Corpus-Paul

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

On Sat, 5 Apr Jim Miller wrote:

>    This is also a good forum to discuss what they may have thought about
>works we call pseudepigrapha.  A few things discussed here seem to
contribute
>little to this question.  For instance, the Pastorals place themselves in
the
>story of Paul by referencing people and events mentioned in his letters and
>Acts.  This would happen if the Pastorals were genuinely Pauline, if they
>were open fictions (widely known to be pseudepigraphs and meant to be read
as
.such), or if they were produced in order to fool most readers into thinking
>they were Pauline.  Also, the Pastorals borrow some language, arguments,
and
>key Scripture references from Paul's writings.  Again this would happen if
>they were genuine, open fictions, or deceptive fictions.
>
>    I would like to muddy the waters by introducing a couple of other
>options.  They may have been partially open fictions.  There might have
been
>an in-group who were expected to understand that the Pastorals were
fictions,
>and the in-group may not have cared whether outsiders took them as genuine.
>Otherwise they may have been digests of Paul's teaching published by his
>close associates  Would that be a true pseudepigraph?  Some of the works of
>Aristotle are actually notes compiled by Theophastos and other followers,
and
>they are not treated as pseudepigraphs.  And the Pastorals may be both -- a
>compilation known by the in-group to be written by Paul's associates, but
if
>outsiders are fooled -- what would be the problem?
>    How do we figure out which option hits closest to the mark?

Jim,

This is the real key question here, IMHO.  Which of the above possibilities
is most probable?  Unless we have real proof that pseudepigraphy and/or
forgery was commonplace around this time, don't we have to start with the
presupposition that the Paulines are genuine, and only resort to non-genuine
status if no other 'solution' works?  Just showing that *some*
pseudepigraphical works existed in the right genre and the right time-frame
isn't enough - even if this was the case then all it means is that it is
*possible* some of the Paulines were not by Paul, not that it is *probable*,
or even *likely*.

Dave Inglis
davidinglis2 AT attbi.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, 94549