Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - On 1 Thessalonians in the Pauline Corpus

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft)
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft)
  • Subject: On 1 Thessalonians in the Pauline Corpus
  • Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:52:48 -0400 (EDT)


Please forgive me for occasional sly smiles as I read the discussions of
the relationships (or lack of such) between 1 Thessalonians and what we
all seem to agree is the central core of assumedly authentic writings by
Paul (Romans-Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians; "computer Paul" for A.Q.Morton).
It seems to me that what is being said, in essence, is that if someone
wants to believe that the same author wrote all five of these writings, a
case can be made. But it's a struggle. A much easier case could probably
be made, for example, for "Laodiceans," but nobody seems to want to
believe that Paul actually wrote that short item.

My comment is methodological -- I really don't care about adding
"Laodiceans" or "3 Corinthians" to the authentic corpus, or about
subtracting "1 Thessalonians" from it -- but do we (well, of course, I
mean you who are presenting the arguments here) really understand the
extent to which the assumptions/conclusions that are held skew the entire
discussion? How is it possible to establish consistent criteria that can
apply with equal force to all ancient writings that claim to be by Paul?
Or is it ultimately, as I suspect, dependent on what one wants to believe
and defend for other reasons?

Of course, perhaps Paul actually wrote nothing. Or maybe he only wrote the
Pastorals? Or only 2 Thessalonians? But at the moment I'm less interested
in the initial assumptions about where to START the process of
differentiating authentic from inauthentic, early from late (and middle),
"Judaic" from "pagan," etc., and more about the PROCESS itself, once it
is underway. If letters with these sorts of variation (apart from the
specific content) were attributed to, say, Josephus, or Philo's nephew
Tiberius Julius Alexander, or simply an unknown author of that time, what
would we do with them? I suspect that the treatment would be quite
different.

Methodologically yours,
Bob
--
Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page