Corpus-Paul

[Paul Toseland <paul AT toseland.f9.co.uk>]

Thanks to all who have responded to my original post. It has been
interesting reading through your various comments, and helpful.

Much of the debate seems to stem from the assumption that Paul's
purpose in his letters was to convey teaching, to expound the truths
of the Christian faith, and it has rightly been argued that we can all
benefit much from his writings, even though we may not be able to
identify all his sources, or follow all the subtleties of his arguments.

I would argue, however, that Paul's purpose in each of his letters was
in fact to address specific pastoral situations, each carefully
constructed with the intention of persuading his audience, changing
their thinking and prompting them to definite action. In some of the letters
Paul has to do this in the face of strong opposition, and he is usually
combating false teaching. He clearly wanted to make the maximum
possible impact, to overcome the opposition, whether it be in the form
of specific rival teachers, or of a more general threat from the pagan
cultural environment or a heretical Christian movement. If so, then
Paul must want his letters to make sense as a whole, to be perceived
as carefully written, apposite and persuasive. In the case of 2 Corinthians,
at least to modern critics, this is so far from the general perception that
many doubt that it is in fact one letter. It has been proposed that it was
constructed by an editor from fragments of from to two to six sources.
Many others, myself included, do maintain the original unity of the letter,
but then the problem of its coherence becomes acute. As I have already
indicated, I have found that it is far more coherent than is generally
perceived, but that its coherence depends to a considerable degree on its
use of the Old Testament (mainly in 2 Cor 1-7, but the rest is dependent on
the foundation laid there). This where I am coming from, but i thought I would
see if others with different backgrounds found any common ground.

"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:

>There are at least two different issues that it may be helpful to
 address separately. One is the issue of what Paul himself understood
 himself to be communicating with the many layers of meaning perhaps
 never-ending, as is the case among students of his letters to this
 day ... The other issue is the need to take each letter on its own terms
...

Yes, indeed.  No doubt Paul's language, with its many echoes of the OT and
other Jewish sources reflects and flows from his own deep learning and
meditation; and no doubt careful study reveals layers of his thought which,
though important in their own right, were not crucial for the achievement of
his immediate pastoral aims. But the two questions may be closely 
interrelated.

>For example, I can well imagine  Romans, written to people who did not
know Paul ... was expected to be studied and  discussed to ascertain the
author's intended meaning. On the other  hand, Galatians is a scalding
letter of ironic rebuke, like parents  deliver to teenagers when they fear
that peer-pressure may win the  day in the contest of competing values,
with grave concern for the  future of the child as well as family ...<

Yes, there is an urgency about Galatians (and also 2 Corinthians); Paul
is looking for a result, he wants the church to change in response to his
letter, and he cannot afford to wait while they probe the depths of his
thought and debate his message for months and years. But this is precisely
what led me to the suggestion that, at least in the case of 2 Corinthians,
the courier must have been entrusted with an expository task. For in the
case of 2 Corinthians, the force of the letter as a whole depends upon its
intertextual effects, and especially upon its use of the OT. At key points
Paul's rhetoric depends upon a deep knowledge of the OT, and the ability
to relate it contextually to his argument. For example, at various points in
2:14-7:4 he subtly portrays his opponents, the false apostles, as unbelievers
and false prophets who would lead the church into idolatry. The rhetorical
effectiveness of the whole letter depends to no small degree on these and
other intertextual effects, and I wonder if even well educated Jewish readers
would have noticed it all. On the other hand, if the courier had to spell out
every such reference, then I suspect that the rhetorical effectiveness of the
letter would again be in jeopardy. So I think 2 Corinthians may provide
additional support for your contention that

>the reliance on Jewish Scripture and modes  of argument suggests, at least
in the cases of Romans and Galatians,  is that the "target readers" are
"Christ-believing gentiles within Jewish subgroups<

Regards

Paul Toseland