Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

Dave Inglis says:

>>I believe that many people use Pauline forgery (or pseudepigraphy if you
insist) as an easy 'out' when they come across something that doesn't seem
to fit, and aren't prepared to go back to square one and basically say "Can
I make everything 'fit' on the basis that Paul was involved with writing all
the Paulines?" (Note that I'm here allowing for, say, Luke actually penning
the Pastorals under Paul's direction).  My contention is that it is possible
to make everything fit on this basis, and so although Pauline pseudepigraphy
is possible (I don't see how anyone could ever *prove* that it didn't take
place), it isn't necessary, and indeed isn't probable.<<

Paraphrasing Forrest Gump: "Probable is what probable does." Just as the
assumption of pseudepigraphy* can serve as an "easy out" for data that is at
variance with our preferred solution, for any one individual the
"probability" of some matter seems to improve in proportion to how well it
settles an issue to our satisfaction.

Back in the 70's, when I first started becoming aware of the DSS, it was
thought that the complex organizational structure, including overseers and
elders in leadership roles, provided a close analogy to the episkopoi and
presbuteroi of the pastorals, but also just as clearly preceded any
Christian organization formed in the mid first century CE. It does not seem
to have made any impact at all in NT scholarship's overall estimation of the
pastorals as pseudepigraphic in nature.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

*"Forgery," I think, conveys a different, almost sinister, implication, that
pseudepigraphy does not require)