Corpus-Paul

[George Goolde <goolde AT mtnempire.net>]

At 12:34 PM 5/3/1999 -0700, you wrote:

Sheil wrote:
>
>How are we to know what the CONTENTS ARE if we have not established the
>CONTEXT?
>E.g., if the church offices discussed in the PE are being established by
>Paul _de
>novo_, the letters tell us something quite different than if they are
>being proposed
>(by a follower of Paul two generations later) as an alternative to a
>pre-existing set
>of church offices -- which is suggested, e.g., by the drastic reduction of
>widows from
>the church payroll and the 100% increase in salary for the presbyters (1
>Tim 5:3-18).
>
Sheila, I share your conern for the context, and  agree wholeheartedly
that is important - no, imperative - to understanding the contents of the
PE.  I suppose that I am reflectingmy own process of separating matters of
canonicity from matters of exegesis.  That is, I determine whether or not a
letter is canonical, and then, if I believe it is, I exegete and apply it.
One of  the requirements for canonicity, IMHO, is that a letter be
authentic.  That is, it must be what it purports to be or it cannot be the
Word of God. If the author of the PE was not Paul, then the author lied to
us by claiminng to be Paul, hence he wasnot a "holy man of God" in the
sense of  2 Peter 1:21.   

I am not setting aside your significant comments regarding widows and
presbyters, but, as I said above, I would first make a decision as to
canonicity, and then attempt to deal with the contents, per se.

Does this make any sense?

George

George A. Goolde
Professor, Bible & Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary


>
>--
>Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor
>Biblical Studies & Early Christianity
>John Carroll University
>Cleveland, Ohio 44118
>smcginn AT jcu.edu
>www1.jcu.edu/religion/mcginn/mcginn.htm
>
>
>"It didn't take long to see morality as the quickest way to avoid
>self-loathing."
>     Sue Grafton, "L" is for Lawless (New York: Holt, 1995), 205.
>
>
>

George