Corpus-Paul

["J.E.Harding" <BSP97JEH AT sheffield.ac.uk>]

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<