Corpus-Paul

["David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>]

Edgar Krentz wrote:

> >Edgar,
> >
> >Although I believe your reply was directed to Kym, I would like to answer
> >on my own behalf. I believe I am aware of all of the arguments for and
> >against the status of the Paulines (although of course I haven't read
> >everything there is to say on the matter).  My understanding is that the
> >prevailing opinion regarding these 3 letters is not as cut-and-dried as
> >you suggest, and is actually as follows:
> >
> >Philemon:    Most likely by Paul
> >Colossians:  Probably not by Paul
> >2 Timothy:   Almost certainly not by Paul
> 
> I would agree with the above evaluation, only say that Philemon is 
> almost certainly by Paul.

I agree with you regarding Philemon.
> 
> >My own opinion is that none of the evidence I have seen makes a strong
> >enough case to overturn the presupposition that these letters are genuine,
> >and that all the 'evidence against' is in fact explainable in terms of
> >Pauline authorship.  If I can briefly talk about 2 Tim, I largely follow
> >the reasoning of Dan Wallace regarding the pastorals in general (see
> >http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1timotl.htm), although I would make a
> >stronger case that 2 Tim should not be 'lumped in' with 1 Tim and Titus
> >when discussing authenticity.
> 
> I find it almost impossible to draw the conclusions you do above. The 
> linguistic character of Ephesians, an the pastorals is so different 
> from the rest of Paul's letters. The theological positions are so 
> different from Paul. The problems faced, especially in the pastorals, 
> are so different. It would take too much time to give the details.

I agree.  We have different points of view, and without new evidence I
think we are unlikely to convince each other.  However, I'm happy to try.
> 
> >In particular I side with Dan on the issue of motive.  Once someone had
> >forged 1 Tim, why would anyone then forge Titus (which mostly covers the
> >same issues), and even more so, why then forge 2 Tim as well?  Also, why
> >write a letter mentioning so many of Paul's companions (or people he had
> >met) - 20 if I've counted correctly?  Every additional person mentioned
> >adds to the risk that some reader of 2 Tim would know (of have information
> >about) that person, increasing the risk that the letter would be exposed
> >as a forgery.  Sorry, but I really can't see it.
> 
> First of all, I do not regard the Pastorals as forgeries; that is a 
> highly loaded term with implications of moral turpitude. I hold that 
> they are letters written by later followers of Paul to address a new 
> situation. They are pseudepigrapha, a type of writing that honors the 
> one they name.

I'm at all not happy with this distinction.  The Pastorals are not just
written in the style of Paul, or to honor him.  That could be easily done
without all the personal details.  If not actually by Paul, then they are
deliberate creations intended to make the readers think they were written
by Paul, i.e. forgeries.

> It is seen on the Psalter of the OT, in early Judaism, 
> in the Greek world, and so is a recognized convention.

It may be a recognized convention, but that should not be used as evidence
that the Pastorals are pseudepigrapha.  All it means is that they would
not be unique if they were.

> ["Forge," by 
> the way, is not a verb meaning to compose a forgery.]

...Then you are using a different dictionary to mine, which says:  "forge
2 v. make or write in fraudulent imitation; shape by heating and
hammering." and for fraud gives:  "fraud n. criminal deception; dishonest
trick; impostor; disappointing person etc.
> 
> Why Titus after 1 Timothy? Because, as the letters themselves 
> indicate, they are addressed to different geographic areas. You 
> cannot suppose that a document written to the area of Ephesus is also 
> known very quickly in Crete.

But this again brings up the issue of forgery.  If 1 Tim was simply
intended to 'honor Paul', why write Titus?  There is absolutely no need to
write both these letters unless were really was an attempt to deceive the
readers into thinking Paul had written them.  The geographic issue is only
important if deception is in mind.
 
> One of the things that disturbs me at the moment about Corpus 
> Paulinum is the dominance of people writing in who are more concerned 
> with maintaining very conservative positions in historical 
> reconstruction than in discussing issues in pauline theology

I for one am not in the slightest bit interested in 'maintaining very
conservative positions'.  I'm simply arguing the position as I see it.  If
there is such a dominance, then that suggests to me that the proponents of
other points of view are not putting up arguments strong enough to
overturn the 'conservative positions'.
[snip]
> What disturbs me, I guess, is that the discussion seems to have 
> become so very conservative that main line scholars no longer seem 
> attracted to the site, as they were when it first began. And that 
> disappoints.

I hope you're not suggesting that the 'conservatives' are hijacking the
site and should 'back off'.  And I hope you're not suggesting that no
'main line scholars' are conservative.  And I also hope that these 'main
line scholars' are not simply staying away because they can't stand the
heat.

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