Corpus-Paul

["David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>]

Dave Hindley:

Could you clarify a bit on your method?  My first impression is that you do
not see the need for argumentative transitions.  Rhetoric is not logic,
hence redundancy and elaborations are a vital part of persuasion.

Unless I'm reading you incorrectly.

-David Amador
-----Original Message-----
From: David C. Hindley <DHindley AT compuserve.com>
To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: 2 Corinthians: Rhetoric and the Case for Unity


>On 05/20/99, ""Ian E. Rock" <irock AT caribsurf.com>" wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the argument for partition theories of 2 Corinthians
>> lie in finding sequential thought or thematic patterns in the body of
>> the letter, and then splicing the text and placing these pericopes in
>> sequence.
>
>This has been my approach to examining all epistles in the Pauline corpus.
>The tough part is deciding what constitutes a discontinuity. While I have
>personally decided to bracket off -all- the colae that are not -essential-
>to the arguements that start before them yet end after them, this does not
>appear to be the practice of most others.
>
>Even so, this kind of approach can (and in my case does) identify a large
>pool of potential interpolations. These sorts of interpolations (if they
>indeed are interpolations) appear to me to be additive, that is, they exist
>to modify or explain an already existing text.
>
>These do not have to be already existing texts that have been grafted into
>another, although in some cases (like the credal formulae) this may be the
>case.
>
>> I have already noted to Dr. Hughes that one issue that has
>> not been resolved in his argument is the change in tense of the text
>> (from 1st person singular to 1st person plural) between some of these
>> splices.
>
>This, I think, is a separate issue from possible interpolations deduced
>from the method outlined above. In this case (i.e., changes in person) we
>have to look at the real possibility of intergrated sources.
>
>> Dr. Sykes in his article examines the difficulty faced in editing
>> multiple rolls of text, albeit his article does not allude to the
>> possibility of cutting and pasting of the text.
>
>I too had thought about "cutting & pasting", but had always put off serious
>inquiry due to an unfamiliarity with how text would be layed out in scrolls
>and codices. But just as someone today can inscribe lines about passages in
>any text, perhaps with notations as to how these might fit into a broader
>interpretive scheme (most everyone's bible has these), so could ancient
>writers or editors. If one wants to later incorporate these into a treatis,
>we just find the marked references and copy them.
>
>The sheer number of apparent sources in apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1
>Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Revelation) suggests to me that one or more
>processes had been developed to do this.
>
>Dave Hindley
>Cleveland OH
>dhindley AT compuserve.com
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: thevoidboy AT sprynet.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>