(As a sidenote: why do responders keep assuming I know almost nothing about Biblical studies? You felt the need to inform me that inspired and inerrant aren't the same thing. And to tell me that Doug Stuart is at Gordon-Conwell -- where I was his grad assistant at one point [I am certain he was at the SBL meeting as a presenter because I rode with him to the meeting from GCTS.] Dr. Becker assumed I knew nothing of the canonicity debates, genre studies, or even why the pastorals were named as they are. Just a tad frustrating. But, so be it. Rant ended.)
Rob,
I didn't mean to lecture you on the issue of canonicity, but merely to point out that just because an early-Christian document claims to be written by an apostle does not provide certainty that the document was in fact written by an apostle. As you surely know, there are numerous examples of such pseudepigrapha from the ancient church. There are in fact many reasons to doubt that Paul was the author of the Pastorals.
You were the one to raise the issue of genre, and I merely pointed out that the stylistic differences between the undisputed Pauline letters and the Pastoral Letters fit within the same genre, namely "apostolic letter." We're not comparing apples to oranges here, but apples to apples.
In one of your earlier posts you had written,"Lastly, if the Pastorals are totally identical in genre, then why do we distinguish between pastoral and general epistles at all?" I thought this was a serious question, so that is why I wrote what I did about why we call these letters "the Pastoral Letters" and why they don't fit the category of "general epistle."
I'm sorry that my replies caused you to be upset.
Matt Becker
Fair enough. Apology accepted and thank you.
As a Gordon-Conwell student, I could cross-register for one class a semester at any Boston div school - a nice practice. I spent two years doing academic work at Harvard, primarily with Larry Stager in OT Archaeology and Eldon Epp in NT Textual Criticism. Though to the best of my knowledge, my primary research paper for each is still used in classes at GCTS, in those two years I grew quite used to people assuming that a lack of commitment to current academic orthodoxy could only be caused by a lack of between-the-ears ballast.
It could well be that I developed a bit of an allergic reaction and react to that attitude where it isn't actually in existence. If so, the apology should be from me, not you.
