Corpus-Paul

["Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>]

Deaer Steve,

You wrote:

<<<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 (then?) 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 am not sure that raising the issue of conservative / non-conservative is
helpful. Surely we all have something to contribute. While I would be
considered a conservative because I hold to Pauline authorship of all the
books generally attributed to him, my reasons for doing so are hardly
conservative positions. There are many things that I could respond to but
I would like briefly to address your threefold reason for deciding against
Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles,  i.e., the language, the
social/political situation and the ecclesiastical development, and hope
that I may provide some *light*.

What I am suggesting in my ‘Redating the Revelation and…’ (RTRA) is that a
significant change happened which necessitated the changes seen in the
pastorals. In my book - which began as a timid enquiry into the
possibility that the Revelation could have preceded the Gospel of John (I
was not at all confident) - I argue that the evidence points to an early
Revelation, i.e. possibly as early as the first half of the sixties. That
meant that it must have been contemporary with a number of epistles
thought to have been written around that time. The connections that then
became obvious between the Revelation and a number of epistles allowed a
reconstruction of the 60s and the reconstruction determined the precision
of the dates.

Given that the apostles always had an expectation that they would see the
return of Christ, the giving of the Revelation only heightened that
expectation. Not only would Christ return, however, but the Church would
first go through the time of extreme tribulation Jesus had warned about
(e.g. Matt 24, Mk 13). The world system would turn against the believers
(Rev 13). The Church, then, needed to prepare itself for this difficult
time and Paul was a primary part of that preparation. Key people were
placed in strategic positions to give leadership during the comings
trials, this was the beginning of what we now see as the monarchical
episcopate which emerges in the letters to Timothy and Titus. The
predominant troublemakers for Timothy (i.e. in Ephesus) were apostate
Jewish Christians who had syncretised their Christianity with Jewish myths
and Hellenistic Gnosticism. (I suspect Paul was not allowed into Asia
[Acts 16:6] because the fermentation process which produced this group was
not yet complete).

The social/political environment came into a new focus  because of the
tensions that the Church understood would soon be evident between them and
the state. It was necessary for the believers to be unprovocative – not to
be unnecessarily provocative – and to live at peace with the community at
large, hence the encouragement to pray for secular authorities and
maintain social order, e.g 1 Tim 2:1-3, Tit 3:1-2. Such peace where they
could attain it would not only be most beneficial to the believers but
part of their witness to the world.

I am not sure what you mean by change of language. If you mean the vitriol
towards the false teachers then it was necessary to counter those groups.
If the Revelation was as early as I claim (mid 62), then the Nicolaitans
were certainly active then (Rev 2:6,15). They were apostate Jewish
Christians who had syncretised their faith with Essene-like speculations
and Hellenistic Gnosticism. We have been wrong to assign Gnosticism to the
second century. It may have continued to develop, but the Nicolaitans held
a well-established Gnosticism in the 60s of the first century (in RTRA I
have a 40 page appendix drawing this out).

If the language in other areas has changed, it was not a new author but
the new situation is that demanded it.

I think that should be sufficient for now.

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au