Corpus-Paul

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

Steve Black wrote:
[snip]
> 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".

Steve,

I don't want to sound 'picky', but just how do we know this?  In other
words, do we have a large number of people admitting that they did this,
or people stating that they knew someone who did, or is there some other
actual evidence?  Alternatively, are we in the position when many genuine
document are declared pseudepigrahic just because they are 'different' in
some way?

> 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?

Isn't this irrelevant?  Who ever said any of the gospel writers ever
intended to produce a historical record?

> 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")

Who said "explained away"?  Just say "explained", which it can be.

> 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.

This is faulty reasoning.  These points should not be connected like this.
 For example, the theology issue is independent of the language issue.  In
fact *all* the issues stand and fall on their own, and *cannot* be 'added
up' in the way you appear to be doing.  If there is a satisfactory Pauline
explanation for each issue then it doesn't matter how many issues there
are, the answer is still Pauline.  This is why juries aren't allowed to
know defendants criminal records - so that each case is treated on it's
merits.

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