Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Criteria for Comparing Writings

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "J.E.Harding" <BSP97JEH AT sheffield.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>, "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Criteria for Comparing Writings
  • Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:25:44 +0100


Bob Kraft wrote:

>>My suggestion would be to take the "3 Corinthians" materials and apply the
same sort of observations. Ask if the same person who wrote 2 Timothy
could have written 3 Corinthians, and why or why not. Then try to move
from those observations to the question whether that person (or those
persons) could have written Romans-Galatians and/or 1-2 Corinthians.

Try the same sort of thing with Laodiceans in relation to Philippians,
etc. These exercises might help sharpen the methodological issues, among
other things. The quest for consistency of judgment would seem to me to be
basic, if perhaps sometimes painful! Ultimately, what you WANT to
believe/conclude will probably win the day. Probabilities are often
ephemeral things.<<

These are interesting suggestions, though I must confess I do have
problems with source-critical analyses of 2 Cor. This probably
relates to your comment that what one wants to believe/conclude will
win the day, which is an important point for all invloved in
'objective' research to bear in mind. I guess I am not clear what you
mean by 'consistency of judgment'; as my methodological
presuppositions made clear yesterday, I find it difficult to accept
that we can make firm decisions about what criteria to employ in
order to explore the question of authenticity. It is only in cases
such as Hebrews, where the stylistic and linguistic differences from
other letters are extremely striking, that I feel able to deny
Pauline authorship. But for the sake of argument, let me give an
example of my approach, which I think relates to what you proposed in
your response.

1 Cor and 2 Tim 'could' have been written by the same author. For
example, the relationship Paul-Timothy-addressees in 1 Cor 4
parallels Paul-Timothy-church in 1 Tim and especially 2 Tim 2:2.
Indeed, although 1 Cor uses the language paradidomi/paradosis and 2
Tim that of paratithemi/paratheke, 2 Tim 1:14 and 2:2, and 1 Cor
11:2,23 and 15:1-3 offer the same model of a chain of transmission.

However, although the same author 'could' have written both, the same
model of a chain of transmission appears in several Jewish texts, as
well as 1 Clem 42:1-4. This means that two different authors could
have drawn on the same model. This is one tiny example of the problem
I envisage, which is that the similarities and differences between
'Pauline' texts permit a plethora of explanations. My response to
this problem is to say that (a) the authenticity question is beyond a
solution, but (b) the similarities between the Pauline texts enabled
them to be drawn together as authentic letters of Paul during the
canonisation process. Thus for my purposes, that is, an examination
of models of teaching in 2 Tim, Qumran, the T12P and Luke, I feel
able to say that comparisons may be made between texts attributed to
Paul which do not imply an underlying dogmatic system but may imply
either a common author or a common group of traditions.

Best wishes,

James Edward Harding
University of Sheffield
>bsp97jeh AT sheffield.ac.uk<




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page