A Text centred rhetorical analysis of Paul's Letter to Titus

History
never lies” (Titus 1:2)? The case against Pauline authorship reeks with
difficulties.
Historically, it is also difficult to uphold the claim for pseudonymity on the
charge that the church viewed pseudonymity as acceptable. Quite the
opposite seems true, if one evaluates how well intentioned false authors and
their works were treated. Two examples of spurious letters written in the name
of Paul are the Acts of Paul and the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Once it was
discovered that the letters were not written by the alleged author, it was
rejected. Where a fraudster was apprehended, he faced severe
consequences (Carson, Moo, et al 1992:368-369). For example, a presbyter
in Asia, who wrote in Paul’s name, once he was convicted and confessed to
have done so, “from the love of Paul”, was removed from office. Contrary to
what is claimed, the early church did not deal kindly with dissemblers or with
their written products (Eusebius, 6.12; Tertullian, 1919:67, 68).
Contrary to the claim that pseudonymous authorship was an acceptable
practice among the early church, Carson, Moo and Fee (1992:368) raise
several valid concerns. The first relates to the fact that writings were valued
for divine content rather than the names attached to them. Thus, we find
several New Testament writings that do not bear the names of authors.
Therefore, attaching an apostolic name was no guarantee that the church
would accept it unquestioningly, as authentic.
Hermeneutics
Andreas Köstenberger and Brevard Childs draw attention to the problematical
hermeneutical implications of the pseudipigraphical theory. Köstenberger
(2003:4) addresses the matter by asking and answering several pertinent
questions, namely,
1. Was pseudonymous letter-writing attested in the first century?
2. If so, was such a practice ethically unobjectionable and devoid of deceptive
intent or not?
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
16