Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's Interpreters

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Donfried" <kdonfrie AT email.smith.edu>
  • To: <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's Interpreters
  • Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:56:18 -0500


This is helpful stuff. However your eighth category doesn't far enough since
it doesn't seem to take into the account the newest paradigm shift, viz. the
Dead Sea Scrolls and such key texts as 4QMMT. For Fitzmyer and others, the
so-called "new perspective" is indeed a dead end.

Good luck,
Karl Donfried

Karl P. Donfried
Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor
Department of Religion
and Biblical Literature
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063


>>> pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk 10/31/00 11:28 AM >>>
Many thanks for the ideas. Helpfully noone has (yet) quarrelled with my
non-negotiables. Unsurprisingly the greatest difficulty is in treating the
most recent period. I have revised things a bit as follows:

1. Marcion, Irenaeus, canon formation.

2. Augustine, Luther, reformed theology

3. Baur, Lightfoot, historical reconstructions

4. Schweitzer, reactions to "liberal" and "history of religions" approaches

5. Bultmann & Käsemann

6. Davies, Stendahl

7. Sanders, "New Perspective: antecedents and interests"

8. Contemporary Options: Dunn, Meeks et al.


Mark N. suggested linking Marcion-Augustine-Luther-Calvin, but I'd rather
have a whole lecture on the early period; and also leave enough space to
take a decent look at the Luther-Augustine axis. His suggestion on Kasemann
with Bultmann makes a lot of sense. Jeff P. suggested linking Irenaeus with
Marcion, which also makes a lot of good sense.

Stendhal has his advocates (thanks to Robert K.); but I'm not too sure how
to organise the Stendahl, Davies grouping; and the final one seems a bit
too broad (although Meeks supposedly non-theological approach has had his
advocates). I am least convinced about the shape of the last three
lectures.

OK. Another question. Should I really trat the "liberal" and "history of
religion" schools only as background to Schweitzer (and then Bultmann
etc.)? Or should I credit them some more? Who, in any case, were the key
players?

Finally, I don't suppose anyone knows of a student reader which has
extracts from the history of the interpretation of Paul?

Peter


Dr. Peter M. Head
Tyndale House
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge CB3 9BA
Tel: 01223 566607
Fax: 01223 566608
email: pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk



---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: kdonfrie AT smith.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-corpus-paul-117189F AT franklin.oit.unc.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page