Corpus-Paul

[David Garland <David_Garland AT baylor.edu>]

Frank Hughes wrote that Paul may not have “met Occam” and in another message 
mentioned the complicated schema of Schmithals and Schenk in cleverly 
dividing up 2 Corinthians.

I am not sure what Paul meeting Occam means.  The “razor” is simply a means 
of evaluating arguments that tends to hold true. For example, we used to 
think that light, heat, and motion were three different things but now 
theorize that they come from one.  I take Frank to mean, perhaps, that 
history is notoriously boggy and may be less amenable to simpler solutions

If the redactor of the letters, however, had access to a modern computer, 
allowing him to move blocks of material around willy-nilly, I would find 
Schmithals and Schenk more feasible, if psychologically implausible.  But 
Alistair Steward-Sykes, “Ancient Editors and Copyists and Modern Partition 
Theories: The Case of the Corinthian Correspondence,” JSNT 61 (1996) 53-64 
has attempted to show how physically impossible such an editing process would 
have been.

Also, am I wrong in my impression that many partition theories show the 
ancient redactor to be a dolt and the modern interpreter who uncovers it 
comes out as ingenuous?



David E. Garland
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University
PO Box 97126
Waco, TX 76798-7126
254) 710-3755
fax: (254) 710-3753