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: Edgar Krentz <ekrentz AT lstc.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's Interpreters
  • Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:04:25 -0800


At 9:57 AM +0000 10/31/00, Peter M. Head wrote:
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 treat 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,

I am surprised that you cite no interpreter between Augustine and the
Reformation. Did the Victorines, Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Lyra have
nothing to contribute? When did the shift to the literal sense begin.

Si Lyra non lyrasset,
Lutherus non saltassat.

Philip Melanchthon used Romans as the basis for his Loci Theologici,
which set the tone for treating Romans as a statement of doctrine
with some negative effects for a long time.

And Albert Schweizer did a history of Pauline Studies way back
wkhen, if myk memory does not fail me. [I am in Berkeley, my library
in Chicago.]
--
****************************************************************
Edgar Krentz
Professor of New Testament, Emeritus
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street, Chicago, IL 60615
Tel: 773-256-0773
e-mail: ekrentz AT lstc.edu
------------------------------------------------------------
Fall 2000 address 1300 Delaware #15, Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone in Berkeley : 510-702-0542
GERASKO D' AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS
"I grow old, constantly learning many things." [Solon of Athens]
***************************************************************




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page