Paul: The Lost Epistles. Robert M. Price

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ or un-Pauline if we are not even expressing our Pauline hypotheses in Pauline idiom, and what Paul wrote was epistles, treatise-like letters. We can only detect a ring of truth if what we think is Pauline thought can be plausibly expressed in Pauline idiom.

      Author and Authority

      The question of which if any of the ancient epistles is genuinely Pauline remains quite controversial because of a theological question that hovers like a ghost over all such discussions. It is the question of "apostolic authority." The apostles are supposed to have the same authority as Jesus Christ in his absence: "Whoever hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). Protestants say that the Bible is the final authority for all Christian belief and practice. But that is metonymy, naming the whole thing when you mean only a part: they really intend only a portion of scripture, the New Testament. And within that, what they really have in mind is the set of Pauline epistles. This is true even of fairly liberal and even radical New Testament scholars who are willing to admit that we know very little for certain as to what materials in the gospels may authentically go back to the historical Jesus. For them, it doesn't really matter what Jesus said so long as we know what his chief apostle Paul said. This was true for all traditional Calvinists, Lutherans, even fundamentalists. As the great evangelical theologian Edward J. Carnell once put it, rather bluntly: the New Testament interprets the Old; the epistles interpret the gospels; and Romans and Galatians interpret the epistles. But then it becomes very touchy to suggest that some or all the epistles of Paul are not really his. At any rate, Carnell's assessment tells us why almost all Protestant scholars leave at least Romans and Galatians as Pauline.

      Even some liberal theologians flinch at suggestions that certain letters are not really Paul's because their model of biblical inspiration and authority is based on the belief that major biblical writers were "religious geniuses," and that their writings are inspired in much the same way those of playwrights and poets are. They do have authority as those who know their subject, the subject in this case being God and religious experience. Reading Paul for them would be like reading Thomas Merton or Meister Eckhart. But then what if this or that epistle can be shown not to stem from the great Paul after all?

      Of course the next step is to shift ground, to say that a particular writing is as "authoritative" as it is going to get so long as it strikes some chord in the reader, makes us think of something we wouldn't have otherwise, challenges us in some way. Whoever may have written it was a genius, or at least he was having a good day. In any case, though, authority is no longer seen as a matter of simply taking orders and believing unprovable things because the writer is supposed to have had a hot-line to heaven. Some years ago, University of Chicago New Testament scholar Robin Scroggs announced that we have reached this stage. It is our prerogative to grant authority to whichever biblical writings which we hear and assent to. And not just because we already thought for ourselves whatever they tell us, as if we were corroborating them, like a professor giving a student a good mark on a paper. No, the biblical writings tell us new things or, like the Johannine Paraclete, bring things to our remembrance when convenience and self-interest might have led us to forget them. So when we read them, they strike a deep chord, they ring true. We needn't simply swallow whatever they say, and when they say something that fails to ring true, we ought to discard it. So we are left where Paul left the Thessalonians, responsible to test all spiritual utterances and to decide for ourselves which are worth heeding (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22).

      Paul: Signature or Genre?

      Let me repeat the question: what if a particular text turns out not to have been written by Paul, but rather by a master Paulinist? I think we are in the position of those art critics and those art aficionados who learn that a Rembrandt canvas they have long admired is actually the work of one of Rembrandt's students. Do they repudiate the painting as a fake? Do they lament that they were wrong ever to have hailed it? Of course not. What begins to emerge is the realization that a "Rembrandt painting" must refer to a type of painting, not to the specific origin of a painting. Others besides the original Rembrandt learned, under his influence, whether direct or indirect, to paint the sort of picture he originated. Each such painting will be "a Rembrandt" to the degree it succeeds in embodying the peculiar excellences of Rembrandt. It is even possible that the master himself might have on occasional failed to paint a true Rembrandt, or may have purposely painted some other kind of painting. But that is another story.

      All these questions of authenticity will surely, and properly, be raised by readers and students of the present collection of hitherto-unknown Pauline epistles, the publication of which will no doubt make waves. But what would a Pauline writing be that did not? When did Paul ever pen anything so tame? In my rendering of the texts I have tried to preserve Pauline idiom as literally as was feasible. I have noticed, as I am sure the reader will, certain contradictions between these epistles, not unlike those which have perplexed generations of Paul's readers. And I assume they stem from the same causes: either a single author changed his mind, certainly no crime, or the letters may stem from different Paulinist viewpoints. In the latter case, as in the canonical Paulines, we may be witnessing intra-Pauline debate.

      Most of the present Pauline letters are addressed to congregations mentioned in the New Testament and with which therefore we already had some reason to suppose Pauline communication. Whether the Eutychus to which one letter is addressed is the man depicted in Acts chapter 20 must remain an open question. All New Testament names were quite common. On the other hand, the Luke to whom one letter is addressed is obviously supposed to be the same man referred to in Colossians 4:14.

      The new epistles present us the same challenge the old ones did, in that we will find it necessary to deduce the occasions for them. Did Paul write in answer to a letter from the church? In one case, we can be sure he did. The scribe responsible for the preservation of the Epistle to the Iconians found and included the original letter sent Paul by the elders of the congregation. While it is possible this letter is itself an early attempt to interpret Paul's letter, in the same way early Christians sometimes added brief set-up stories to enigmatic sayings of Jesus to supply a context in which they could mean something specific, so the letter from Iconium may possibly have been written after the fact to elucidate the subject matter of the letter to Iconium. But there is no pressing reason to think so. Let the reader judge.

      I have decided here to defer any discussion of the historical authenticity of these "new" epistles. They should have the opportunity to speak afresh to the readers of today, without prior coaching from modern experts telling you to accept them or to disregard them. Perhaps the important question is whether they prove to be "Pauline Epistles" in the sense I have tried to describe, and on this score, I trust each reader will be his or her own expert.

      Final Judgments

      I have appended another "new" text, the Great Apocalypse of Paul, to the letter collection. Here I must admit the probability seems to me to be against Pauline authenticity, for whatever that may be worth. Virtually all visionary documents like this one were pseudonymous, and this is not even the only apocalypse, or revelation, attributed to Paul. We have two others, one Catholic (from about the fourth century), the other Gnostic (second century?), and we know of others which have not survived as far as we know. This one seems to me not much more likely to be historically authentic, but, like all such texts, it is fascinating in its own right and has something to teach us.

      Robert M. Price

      June 1, 2003

      A Letter from the Iconian Church to Paul

      Galbus Demetrius and Aelius Varro

      Elders of the Church at Iconium

      To Paul the Apostle,

      Joy and peace to you.

      O Paul, we beg to know your counsel concerning certain matters of pressing importance that have lately arisen СКАЧАТЬ