How do the Pastoral Epistles fit with a 2nd Century origin for the earliest "Pauline" Writings?

[neilgodfrey]

I want to reformulate the question I think ABudhhist was suggesting: If the Pastoral epistles were written at the same time as the seven generally accepted epistles, why are the seven so much better at maintaining the illusion that they are early? Why don't they also assume the developed hierarchy of the later church?

The short answer in my mind is Marcion. There is no evidence for Paul's activity until the testimony of Marcion. (Aristides and Justin know only the myth of the Twelve laying the foundations of the church by spreading the word throughout the empire.) The Pastorals are from a different quarter to the Marcionite epistles and arguably to some extent a reaction against Marcionism. What appears to be evidence of an evolution in church organization within the different letters is better explained as differences of provenance. (And then we have the anti-Marcionite responses with "clarifications" added to some of those letters, too.) "Better explained", I think, because we have independent evidence supporting this explanation against the silence and apparent ignorance of a Pauline activity prior to Marcion.

Certainly, there were several hands involved in producing the collection, and you point to some of the evidence for that fact. I think even those epistles that are considered the "most authentic", such as Romans, also betray evidence of multiple hands or certainly multiple sources. Take Romans 9-11 for example: here we find an echo in Justin's writings but Justin, despite his knowledge of Marcion, does not appear to have any knowledge of Paul or the letters. The simplest solution that I have found is that both Justin and the author of Romans 9-11 were using a common source. And that source, far from containing any "illusion of earliness", seems strongly to infer either a post 70 or even a post 135 date.

Romans also speaks in ch. 8 of persecution to death for the leaders of the churches. That's not early (except in the mythical portrayal of Acts). Nor is the claim that the church of Rome is renowned for its faith throughout the world.

The other questions you raise are responses to hypotheticals and involve in how we understand the presence and status of Paul in the churches. My primary point, though, is the total silence on Paul until the second century and examining how the independent evidence for Paul helps explain the different characteristics of the letters in the collection.

Ken -- I expected a complete demolishment of my response from you. Are you still preparing it? I will hold my breath and wait for the blow. Or have I simply not addressed the main points you were making. I admit I did not specifically address each of your points and the reason was that I thought my scenario made those points "beside the point"/moot. But maybe not. I admit I am testing ideas here that I have not before publicly expressed, so I am quite prepared to learn that there are many holes in my response that I have failed to notice.

[Ken Olson]

Ken -- I expected a complete demolishment of my response from you. Are you still preparing it? I will hold my breath and wait for the blow. Or have I simply not addressed the main points you were making. I admit I did not specifically address each of your points and the reason was that I thought my scenario made those points "beside the point"/moot. But maybe not. I admit I am testing ideas here that I have not before publicly expressed, so I am quite prepared to learn that there are many holes in my response that I have failed to notice.

Neil,

Well, no, I' haven't been preparing a response. I sometimes do take a long time preparing posts and I have several unposted works-in-progress on my machine. In most cases, I haven't posted them because I had more pressing matters to address, or I thought too much time had passed and the forum had moved on from the issue, or I did not wish to commit myself to a long (and potentially acrimonious) exchange, or some combination of those.

None of that is the case here. In this case, I thought your initial reply to ABuddhist was on why you don't accept the seven generally accepted Paulines, which didn't seem to address what he was asking. I thought the question of why, if the Seven and the Pastorals are all all second century pseudepigraphs, do they look so different from each other and why is the pseudepigraphy much more obvious in the latter (and especially 1 Timothy) was a good one. And you did address that issue in your post, and I was (mostly) satisfied with your response.

Which isn't the same as saying I agree with you.

Now that I think about it, I do have a follow up question. Do you conceive of the Seven as the works of an actual Paul who lived in the second century, or that the Seven are fictional works of a fictional Paul, or pseudepigraphs written in the name of an actual Paul (and when did he live)? Did one person write all of them (or at least the majority of their content)?

Best,

Ken

[ABuddhist]

Some scholars have suggested that Marcion himself may even have written the letters of Paul.

Which scholars? Are any of them non-mythicists?

[Ken Olson]

In Galatians he's signing the letter and probably drawing attention to the large letters he uses to emphasize how amazed he is at the Galatians behavior (as in Gal. 1.1). It's like writing in bold or all caps.

That’s the ticket

After I posted this, I noticed that the NRSV punctuates Galatians 6.1 with an exclamation point:

See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!

But the older RSV does not. I decided to look at the currently best selling English translations to see if they use an exclamation point or not.

The KJV does not use an exclamation point, but the NKJV does, as does the NIV and the NASB.

But the surprise was in how Galatians 6.1 was rendered in the The Message and the New Living Translation.

The Message:

Now, in these last sentences, I want to emphasize in the bold scrawls of my personal handwriting the immense importance of what I have written to you.

The New Living Translation (with a bit of the surrounding context):

Galatians 6.1 - New Living Translation.png (77.92 KiB) Viewed 1991 times

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NLT

Best,

Ken

[andrewcriddle]

These threads
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3557
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7512
discuss whether Justin Martyr knew Paul's epistles.

(Answer probably yes unless our present texts of Paul have been interpolated on the basis of Justin.)

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Galatians 6:11
See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!

1 Corinthians 16:22
I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.

This would only seem to authenticate the autograph rather than later copies. I.E. Unless a letter in the 2nd century claims to be the original with a visible distinction between the main text and Paul's own handwriting it doesn't really authenticate that letter.

The question raised by Ken was whether the text of 7 epistles “show a concern with needing to authenticate themselves.” This is a different matter from “really authenticating the letter” (if we had autographs).

Are you saying that such a concern is not expressed in the verses cited?

The overt purpose is to express Paul's feelings and concern. It might be intended to serve a less overt purpose.

Andrew Criddle

[billd89]

A mature, prosperous adult Age ~35/40 in 140 AD diligently inherits & collects obscure 'unknown' literature composed 50-100yrs earlier. De facto, M.'s Pauline material is of First C. composition.

We (who have been shaped by the Internet Age) need to abandon all false presumptions of Late Dating, esp. the instantaneous folly, the 'Fallacy of Yesterday'. Instead, logically perceive how, in Antiquity, "...many decades passed ..."

[Irish1975]

A mature, prosperous adult Age ~35/40 in 140 AD diligently collects obscure 'unknown' literature composed 50-100yrs earlier. De facto, M.'s Pauline material is of First C. composition.

We need to abandoned all false presumptions of Late Dating, esp. the instantaneous folly, the 'Fallacy of Yesterday'. Instead, logically perceive how "...many decades passed ..."

Sorry but your “rule of thumb” that, for the epistles and for all ancient texts, one must backdate them from the evidence by some arbitrary number of decades is not “logic.” It’s just your assumption.

If you don’t have an evidence-based argument for 1st century dating of the epistles, just admit it.

[Irish1975]

Clearly my attempts at sarcasm failed to get through, so I’ll be direct. This “emoji theory” of Galatians 6:11, bolstered by an appeal to modern Christian English translations — I don’t even know what to say about how ridiculous this is.

Galatians 6:11
See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!

1 Corinthians 16:22
I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.

none of the seven show this concern with needing to authenticate themselves at a time when false letters of Paul are known to be circulating

This is not a serious argument. Anyone not blinded by prejudice can see that these verses express a “concern with needing to authenticate” the letters in which they appear. Whether or not they were actually written by our Authentic Apostolic Author.

It is true, but not relevant to your claim, that other letters like 2 Thessalonians are more flagrantly phony.

[Irish1975]

Galatians 6:11
See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand!

1 Corinthians 16:22
I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.

This would only seem to authenticate the autograph rather than later copies. I.E. Unless a letter in the 2nd century claims to be the original with a visible distinction between the main text and Paul's own handwriting it doesn't really authenticate that letter.

The question raised by Ken was whether the text of 7 epistles “show a concern with needing to authenticate themselves.” This is a different matter from “really authenticating the letter” (if we had autographs).

Are you saying that such a concern is not expressed in the verses cited?

The overt purpose is to express Paul's feelings and concern. It might be intended to serve a less overt purpose.

Andrew Criddle

Feelings about what? Concerns about what?

Your response doesn’t indicate whether or not you think that these verses are in fact claims to authenticity.