{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

34_Pseudepigraphy and Haustefeln

34_Pseudepigraphy and Haustefeln - Pseudepigraphy and...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Pseudepigraphy and Household Codes Not all 13 (or 14) letters ascribed to Paul are Pseudepigraphy believed by modern scholars to be from Paul himself. Some are thought to be postPauline (=Deuteropauline). Probability of pseudonymity in the Pauline corpus: Most likely to be pseudonymous Pastorals Eph Col 2 Thess Least likely to be pseudonymous Hebrews is anonymous NOT pseudonymous Is Pseudepigraphy Unethical? Degrees of authorship in the ancient world Writes it (Gal 6:11) Dictates it (written by a secretary; Rom 16:22) Coauthors its (1 Thess 1:1) Authorizes it (John 21:24) Written as if by a disciple ethical Forged it (2 Thess 2:2) unethical Iamblichus, a Pythagorean, states that there is great honor in publishing a treatise in a venerable teacher's name. Among Pythagoreans, very few writings were known by the author's own name. Tertullian (in reference to his discussion on the Second and Third Gospels) that "the works which disciples publish belong to their masters." Analogous to modern day footnoting Pseudonymony vs Forgery Written as if by a disciple was ethical. This literary technique was the reliable passing on and application of the tradition from an important figure (e.g., Jesus and the Gospels). Forgery was not ethical. These documents were written with the malicious intent to deceive or at the very least was not faithful to or continuous with the orthodox tradition. Household Codes (Haustafeln) Included three basic relationships Husbandwives Parentschildren Masterslave Codes used by Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Varied in the motivation for the prescribed behaviors. Eph 5:226:9 (cf. Col 3:184:1) Does such hierarchical family organization seem consistent with the egalitarian ethos advocated in Gal 3:2728? How does one explain the differences between these passages? Represent an intrusion of patriarchalism in later generations in the church OR ... We must first define what an oikos (household) was in the ancient world. Wrong Assumption: Xenophon's Oeconomicus An ancient household = a modern nuclear family Oikos = household = estate (not family). Closer to a 19th c. Southern plantation or modern family business. Relates the science of household management, the goal of which is to increase the estate and become economically selfsufficient. Each partner (husbandwife, masterslave, parent child) had specific duties for managing the estate. Problem in the churches: Does the relationship of the worshipping community (Gal 3:2728) carry over into the workplace (Christian household)? The Christian worshipping community and the Christian household were often synonymous (i.e., made up of the same people). Likely the radical sense of Christian equality experienced in the worshipping community was disrupting the family business (cf. 1 Tim 6:2). The amount of material addressed to the slave in Col 3:2225 and the amount of material addressed to wives and husbands in Eph 5:2233 may point to disruption in those `work' relationships in those specific instances. Solution Gal 3:2728 = Promotes Christian equality in the worshipping community (including the marriage relationship). Eph 5:226:9 = Specifies the organization of labor in a Christian family business. Not addressing the same situation/circumstances. ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online