Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>]

Yonder stated:

>>Do source critics fabricate "seams" in texts and
"evidence" of redactional activity because beyond all else they wish the
texts to be compilations of sources? Or do theories last because they are
enduringly useful and convincing descriptions of what we have before us?
I would venture the latter ... <<

Your comment may very well be applied to our list topic. Researchers 
propose hypothetical sources because they -do- see evidence that makes them 
question what appears in the existing text. Since many, even some of the 
radical, proponents of such theories were and are sincerely devout 
individuals, I would suppose that most of them would not have offered them 
unless it seemed unavoidable and necessary. The Pauline corpus is no 
exception to this phenomenon.

Would we automatically accept Soviet history as presented in a textbook of 
the old USSR, just because it is what the text plainly says? Of course not. 
It may be presented coherently, even believably, but there will be internal 
inconsistencies and other evidence that sources have been utilized and 
modified. Whole generations of foreign intelligence analysts learned to 
read between the lines of official statements and accounts originating in 
the USSR, and I think we have to do that same kind of thing with the 
Pauline records as well.

Just my opinion ...

Dave Hindley
DHindley AT compuserve.com