Corpus-Paul

["Frank W. Hughes" <fwhughes AT sunbeach.net>]

Mike Thompson wrote:
> . . . 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.
In Barbados I am still trying to get used to British English.  I am
quite interested in what a potted commentary might be.  Is that like
a potted plant or "potted meat food product"?  Is "potted" similar
to "jugged"?  Or does "potted" mean that it is simply on a small scale?

BTW, the Lord Bishop here gave the Anglican clergy copies of your potted commentary, Transforming Grace: A Study of 2 Corinthians.  I think it is a good attempt to try to follow the argument of the canonical form of 2 Corinthians.  Because of the complexity of the Corinthian correspondence, I do think that some sort of partition theory of at least 2 Corinthians is desirable.  I agree with you, Mike, that partition theories raise other questions.  Most notably, the question is "who was responsible for the selectivity in taking this piece and joining with that piece, and making from the pieces 2 Corinthians?"  I would simply point out that even if we do not entertain partition theories, we will still have the issue of selectivity in the early church, or more accurately, early churches, in connection with the Pauline letters.  Why do we have Galatians and Romans and 1 Thessalonians and not some of the presumably many other letters that Paul wrote?  Why did some writers write new Pauline letters, and why are they identified in their epistolary prescripts with some churches and not others?  Why do some of us prefer simple partition theories (2 Cor 1-9 vs. 2 Cor 10-13) over more complex ones (Bornkamm, Schmithals, Jewett, Schenk)?  Ockham's razor sounds good; it's just that Paul and some of his earliest disciples and admirers may not have met Ockham.

Frank W. Hughes
Codrington College
in very sunny Barbados