Gamera

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith]

An interesting example. Let's examine it.

First, 3rd Cor is part and parcel of the Acts of Paul, and seems to have been circulated separately only later.

Second, the usual suspects (Polycarp, Ignatius, etc) don't even mention the AOP, probably because it hadn't been written yet, as it appears to be a mid-2nd century pseudographic.

Third, Tertullean mentions it first, and says outright that a cleric wrote it shortly before his time, and was punished for the falisification. This should be enough to dispose of it. First in time, first in right. Tertullean apparently has firsthand knowledge of the work's origins.

Fourth, as I recollect, AOP isn't represented in any or most of the early canon lists. I recall that 3rd Cor was rejected in the west completely, and as I recall only the Syrian Church, and much later the Amenian church accepted it. (Many of the earliest canon lists exclude all of Paul's writings, but on theological grounds, not authenticity grounds, so several considerations are at play).

I think based on the above, 3 Cor actually fails the step 2 analysis.

Like I say, not so fast. I don't agree that it passes the second step at all. But let's go forward in any case, because you pose an interesting case I hadn't considered.

On its face 3 Cor doesn't "sound" like Paul. Lots of neologisms not found in other epistles or canonical works by other authors for that matter (the "holy apostles" "my Lord Jesus Christ" etc). Does it reach the level of Joyce/Hemmingway distinction? Hard to say. It's somewhat unfair to make any stylistic analysis based on an English translation, and I guess a rigorous analysis would have to be made in Greek (and my biblical Greek simply isn't good enough). It surely is poorly written in relation to the canonical Paul, but even good writers write badly at time. So I suspect it's a close call.

And so let's say 3 Cor isn't rejected because of step 3. It really doesn't bother me. I see nothing in it that appears heterodox. Indeed, it appears to be rather bland and not very probing on any spiritual issues facing Christians. It really wouldn't bother me if 3 Cor were let into the canon (though again, I think Tertullean's rejection is fatal).

The epistle to the Laodiceans is under the "so what?" department. It is virtually without content. So it's impossible to determine whether Paul wrote it or not, and it hardly matters, since it adds nothing to the NT. It's as if we had an authentic post it pad from Paul: would we put it in the canon of inspired writings? Nope.

Remember, there are two issues for canonicity from a Christian perspective. One is authenticity (the issue you're interested in here), the other is quality (i.e., is it inspired and hence does it contribute to the purpose of the NT) -- a larger question that I suspect doesn't interest you her, or rather may seem irrational, but which occupied the early church authorities considerably). Thus, the epistle of Barnabas was considered authentic but ultimately rejected as uninspired (not to mention dull).

I agree. My criticism went to those who see the Pauline canon as the result of imitators imitating imitators of the concept of "Paul," so that there really is no Paul left in the Pauline literature, according to them.

Gamera

3 Cor.

Ben C Smith

That may be, but this text presents 3 Corinthians as a letter of Paul. It states:

Paul therefore, in great affliction, wrote a letter, answering thus:

What follows is 3 Corinthians. This is testimony from century II (A) that there was such a letter and (B) that it was written by Paul.

Agreed. But the question is not whether anybody mentions the Acts of Paul; rather, the question is whether anybody mentions the epistle, 3 Corinthians, for which the Acts of Paul serves as the first testimony.

This is evidence against the Acts of Paul. It is not evidence against the letter that it claims Paul wrote. A spurious work can correctly reference a genuine work.

How do you feel about 2 Peter? It is not mentioned in century II. The first we hear of it, I believe, is from Origen, apud Eusebius, History of the Church 6.25.8:

And Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.

And Eusebius himself writes in 3.3.1:

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other scriptures.

First in time, first in right. If I were to ask you whether the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, would you answer perhaps like Origen? Or no like Eusebius?

I do not think so. Let me remind you of your second step, word for word:

Do later authorities, all of them closer in time to Paul than us, attribute 3 Corinthians to Paul? Yes. These authorities are the orthodox (but castigated) presbyter who wrote the Acts of Paul, Ephraem of Syria (who wrote a commentary on it), and the Armenian canon.

What you have done is to introduce another step (or substep) involving (A) the silence of various fathers as to the text and (B) actual testimony against the text. In your post you dealt only in testimony for the text.

I do not mean to derail the topic into a discussion of 2 Peter, but it does seem relevant to a discussion of methodology, of how to read the evidence. Does 2 Peter pass all three steps?

Fair enough.

In the later moments of your post the issue appears to slip toward canonicity, a topic which I do not wish to pursue. The topic at hand for me is the authentication of authorship. These two issues do overlap, of course, inasmuch as a vote for canonicity is almost certainly a vote for authenticity; however, the converse is not necessarily true.

Ben.

Gamera

One difficult question at a time. I'll get back to 2 Peter later.

Give me a break Ben. I gave a thumbnail sketch of what I think would be a good methodological approach to authenticity that avoids the ungrounded assumptions of textual criticsm. Let's stipulate I could flesh it out more. Like for instance: if one of the authorities closest in time says a mss is a fake, and says why he knows it's a fake, we have reason to believe his claim, then that's probably dispositive.

I think you miss the import of the inclusion of 3 Cor in the Acts of Paul. The whole thing was made up. The author, a cleric, was caught and punished. The letter doesn't purport to be a rendition of letter by Paul, but the text itself, included in AOP. I don't think the fact that 3 Cor later freed itself from AOP and was circulated separated, and even accepted by later authorities who either didn't read Tertullean and didn't get what he was saying, spares the letter from Step 2.

I acknowledged that you didn't want to pursue it. I only bring it up because canonicity involves some of the same analysis I suggest, but additional analysis too. So the fact that the Epistle to the Laodiceans was ultimately rejected is probably less an authenticity issue then a canonical issue, given its insubstantial nature. I don't think Step 2 gets us anywhere with Laodiceans, in other words, because of its lack of content.

Ben C Smith

Sure. Take all the break you need.

I am not certain what textual criticism has to do with the issue of authenticity in particular. I suppose it always helps to have the text established before drawing conclusions from its style or content matter, but I am not aware of very many textual variants that would impact the authorship of the pastoral epistles.

Indeed, you have. But in the process of fleshing it out you may have cast doubt on 2 Peter. That was the point in discussing 3 Corinthians in the first place, to see whether a system might be drawn up that will consistently make the right calls on authenticity.

In real time, I agree with you. But for the purposes of testing out your three steps I have to point out that none of the steps dealt with how to handle embedded texts. And ever since Eusebius, especially, Christian antiquity has been just stocked with embedded texts.

Some might say the same for the epistle to Philemon.

I understand your position on 3 Corinthians, and agree with it; you have filled out the second of your three steps in the process in order to explicitly account for more kinds of data. So now is the time to see if your beefed up system will do the job. I am interested in the following:

1. The second epistle of Peter, because the silence on it lasts till the third century, the testimony on it is mixed, and the earliest extant testimony is more negative than positive.
2. The first epistle of John, because it sidesteps your first step by not naming its own author.
3. The epistle of Jesus to Agbar, because it appears at least superficially to pass all three of your steps. It (at least indirectly) claims to be by Jesus, the first father to quote it (Eusebius, History of the Church 1.13.9) accepts it as genuine, and its style is certainly close enough.

Ben.