Corpus-Paul

[Brian Tucker <music AT riverviewcog.org>]

Greetings

When discussing the historical Paul and the transmission of his
tradition, it seems one can never achieve a full recovery of the
tradition. Each adaption becomes an approximation, based on the
situation of the interpreter. I am interested in the clarification of
the adaptations from the original tradition to the needs and
circumstances of the early church.

Kasemann with his "canon within the canon" seems insensitive to the
challenges of this transmission and he absolutizes the distinction
between the historical Paul and his post-Pauline interpreters (Ernst
Kasemann, _The Canon of the New Testament_).

What is the distinction between Paul and his New Testament interpreters?
I am looking for an historically sensible account of their adaptive
procedures. At this point, I don't agree with Heinrich Schlier in that
the tradition-process was a simple continuing development.

Here are 3 factors determining the method of adaptation.
1. The challenges of their situation.
2. The preception of what constitutes faithfulness to the Pauline
tradition.
3. Their imaginative or inept efforts to reenact Pauline tradition in
their own time.

Please remark on the classification of the pseudepigraphal Pauline
writings and their adaptive creativity. 

2 Thessalonians: Adaptation as imitation of Paul.

The P.E.: Adaptation as safeguarding a holy tradition.

Colossians and Ephesians: Adaptation as creative reformulation of the
Pauline tradition.

Acts: Adaptation as a harmonizing rewrite of the Pauline tradition.
(It's a special case, since it is narrative about Paul, embedded in a
comprehensive account of the history of the apostolic church at the
close of the first century CE.

What is the trajectory for comprehending the adaptation of Paul's
tradition at this point? What is the current state of scholarly opinion
on this topic? Bibliography?

Thank You
Brian Tucker, M.A.
music AT riverviewcog.org
Riverview, MI