Corpus-Paul

[Christopher Hutson <crhutson AT salisbury.net>]

George Goolde wrote:

>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?

Not to me.  I don't think anyone responded to this post, but it seems
that it merits some response.  The post actually does not deal with
Paul per se but with the meaning of canon.

It seems a very strange move theologically for you to begin with your
own private judgment about which books YOU consider to be canonical
before you decide whether or not to study them.  If the canon means
anything, surely it is something that is imposed on you and not
something you yourself create.  I'm not sure why, theologically, YOUR
humble opinion should matter.  The canon is the canon, not because you
say so or I say so, but because it is.  It isn't up to me to decide
what to put in or take out.  The canon is fixed.  If an individual can
decide whether or not to include a book, then there is no such thing
as "canon." 

I study a book BECAUSE it is canonical.  I also study various texts
that are not canonical, but I make sure to study all those that are. 
The question of authorship is a historical question that helps me
orient myself to the context and hence the meaning of a letter, but my
opinion of authorship does not affect whether I view a text as
canonical.

Perhaps, however, in actual practice your procedure is not so
idiosyncratic.  In fact, I suspect that your "private" decision about
which books are canonical is remarkably close to the 27 books that are
already in the traditional Western canon of the NT.  Is that right? 
In fact, George, do you begin with your own private judgment, or do
you begin with the assumption that the canon that has been passed down
to you is the canon?

Regards,

XPIC

------------------------------------
Christopher R. Hutson
          Hood Theological Seminary
          Salisbury, NC  28144
crhutson AT salisbury.net
------------------------------------