Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's Style

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    Robert Schacht wrote: The first chapter is basically a rant against factionalism, but that s well grounded in Paul in First Corinthians. The second chapter
    Message 1 of 28 , Sep 4, 2010
      Robert Schacht wrote:
      "The first chapter is basically a rant against factionalism, but that's well
      grounded in Paul in First Corinthians. The second chapter then slides from a
      rant against factionalism among churches to factionalism within the congregation
      -- but that, too, is well grounded in First Corinthians, with an assist from
      Romans and Ephesians."
      Bruce Brooks asked:
      "Did you introduce strange new doctrines?"
      Jeffery Hodges suggests:
      Bob, you could have taken this one step further and introduced a rant against
      factionalism within the individual Christian, grounding it in Paul's remarks
      about flesh and spirit, for example, as in Romans 7:13-25. That would have edged
      into parody, though . . .
      Jeffery Hodges



      ________________________________
      From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 3:46:01 AM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's Style

      At 11:15 AM 9/4/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
      >To: Crosstalk
      >In Response To: Bob Schacht
      >On: Epistle to the New Mexicans
      >From: Bruce
      >
      >Bob,
      >
      >Thanks for the light touch. I don't need to see a copy, but am glad to know
      >of your success. Just one question: Did you introduce strange new doctrines,
      >like the Deuteropauline and Deuteropetrine people? Or did you stay more or
      >less on the reservation?
      >
      >Bruce

      Well, I think I stayed pretty much on the "reservation," although
      that word has special meaning in New Mexico.
      The first chapter is basically a rant against factionalism, but
      that's well grounded in Paul in First Corinthians. The second chapter
      then slides from a rant against factionalism among churches to
      factionalism within the congregation-- but that, too, is well
      grounded in First Corinthians, with an assist from Romans and Ephesians.

      But then in Chapter 3, I passed up an opportunity to modernize
      Galatians 2, i.e. to substitute 1980's New Mexico or U.S. cities and
      church leaders for Jerusalem, Barnabas, Titus and the Pillars. Now
      that could have gotten dicey! But I did take a swipe at church
      regulations and doctrines, following Colossians 2. I refrained, I
      think, from introducing any strange new doctrines. Chapter 4 draws
      things to a close with an appeal for peace and reconciliation.

      So my imitation was somewhat cautious, I think, if not timid,
      avoiding strange new doctrines, and passing up an opportunity to take
      sides in any of the fights that were popular in the mid 1980s.

      Bob Schacht
      Northern Arizona University

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

      To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

      Yahoo! Groups Links



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
      Sorry. That was hard to read. The e-list removed my formatting. Here s another attempt: Robert Schacht wrote: The first chapter is basically a rant against
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 4, 2010
        Sorry. That was hard to read. The e-list removed my formatting. Here's another
        attempt:

        Robert Schacht wrote:

        "The first chapter is basically a rant against factionalism, but that's well
        grounded in Paul in First Corinthians. The second chapter then slides from a
        rant against factionalism among churches to factionalism within the congregation
        -- but that, too, is well grounded in First Corinthians, with an assist from
        Romans and Ephesians."

        Bruce Brooks asked:

        "Did you introduce strange new doctrines?"

        Jeffery Hodges suggests:

        Bob, you could have taken this one step further and introduced a rant against
        factionalism within the individual Christian, grounding it in Paul's remarks
        about flesh and spirit, for example, as in Romans 7:13-25. That would have edged
        into parody, though . . .

        Jeffery Hodges



        ________________________________
        From: Horace Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges@...>
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 6:30:32 AM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's Style

        Robert Schacht wrote:
        "The first chapter is basically a rant against factionalism, but that's well
        grounded in Paul in First Corinthians. The second chapter then slides from a
        rant against factionalism among churches to factionalism within the congregation

        -- but that, too, is well grounded in First Corinthians, with an assist from
        Romans and Ephesians."
        Bruce Brooks asked:
        "Did you introduce strange new doctrines?"
        Jeffery Hodges suggests:
        Bob, you could have taken this one step further and introduced a rant against
        factionalism within the individual Christian, grounding it in Paul's remarks
        about flesh and spirit, for example, as in Romans 7:13-25. That would have edged

        into parody, though . . .
        Jeffery Hodges



        ________________________________
        From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 3:46:01 AM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's Style

        At 11:15 AM 9/4/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
        >To: Crosstalk
        >In Response To: Bob Schacht
        >On: Epistle to the New Mexicans
        >From: Bruce
        >
        >Bob,
        >
        >Thanks for the light touch. I don't need to see a copy, but am glad to know
        >of your success. Just one question: Did you introduce strange new doctrines,
        >like the Deuteropauline and Deuteropetrine people? Or did you stay more or
        >less on the reservation?
        >
        >Bruce

        Well, I think I stayed pretty much on the "reservation," although
        that word has special meaning in New Mexico.
        The first chapter is basically a rant against factionalism, but
        that's well grounded in Paul in First Corinthians. The second chapter
        then slides from a rant against factionalism among churches to
        factionalism within the congregation-- but that, too, is well
        grounded in First Corinthians, with an assist from Romans and Ephesians.

        But then in Chapter 3, I passed up an opportunity to modernize
        Galatians 2, i.e. to substitute 1980's New Mexico or U.S. cities and
        church leaders for Jerusalem, Barnabas, Titus and the Pillars. Now
        that could have gotten dicey! But I did take a swipe at church
        regulations and doctrines, following Colossians 2. I refrained, I
        think, from introducing any strange new doctrines. Chapter 4 draws
        things to a close with an appeal for peace and reconciliation.

        So my imitation was somewhat cautious, I think, if not timid,
        avoiding strange new doctrines, and passing up an opportunity to take
        sides in any of the fights that were popular in the mid 1980s.

        Bob Schacht
        Northern Arizona University

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

        Yahoo! Groups Links



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        ------------------------------------

        The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

        Yahoo! Groups Links



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kenneth Litwak
        Bruce,   I trust this won t be a blanket refutation but here are some problems with the entire concept of Deuteropaulines.  I d suggest, by the way, that
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 5, 2010
          Bruce,

            I trust this won't be a blanket refutation but here are some problems with the entire concept of Deuteropaulines.  I'd suggest, by the way, that your blanket dismissal of those who accept Pauline authorship of texts like Colossians are hardly done with no comment on authorship issues.  Just because you find arguments against Pauline authorhisp convincing does not make such arguments unassailable or evern plausible.  So, consider these:
          1.  F.C. Baur, based upon sucking down Hegelian ideas of thesis (Paul), Antithesis (Peter), and synthesis (Acts) invented a "standard" of what constituted an authentic Pauline letter.  He declared that the authentic letters of Paul were Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.  Many many scholars have followed Baur without asking any questions:  "Baur said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me."  There are two massive problems here.
          a.  Hegel is no basis for interpreting New Testament texts.  I'm not a Hegelian. Why should I accept remotely anything based upon his philosophy?
          b.  Baur almost arbitrarily decided which letters were authentic and the basis of testing other letters.  What if I say, instead, the ONLY authentic letters to use as a basis for deciding about other letters are the Pastorals and therefore, Romans is inauthentic?  Baur's starting point assumes his conclusions.  If you say that absolutely every Pauline letter has to have the same wording, style, and topics of Romans and Galatians, you've already discarded letters that are not like that.  That's circular.  That's an invalid procedure.  You need to start from an objective spot and this is not done by anyone. 
          2.  We do not have an "independent" group of texts by Paul, Peter, or anyone else from the early church that we can say, "These we absolutely know are authentic and they can be used to evaluate other letters."  The procedure that follows Baur's approach is like doing a double-blind test where you already give privilege to one group, making it's results valid before you start and the results of the other group invalid before you start.  So it is never really a fair test.   If you can produce a corpus of documents of, say, the volume of the Oxford English Dictionary, which you know are all authentic, and these documents span absolutely all possible types, genres, lengths, etc., that it would have been possible for Paul to write, then ou might be able to do a meaningful evaluation.  Short of that, those careful studies you refer to, such as one I read long ago that counted the number of occurrences of kai per page have no validity to me.  Why in the
          world should I accept the view that an author is always going to use the same style and vocabulary all the time? 
          3.  It is illogical and circular to say, "We know that Paul wrote Romans and we are certain he thought such-and-such in Romans so he absolutely must use the same words and talk about the same things elsewhere."
          4.  The same things that you see as imitation of Paul could just as easily be Paul himself writing on a topic you don't expect. 
          5.  There is a problem for anyone to call something Deuteropauline and then talk about its meaning in terms of Paul.  If Pal did not write Ephesians, then for all we know, it was written by some drunk Roman centurion.  It should never be used to tell us anything ever about what any Christian thought because calling it Deuteropauline cuts the anchor to Paul's thought and we then actually know nothing about the document except what is in it, and nothing about who or what its author might have known. 
          6.  In spite of assertions, without proof, of scholars to the contrary, I have yet to see anyone produce a document that says, "We Christians think that pseudonymity is perfectly fine."  Therefore, you are saying that modern scholars, who never ever lived in a first- or second-century Greco-Roman context know the language, genres and social environment of that period far far far far far better than those who were there because modern scholars pronounce upon what could have been said by Paul or others better than anyone in the early church ever did.
          7.  Decisions are often made about Paul's letters based upon what we know about the development of the early church.  This is problematic because besides the New Testament, we have absolutely zero documents that tell us what the early Christian churches were like.  So it is by definition impossible to say that the presentation of the church in, say, 1 Timothy, is from a later time. How would anyone know that?  Besdies that, it takes significant exaggeration to say that 1 Timothy presents church leaders exactly as Ignatius does and we have no proof that Ignatius' view of bishops represented all Christian churches.  Such reconstructions that use Ignatius to challenge the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals requires anachronisms. 


          This relates to historical Jesus studies, by the way, in my thinking.  I believe that the ending of Mark is missing and that Mark 16:9-20 is inauthentic because of the exteranl evidence in manuscripts, while I find arguments from vocabuarly irrelevant.  If Mark 16:9-20 raises topics not found earlier in Mark's Gospel, of course the vocabulary might be distinctive.  So while I think the ending is not original to Mark, I do not reject if for vocabulary. 

          None of this proves Pauline authorship of any letter but neither can we prove that Josephus wrote Josephus, Philo wrote Philo, or Lucian wrote Lucian. 


          Ken Litwak
          Azusa Pacific University
          Azusa, CA

          --- On Sat, 9/4/10, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

          From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Numbers and Markan Style
          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: "GPG" <gpg@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 10:16 AM







           









          To: Crosstalk

          Cc: GPG

          In Response To: John Staton

          On: Deuteropaulines

          From: Bruce



          BRUCE (formerly, and quoted by John): It's useful to see how the

          Deuteropauline authors seek to imitate Pauline style, since this tells us

          what they think Pauline style consisted of. Their efforts can be detected by

          modern investigators, who can also say just where they fall short.



          JOHN: Actually, Bruce, this is where your theory falls down. If it is *that*

          easy to imitate style modern scholars would not find it so easy to

          distinguish the true Pauline from the deutero-Pauline.



          BRUCE: I don't understand the phrase "*that* easy." We can see (with a

          little help from earlier scholarship) that some of the Deuteropaulines are

          virtual anthologies of Pauline phrases (and therefore in all probability

          their authors knew a collection of Paul's letters, meaning in turn that the

          texts date themselves after Paul's death, the likely terminus a quo for the

          compilation of such a collection), and that others model themselves more on

          a single Pauline letter, or (following Harrison on the Pastorals) take a

          snippet of a genuine Pauline personal letter as a core for a newly composed

          doctrinal letter. If I were trying to compose a letter that would be

          accepted as genuine by a post-Pauline readership, I would probably do more

          or less what they did. It is given that the readership also knows the

          Pauline letters, and will thus recognize, and be convinced by, these

          details.



          Not everybody took this much trouble; the writer of 2 Peter refers to (the

          seemingly already accepted) 1 Peter, as a certification gesture, but writes

          in an egregiously different style. But the extra trouble, the effort of

          verisimilitude, was apparently worth it. The Deuteropaulines seem to have

          been readily accepted (though not all of them by Marcion), whereas 2 Peter

          was largely ignored or impugned by the early Fathers.



          So there are effortful imitations, and there are casual impostures, and the

          former succeed better with the readership.



          As for it being "easy" for modern analysts to detect the difference, those

          who reached this conclusion seem to have put a good deal of time on it, and

          conducted excruciatingly precise vocabulary analyses. And for all that,

          their efforts have left many people unconvinced; one can easily find tomes -

          large ones from degree-holding authors - which without discussion accept

          everything with a Paul label on it as authentically Pauline.



          JOHN: Either it is more difficult to imitate than you suggest or, as I

          suspect, much of the arguments against authorial authenticity are shot

          through with subjectivity. There is a great deal of circular argument and

          wishful thinking going on here.



          BRUCE: Blanket refutations don't work, and I decline to take up this one.

          There must be some agreed discussion basis, or discussion is endless, and I

          don't have time for endless. My working standard (not that I agree with

          everything in it, but I feel that it has fairly wide acceptance, and so can

          serve as a practical starting point) is Udo Schnelle's History and Theology

          of the New Testament Writings. Schnelle contemptuously rejects what he calls

          "partition theories," for Pauline and for all other NT texts. There I

          venture to disagree, but I recognize that I am probably going to have to

          argue any such theory on its merits. ab initio. But Schnelle has accepted

          the arguments for the secondary Pauline documents, and similarly, I will

          take that position as given, for the generality of serious NT scholars. If

          John wants to present a case for reinstating, say, 1 Timothy or Hebrews as

          from the pen of Paul, I dare say that the Crosstalk forum is open to him for

          that purpose.



          ENVOI



          For me, the large picture is the concern of the early Jesus people, in all

          their probable variety, with what they could safely accept as the authentic

          tradition of Jesus. It was given that "Apostles" were the accepted bearers

          of that tradition. So what happens? This is what happens. Paul struggles to

          accredit himself as an Apostle, and he in turn appeals to a claimed common

          Apostolic tradition in arguing with Peter, and again with the Corinthians.

          Hebrews (some have suggested) was admitted to the canon only after the name

          of Paul (himself by then accepted as an Apostle, which was not the case

          during his lifetime) was associated with it; the text itself makes no such

          claim. The story (retailed but not invented by Papias) associating Mark with

          Peter, and the separate efforts to make Luke an associate of Paul, probably

          have the same function of Apostolicizing these Gospels, as does the coy

          attempt of gJn to identify itself with John of Zebedee; I love how the added

          Jn 21 makes the case for a long-lived John, against the competing martyrdom

          prediction of Mark, and I note that it is to Peter, the always rebukable

          Peter, that this update is directed in the text. Good move. Matthew? Well,

          Matthew had from the beginning, if only by virtue of its label, an

          association with a supposed Apostle Matthew. (There is of course some

          first-person Matthew literature, but it didn't make it into the canon). In

          terms of accepted Apostolic credentials, Matthew was the guy the other three

          were trying to catch up with. And what the other six or so were trying to

          piggyback on.



          Similarly with the many attempts to link the early Roman Fathers directly

          with either Peter or Paul. Clement (if we trust the Roman liturgy) was

          preceded at Rome by two people, but there are also legends which have him

          appointed directly by Peter, thus strengthening the Apostolic credentials of

          Clement's one genuine letter (to the Corinthians). So successful were these

          and other efforts to win for Clement a kind of induced Apostolic status,

          that we have in time a deuteroClementine literature. As for the first Roman

          figure of consequence, namely Linus, there are similar legends linking him

          with Paul (sometimes with both Paul and Peter). In these cases, it is Rome

          itself that is being Apostolically validated. Which, I venture to suppose,

          did the administrative pretensions of Rome no harm at all.



          The variety is almost endless, but the intent seems to be very constant. I

          end by suggesting that this is a very helpful way of surveying the large

          movements of men and ideas in the first Christian century, and indeed well

          into the second.



          Bruce



          E Bruce Brooks

          Warring States Project

          University of Massachusetts at Amherst

























          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John E Staton
          Interesting, Bob. However, I would suggest that most pseudepigraphers would do the same as you did and stick to doctrines they knew Paul preached. So we are
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 6, 2010
            Interesting, Bob. However, I would suggest that most pseudepigraphers
            would do the same as you did and stick to doctrines they knew Paul
            preached. So we are left with a conundrum as regards the Pastorals:
            either they introduce new doctrines (as Bruce suggests), in which case
            they would only have been accepted if there had been good reason to
            believe Paul wrote them; or they do not contain new doctrines, which
            would leave the pseudepigraphal option open. Actually, I suspect this
            whole debate is marred by an over-egging of the pudding at both ends.
            Students of the acnowledged Paulines build an impossibly idealistic
            picture of a charismatic and libertarian Paul, whereas students of the
            Pastorals are prone to suggest an "early catholicism" which rivals that
            of Ignatius of Antioch! I suspect the "routinisation of the charisma"
            was happening already by the time of 1 Corinthians, and that there is
            more "charisma" left in the Pastorals than many will allow. And at the
            bottom of the well lies the reflection of the Zeitgeist of teh late 20th
            and early 21st century.

            Best Wishes

            --
            JOHN E STATON
            www.christianreflection.org.uk
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Kenneth, While I have no quarrel with most of your admirable list, your last item, quoted above, bothers me, because it ignores the testimony of the
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 6, 2010
              At 10:06 PM 9/5/2010, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
              >7. Decisions are often made about Paul's
              >letters based upon what we know about the
              >development of the early church. This is
              >problematic because besides the New Testament,
              >we have absolutely zero documents that tell us
              >what the early Christian churches were like.

              Kenneth,
              While I have no quarrel with most of your
              admirable list, your last item, quoted above,
              bothers me, because it ignores the testimony of
              the Didache, the Letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.

              Bob Schacht
              Northern Arizona University

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Crosstalk Cc: WSW, GPG In Response To: John Staton On: Deuteropaulines (and Text Extensions in General) From: Bruce JOHN (on Bob Schacht s Trito-Pauline
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 6, 2010
                To: Crosstalk
                Cc: WSW, GPG
                In Response To: John Staton
                On: Deuteropaulines (and Text Extensions in General)
                From: Bruce

                JOHN (on Bob Schacht's Trito-Pauline composition): I would suggest that most
                pseudepigraphers would do the same as you did and stick to doctrines they
                knew Paul
                preached.

                BRUCE: Extensions to texts, whether Mark or the Mahabharata, are meant to
                update either the text itself or the tradition which the text is perceived
                to represent. Otherwise, if the thing meets contemporary needs perfectly
                adequately, leave it alone. The increasingly priestly character of the final
                Mahabharata, and the increasingly authoritarian cast of the Pauline corpus
                in its Pastoral sector, and for that matter the increasing acceptance of war
                policies in the later chapters of the [classical Chinese] Mician corpus, are
                movements in the same direction, supplied by text events of comparable type
                and motivation. They deal with the problem of seeming authorial continuity,
                and at the same time they deal with the problem of continuing contemporary
                relevance. Keeping these two things in balance is a problem facing every
                text, every movement, and every nation.

                Remember the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?

                JOHN: So we are left with a conundrum as regards the Pastorals: either they
                introduce new doctrines (as Bruce suggests), in which case they would only
                have been accepted if there had been good reason to believe Paul wrote them;
                . . .

                BRUCE: The Pastorals supply excellent reasons to be accepted as Pauline. And
                they spend considerable time and ingenuity in doing just this. They are
                built, or two of them are built, on Pauline cores: original genuine personal
                notes which have then been expanded as general teachings on church order and
                community discipline. The Haustafeln are one feature of part of the Pastoral
                group, and the logic of the Haustafeln (see also the other Deuteropaulines
                and 1 Peter) is that of a permanent institution (not any more an interim
                lack of institution) conforming to the world outside itself: Respect the
                Emperor. Acts dramatizes Paul in something like this civic conformity mode,
                but of course Acts itself is, by definition, post-Pauline. The more texts we
                consider, the more we get a post-Pauline picture. The Pauline gestures of
                various kinds made by Colossians/Ephesians on one hand, by 2 Thessalonians
                on the other hand, and by the Pastorals on the third hand, the efforts they
                make in order to seem Pauline, are the authenticity arguments which the
                texts present, in order to validate their message as coming from a
                recognized authority source.

                Remember the forged Emily Dickinson diary?

                Not every text has the built-in update feature of the US Constitution. Most
                of them have to maintain their relevance by authorial fiction, in just the
                way we see them doing. Nothing really strange here.

                JOHN: . . . or they do not contain new doctrines, which would leave the
                pseudepigraphal option open.

                BRUCE: I don't understand this sentence, but it doesn't matter, since the
                texts in question do contain new doctrines, and/or adapt to new conditions.
                It is of course possible (and hermeneutics as an art has become very good at
                this) to put the Paul attributions into one pile, and show that each
                implies, or cannot be proved not to imply, the doctrines contained in all
                the others. In a way, the deuteroPaulines are relying on just this
                possibility. It is when we as investigators leave the texts alone a bit, and
                let them say what they are concerned to say, that we can see their
                particularity best. And if the respective particularities, unamended by
                hermeneutics, suggest a trajectory of development, or several such
                developments (including a background noise situation in which gnostic ideas
                are getting increasing play and prominence), then that trajectory may well
                reflect of the external facts, and the external facts may in fact be
                changing.

                As tends to happen, in most centuries so far studied by history. Remember
                history?

                JOHN: Actually, I suspect this whole debate is marred by an over-egging of
                the pudding at both ends. Students of the acnowledged Paulines build an
                impossibly idealistic picture of a charismatic and libertarian Paul, whereas
                students of the
                Pastorals are prone to suggest an "early catholicism" which rivals that of
                Ignatius of Antioch!

                BRUCE: Exaggeration does not invalidate, it merely exaggerates. Many
                scholars, under contemporary career pressures of their own, are prone to
                exaggerate, to make their position or their discovery even more
                revolutionary than it is. This is why the community of historians, in
                principle, is better than the single historian: errors tend to get
                corrected, oversights tend to get supplied, excessive claims for some point
                tend to get filed down to a reasonable level. But at the same time, the
                insights, where they or a more modest version of them check out against the
                evidence, do not (hopefully) get lost.

                The Homerists are wont to dismiss layer theories of the Iliad by saying that
                since those who propose them do not agree, none of them can be right. But if
                second graders offer a range of answers to the classical problem of 2 + 2
                (ranging from zero to 22), this does not mean that there is no answer to the
                problem, and it does not even mean that none of the class found it. What the
                Homeric partition theories do collectively suggest is that there is
                *something* there that needs work, something which the integral composition
                model does not quite suffice to explain.

                Like the dual verbs in Iliad 9.

                Bruce
              • Bob Schacht
                At 08:29 AM 9/6/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote, in part, regarding the ... Thanks to John and Bruce for their thoughts on this fascinating subject. The historical
                Message 7 of 28 , Sep 6, 2010
                  At 08:29 AM 9/6/2010, E Bruce Brooks wrote, in part, regarding the
                  deutero-Pauline corpus:
                  >JOHN: . . . or they do not contain new doctrines, which would leave the
                  >pseudepigraphal option open.
                  >
                  >BRUCE: I don't understand this sentence, but it doesn't matter, since the
                  >texts in question do contain new doctrines, and/or adapt to new conditions.

                  Thanks to John and Bruce for their thoughts on this fascinating
                  subject. The historical parallels to other literatures are relevant
                  and interesting.

                  But as to "new doctrines," especially with regard to Paul, I find
                  this argument problematic. What, in Paul, is NOT a new doctrine? Paul
                  was making it up, basically, as he went along. I don't mean making it
                  up out of whole cloth, but trying to apply what he believed was the
                  significance of Jesus the Christ to new situations, as they
                  developed in the new congregations. The early followers of Jesus were
                  trying to figure out what to do in his (Jesus') absence.

                  The very framing of the doctrinal issue assumes that there was a
                  point at which Pauline doctrine had become standardized, and beyond
                  which other doctrines were presumed to deviate (i.e, are "new.") The
                  underlying model seems to be that Paul wrote his (authentic) letters,
                  and then died, leaving behind a closed corpus as a frame of
                  reference, from which his successors drew. That seems "reasonable,"
                  but that doesn't make it right. We see within Paul's corpus an
                  evolution with respect to the Parousia, at least. So why cannot the
                  "new" doctrines in the deutero-Pauline letters come from Paul
                  himself, as he struggled to adapt his received tradition to the
                  evolving situation of the churches in the diaspora?

                  Bob Schacht
                  Northern Arizona University

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • E Bruce Brooks
                  To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG In Response To: Ken Litwak On: Pseudopaulines From: Bruce KEN: . . . here are some problems with the entire concept of Deuteropaulines.
                  Message 8 of 28 , Sep 6, 2010
                    To: Crosstalk
                    Cc: GPG
                    In Response To: Ken Litwak
                    On: Pseudopaulines
                    From: Bruce

                    KEN: . . . here are some problems with the entire concept of
                    Deuteropaulines.

                    1. F.C. Baur, based upon sucking down Hegelian ideas of thesis (Paul),
                    Antithesis (Peter), and synthesis (Acts) invented a "standard" of what
                    constituted an authentic Pauline letter.

                    BRUCE: Hegel was a fool (he proved from first principles that there could be
                    only seven planets, being unfortunately refuted by an asteroid whose orbit,
                    and whose later return, was successfully predicted by Gauss), though his
                    reputation survives undiminished in that backwater of the intellect, the
                    humanities area.

                    Baur was another fool, to attempt to use second (Hegelian) principles to
                    prove what history must be like.

                    But two fools do not make a refutation. The principle of opposition, and one
                    or more patterns of resolution of opposition, continue to be widely visible
                    in nature, including human affairs. The flat earth people are fools too, but
                    that doesn't mean that your farm pond is not pretty level. In an operational
                    sense.

                    KEN: 2. We do not have an "independent" group of texts by Paul, Peter, or
                    anyone
                    else from the early church that we can say, "These we absolutely know are
                    authentic and they can be used to evaluate other letters." The procedure
                    that
                    follows Baur's approach is like doing a double-blind test where you already
                    give
                    privilege to one group, making its results valid before you start and the
                    results of the other group invalid before you start. So it is never really a
                    fair test.

                    BRUCE: People who designate things in advance are frauds, they are violating
                    a basic principle of history. The principle in question is that observations
                    must precede conclusions. People who bring in preferred conclusions, never
                    mind from where, are not to be followed. Who *is* to be followed? No person.
                    What is to be followed? Recognized (if often violated) canons of judgement,
                    some of which are literary and some of which are philological and some of
                    which are archaeological . . .

                    What we start with, Paulwise, are about a dozen texts which come to us with
                    Paul's name attached to them. This is then the corpus of interest. We ask of
                    that corpus: Is this consistent? Or are there internal differences? And so
                    on through the whole tooklit. If at the end there seems to be no internal or
                    external reason to doubt the given attributions, we let them stand as a
                    working hypothesis, up for refutation and modification if any later finding
                    so suggests. Notice that I do not use the word "prove." The word "prove" is
                    appropriate in Euclidean geometry, and nowhere else, including nuclear
                    physics, where working hypotheses about the way nature works at the micro
                    level are being refined and rejected every day. People have looked at the
                    Pauline epistles for a long time. They have tended to find an area within
                    the corpus that appears to be biographically and doctrinally and literarily
                    consistent, allowing for a modest amount of evolution over time, and for the
                    appropriate linguistic variation with the topic discussed. On the same
                    criteria, they have tended to locate texts which are consistent neither with
                    each other nor with this seemingly consistent area. They crystallize out
                    into four groups: (a) Colossians and Ephesians, (b) 2 Thessalonians, (c) the
                    Pastorals, and (d) Hebrews. These have sometimes strong affinities with
                    texts outside those attributed to Paul, such as Luke-Acts. These
                    associations are data, not conclusions, but they are data for all observers.
                    Progress can be made by attending to such data. If, while working on the
                    data, we designate these latter four groups collectively as Deuteropaulines
                    (with Hebrews being a slight anomaly, since it does not internally claim
                    Pauline authorship), it is a useful convenience, not a claim of common
                    quality. The four groups most likely have different aetiologies, though none
                    of them is likely to be Pauline authorship.

                    KEN: If you can produce a corpus of documents of, say, the volume of the
                    Oxford English Dictionary, which you know are all authentic, and these
                    documents span absolutely all possible types, genres, lengths, etc., that it
                    would have been possible for Paul to write, then ou might be able to do a
                    meaningful evaluation. Short of that, those careful studies you refer to,
                    such as one I read long ago that counted the number of occurrences of kai
                    per page have no validity to me. Why in the world should I accept the view
                    that an author is always going to use the same style and vocabulary all the
                    time?

                    BRUCE: No reason. I have repeatedly said, including recently on this list,
                    that authors do not always write in the same style; one illustration was
                    Madison, and another was Thurber. Go back and read the archive. This does
                    not mean that counting kais is a waste of time. As I said at Leiden in 2003
                    (but in the question period, so it is not in the lecture to which a link was
                    previously provided), in this area [of stylometrics], nothing works
                    perfectly, but everything works a little bit. Things that work a little bit
                    can still be useful to an investigator who knows the limits, but can also
                    recognize significance if it should happen to turn up. The topic has now
                    shifted to vocabulary statistics, and there is no argument that much that
                    has been done in this line is puerile and self-refuting. But the instinct
                    behind it is sound, and as more sophisticated ways of mapping style, and of
                    separating style from content, are discovered, better results can be
                    obtained. The first Wright airplane flew for 12 seconds. Am I in trouble
                    with my reservation to SBL/Atlanta, which envisions air time of several
                    hours?

                    KEN: 3. It is illogical and circular to say, "We know that Paul wrote Romans
                    and we
                    are certain he thought such-and-such in Romans so he absolutely must use the
                    same words and talk about the same things elsewhere."

                    BRUCE: Right. No argument. That is not what I recommend, and it is not what
                    responsible people do. Caricature is not refutation.

                    KEN: 4. The same things that you see as imitation of Paul could just as
                    easily be
                    Paul himself writing on a topic you don't expect.

                    BRUCE: Not quite as easily. If a difference is in terms of content words,
                    then the conclusion is vulnerable to differences of topic. If a difference
                    is in terms of function words, then the conclusion is vulnerable to swings
                    of mood. If a difference is in terms of implied doctrine, then the
                    conclusion is vulnerable to suppositions of change in Paul's thought. None
                    of these by itself is conclusive. The three together, plus nine more I
                    haven't mentioned, provide indications which, as a group, are not so subject
                    to any of these factors, and are therefore of more interest.

                    KEN: 5. There is a problem for anyone to call something Deuteropauline and
                    then
                    talk about its meaning in terms of Paul. If Paul did not write Ephesians,
                    then
                    for all we know, it was written by some drunk Roman centurion.

                    BRUCE: For the second time, caricature is not refutation. Caricature fouls
                    discussion. It does express emotion, but emotion is irrelevant to historical
                    research. That is Rule 1. I am disappointed to see it broken so
                    consistently.

                    As for talking about the meaning of Ephesians in terms of Paul (assuming
                    that on reputable grounds it has previously been found to be doubtfully
                    Pauline), it remains relevant to keep in mind Paul's less doubtful corpus.
                    And why? Because several things. (a) Ephesians might after all be Pauline,
                    and one should not slam those doors. A working hypothesis is just that;
                    always available to better evidence or a better reading of previous
                    evidence. (b) It might be a continuation of Paul, in which case we would
                    have something like an organized Pauline school, a thing it would be useful
                    to know about. (c) It might be an outside attempt to purloin Paul's name to
                    legitimate ideas not held by Paul, or even opposed by Paul. That too would
                    be nice to know, if it were knowable, since it would show how flexible the
                    popular concept of Paul was at that particular time. And so on.

                    KEN: It should never be used to tell us anything ever about what any
                    Christian thought because calling it Deuteropauline cuts the anchor to
                    Paul's thought and we then actually
                    know nothing about the document except what is in it, and nothing about who
                    or
                    what its author might have known.

                    BRUCE: It seems to be assumed that the doubtful Paul documents actually have
                    an "anchor" to Paul. They need not, and if they do, that anchor might be any
                    of a number of things (for three of them, see above). But the complaint that
                    we "know nothing about the document except what is in it" is not a complaint
                    at all, it is what is true for any document anywhere. The first witness to
                    the document is the document itself. That, as far as I have heard, is how
                    historical research operates. Homiletics (or whatever else this statement
                    may envision) is a different horse altogether.

                    KEN: 6. In spite of assertions, without proof, of scholars to the contrary,
                    I have
                    yet to see anyone produce a document that says, "We Christians think that
                    pseudonymity is perfectly fine."

                    BRUCE: On the contrary, there are known cases of forged Paul documents
                    being exposed, and their forger disciplined. The habit of speaking in the
                    name of a respected person is endemic in antiquity. It is also endemic at
                    the present time, one familiar form being the preacher's question, about
                    some contemporary problem, "What would Jesus say?" That of itself is not a
                    pseudonymous statement. But if the sermon is published and widely known, it
                    can easily be quoted as from Jesus, rather than from the writer of the
                    sermon. The suppositious statement drifts, in other hands, into a
                    pseudonymous statement. Most of the socalled agrapha of Jesus, I should
                    imagine, are probably of such an origin. It is very easy to see how this
                    happened. It is also very easy to see how fraudulent documents, including
                    the Seventh Epistle of Plato, get themselves intentionally written and
                    accepted. They are addressed to the tuition paying parents of prospective
                    students at the post-Platonic School of Plato.

                    How do such documents get accepted? Depends on the time and place, but in
                    general, they come across as at least plausible for the claimed author (and
                    some people's standards of plausibility are not very strict), and also as
                    meeting a desire of the recipient. I have not so far written back to any of
                    the gentle pious Christian women, most of them from Nigeria, who are dying
                    of a dread disease and cannot pass peacefully to the next world unless they
                    first transfer to my account the sume of $125 million. They E-mail me in
                    this vein every day, sometimes several times a day. My own standard of
                    plausibility are a little high, hence my nonresponse. But it seems that some
                    people, perhaps tempted (though I cannot imagine why) by the thought of
                    getting $125 million, and off the record yet, are nown to have responded to
                    such entreaties. Some have even gone to Africa to collect. They tend to be
                    held for ransom, and thus wind up on the other side of the ledger, always
                    assuming that their families can even come up with the cash. If not, well,
                    talk about hypothesis refutation.

                    The world of forgery is a fascinating and profitable one; see John McPhee's
                    piece on Tom Hoving (in the collection A Roomful of Hovings; widely and
                    cheaply available), for an insider's report. Everyone who messes with
                    antiquity, on any level, should know this world, whether in the way I
                    suggest or another. Buying "genuine" Raphaels in the back alleys of Budapest
                    is one of the more expensive ways, but hey, de gustribus.

                    KEN: scholars, who never ever lived in a first- or second-century
                    Greco-Roman context know the language, genres and social environment of that
                    period far far far far
                    far better than those who were there because modern scholars pronounce upon
                    what
                    could have been said by Paul or others better than anyone in the early
                    church
                    ever did.

                    BRUCE: Hm, I seem to detect sarcasm. Not every modern person is
                    automatically competent in the 1st century (or the 04th, which is where I
                    mostly work). It takes time, work, empathy, emotional investment,
                    cancellation of modern newspaper subscriptions, and all that stuff. Harnack
                    prepared himself for reading the early Christians documents in Greek by
                    reading all the early *non-Christian* documents in Greek. German
                    thoroughness, you see. We can't all be German, but the commandment to be
                    thorough applies to all of us. We do what we can with it. Some of us succeed
                    better than others. Nobody probably gets it perfect, but some get it righter
                    than it was previously, and that counts as an advance in knowledge, or
                    anyway a retreat of ignorance.

                    Thing is, in the proper climate of research and shared notions about the
                    possibility and techniques of research, these useful results are not
                    isolated, they are cumulative. They lead to collective progress in
                    understanding. To profit from certain of Harnack's conclusions, I don't
                    necessarily need to duplicate his ten years of preparatory reading. To use a
                    microscope, I don't necessarily have to grind the lenses. Other people's
                    work is work I don't entirely need to duplicate. My strength is as the
                    strength of ten because I read the papers of the other nine.

                    KEN: 7. Decisions are often made about Paul's letters based upon what we
                    know about the development of the early church. This is problematic because
                    besides the
                    New Testament, we have absolutely zero documents that tell us what the early
                    Christian churches were like.

                    BRUCE: The NT documents are not documentary in intention, they are
                    apologetic and controversial in intention, but that already tells us a
                    certain amount about what was going on at the time: what they wanted people
                    to believe, what they felt challenged by. Some documents addressed to
                    churches (never mind what names are attached to them) imply churches with no
                    internal organization, others are instructions to bishops, a level of
                    organization that is unlikely to have been achieved immediately. Then the
                    second group are likely to be later than the first group, not because I say
                    so, but because they imply a more developed situation, and development takes
                    time. Some of the Gospels have a thoroughly divine conception of Jesus, and
                    others see him as pretty much a human being, who temporarily demonstrates
                    remarkable powers of healing. One can make any hypothesis one likes, but the
                    hypothesis that the divine Jesus concept is an evolutionary outgrowth of the
                    human Jesus concept is going to have a much better chance of fitting the
                    rest of the evidence.

                    And then there are the noncanonical documents, which should be read also.
                    Nobody who (for starters) is not familiar with Barnabas, Hermas, 1 Clement,
                    the Didache, and the Gospel of Peter really knows anything about the
                    canonical texts. You cannot do history in a teacup.

                    KEN: So it is by definition impossible to say that the presentation of the
                    church in, say, 1 Timothy, is from a later time. How would anyone know that?

                    BRUCE: The word "know" is just as out of place in this area as the word
                    "prove," but with that qualification, see above. As for it being "by
                    definition" impossible to know anything about the past, that is postmodern
                    hype. I know a lot about the four pages of Chapter 8 that I wrote yesterday,
                    and with suitable time and effort, including a massive effort of
                    acquaintance and inscenation, I can find out a certain amount about what is
                    going on in 1 Timothy (with a little help from Harrison and others), or 1
                    Peter (with a little help from Beare and others), or what you will.

                    KEN: Besdies that, it takes significant exaggeration to say that 1 Timothy
                    presents church leaders exactly as Ignatius does . . l

                    BRUCE: Tilt. Nobody says this. Caricature is not refutation. I think that
                    makes three times I have had to point this out.

                    KEN: . . . and we have no proof that Ignatius' view of bishops represented
                    all Christian churches. Such reconstructions that use Ignatius to challenge
                    the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals requires anachronisms.

                    BRUCE: Same tilt. Four times.

                    KEN: This relates to historical Jesus studies, by the way, in my thinking. I
                    believe that the ending of Mark is missing and that Mark 16:9-20 is
                    inauthentic because of the external evidence in manuscripts, while I find
                    arguments from vocabuarly irrelevant.

                    BRUCE: Thus missing a wonderful chance to calibrate any vocabulary tests one
                    may be aware of. How does one invent a vocabulary test? By finding known
                    cases to test it on. The skunk in the woodpile here is the inference that
                    manuscript evidence is the only evidence. This involves the sometimes
                    unspoken corollary that what we have after adjudicating manuscript variants
                    is the author's "original manuscript." This is nonsense. What we have in the
                    most favorable cases, after manuscript adjudication, is the archetype from
                    which the extant manuscripts are descended. That archetype can itself be
                    centuries later than the author, with all the risks that involves.

                    Further, and more profoundly, we know of cases (I may have previously
                    mentioned the Carmina of Horace) where an original collection, never mind an
                    original composition, was extended by the author. Thus book 4 of the Carmina
                    is not some extravagance of a mediaeval copyist, it is merely a second wind
                    of the poet. I know several poets who have published their Collected Poems,
                    but who are still writing new ones. A tidy bibliographer might demand that
                    they stop, so as not to void the previous title. Me, I would just as soon
                    they keep on. But with or without my approval, authors do often keep on.
                    Texts grow under the hand of an author, or a proprietor (say, the first
                    three heads of the church were Mark worked), or a custodian (the posthumous
                    works of Jackson Pollock). This is an easily observable fact of life. It is
                    surely available in principle as a possibility for ancient texts as well.
                    Especially for what might be called school texts, which are especially
                    liable to doctrinal extension and adaptation, after the lifetime of the
                    school founder. Were Erle Stanley Gardner mysteries written after the death
                    of Erle Stanley Gardner? Yep.

                    KEN: If Mark 16:9-20 raises topics not found earlier in Mark's Gospel, of
                    course the vocabulary might be distinctive. So while I think the ending is
                    not original to Mark, I do not reject if for vocabulary.

                    BRUCE: As mentioned above, it is usually a cluster of indications, not a
                    single one, that gives an actionable result about a questioned text.
                    Vocabulary is not to be scorned altogether, though. The handiest tool in a
                    car (in my area) is an ice scraper, but you never know when the jack may be
                    useful also. I keep mine in the trunk. I do not throw it away. I recommend
                    this wide-spectrum approach, to philology as well as automotives.

                    KEN: None of this proves Pauline authorship of any letter but neither can we
                    prove
                    that Josephus wrote Josephus, Philo wrote Philo, or Lucian wrote Lucian.

                    BRUCE: I think I have already pointed out that the word "prove" raises
                    expectations that cannot be met in the humanities, or for that matter in the
                    physical sciences. Goldbach's Conjecture is highly probable, but not so far
                    proved. With that red herring out of the way, there is a lot that can be
                    done with Josephus. For example, the Slavonic Interpolations have every
                    Christian motive for being there, which makes it likely that the
                    non-Slavonic text is superior. To that extent, we can know, a little more
                    adequately than ten minutes ago, what Josephus wrote. The Shield Scene in
                    Homer is not in some Athenian manuscripts either. To that extent, if we
                    dare, and many people do not dare but that's their problem, we can know, or
                    know more about, what Homer wrote.

                    If the gunk is cleaned away, and we seem to have a consistent object
                    underneath, then we are in pretty good shape. If the gunk is cleaned away
                    and we have an *inconsistent* object underneath, then we are still in pretty
                    good shape, only with more work still to do. No problem; work is the name of
                    the game here.

                    Of course, gunk does tend to get on one's clothes, which is not an argument
                    for not doing philology, it is an argument for not doing it in your best
                    suit.

                    I have no trouble with that, myself. And perhaps, even in this rather thin
                    decade, there may be others. If so, I would like to close with a word of
                    encouragement to them.

                    They need it.

                    Bruce
                  • John E Staton
                    Bruce wrote, Some documents addressed to churches (never mind what names are attached to them) imply churches with no internal organization, others are
                    Message 9 of 28 , Sep 7, 2010
                      Bruce wrote, "Some documents addressed to
                      churches (never mind what names are attached to them) imply
                      churches with no
                      internal organization, others are instructions to bishops, a level of
                      organization that is unlikely to have been achieved immediately."

                      Actually, Bruce, this is just such a gross exeggeration as I was
                      speaking of. A careful (rather than slipshod or tendentious) reading of
                      1 Corinthians and Romans reveals a very definite internal structure. A
                      structure that is taken for granted rather than being imposed (which is
                      why the tone is so different from Ignatius). We ought to note references
                      to "those who are over you and admonish you in the Lord" and so on. Also
                      the careful ordering in 1 Corithians 12: 27-30 suggests a church with a
                      clear leadership structure, Romans 12 speaks of "presidents"
                      (prohistamneoi) and 1 Corinthians 12 of "gifts of administration"
                      (kubernesis). Attempts by scholars who wish to see the church at Corinth
                      twenty or more years after Jesus' death and years after its founding by
                      Paul as a kind of pure charismatic community ( a fanciful idea which
                      owes much to modern and postmodern angst about authority, particulalrly
                      in the church) are unconvincing in the extreme. The words "bishop" and
                      "deacon" also occur in Philippians 1: 1. All of these letters are
                      acknowledged Paulines. Unfortunately, scholarly infatuation with the
                      picture of the early church given by Kaesemann and Scweizer appears to
                      have blinded many to the evidence of structured leadership which is
                      there from an early stage. In this context, what one sees in the
                      Pastorals does not seem so much of an advance of what we see in the
                      acknowledged Paulines. Unfortunately, too many scholars think along
                      Ignatian (Antioch, that is, not Loyola) lines when they see the words
                      "bishop" and "elder". These words may have had a completely different
                      meaning both in Philippians and the Pastorals on the one hand than they
                      do in Ignatius.

                      On all this, please see Andrew D Clarke, "Serve the Community of the
                      Church" (Eerdmans 2000).

                      As to Bob's reply, I actually agree with him that Paul's doctrines may
                      well have developed. I would indeed see the teaching of the Pastorals as
                      such a development. What I am arguing against is a stance which takes
                      too much for granted and fails to just as cirtical of stuff it agrees
                      with as it is of the stuff it is opposed to.

                      Best Wishes

                      --
                      JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
                      Hull, UK
                      www.christianreflection.org.uk
                    • Kenneth Litwak
                      Hi Bob,  With the possible exception of 1 Clement, no Apostolic Fathers come from the first century, so far as I ve read.  Certainly none of them are from
                      Message 10 of 28 , Sep 7, 2010
                        Hi Bob,

                         With the possible exception of 1 Clement, no Apostolic Fathers come from the first century, so far as I've read.  Certainly none of them are from the early 60's, when the Pastorals would have been written, if they were by Paul.  So what the Didache says, though very interesting, does not tell me about church life, what, fifty years earlier? 

                        Ken

                        --- On Mon, 9/6/10, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

                        From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
                        Subject: Litwak Re: [XTalk] Re: Numbers and Markan Style
                        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Monday, September 6, 2010, 8:10 AM







                         









                        At 10:06 PM 9/5/2010, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

                        >7. Decisions are often made about Paul's

                        >letters based upon what we know about the

                        >development of the early church. This is

                        >problematic because besides the New Testament,

                        >we have absolutely zero documents that tell us

                        >what the early Christian churches were like.



                        Kenneth,

                        While I have no quarrel with most of your

                        admirable list, your last item, quoted above,

                        bothers me, because it ignores the testimony of

                        the Didache, the Letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.



                        Bob Schacht

                        Northern Arizona University



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Kenneth Litwak
                        It s interesting how one person sees ideas as fitting right in with others and others see those ideas as somehow new or even foreign.  A highly subjective
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 7, 2010
                          It's interesting how one person sees ideas as fitting right in with others and others see those ideas as somehow new or even foreign.  A highly subjective enterprise.  I see nothing in the any Pauline or Petrine letter that seems out of place to me, especially given what a tiny sample we have of writings that claim to be from these two individuals (and therefore no "standard" to test them against).

                          Ken Litwak
                          Azusa Pacific University
                          Azusa, CA

                          --- On Sat, 9/4/10, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

                          From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
                          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's Style
                          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Saturday, September 4, 2010, 11:15 AM







                           









                          To: Crosstalk

                          In Response To: Bob Schacht

                          On: Epistle to the New Mexicans

                          From: Bruce



                          Bob,



                          Thanks for the light touch. I don't need to see a copy, but am glad to know

                          of your success. Just one question: Did you introduce strange new doctrines,

                          like the Deuteropauline and Deuteropetrine people? Or did you stay more or

                          less on the reservation?



                          Bruce

























                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • James Spinti
                          Ken, There has been a move in the last 5-7 years to date the Didache very early, even as early as the late 60s. See, specifically: The Didache: Faith, Hope,
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 7, 2010
                            Ken,

                            There has been a move in the last 5-7 years to date the Didache very early, even as early as the late 60s. See, specifically: The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E.
                            by Aaron Milavec
                            Paulist Press, 2003
                            ISBN: 978-0-8091-0537-3

                            HTH,
                            James
                            ________________________________
                            James Spinti
                            Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
                            Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
                            Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
                            jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
                            Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
                            Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
                            Fax: 574-269-6788

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth Litwak
                            Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 12:15 PM
                            To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: Litwak Re: [XTalk] Re: Numbers and Markan Style

                            Hi Bob,

                             With the possible exception of 1 Clement, no Apostolic Fathers come from the first century, so far as I've read.  Certainly none of them are from the early 60's, when the Pastorals would have been written, if they were by Paul.  So what the Didache says, though very interesting, does not tell me about church life, what, fifty years earlier? 

                            Ken

                            --- On Mon, 9/6/10, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:

                            From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
                            Subject: Litwak Re: [XTalk] Re: Numbers and Markan Style
                            To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Monday, September 6, 2010, 8:10 AM







                             









                            At 10:06 PM 9/5/2010, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

                            >7. Decisions are often made about Paul's

                            >letters based upon what we know about the

                            >development of the early church. This is

                            >problematic because besides the New Testament,

                            >we have absolutely zero documents that tell us

                            >what the early Christian churches were like.



                            Kenneth,

                            While I have no quarrel with most of your

                            admirable list, your last item, quoted above,

                            bothers me, because it ignores the testimony of

                            the Didache, the Letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.



                            Bob Schacht

                            Northern Arizona University



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                            ------------------------------------

                            The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                            To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Bob Schacht
                            ... I would date the Didache early-- definitely first century, and not much later than 70, so I think it s highly relevant. Bob ... [Non-text portions of this
                            Message 13 of 28 , Sep 7, 2010
                              At 09:14 AM 9/7/2010, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
                              >Hi Bob,
                              >
                              >Â With the possible exception of 1 Clement, no
                              >Apostolic Fathers come from the first century,
                              >so far as I've read. Certainly none of them
                              >are from the early 60's, when the Pastorals
                              >would have been written, if they were by
                              >Paul. So what the Didache says, though very
                              >interesting, does not tell me about church life, what, fifty years earlier?Â

                              I would date the Didache early-- definitely first
                              century, and not much later than 70, so I think it's highly relevant.

                              Bob


                              >Ken
                              >
                              >--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
                              >Subject: Litwak Re: [XTalk] Re: Numbers and Markan Style
                              >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                              >Date: Monday, September 6, 2010, 8:10 AM
                              >
                              > At 10:06 PM 9/5/2010, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
                              >
                              > >7. Decisions are often made about Paul's
                              >
                              > >letters based upon what we know about the
                              >
                              > >development of the early church. This is
                              >
                              > >problematic because besides the New Testament,
                              >
                              > >we have absolutely zero documents that tell us
                              >
                              > >what the early Christian churches were like.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >Kenneth,
                              >
                              >While I have no quarrel with most of your
                              >
                              >admirable list, your last item, quoted above,
                              >
                              >bothers me, because it ignores the testimony of
                              >
                              >the Didache, the Letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >Bob Schacht
                              >
                              >Northern Arizona University
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >------------------------------------
                              >
                              >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                              >
                              >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Kenneth Litwak
                              Bruce,   I m not sure if you missed the points I was trying to make or what, so I m going to try again because you did not really address a couple of core
                              Message 14 of 28 , Sep 7, 2010
                                Bruce,

                                  I'm not sure if you missed the points I was trying to make or what, so I'm going to try again because you did not really address a couple of core issues, and I will raise a few others.  Some snipping of the post will occur.

                                --- On Mon, 9/6/10, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

                                From: E Bruce Brooks

                                KEN: . . . here are some problems with the entire concept of

                                Deuteropaulines.



                                1. F.C. Baur, based upon sucking down Hegelian ideas of thesis (Paul),

                                Antithesis (Peter), and synthesis (Acts) invented a "standard" of what

                                constituted an authentic Pauline letter.



                                BRUCE: Hegel was a fool (he proved from first principles that there could be

                                only seven planets, being unfortunately refuted by an asteroid whose orbit,

                                and whose later return, was successfully predicted by Gauss), though his

                                reputation survives undiminished in that backwater of the intellect, the

                                humanities area.



                                Baur was another fool, to attempt to use second (Hegelian) principles to

                                prove what history must be like.



                                But two fools do not make a refutation. The principle of opposition, and one

                                or more patterns of resolution of opposition, continue to be widely visible

                                in nature, including human affairs. The flat earth people are fools too, but

                                that doesn't mean that your farm pond is not pretty level. In an operational

                                sense.


                                Ken: This may be interesting but what relevance does it have to New Testament studies?  The point is that Baur's basis, in deciding what was authentically Pauline, included his notion that Paul was in opposition to the Jerusalem church's views.  If that is not a valid way to read Romans or Philippians, etc., then a key a priori of his demarcation of what is Pauline is disallowed.  If you cut off one of the three legs of a stool, it falls over.  Baur's stool is missing a leg, so no one else should try to sit upon it.   The primary _core_ problem that I raised is that it is at the very best gratuitous (actually fallacous logically) to assume that Paul wrote Romans and then use that to measure 1 Timothy.  All the judgments made in critical scholarship about what Paul wrote require an a priori that he wrote one or more letters and then that decision, which ought to be demonstrated not assumed, is used to evaluate others. 
                                  This procedure is wholly unredeemable. The only valid way to judge the authorship of any of the thirteen letters of the Pauline corpus is to have a separate, validated or authenticated corpus of texts that are known to have been composed by Paul (however he composed things--that is, what degree of freedom he may have given an amanuensis, which is always an open question, though I still Klauck's book to read on that) that we can test against.  We don't have that. 
                                  Yet, even if we did have such a separate "canonical" set of texts to look at, it is still in principle impossible to say what any ancient (or modern) writer could have or would have said in a given context on a given topic.  We can't know.  There is no way to make valid comparisons of vocabulary within the Pauline corpus because for such an analysis to be valid you have to a) assume a certain letter or letters as authentic to begin with (an invalid a priori) and you have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul could not have used other words or spoken about other topics or even the same topic in other ways. 
                                  Here's an example.  In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul uses the metaphor of the body, relating individual believers to parts of the head.  In Colossians, Paul (in my view) uses the metaphor of the body and makes Christ the head of the body.  Some scholars take this as a contradiction and affirm that Paul could not have done the latter.   This is invalid.  It assumes that Paul's ability to use metaphors was static, that he could not do anything else and could not present a topic from any new perspective.  In my adjunct teaching alone, I've presented the exact same topic in slightly different ways.  Does that make the latest lecture on the subject inauthentic?  No.  It only means that scholars hold Paul to a standard they themselves would resist being held to, IMO.  
                                N.B. Before you accuse me of caricature, you need to have read all the things I've read.  I've read scholars make this and other claims you consider caricatures. That just means you have not read who I have read, but I can't give all the names as it's been a long time since I looked at that sort of thing.
                                    Whether imagery or vocabulary, it is not valid to say what Paul or Peter or anyone else could have done.  Now, if you found a clearly anachronistic thing, like a copy of Ephesians with Greek words in it for microprocessor, quantum particle, or sprots car, then vocabulary analysis would be relevant.  Otherwise, I deny that analysis of vocabulary is useful at all in distinguishing authentic from inauthentic texts.  We simply cannot know that.  Paul likely knew thousands of words he did not put in the thirteen letters we have by him.  In my own personal experience, I find myself from time to time writing a word that I've never written before, and I've been writing for quite a lot of years.  Sometimes these words are technical for my day job. Sometimes these are colloquial.  No matter. If I applied to my own writings what scholars apply to Paul, almost everything I've written of an academic nature in the last ten years would be "inauthentic"
                                because I never used the word "intertextuality" before 1996.  Who could have predicted that I would start doing so?  Not I.  Likewise, especially when we do not have an exhaustive lexicon of all the words that were available in Paul's culture, which could have been far more than we have written anywhere, we simply cannot say what Paul could have or might have or would have written if he were one of us because he was not one of us. 


                                KEN: 2. We do not have an "independent" group of texts by Paul, Peter, or

                                anyone

                                else from the early church that we can say, "These we absolutely know are

                                authentic and they can be used to evaluate other letters." The procedure

                                that

                                follows Baur's approach is like doing a double-blind test where you already

                                give

                                privilege to one group, making its results valid before you start and the

                                results of the other group invalid before you start. So it is never really a

                                fair test.



                                BRUCE: People who designate things in advance are frauds, they are violating

                                a basic principle of history. The principle in question is that observations

                                must precede conclusions. People who bring in preferred conclusions, never

                                mind from where, are not to be followed. Who *is* to be followed? No person.

                                What is to be followed? Recognized (if often violated) canons of judgement,

                                some of which are literary and some of which are philological and some of

                                which are archaeological . . .



                                What we start with, Paulwise, are about a dozen texts which come to us with

                                Paul's name attached to them. This is then the corpus of interest. We ask of

                                that corpus: Is this consistent? Or are there internal differences? And so

                                on through the whole tooklit. If at the end there seems to be no internal or

                                external reason to doubt the given attributions, we let them stand as a

                                working hypothesis, up for refutation and modification if any later finding

                                so suggests. Notice that I do not use the word "prove." The word "prove" is

                                appropriate in Euclidean geometry, and nowhere else, including nuclear

                                physics, where working hypotheses about the way nature works at the micro

                                level are being refined and rejected every day. People have looked at the

                                Pauline epistles for a long time. They have tended to find an area within

                                the corpus that appears to be biographically and doctrinally and literarily

                                consistent, allowing for a modest amount of evolution over time, and for the

                                appropriate linguistic variation with the topic discussed. On the same

                                criteria, they have tended to locate texts which are consistent neither with

                                each other nor with this seemingly consistent area. They crystallize out

                                into four groups: (a) Colossians and Ephesians, (b) 2 Thessalonians, (c) the

                                Pastorals, and (d) Hebrews. These have sometimes strong affinities with

                                texts outside those attributed to Paul, such as Luke-Acts. These

                                associations are data, not conclusions, but they are data for all observers.

                                Progress can be made by attending to such data. If, while working on the

                                data, we designate these latter four groups collectively as Deuteropaulines

                                (with Hebrews being a slight anomaly, since it does not internally claim

                                Pauline authorship), it is a useful convenience, not a claim of common

                                quality. The four groups most likely have different aetiologies, though none

                                of them is likely to be Pauline authorship.

                                Ken:  Bruce, again you have missed the point.  The point is that Ephesians and Colossians are consistent with one another.  So I could judge that Paul wrote these two letters and then reject Pauline authorship of Romans.  It does not matter how carefully one analyzes the Pauline corpus.  Any starting point, i.e., choosing any letter as valid and then using that to reject others, assumes facts not in evidence. The conclusion is determined _solely_ by the starting point.  So I look at the texts, and say that the church structure reflected in the Pastorals clearly predates the structures assumed by 1 Clement and Ignatius, then I have to date the Pastorals to an earlier date than 90 A.D. or so.  Once I've done that, I can say (though most don't) that these three letters are internally consistent theologically, topically, and linguistically, and that I believe these to be by Paul.  Then, if I am arrogant enough to declare that I know what words Paul
                                could have used (not in so many words, lest you call that a caricature but it is the procedure followed in the reverse direction), I declare that Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians are inauthentic because they do not use the same words or use the same words in different ways, from the Pastorals.  It's all about which texts you initially decide are authentic. There is no escape from that. Period.  As to the use of the word "proof."  I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that lawyers regularly seek to demonstrate or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty or innocent.  This is done by presenting and assessing data and witnesses. A decision comes down to how compelling one finds the data and how trustworthy one regards the witnesses.  Indeed, I was once called for jury duty and asked to tell how trustworthy I think that police are.  The process of historical analysis is far more like a court room than a science lab.  So when
                                I say "prove" I am referring to providing data that points clearly in one direction, while other directions are far less likely.  I am speaking of using data and "witnesses" to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the historical probability of some reconstruction.  Let's not get distracted by semantics away from the point.  I'm asking for really strong data that clearly points in a given direction, as opposed to being one possibility with serious challenges, as is the comparison of vocabulary across the Pauline corpus.
                                  I learned in logic class back in college that something is not greater than the sum of its parts.  In our context, this means that a chain of weak arguments does not equal one strong argument. It equals a string of weak arguments.   



                                KEN: If you can produce a corpus of documents of, say, the volume of the

                                Oxford English Dictionary, which you know are all authentic, and these

                                documents span absolutely all possible types, genres, lengths, etc., that it

                                would have been possible for Paul to write, then ou might be able to do a

                                meaningful evaluation. Short of that, those careful studies you refer to,

                                such as one I read long ago that counted the number of occurrences of kai

                                per page have no validity to me. Why in the world should I accept the view

                                that an author is always going to use the same style and vocabulary all the

                                time?



                                BRUCE: No reason. I have repeatedly said, including recently on this list,

                                that authors do not always write in the same style; one illustration was

                                Madison, and another was Thurber. Go back and read the archive. This does

                                not mean that counting kais is a waste of time. As I said at Leiden in 2003

                                (but in the question period, so it is not in the lecture to which a link was

                                previously provided), in this area [of stylometrics], nothing works

                                perfectly, but everything works a little bit. Things that work a little bit

                                can still be useful to an investigator who knows the limits, but can also

                                recognize significance if it should happen to turn up. The topic has now

                                shifted to vocabulary statistics, and there is no argument that much that

                                has been done in this line is puerile and self-refuting. But the instinct

                                behind it is sound, and as more sophisticated ways of mapping style, and of

                                separating style from content, are discovered, better results can be

                                obtained. The first Wright airplane flew for 12 seconds. Am I in trouble

                                with my reservation to SBL/Atlanta, which envisions air time of several

                                hours?

                                Airplanes are a technology.  Decisions about vocabulary are a totally different matter that depends upon subjective humans using or not using words available to them or even coining some.  The two things are not really analogous.



                                KEN: 4. The same things that you see as imitation of Paul could just as

                                easily be

                                Paul himself writing on a topic you don't expect.



                                BRUCE: Not quite as easily. If a difference is in terms of content words,

                                then the conclusion is vulnerable to differences of topic. If a difference

                                is in terms of function words, then the conclusion is vulnerable to swings

                                of mood. If a difference is in terms of implied doctrine, then the

                                conclusion is vulnerable to suppositions of change in Paul's thought. None

                                of these by itself is conclusive. The three together, plus nine more I

                                haven't mentioned, provide indications which, as a group, are not so subject

                                to any of these factors, and are therefore of more interest.

                                Ken:  They might be of interest but that is a long way from giving a sufficient reason for me to change my view of authorship.  They do not create reasonable doubt unless one is already committed to "doubting."




                                KEN: 6. In spite of assertions, without proof, of scholars to the contrary,

                                I have

                                yet to see anyone produce a document that says, "We Christians think that

                                pseudonymity is perfectly fine."



                                BRUCE: On the contrary, there are known cases of forged Paul documents

                                being exposed, and their forger disciplined. The habit of speaking in the

                                name of a respected person is endemic in antiquity. It is also endemic at

                                the present time, one familiar form being the preacher's question, about

                                some contemporary problem, "What would Jesus say?" That of itself is not a

                                pseudonymous statement. But if the sermon is published and widely known, it

                                can easily be quoted as from Jesus, rather than from the writer of the

                                sermon. The suppositious statement drifts, in other hands, into a

                                pseudonymous statement. Most of the socalled agrapha of Jesus, I should

                                imagine, are probably of such an origin. It is very easy to see how this

                                happened. It is also very easy to see how fraudulent documents, including

                                the Seventh Epistle of Plato, get themselves intentionally written and

                                accepted. They are addressed to the tuition paying parents of prospective

                                students at the post-Platonic School of Plato.

                                Ken:  Bruce, the point is that the early church seemed able to detect forgeries and rejected them. That is why 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, etc., were debated so long.  The fact that the entire Pauline corpus seems to have never been questioned (even when Marcion hacked it up) suggests strongly that those who did know Greek more or less as Paul did vocabulary-wise seem to have not had the problems that modern scholars who do not know ancient Greek as well have.  This does not prove that all thirteen are authentic but since we know the early church cared about this issue, something more is needed than some perceived doctrinal differences (which I think are exaggerated) before I throw out their historical judgment. 




                                BRUCE: Hm, I seem to detect sarcasm. Not every modern person is

                                automatically competent in the 1st century (or the 04th, which is where I

                                mostly work). It takes time, work, empathy, emotional investment,

                                cancellation of modern newspaper subscriptions, and all that stuff. Harnack

                                prepared himself for reading the early Christians documents in Greek by

                                reading all the early *non-Christian* documents in Greek. German

                                thoroughness, you see. We can't all be German, but the commandment to be

                                thorough applies to all of us. We do what we can with it. Some of us succeed

                                better than others. Nobody probably gets it perfect, but some get it righter

                                than it was previously, and that counts as an advance in knowledge, or anyway a retreat of ignorance.

                                Ken:  The point is that we can never know, no matter how much we study, exactly what every church was like in A.D. 60 or what words Paul had at his disposal or what his reflection on Jesus might have led to over time in terms of what he articulates about its significance.  Period.  It matters not what we study or read because we have no independent witness outside of hte New Testament to these matters for Paul as a historical person or for the churches of the 50's and 60's. 


                                Ken LitwakAzusa Pacific UniversityAzusa, CA






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • david cook
                                Perhaps it s just me, but I don t recognize the portrait of Baur that is being canvassed. When I see how he is represented, I do wonder whether some people
                                Message 15 of 28 , Sep 8, 2010
                                  Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recognize the portrait of Baur that is being canvassed. When I see how he is represented, I do wonder whether some people are relying on second hand accounts and caricatures or whether they've just read different books. Quite a lot of Baur, by the way, is available for download on the Internet Archive, an invaluable resource. I could, of course, be wrong - I probably am.

                                  David Cook




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • D.Mealand@ed.ac.uk
                                  David Cook wrote ... David you are not alone, I don t think some items in the reports of Baur I have seen here recently stand up to serious scrutiny. I have
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Sep 8, 2010
                                    David Cook wrote

                                    >
                                    > Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recognize the portrait of Baur
                                    > that is being >canvassed. When I see how he is represented, I do
                                    > wonder whether some people >are relying on second hand accounts and
                                    > caricatures or whether they've just >read different books. Quite a
                                    > lot of Baur, by the way, is available for >download on the Internet
                                    > Archive, an invaluable resource. I could, of course, be wrong - I
                                    > probably am.
                                    >

                                    David you are not alone, I don't think some
                                    items in the reports of Baur I have seen
                                    here recently stand up to serious scrutiny.
                                    I have read some of Baur though I am neither a
                                    Hegelian, nor a subscriber to Baur's
                                    portrait of early Christian history.
                                    One of the problems is that none of us
                                    can possibly have read everything, and
                                    most of us at some point yield to the
                                    temptation to pontificate on matters
                                    we only know about third hand. Maybe we
                                    should be less shy of asking each other
                                    what exactly leads you to think that x
                                    ever said y in quite those terms.

                                    When face to face with people I quite
                                    often find that George Fox's practice
                                    of replying to some assertions with a lengthy
                                    silence can work quite well. But it
                                    doesn't seem to work on the internet.

                                    David M.












                                    ---------
                                    David Mealand, University of Edinburgh





                                    ------



                                    --
                                    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                  • David Mealand
                                    An interesting item appeared recently on the Ioudaios group showing abstracts from a conference JUDAEA AND ROME IN COINS, 65 BCE TO 135 CE These include:
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Sep 18, 2010
                                      An interesting item appeared recently
                                      on the Ioudaios group showing abstracts
                                      from a conference

                                      JUDAEA AND ROME IN COINS, 65 BCE TO 135 CE

                                      These include:

                                      POLITICS, ECONOMY AND ETHNICITY: COIN CIRCULATION IN EARLY ROMAN GALILEE
                                      Danny Syon

                                      THE INTERPRETATION OF NERVA'S FISCUS
                                      JUDAICUS SESTERTIUS
                                      Marius Heemstra

                                      JEWISH COINAGE OF THE TWO WARS - AIMS & MEANING
                                      David Hendin

                                      NUMISMATICS AND THE BAR KOKHBA REVOLT SOME NEW DISCOVERIES
                                      Boaz Zissu


                                      The abstracts discuss the relation between Galilee
                                      and coastal cities revealed by coin distribution,
                                      and the hazards of inferring conditions in one
                                      period from another. Nerva and the special tax,Roman
                                      punishment of those living as if Jews, and its
                                      implication for the parting of the ways. The
                                      character of coins issued during the two revolts,
                                      their production by overstriking, their messages,
                                      and their symbols. The evidence of coins for the
                                      geographical extent of the second revolt.

                                      There is interesting input from numismatics here, and
                                      I found the abstracts worth a read.

                                      David M.





                                      ---------
                                      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                                      --
                                      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                    • Gordon Raynal
                                      David, Thanks for the heads up. Everyone interested in Jesus, earliest Christianity, and Judaism from the 2nd century BCE into the C.E. should spend some time
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Sep 18, 2010
                                        David,
                                        Thanks for the heads up. Everyone interested in Jesus, earliest
                                        Christianity, and Judaism from the 2nd century BCE into the C.E.
                                        should spend some time studying the era and particularly Roman
                                        Imperial theology by looking at the coinage. Ebay, vcoins.com,
                                        wildwinds.com all will give you ready access to study the coinage
                                        without having to leave your computer screen. David Hendin's "Guide
                                        to Biblical Coins" is the modern standard on the subject. Besides the
                                        particular issues that David cites there are a host of interesting
                                        issues to think about... for instance: the mass of coins and imagery
                                        reveals the dominance and dominant power of Roman theology.
                                        Interesting to look at the Jewish coinage and think about what was
                                        considered acceptable iconography versus idolatrous iconography. The
                                        coins verbal messages communicate a whole host of messages that many
                                        assume are uniquely Christian messages and so allow us to see Roman
                                        theology at the pocket and transaction for a loaf of bread level.
                                        "Father" god, "Divine annointed" son, "divinized mother as deliverer
                                        of heavenly peace" (see Pontius Pilate's second issue), "divine son at
                                        the right hand of the Father," all of these images and countless more
                                        are there for your eyes to see by such a study. Plus the artistry is
                                        simply worth taking in. Much of the ancient coinage makes modern coin
                                        art look like grade school art.

                                        Gordon Raynal
                                        Inman, SC
                                        On Sep 18, 2010, at 6:40 AM, David Mealand wrote:

                                        >
                                        > An interesting item appeared recently
                                        > on the Ioudaios group showing abstracts
                                        > from a conference
                                        >
                                        > JUDAEA AND ROME IN COINS, 65 BCE TO 135 CE
                                        >
                                        > These include:
                                        >
                                        > POLITICS, ECONOMY AND ETHNICITY: COIN CIRCULATION IN EARLY ROMAN
                                        > GALILEE
                                        > Danny Syon
                                        >
                                        > THE INTERPRETATION OF NERVA'S FISCUS
                                        > JUDAICUS SESTERTIUS
                                        > Marius Heemstra
                                        >
                                        > JEWISH COINAGE OF THE TWO WARS - AIMS & MEANING
                                        > David Hendin
                                        >
                                        > NUMISMATICS AND THE BAR KOKHBA REVOLT SOME NEW DISCOVERIES
                                        > Boaz Zissu
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The abstracts discuss the relation between Galilee
                                        > and coastal cities revealed by coin distribution,
                                        > and the hazards of inferring conditions in one
                                        > period from another. Nerva and the special tax,Roman
                                        > punishment of those living as if Jews, and its
                                        > implication for the parting of the ways. The
                                        > character of coins issued during the two revolts,
                                        > their production by overstriking, their messages,
                                        > and their symbols. The evidence of coins for the
                                        > geographical extent of the second revolt.
                                        >
                                        > There is interesting input from numismatics here, and
                                        > I found the abstracts worth a read.
                                        >
                                        > David M.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ---------
                                        > David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                                        > Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ------------------------------------
                                        >
                                        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                        >
                                        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • E Bruce Brooks
                                        To: Crosstalk In Response To: Ken Litwak On: Paul and Authenticity From: Bruce My previous comments on relevant methodology as I see it, and what it can
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Oct 19, 2010
                                          To: Crosstalk
                                          In Response To: Ken Litwak
                                          On: Paul and Authenticity
                                          From: Bruce

                                          My previous comments on relevant methodology as I see it, and what it can
                                          reasonably hope to accomplish in the Pauline Epistles area, are included in
                                          Ken's current post, and they still sum up that side of things as well as I
                                          can do it. I can best refer back to them. The gist is: none of the critical
                                          methods applied to NT or other ancient documents works perfectly, but
                                          everything works a little bit, and the cumulative result of a lot of
                                          investigations, all of which work a little bit, can be useful in
                                          scholarship. Sometimes a problem will remain unsolvable with present
                                          methods, and those we try to recognize, and to work around then as best we
                                          can, while waiting for better methods to come along, or for those problems
                                          to be solved in a more indirect way.

                                          Ken sums up his objections, or seems to, in this line from his current post:

                                          KEN: . . . it is not valid to say what Paul or Peter or anyone else could
                                          have done.

                                          BRUCE: If that were really true, then the whole subject of Paul would be
                                          beyond the reach of current scholarship, along with every other NT author,
                                          whether known, claimed, or unmentioned. Maybe that really is the case. It's
                                          quite possible that the entire past is beyond our reach, never mind (in some
                                          modern views) the entire present, including the inside of one's own head.
                                          Those who find those ideas congenial are welcome to congene with them.

                                          Myself, I think that the possibilities in general may be more than this, and
                                          that the NT texts in particular, though complicated in many ways (not all of
                                          which have necessarily been discovered), are suitable material for
                                          investigation.

                                          Bruce

                                          E Bruce Brooks
                                          Warring States Project
                                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.