Corpus-Paul

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

On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 Richard Fellows wrote:

>One paper which argues that they were forgeries is Eduard Verhoef
>"Pseudepigraphy and Canon" Biblische Notizen, Heft 106, 2001. He quotes
>Ehrman (The New Testament 343): "Forgers typically added elements of
>verisimilitude to their works [...] In a forged epistle, for example, such
>comments might include off-the-cuff references to an event that the reader
>could be expected to recognize as having happened to the alleged author."
>
This may be true, but fairly obviously this could equally apply to genuine
letters, and so cannot be used to determine whether any of the Paulines are
forgeries or not.
>
>I think it is clear that the author of the PE had read the Corinthian
>correspondence and that his texts shows that he misinterpreted it in
several
>places. In places the PE fit with 1 Cor, but they do so only superficially.
>For example, the author has Paul leave Timothy in Ephesus, which accords
>with 1 Cor 16:10-11, but Acts 19:22 and 2 Cor indicate that Timothy did not
>stay in Ephesus.

I'm sorry, but here you're assuming facts that are not in evidence.  You're
building a case based on the Paulines referring to events in the Acts
time-frame, without providing the evidence to prove that this was indeed so.

>The author seems to take small details from the genuine letters and make
>plausible extensions to them. But his mistakes betray him. The same is true
>of the way the author of Colossians used the names which he took from
>Philemon.

...only if you assume your chronology.  You need to provide evidence for
that first.

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