Ben C Smith

Hi, Ted. I do not wish to present an overall case either for or against that of Holding, though I should mention of course that I myself think the pastoral epistles are spurious. But I would like to comment on a point of methodology regarding similarities and differences between works.

When some scholars go through, say, the gospels and find parallels to LXX texts, thus concluding that the evangelist in question borrowed from the LXX, there are always other scholars who question the parallels. That is perfectly fair, but sometimes these other scholars will make a list of the differences between the two passages. On the surface, this seems reasonable. After all, the first group of scholars made a list of similarities, right?

But I believe the listing of differences in such a case to be a methodological mistake (at least when the differences are seen as somehow equal in value to the similarities). The purportedly derivative author (the evangelist) is not trying to squarely pass himself off as the OT author, so he is not necessarily trying to make his imitatio of the OT author hit on all cylinders. In fact, such borrowing is covert in the sense that there are not usually any blatant textual markers, such as and now I shall echo Amos, or the like. The derivative author, derivative as he is, is nevertheless (usually) trying to create his own text in his own way. Therefore, the differences do not matter to the parallel nearly as much as the similarities. Differences are what we expect between two different authors; the similarities, however, must be explained.

But the case is exactly opposite when dealing with pseudonymity. Now the derivative author is actually trying to pass himself or herself off as the original. The best way to do this is to study the extant texts by the author in question and imitate at least some of his or her style, vocabulary, and subject matter. In this case the similarities do not need to be explained, at least not as thoroughly as the differences. Similarities are what we expect of the same author (which is why the derivative author writing in the name of the original author would give us some similarities); the differences, however, must be explained.

It is on that basis that I object methodologically to the following statement by Holding:

Dibelus and Conzelmann, for example, note passages in the Pastorals that are much like those in the Pauline letters that they accept; but rather than accept this as an indication of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, they dismiss them as works of excellent imitation by the pseudonymous writer! .... When an argument runs in circles like this, one wonders how strong the case truly is - and as we shall now see, the arguments against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals are very weak.

Looking to those passages that are very much like those in the accepted Pauline letters is exactly what a pseudonymous author wants the reader to do. Little, therefore, is gained by doing so. Instead we want to look to the discrepancies and the implausibilities, since it is primarily the differences that will point to two different authors at work.

Make no mistake, highlighting a few vague differences will not do the trick; it will take at least several differences of a rather deep order to comfortably label the work as pseudonymous. But the similarities, unless perhaps of a highly incidental nature, are not in the same class as the differences for making such a determination.

I would also wonder whether the kinds of answers Holding gives to the objections could also serve to authenticate epistles and other works that Holding himself would reject.

Ben.

TedM

I take them as words of passion, and that present a possibility that is worth considering. The likelihood of that possibility is what is at issue. Holding gives his views. If someone finds them unlikely, then I'm willing to hear their argument.

I'm sure that is his view, but it is supported by the document itself, which says Luke was with him, and not just taken from knowledge that some guy named Luke traveled with Paul.

I'd like to know what it is in his arguments that you think doesn't pass the probability test.

Thanks Ben for your comments. I agree with what you have written. The differences need to be reasonably explained. I'm not sure if Holding has done that, and am interested in opinions of others here both pro and con. Maybe take just one difference at a time...

ted

Ben C Smith

This is by no means a once-and-for-all argument in itself, but I have always been struck by Romans 9.1 as compared to and contrasted with 1 Timothy 2.7.

In Romans 9.1 Paul passionately swears: I am telling the truth in Christ; I am not lying.... The reason for his almost oathlike interjection here is clear. He is writing to a church he did not found, of a gospel that church may have heard bad things about, and the chance for misunderstanding (both of the remarkable chapters 9-11 and of the epistle as a whole) is notable. The argument so far could easily be twisted into meaning that Paul thinks the Jews are lost forever, and he wishes to dispel that possible twisting of his words so far as he is able.

In 1 Timothy 2.7 Paul writes much the same thing: I am telling the truth; I am not lying, but about the mere fact that he has been called to be an apostle and preacher to the gentiles. I could understand such an oathlike statement if he were writing to someone who might well be questioning his authority, but to Timothy? Why this stress?

It makes more sense to me that a pseudonymous author is stressing the Pauline apostleship and gentile mission as a not-quite-appropriate imitation of Romans 9.1 than that Paul is stressing his apostleship to Timothy.

Ben.

TedM

I have felt the same way when reading this. The only explanation is that Paul heard or may have thought that Timothy was or could be doubting Paul's authority, influenced by those around him. Is there evidence of that in Acts or any of Paul's letters? Were the attacks against Paul strong where Timothy was residing?

It may be of value to consider the accounts of others (in Acts) who abandoned Paul, including John Mark (I think) and Barnabas. Also, if Eisenman is right, that he was actually called the LIAR and the WICKED MAN by certain Jewish Christians. (Recognitions refers to an attack on James by the Wicked Man who then went to Damascus to hunt down Christians)...Perhaps with his history of people not trusting him and his being labeled in such a way and the former breaks with several who had traveled with him, Paul was somewhat paranoid at this point..


ted

Ben C Smith

The rest of the letter, while encouraging Timothy to keep the faith and so forth, does not seem to me to harbor the thought that Timothy may be doubting something as fundamental as the Pauline call and mission itself.

In fact, the exhortations to Timothy frequently seem designed to highlight the shortcomings of various opponents, as if the author hopes they will be eavesdropping. The urging of 1.3-5 leads to a condemnation of the nameless legalists in 1.6-7. The entrusted command of 1.18-19a leads to a condemnation of Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1.19b-20. The instructions of 3.14-16 lead to the condemnation of certain celibates in 4.1-5. The exhortation of 6.20a leads to the condemnation of those who possess knowledge falsely called in 6.20b-21. Timothy himself often looks like a foil, not as the object of pointed Pauline concern.

Ben.

TedM

Contrasting the way of truth with that of falsehood could be his way of encouraging Timothy to not give in to believing all of the false charges being made against the message Paul had been preaching in Ephesus. Might Alexander be the same one mentioned as being put forth as a representative of the "Jews" in Acts 19, just before Paul takes leave after being bitterly accused (and almost killed) and goes to Macedonia? I realize there are contradictions with Acts, so am not suggesting that Paul wrote this right after that incident.

It may be a later device to condemn though, just as you say. I haven't dug into it, and will keep your comments in mind. I can see why you have the viewpoint you do.

ted

pharoah

If Paul actually wrote both of these passages then he seems to have had a serious change of heart about "principalities and powers".

TedM

I don't see any contradicition. The first says nothing can keep man from the love of God. The second says to obey rulers (which is also consistent with what Paul says in Rom 13, the same book your first quote is from).

Ben C Smith

Some regard Romans 13.1-7 as an interpolation for much the same reason; however, I agree with you on this one. There is no contradiction. The list in Romans 8.38 is not a list of bad entities; it includes life and angels, after all.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Can't you tell by the article that Holding has used his methodology against control group of non-authentic letters , in order to validate his methods?