corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
- To: "Corpus Paulinum" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Interpolation Solutions
- Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:11:54 -0700
Dave Hindley wrote:
[delete for brevity]
>
> This, to me, seems to strengthen a hypothesis that considers the epistles
as
> interpolated versions. If the interpolations were by a single hand then
it
> would not be surprising to find them published as a collection, and such a
> hypothesis would not need to assume that the uninterpolated versions of
the
> epistles circulated widely, if at all, prior to their publication in an
> interpolated form.
>
>
The problem with interpolation theories is that they are not really
hypotheses at all, in the sense of being objectively based (or
"scientific"). As Mark Nanos says, the arguments supporting them are
circular. Any criteria presented as a means to identify an alleged
'interpolation' has already assumed the interpolation exists.
Nevertheless, I think the circumstantial weight of evidence for some
interpolations, if presented skillfully and honestly, might be persuasive. I
would love to hear such arguments or have someone point out compelling
cases. Unfortunately I have yet to enjoy that experience.
Still hopeful,
Jon
-
Interpolation Solutions,
David C. Hindley, 06/05/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Interpolation Solutions, Jon Peter, 06/05/1999
- Re: Interpolation Solutions, Frank W. Hughes, 06/05/1999
- RE: Interpolation Solutions, Bob MacDonald, 06/07/1999
- Re: Interpolation Solutions, Jim Hester, 06/07/1999
- RE: Interpolation Solutions, Bob MacDonald, 06/09/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.