Corpus-Paul

["Mike Thompson" <mbt2 AT cam.ac.uk>]

--On Wed, 12 May, 1999 7:30 pm -0700 "Martin Eldred"
<joyluthn AT mtaonline.net> wrote: 

> 
> Dear Members: 
>  
> This is my first post on our discussion group.  I would like to "pick your
collective brains" if I might. 
>  
> The main area of my Pauline research has centered around the Corinthian
corpus and more specifically, II Corinthians. 
>  
> One issue that I have been tracking, on and off for the past few years
revolves around the hypothesis that this letter is actually a compellation
of letters.  I am generally convinced by Bornkamm's "partition argument"
(cf. "The History of the So-Called Second Letter to the Corinthians", NTS,
vol VIII).  Furnish, in his AB commentary, supplies a different, but
compelling version of the partition therory. 
>  
> The arguments have been there for a long while and don't need repeating
here.  I assume that anyone doing serious Corinthian study has at least had
to consider them.  My main question is, if we accept these theories, and
divide the letter into a seeming hodge-podge, then how do we explain how
they can to be in the order they are in our canonical II Corinthians?  Who
was the redactor and why did he/she arrange them this way?  I can find no
literature that really deals with this in depth.  Bornkamm touches it, but
to my thinking, leaves the issue unresolved. 
>  
> Is any one else here familiar with articles or larger works that take this
issue to task, or are their personal theories that would enhance my own?  
This will help my own research greatly. 
>  
> Thank you. 
> Rev. Martin W. Eldred 
> Joy Lutheran Church 
> Eagle River, Alaska

It's hard to be confident about this, particularly since we lack external
manuscript evidence to support a compilation. A number of scholars still
think 2Cor can make sense as a whole (e.g. Ford and Young, _Meaning and
Truth in 2 Cor_; Witherington, _Conflict and Community in Corinth_), and I
tried to make sense of Paul's train of thought recently in a little potted
commentary (_Transforming Grace_), albeit not for the academic community.
FWIT, I think we have his 2nd and 4th letters to the Corinthians, and 10-13
may well be his 5th. 

The difficulty with partition theories is that they create new problems when
they solve old ones. Did Paul keep a copy of the letters he sent? I think
so, but he could certainly have lost some or all of them in his adventures
at sea. 

If 2Cor was compiled in Corinth, why did the collective memory there allow
bits to be put in a misleading order? If 2Cor was compiled somewhere else,
would the leadership and congregation in Corinth be happy with something
that differed from what they had? We don't have enough information to be
dogmatic one way or the other, and frankly I lack the faith (credulity?) to
build much exegesis on a partitioning that overlooks the sharp turns in
thought and tone that occur in Paul's other letters (e.g. Phil 3, although
Collange and others would see that letter as a compilation as well).
Everyone knows that dictating a letter took time and no doubt was subject to
interruptions. But I look forward to learning from my colleagues...

Michael Thompson

============================================================================

Michael B Thompson                          Telephone (0)1223-741066 (study)
Ridley Hall                                           (0)1223-741077 (home)
Cambridge, UK  CB3 9HG                                (0)1223-741081 (fax)
                        http://www.ridley.cam.ac.uk