Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Peter and Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Peter and Paul
  • Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:56:37 -0400


Jim Hester wrote:

> David Inglis wrote:
>
> > I am disturbed by the number of scholars who base their
> > evidence for pseudonymity on writing style and vocabulary.
>
> Listers might be interested in reading Frank Hughes' paper, "Pseudonymity as
> Rhetoric..." in the archives of JSRCNT (i.e., rhetjournal.uor.edu). Style
> should be viewed in the context of the issues of invention, arrangement and
> delivery. In that context, for example, I find it highly unlikely that the
> persons listed in the opening greetings of Paul's letters are "co-authors."

Really interesting paper. I enjoyed reading it. However, I do have some
problems with the content:

Hughes quotes from Marshall as follows: "When we examine all the
arguments, then, it emerges that neither singly nor cumulatively do they
suffice to disprove Pauline authorship. That 2 Th. contains some unusual
features in style and theology is not to be denied, but that these
features point to pseudonymous authorship is quite another matter." and
then also states: Marshall examined the arguments of Trilling one by one,
and then concluded that the "unusual features in style and theology" were
not unusual enough to "point to pseudonymous authorship."

(The above is basically my position)

Hughes then examines the "phenomenon of pseudonymity" in detail, and
towards the end of the paper states: "As far as we can tell, it would have
been no large jump from the reworking of ideas to the reworking of whole
sections of literature. The clearest example of this in the pseudopauline
literature is the literary use of 1 Thessalonians by the author of 2
Thessalonians, if not the literary use of Colossians by Ephesians."

However, as far as I can see Hughes has failed here to make any connection
between pseudonymity in general and specific Pauline's. He appears to go
from using Marshall's arguments to show why 2 Thess (for example) should
be viewed as genuine, to stating that it is not, without providing any
arguments relating to the subject of his paper to show why that is the
case.

I don't doubt that much pseudonymous Christian literature did exist, but I
don't see that Hughes has here provided any evidence for any specific
Pauline actually being pseudopigraphic. Clearly, showing that
pseudopigraphic Christian literature did exist and showing that some of
the Pauline's are pseudopigraphic are totally different things. So, given
the above, could I ask:

1) Have I missed something crucial?
2) What is it about this paper that convinces you that the people listed
in the opening greetings of the Pauline's are not co-authors?

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page