Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sequence of the letters

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: Sequence of the letters
  • Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:07:02 -0500


As requested by Ted Mann:
In my article entitled "The Sequence of Paul's Letters" (Canadian
Journal of Theology, 14
[1968], 186-200 [now reprinted in The Earlier Letters of Paul -- and
Other Studies ("Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des
Urchristentums", 8; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1998)]) I collected the
views of those scholars who had expressed an opinion about the relative
order of two or more of Paul's letters based on considerations which are
independent of Acts. I then collated these views and came up with the
surprising (at least to me) conclusion that, except on one point, these
opinions were unanimous in pointing to a single sequence for the
letters. The single exception concerns the relative position of 2 Cor.
10-13. Some of these scholars considered it to be (part of) the
"Painful Letter" which was written before 2 Cor. 1-9; others placed it
as in the table below. I then inserted into this sequence Paul's visits
to Jerusalem, again according to those scholars who had expressed an
opinion on the matter. The result is as follows:

Jerusalem visit ("acquaintance")
1 and 2 Thessalonians
Previous Letter (including 2 Cor. 6:14 7:l)
Jerusalem visit (conference; collection begins)
1 Corinthians
Philippians
2 Corinthians 1 9
Galatians
Romans
(2 Corinthians 10 13)
Jerusalem visit (collection delivered; arrest)
Colossians and Philemon
"Ephesians" if genuine

With this basic sequence I am myself in agreement, although with a lot
more to say.
In these matters I am very concerned about method, but I find it
very hard to get NT
scholars to reflect on their methods. (See "Certain Uncertain
Certainties in New Testament Studies" and "Good News and the Integrity
of 1 Corinthians" in the above volume. The latter paper also appears in
Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard
N. Longenecker, edd. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson [JSNT Sup 108;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994]). Inattention to method
results in a tangled web of contradictory proposals. Concerning
sequence it seems to me clear (1) that relative dating should precede
absolute dating, and (2) that the letters (the primary sources) should
be allowed to speak for themselves without the influence of Acts (a
secondary source for Paul).
Cheers! -- John Hurd






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page