Corpus-Paul

["George Blaisdell" <maqhth AT hotmail.com>]

Licia ~

Thank-you for articulating and theoretically accounting for my profound 
frustration with reading Paul.

I doubt that it belongs on list ~ We'll see what happens ~ But it seems 
utterly germaine to me, in that systematic exegetical types, [such as 
you!] will find endless controversies with which to occupy themselves in 
their efforts to 'rein in' the Pauline material!

Paul just does not seem to know how to make a statement and let it sink 
in!  And perhaps this is just what he is not supposed to do!

Ah jus' dunno!

George


>From: Licia Kuenning <Licia AT compuserve.com>
>Reply-To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>CC: Larry Kuenning <kuenning-larry AT voicenet.com>
>Subject: Re: Pauline Authorship of Hebrews
>Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:56:12 -0500
>
>Since I was the first on this list to say that Paul didn't write
>Hebrews I should probably confess that my reason for
>thinking so may be a bit outside the scope of the reasons
>most people here would be likely to apply.  It comes of
>having internalized the system of personality typology that
>divides people into Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuitive
>types (one is born with one's type and retains it throughout
>life).  This is the theory set forth in Michael Malone's book
>_Psychetypes_, on the off-chance anyone here is acquainted
>with it.  Despite having been mostly skeptical of psychological
>typologies prior to learning this one, I was persuaded of the
>theory (one of the developers of which I knew personally and
>typed her book manuscript) because I found that it really did
>fit most people that I got to know.
>
>Having been of the opinion that Paul was an Intuitive, I picked
>up and read Hebrews one day and said, "Hey, this essay was
>written by a Thinking type."
>
>I can't usually type someone from one piece of writing, and
>I certainly can't type all of the biblical authors; but the logical
>cognitive style of the author of Hebrews is quite striking.
>This author remembers where his argument has been, and where
>it's going, and what it's based on, and what follows from what.
>It is almost like a modern scholarly paper--if citational footnotes
>had been invented you could see them in it.
>
>Paul isn't logical--he meanders around and supports his positions
>with arguments that are not to his point, or go further than he
>needs, or can't be systematically maintained.
>
>I think it is more than a difference of literary style; it's a
>difference of cognitive style.  A person can't really be "all
>things"; one is limited by the way one's brain is organized.
>The sort of mind that produced Hebrews wouldn't have written
>the letters of Paul: I'm speaking from the Thinking type's point
>of view, being one myself; I would have been embarrassed to
>put forward some of the arguments Paul uses.  Which is not
>to say that Paul was wrong to use them.  I usually don't
>get along well with Intuitives, but God created a great many
>of them without asking my opinion.  :)
>
>Well, I apologize if this is not strictly the type of reasoning
>appropriate to the list, but I thought I might as well
>communicate it.  Please don't ask me to elaborate much
>on it, as my memory of the texts is rusty at this point, and
>I don't have a lot of time to put in.  (I spent all day
>researching the history of the canon for a nonacademic
>list which probably won't appreciate it, and told myself:
>I really must devote less time to the Internet.)
>
>Licia Kuenning
>wife of Larry Kuenning, who is known to Ioudaios folks.
>
>Licia AT compuserve.com
>kuenning-licia AT voicenet.com
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: maqhth AT hotmail.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com