication that the "Pauline guild" is
not some kind of a closed shop where everyone is supposed to hold the same
views. Indeed, let the 1000 flowers bloom!

But perhaps it is appropriate here to express some concern about the
proportionality. Indeed, if the variety is the spice of life in Pauline
scholarship, as it should be, isn't it a little troubling that so few
scholars today express any doubts or reservations about the authenticity
of the hallowed "Authentic 7" epistles? 

It's all well, it seems, for some scholars to diverge from the "normative
mainstream opinion" on the conservative side, but, unfortunately, we find
almost no similar deviations on the authenticity-critical side. Such a
"disproportionality" is to be regretted in my view.

Once again, I refer listmembers to the excellent article _Pauline
Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity_ by Darrell J. Doughty,

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

After raising the question of how much tolerance exists in the profession

"... for so-called "conservative" scholars, who argue perhaps for the
authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, or the historical reliability of
Acts." 

Doughty writes this (somewhat ironically),

"Such views, however, are easily tolerated under the present paradigm. In
fact, since the existence of any pseudo-Pauline writings places in
question the authenticity of all the writings attributed to Paul, the
articulation of such "conservative" views can be perceived as an
acceptable endeavor to undergird the present paradigm by the incorporation
of still "anomalous" data."

> We *can* say something about consensus, however: the *vast* majority
> of NT scholars accept Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians,
> 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon as proceeding from the historical Paul.  

Yes, this is so, and I don't find too many critical assessments of this
view, unfortunately.

> NT scholars view the following with increasing degrees of suspicion
> (percentages of consensus drawn from Brown's *Introduction*):
> 
> 2 Thess (50% regard as pseudonymous), Colossians (60%), Ephesians
> (80%), 2 Timothy (80% (implied by Brown)), 1 Timothy (90% (implied by
> Brown)), Titus (90% (implied by Brown)).
> 
> To be honest, I think Brown's percentages are a little high.  But they
> *are* his published estimates, and can be quoted and cited as such.

Best wishes,

Yuri. 
                                                         
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
                                
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm                  
                                                         
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian