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

[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

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.

Paul's deep concerns about the spread of error among the Galatians, Paul's affectionate feelings towards the Corinthians.

At face value they are meant to personalize the message, to make the recipients feel in closer contact with Paul.
In principle they could really be intended to authenticate a pseudonymous work although I have expressed my reservations as to whether it would actually be likely to convince people.

Andrew Criddle

[Ken Olson]

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,

No, I thought you were probably being sarcastic, but decided not to address it because (1) sarcasm is not an argument and (2) I thought I might be able to forestall this discussion from becoming an exchange of snark. So let me try another way.

Are you saying that Galatians 6.11 and 1 Cor. 16.22 are proof that there were false letters circulating under Paul's name at the time they were written? If so, how do you know that?

Best,

Ken

[neilgodfrey]

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

Thanks for the response, Ken. No problems -- my initial reply was very much a setting down of first-thoughts and I was not confident it would hold up in your eyes given your extra reading and study on the question, so I was really expecting someone to make swiss cheese of it. I was wondering if I had even hit the target when there was little response.

I am not really committed to any view on Paul but at this moment I happen to be playing more with the second century hypothesis for the letters of Paul and part of that thinking is that no, there was "historical Paul" at any period. He was entirely a literary-theological creation. Perhaps for Marcionites he became a foundation myth that was embraced by Luke.

I found myself in "good company" when reading how the emerging Dutch radicals questioned how anyone knew that the "touchstone" epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Cor and Gal) were "definitely" by Paul such that all other epistles were compared for their genuineness by comparison with them. I had long held the same question. The best I have seen for that "touchstone" belief is the "character" and "personality" that enthuses them. Why assume such a personality is the historical Paul's, I've always wondered.

I see the letters of Paul being the product of a "school" or rival schools, hence the differences, much like the different prophets of the OT (I'm thinking of the Scribal Schools of P.R. Davies). And like those different prophet writings, several of the letters were in some sense in dialogue with one another.

But shop is still open and I am always keen to take on board new arguments for consideration.

[neilgodfrey]

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

Which scholars? Are any of them non-mythicists?

I would have to do some digging to recollect which ones, sorry. One thing the Dutch Radicals had in common was their denial of the authenticity of Paul's letters and the placing of them in the second century. But only a tiny handful of them also argued for the non-historicity of Jesus. So I would expect the ones I am thinking of, on probability, were non-mythicists.

[neilgodfrey]

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

Or the authors of the letters and Justin knew of a common source.... which I think is a more coherent explanation given the different contexts of the passages in common.

[neilgodfrey]

The Pastoral epistles also allude in 1 place to a story from the gospels. When were the Pastoral epistles written according to those who date all Pauline letters to the 2nd century CE? Were they written around the same time for the same communities? A few decades later? In the 3rd century CE? Something else?

An article that went a long way to persuading me that the Pastoral Epistles were written in some sort of conjunction with Luke-Acts is (I have just discovered) online at https://archive.org/details/perspective ... 2/mode/2up

• Quinn, Jerome D. “The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles.” In Perspectives on Luke-Acts, edited by Charles H. Talbert, 62–73. Danville, VA: Mercer Univ Pr, 1980.

Quinn dates Luke-Acts far more conservatively than I think is necessary. As you know, I take canonical Luke-Acts as a mid-second century work.

[neilgodfrey]

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

Thanks for the reminder of these threads. I went over them again and notice that they only address one facet of the Justin-Pauline epistles relationship, that is, the quotations and allusions to OT passages. What I think is more significant is different theological perspectives of the same material. One example: Justin cites the same Genesis passages re circumcision as does Paul but Justin's perspective is very distinctive from Paul's -- Justin (Trypho 16) says that circumcision is a sign to separate the Jews so they are to be marked for physical punishment for their ungodliness.

That is but one example but there are others. Arguments can and are made to explain these differences as a consequence of Justin writing in a different time period with different backgrounds in view (e.g. the Bar Kochba war). The more often such arguments need to be made alongside the failure of Justin to match the same theological meaning Paul expressed tilts in favour towards Justin not knowing or using Paul's epistles, in my view.

[Giuseppe]

An argument I find persuasive to date Paul before the 70 is that paulines are probably attacked in the incipit of Revelation (they are called nicolaites, not coincidentially Acts makes Nicolas a pauline), and the latter is dated to 70 CE.

[neilgodfrey]

An argument I find persuasive to date Paul before the 70 is that paulines are probably attacked in the incipit of Revelation (they are called nicolaites, not coincidentially Acts makes Nicolas a pauline), and the latter is dated to 70 CE.

I have begun a new series on Vridar with Witulski's case arguing that Revelation dates post the Bar Kochba war.

Acts is also most likely second century, too, of course.

[Giuseppe]

An argument I find persuasive to date Paul before the 70 is that paulines are probably attacked in the incipit of Revelation (they are called nicolaites, not coincidentially Acts makes Nicolas a pauline), and the latter is dated to 70 CE.

I have begun a new series on Vridar with Witulski's case arguing that Revelation dates post the Bar Kochba war.

Acts is also most likely second century, too, of course.

a difficulty with Witulski's case is that there would be already evidence, in 2° century, that the Elkasaites were anti-Roman in ways resembling the violent tones of Revelation. However, the Elkasaites had a developed christology (Christ as a giant), whereas the Christology of Revelation appears to be very more naive (Jesus has the form not even of a man, but of an animal).