Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's Gospel

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's Gospel
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:11:19 -0700 (PDT)


[Harold]
>>> Having read 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus for many
>>> years, along with the rest of Paul's letters, I
>>> am quite comfortable with the idea that
>>> they are what they claim to be.

[Elli]
>> I've been wondering in connection with several
>> strands on this list whether we need to inform list
>> participants of some of the basics of scholarly
>> consensus in the field. I would hope that we could
>> assume that our discussion of Paul proceeds from
>> the seven undisputed letters... Romans, 1st & 2nd
>> Corinthians, Galatians, 1st Thessalonians,
>> Philippians, Philemon. If you want to introduce
>> evidence from the other letters attributed to Paul,
>> an argument needs to be made that the letter is
>> Paul's own. Such arguments need to be based on
>> evidence, and it's a very uphill battle against
>> a general consensus that has stood the test of a
>> time.

[John]
> This outdated opnion is very far from being a
> consensus. I refer you to an excellent study that
> provides very strong evidence that all Pauline
> epistles are from the same author...[snip]

I agree with John -- there is really no "consensus" we
can speak of here. Frankly, I'm inclined to reverse
Elli's rule: the burden of proof lies on those who
would dispute the authenticity of a letter attributed
to Paul. My own canon is a ten-letter one which
excludes the pastorals. I acknowledge along with
Harold that a case can be made for the pastorals'
authenticity, but the cumulative force of arguments
against it has been, to me, persuasive. While perhaps
allowing for an excpetional fragment preserved in II
Timothy, I would deny Pauline authorship to I & II
Timothy and Titus:

1. The events and itinerary in these letters are
difficult (for me, impossible) to reconcile with Acts.
I realize that for people like John Hurd and Elli
Elliot, this is a non-argument. But we've discussed
the use of Paul in conjunction with Luke in past
threads. Richard Fellows, in particular, has had much
to say on the matter in response to John Hurd. Suffice
for now to say that I believe John Knox's infamous
edict -- that Acts, as a source for Paul's thought and
itinerary, should be put to the torch -- is in need of
serious reappraisal.

2. The language used in the pastorals (again, with the
possible exception of the II Tim fragment) doesn't
sound at all like Paul -- whatever allowances we make
for a possible increased "quietude of style" coming
from old age.

3. There are the well-known arguments from linguistic
and vocabulary analysis. P.N. Harrison found 175 words
in the pastorals used nowhere else in the NT, and,
conversely, 131 words in the pastorals used by other
NT authors -- but not Paul. Harrison believed, in
fact, that only 50 words throughout the entire
pastoral corpus could be classified as distinctively
Pauline. Generally I find linguistic arguments of this
sort to be dicey (try doing linguistic comparisons
from my own various correspondences -- you may
conclude I'm schizophrenic). However, the data here is
admittedly forceful, and when taken in conjunction
with the above points, the case for Pauline authorship
dwindles.

Arguments can be made against Ephesians and
Colossians, but I haven't found them persuasive. And
some of the arguments used against II Thessalonians
can in fact be pressed into the service of the
opposite conclusion. In any case, let's be careful
with apriori assumptions about a "seven-letter" canon.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page