Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Philippians, Munro, and Loisy

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku AT globalserve.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Philippians, Munro, and Loisy
  • Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:03:50 -0400 (EDT)



On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Brian Tucker wrote:

> Greetings
>
> Thanks for the information on this compelling subject. The
> bibliography you provided will be helpful in my future study. I have
> been wrestling with this subject recently and I have received some
> well formulated responses to many of these same issues.

Thanks for your reply, Brian.

This is a difficult subject indeed because in order to deal with it,
scholars would need to re-examine some of the most basic assumptions
they've learned long ago. I also would like to say that I'm not now
setting out to "prove" that the existing paradigmm in Pauline studies is
"wrong". All I'm trying to say is that the alternative paradigm should be
considered. Also, please read Doughty's article at

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doughty.html

It is very good, and it outlines most of the arguments that I would have
made myself on this subject. Some of your objections below are answered
there. He's very good especially in bringing in Kuhn to buttress his
arguments.

Winsome Munro suggests the best approach to this problem, in my view. What
she's saying in her book is that there are obvious similarities between
certain passages in the Pastorals, especially in 1 Peter (very few
scholars see the Pastorals as authentically Pauline, of course), and
certain passages in the "authentic seven letters". This is what she calls
the Pastoral stratum in the Pauline corpus.

Once we see this, a natural assumption will suggest itself that these
similar passages have the same or similar provenance that is not
authentically Pauline.

This is perhaps the best way to challenge the existing paradigm in Pauline
studies. Indeed, how is it possible to assume that the 7 letters are
"entirely authentic" while 6 are "entirely unauthentic", especially since
all 13 often contain some strikingly similar material? The neat line of
division there really seems rather problematic.

Isn't it more natural to assume that some "authentic letters" contain some
"inauthentic material", and, vice versa, that some "inauthentic letters"
may contain some "authentic material"?

> Below you will see my current (tentative) thoughts on this matter.
>
> [much snipped]
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> > It seems rather clear to me that the two letters were written by Paul from
> > the Roman prison. I don't see any need to place this imprisonment in
> > Ephesus, or elsewhere.

> Reasons to reject the interpolation theory

> 1. Polycarp's "letters" may refer to a Macedonian collection which
> would include Thessalonians (circulation).

I suppose the best thing is simply to include here a quote from the
above-mentioned _Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity_ by Darrell J.
Doughty [JHC 1 (Fall 1994), 95-128].

[quote]

Early Christian writings such as 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp have
similar paradigmatic significance for our understanding of early Christian
history. These writings are appealed to as evidence that an apostolic
mainstream existed in early Christianity; that "heresy" was not widespread
or significant; that the Pauline writings were circulated, and even
collected, very early (and therefore could not have been subjected to
interpolations); and that the writings of the great apostle were revered
in orthodox Christianity from the very beginning.[DJD1] Even if these
writings are authentic, such claims are questionable. But the authenticity
of these writings is doubtful.76 We are told that Theodor Zahn proved
"conclusively" that the seven (Ignatian) letters of the Middle Recension
were the "original letters" (Koester, History: 59),77 or that after a few
textual problems had been explained, it was shown by Zahn and Lightfoot
that "all other features of the world of Ignatius were compatible with a
date somewhere between (say) 100-118 C.E." (Schoedel, Ignatius, 4f).78 But
these are merely paradigmatic affirmations. The arguments presented by
Zahn and Lightfoot for the authenticity of these writings are certainly
learned and detailed. With regard to their historical assumptions and
methodology, however, they do not differ in kind from the arguments they
advanced for the authenticity of writings such as 1 Peter and James. Their
conclusions must be reexamined from a truly historical-critical
perspective.

[unquote]

Also see the endnotes for this article on the webpage.

> 2. Theory of combination is conjecture.

[quote from Doughty]

In this light, it at least becomes evident why it is so difficult to argue
for the presence of interpolations in the Pauline writings, let alone to
maintain that these writings are redactional compositions. Such claims
cannot be demonstrated simply by exegesis of specific passages, since
these represent only individual pieces in the puzzle. To make such a claim
plausible would require a different puzzle. From a methodological
perspective, solutions based on redactional proposals should as legitimate
as any other. But such solutions fall outside the normative paradigm, and
are easily characterized therefore as "subjective" and "arbitrary."5

[And here's the footnote,]

(5) With reference to nineteenth century proposals regarding
interpolations in the Pauline writings, C. E. B. Cranfield asserts, for
example, that "the thoroughly arbitrary and subjective nature of these
theories is now generally recognized," and that similar, more recent,
proposals are likewise "arbitrary and subjective" (The Epistle to the
Romans, Edinburgh: Clark, 1975, Vol. I, p. 5). But Cranfield offers no
arguments to support these accusations and no references to scholars who
provide such arguments. One may assume, of course, that he simply
presupposes the work of his predecessors, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam. But
here also we merely learn that all such theories are so "subjective and
arbitrary" that they hardly bear repeating (The Epistle to the Romans,
Edinburgh: Clark, ICC, 1902, lxxxvii). More recently, Furnish refers to
the "highly subjective" judgments of J. C. O'Neill regarding
interpolations in Romans and Galatians ("Pauline Studies," 325).

[unquote]

> 3. Kummel asks how a redactor could feel competent to alter these
> letters by removing the introductions and conclusions of one or more
> of these letters, since the suggested interpolation is clearly not a
> letter in itself. (Kummel, Intro to NT, 1966, 226-237)

Well, I'll answer this by suggesting you should look at the reconsruction
of Phil that I've prepared based on Loisy. This is how the original
letters may have looked, and they do have introductions and conclusions.

Also, your objection can be reversed. It is also a task for a defender of
the existing paradigm to explain why unexplained introductions and
conclusions keep popping up often in the middle of ostensibly integral
Pauline letters.

> 4. There are repeated words and themes present in both the alleged
> "original letter" and the section under dispute:

> 4a. "to gain" (1:21; 3:7)

But neither 1:21 nor 3:7 are included in my reconstruction. Here and in
the following, one can say that your arguments actually tend to support
_my_ point of view. You see, the value of a theory is its predictive
power. In this case, my theory predicts that the passages outside of those
I consider authentic are likely to have similarities, since they were
probably added later and authored by a different author.

> 4b. "to reckon" (5 times)

Perhaps the same applies to this objection? Needs to be checked.

> 4c. Reference to the "state" or "citizens" (1:27; 3:20)

Neither 1:27 nor 3:20 are included in my reconstruction.

> 4d. Themes of joy, contentment in trials, confidence in the
> Philippians.

You should expand here a little. There's not enough here to go on. But you
can also look up in Doughty how he replies to the critics who claim that
they have "demonstrated conclusively" the unity of various epistles.

> 4e. A linking of Paul's fate as an apostle with the church (1:29-30
> with 3:10-11).

Neither 1:29-30 nor with 3:10-11 are included in my reconstruction.

> 5. The enemies of 1:27ff are different from 3:2ff. The former
> represent the hostile world; the latter work from within the body.
> Thus, Paul can view them differently.

Like above, this does not contradict my reconstruction, since both
passages are likely secondary.

> 6. 3:2 resumes the ethical admonitions of 2:12f.

As it may well do, but this does not contradict my reconstruction.

> Why reject the idea of an interpolation in 4:10-23?

But in my view this is not an interpolation at all, but a genuine
passage.

> 1. See 1. above
> 2. Allusions to the gift occur already at 1:7 and 2:25 while Paul is
> in the habit of giving personal thanks at the end of his letters.

Perhaps this is debatable that he would be in the habit of giving personal
thanks at the end of his letters. This is subject to different
interpretations.

> The "lateness" of the thanksgiving is actually an indication of
> Pauline style of writing.

Again, how would we define his style of writing if the authenticity of his
writings is precisely in question here?

> Tentative conclusion: There is no compelling evidence to lead one to
> reject the unity of Philippians.

This is the big question.

> From the beginning of its manuscript history there has only been one
> canonical letter (P46~ca. 200). Compilation theories actually resolve
> nothing, they merely shift the problems of order and organization from
> Paul to an unknown editor.

Simply two different paradigms. See Doughty's quotations from Kuhn.

> Here is some other bibliography:
>
> David Alan Black, argues "Philippians is an integral composition whose
> primary rhetorical function is deliberative,

See Doughty on how difficult it is to identify "primary functions" of
various letters.

> that is, the bulk of the letter is directed toward solving the issue
> of disunity arising from the exigence reflected most clearly in
> 4:2-3." his understanding of Philippians from the perspective of
> discourse analysis is rather convincing as it pertains to the unity of
> the letter.

Also Doughty writes about the difficulties of identifying the Sitz of
various epistles.

[quote]

What we are told by Leander Keck, therefore, presents a problem:

"Because the letters of Paul are responses to what was going on among the
readers, it is necessary to understand the situation to which the letters
respond. All we can know about the situation, however, must be inferred
from the answer; we have no independent, non-Pauline, access to the
situation. After inferring the question we can interpret the answer. There
is no alternative to such circular reasoning (Paul, 19).27"

If [this] were truly the case, we would be condemned to subjective
interpretation: with "circular reasoning" any interpretation is possible.

[unquote]

> Ronald Russell. "Pauline Letter Structure In Philippians." JETS 25/3
> (Sep. 82) 295-306. He argues that Philippians is not an abstract
> theological treatise but a circumstantial pastoral response to local
> church needs.

See above.

> He argues for irregularity as regularity in "the Pauline letter form."

A fine example of how evidence can be forced into any pre-existing
exegetical box?

> This provides the basis for accepting Philippians as one
> letter.
>
> Robert Swift. "The Theme and Structure of Philippians." BibSac
> Jul.-Sep 1984. 234-254. Argues that Philippians has one central theme
> that is broad enough to explain the details of the entire epistle, and
> that the development of this theme follows a literary structure that
> is as systematic, coherent, and logical as that of any NT epistle.

Again, see in Doughty about how difficult it is to identify "a coherent
centre" of various letters.

[quote]

The continuing search for a "coherent center" is a crucial task for
"normal" Pauline research today because disparities between and within the
Pauline writings present a fundamental problem for the normative paradigm.
References to the coherence of Paul's "theology" obscure the fact that the
real issue is the coherence of the Pauline writings themselves,
individually and as a collection. All proposals regarding the coherent
center of Paul's theology find support somewhere in the Pauline writings,
but usually in different places. Seldom if ever are differing proposals
based on different interpretations of the same passages. The real issue
has to do with the identification of characteristic Pauline material as
such. It makes no difference whether we conceive this coherence in terms
of theological doctrines, underlying convictions, or as a particular way
of addressing the contingencies of diverse historical situations, if we
cannot identify the characteristic elements of Paul's thought, we cannot
identify which of the disparate materials in the Pauline writings are in
fact Pauline, or which are not.

[unquote]

> > Also, in the next two messages, I will add some more re Phil from the past
> > Crosstalk discussions, and I will post my reconstruction of the original
> > parts written by Paul.
>
> I look forward to your reconstructions.

I hope you liked them.

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page