Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 2 Cor 6:1-7:1 in its context

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John C. Hurd" <John.Hurd AT Squam.org>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: 2 Cor 6:1-7:1 in its context
  • Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:50:23 -0400


Richard Fellows responded to my reference to my published argument
connecting 2 Cor. 6:14--7:1 with Paul's "Previous Letter", i.e., the
letter referred to in 1 Cor. 5:9-11 by suggesting that it was preferable
to understand the passage in its present context, i.e. simpler and
therefore more probable. He agrees that Paul discussed the issues
treated in 2 Cor. 6:14--7:12 in the period leading up to 1 Cor. 5:9-11.
The issue between us, therefore, is not the set of similarities I put
forward in my book but whether the passage under discussion is an
integral part of 2 Corinthians.
I have considerable sympathy with those who are skeptical about
theories of non-integrity, since I consider that most dissections of
Pauline letters are extremely improbable. (E.g., 1 Cor.; 1 and 2
Thess.; Phil.) 2 Corinthians, however, is for me the exception. There
is textual evidence that the Corinthian material was originally
"published" in one block (and the Thessalonian as well). It has been
suggested that at this point there was only a single notice of
sender--recipient--greeting for each block (John Knox long ago). Later
editors noticed the break between what we call 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. and
inserted a new salutation. They did not notice, however, the break
between 2 Cor. 1--9 and 10--13. I think that originally there were
three surviving Corinthian letters: a long one, a middle-sized one, and
a small one, arranged in order of length.
And a fragment. What to do with the fragment? Nils Dahl once read
a paper at SBL meetings (later published) suggesting why this fragment
was placed where we now find it. I do not know how far one can go in
rethinking an ancient editor's thoughts, but I do think that, among the
three theories about our passage ([1] it belongs where it is; [2] it is
a misplaced Pauline fragment, and [3] it is non-Pauline), number 2 is
the most probable. There is a break at either end. The context reads
well without it. And the content of the passage has little connection
with its context (pace Dahl and Fellows).
Richard says that it has more connection with its context than is
commonly thought (which makes [1] more probable).
I have suggested that the fragment mirrors the very early letter
that I reconstruct as the "Previous Letter" at three points (which makes
[2] more probable).
([3] is, I consider, the least probable of all. Some scholars have
a way of eliminating unusual elements in the corpus by declaring them
non-Pauline. In my opinion, the reason our passage strikes some as
unusual is that it is early. So also 2 Thessalonians.)
With best wishes! -- John Hurd

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Prof. John C. Hurd Internet: John.Hurd AT Squam.org
:: 49 Wanless Ave. Office tel.: (416) 485-2429
:: Toronto, Ont. M4N 1V5 FAX (24 hours): 485-7320






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page