Corpus-Paul

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

--On Sat, May 15, 1999 11:42 am -0400 "Stephen C. Carlson"
<scarlson AT mindspring.com> wrote: 

> I doubt that
> the suggestion that Paul compiled 2 Cor. would seriously undercut
> the reasons for separating at least 1-9 and 10-13, which has a marked
> shift in tone.  Thus, if there were only two parts, 1-9 and 10-13,
> then the question becomes why would Paul place the second section
> last if it came first chronologically.  The answer would appear to
> be that the core collection was arranged in decreasing order of
> length: Rom. - 1 Cor. - 2 Cor. - Gal.  Keeping 10-13 separate would
> mean that it would have come last and away from the other Corinthian
> correspondence, but joining 10-13 to 1-9 would keep the related
> letters together and not violate the organizational principle.

Good point. My earlier comment was addressed primarily to those who would
move other parts around. In response to
  
>>2. From what Paul says about the painful letter in 2Cor, I'm not sure he
>>would really want others to know exactly what he said anyway. He came
close
>>to regretting sending it, and I'm sure they didn't enjoy receiving it!

you wrote: 
 
> On the theory of that Paul compiled 2 Cor. when producing a letter
> collection of his own, consisting of Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., and Gal.,
> there would have been the passage of some years between the writing
> of 2 Cor. 2 and its incorporation into 2 Cor. with 10-13 (i.e, after
> Rom. was composed).  Thus, Paul's feelings about the painful letter
> probably evolved over the course of time when he made his collection.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Evidence? In response to
 
>>If Paul did not send the letter as it stands, it seems far more likely
that
>>whoever compiled 2Cor in its current form was not very familiar with the
>>Corinthian situation and correspondence. The Corinthian leadership
certainly
>>would have known and remembered the order in which the letters came to
them.

you typed (or dictated!)
 
> Since the operative organizational principle behind Paul's letter
> collection is to order the letters by decreasing length, I'm not
> sure that any knowledge of the chronological order of those letters
> is an important consideration.  After all, Gal. appears after Rom.
> and the Corinthian correspondence.

The difference of course is that those Gal and Rom clearly comprise separate
and distinct letters (to different congregations facing different issues).
Putting them out of chronological order does not affect their inner
coherence. But perhaps the compiler of 2Cor wasn't interested in coherence?

Mike 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