Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Onesimus and Onesiphorus

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Onesimus and Onesiphorus
  • Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:29:12 -0700


... 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.

One has to start with the fact that writing in the name of an another was a *very* common practice in the ancient world. I haven't done actually any number crunching - but it seems as one surveys the available literature from this time that we have more pseudepigraphical material than we do "authentic". This means that the norms regarding intellectual ownership and the modern morals regarding the use of the name of another are not the same. So although I agree that the pastoral are attempting to "deceive", this deception cannot be measured using modern standards if one wants to understand the phenomenon of pseudepigrapha correctly.

I believe that the clear distinction because writing "fact" and writing "fiction" was not very clear - or certainly not as clear as it is to us. Much (all?) of what they wrote as "history" we would probably feel more comfortable calling "historical fiction". What serious historian would write a scholarly piece in the narrative style of the gospels? I see this same ancient "creativity" at work in pseudepigrapha. The use of words like "forgery" which although technically accurate are absolutely anachronistic.

Regarding the authenticity of the pastorals. For me its a question of cumulative evidence. The different theology reflected in the pastorals could be "explained away" (although I am always deeply suspicious whenever anything starts to be "explained away") were it not also for the fact that the language is also very different from Paul- then add also the social / political situation reflected in these letters which is also very different - and THAN ALSO add the stage of ecclesiastical development which is also very different - any of these by themselves would make me deeply suspicious that Paul was not the author - but put together the matter is clinched for me. Thus the conservative position may present unwelcome *heat* - but it does not provide anything (from my point of view) as far as unwelcome *light* goes. I suspect that we would all be of this opinion were it not for the fact that these documents are part of the NT canon. This is exactly where I see the role of "conservatism" at work in this conversation.


--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page