Corpus-Paul

[Andrew Lincoln <alincoln AT chass.utoronto.ca>]

James Harding wrote:
>Asking questions such as "was Paul's thoght apocalyptic?" begs far too many
>other questions. Was there, first of all, an ancient  concept of
>'apocalyptic?'
>Certainly there are texts which share similar features and have been
>dubbed 'apocalypses' or related to 'apocalyptic' thought: but that
>serves a modern desire to categorize and does not help us to
>understand ancient genres and concepts. I don't see where the debate
>can go from here.

I hesitate to send a message when I am about to travel and to be away from
my e-mail for the next two weeks, but in my opinion, and it is biased
because of my association with the work, the best overview of the whole
issue of the appropriateness of talking about "apocalyptic" in relation to
Paul is R. B. Matlock's volume, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul (Sheffield:
S. A. P., 1996). Matlock gives an entertaining review of the way in which
"apocalyptic" has been used to make interpreter's points about Paul's
theology from Schweitzer up to Beker and Martyn.  Pointing out the
ambiguities and the problems of abstracting a category of distinctive
"apocalyptic" thought from the apocalypses, and including an incisive
critique of the Semeia 14 discussion and interaction with Rowland's
proposal, Matlock shows how the use of the term "apocalyptic" by
interpreters of Paul frequently tells us a lot more about those
interpreters than it does about Paul. There is an informative and
appreciative review of Matlock's book on-line by Neill Elliott at the SBL
Reviews website - http://www.sbl-site.org/SBL/Reviews/8jan16.html

Andrew Lincoln

------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew T. Lincoln
alincoln AT chass.utoronto
Wycliffe College
University of Toronto
5 Hoskin Avenue
Toronto M5S 1H7
Canada