Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Darrell Doughty on Dutch Radical

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jim Hester <hester AT jasper.uor.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Darrell Doughty on Dutch Radical
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:04:14 -0700


Fabrizio P. included the following in a response to John Lupia:

> Darrell Doughty wrote:
>
> "I agree that the distinction between "literary" and "documentary" papyri is
> largely an artificial, apologetic device. A few years ago at the Westar Paul
> Seminar I made the same point -- namely, that writings such as Romans and 1
> Clement are much too long to be regarded as actual letters -- and was
> countered by an apologist who said I was obviously unfamiliar with the
> Pseudo-Philonic Epistles. As we say in English these days, Go figure!

I was at the Westar meeting when Darrell made his presentation about the
pseuodonimity of the pauline corpus, and in fact had heard him make the same
general point 30 years ago in the Seminar on Paul session at SBL. He failed
to convince me on both occasions, and in good humor I told him so!

The distinction within epistolography is not apologetic but functional. It
seeks to note the difference between the common letter tradition seen
largely in papyrus finds in Egypt (see John White's book, for example, Light
from Ancient Letters) and letters whose style ignores common epistolary
conventions and formulae and whose audience is more universal.

Furthermore, what makes one letter more "actual" than another? Does anyone
want to argue that the genre can have only very narrow characteristics
before a "real" letter becomes something else? Martin Luther Stirewalt,
e.g., was able to show that official letters bore few resemblances to the
common letter yet were "actual" letters.

The issue for me is a rhetorical one, i.e., the process of invention. In the
case of Paul's letters it seems to me that we have to contend with the fact
that both the rhetorical and argumentative situations he confronted required
that adopt letters as a mode of communication and that he adapt the genre to
his argumentative strategy. That allows him to dictate something as brief as
Philemon or as convoluted as 2 Corinthians. The length of the letter is an
inventional choice! I would turn Darrell's argument around, unless there are
other criteria that render pauline authorship prima facie impossible, the
fact that we have Romans means that "actual" letters as effective means of
communication existed in the first century.

BTW, Darrell was Hans Conzelmann's first American doctoral student, followed
not long thereafter by Burton Mack. Given Conzelmann's interests and
intellectual rigor, you better believe that Darrell knows the
Pseudo-Philonic Epistles!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hester "Never be afraid to try something new.
736 Buckingham Drive Remember, amateurs built the ark.
Redlands, CA 92374 Professionals built the Titanic."
(909) 792-0533
hester AT uor.edu http://rhetjournal.uor.edu
http://www.ars-rhetorica.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: "Fabrizio Palestini" <fabrizio.palestini AT tin.it>
> Reply-To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:39:11 +0200
> To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Darrell Doughty on Dutch Radical
>
> Dear John,
>
> Below I turn to you Darrell Doughty's response about your position on
> "literary" and "documentary" papyri and on paleography.
> I have received it now, so I could not include it in my previous message.
>

>
> I think the real question is whether any one -- in the ancient world or our
> own -- wrote letters of this kind.
>
> Lupia wrote:
>
>>> palaeography is an area that requires many years of research. One
> cannot pick it up in a few months without making serious errors in judgment.
> It is an area of specialization that requires IMHO at least a decade of
> erudite study to make serious palaeographic assertions. So, caution should
> be given when reading critisms of experts by non-specialists. This is apoint
> I already made in my previous post.<<
>
> This kind of elitism - in which only so-called "experts" are taken
> seriously - essentially cuts off any serious debate. This is particularly
> the
> case because such appeals to "expertise" bypass the fact that the field of
> palaeography is highly subjective. With regard to P46, there is simply not
> enough comparative material to reach a firm conclusion. It is generally
> recognized that the writing is similar to materials dated around the close
> of the second century. But materials with different writing are found only
> at the beginning of the fourth century. As far as anyone can determine, P46
> could have been written anytime in the third century. Then we have the
> problem that a given scribe could have written in the same way for fifty or
> sixty years. Or scribes might have imitated earlier hand-writing.
>
> I haven't read Kim's article, and don't have much interest in pursuing a
> debate in which so many participants are clearly apologists. But I don't see
> how anyone could decisively demonstrate that P46 comes from the first
> century.
>
> Darrell"
>
> Best regards
>
> Fabrizio Palestini
>

>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: hester AT uor.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page