Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Fabrizio Palestini" <fabrizio.palestini AT tin.it>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:38:41 +0200


Dear Mark

> I am afraid I don't understand your first question regarding prejudice. I
> hope this makes sense anyway apart from your specific question, if I have
> misread it.

My point is: the importance of the JHC thesis (measured in terms of its
consensus: minimal) is inferior to its ows merits or demerits (even if it
shows the same kind of ideological assumptions of competing theories). In NT
researches there are many other theories perhaps less valid with more
followers.
The fact is that if someone propose matthean priority, for example, or lukan
priority, or the segmentation of 2Cor (the author of each one being Paul, of
course!), ok, the debate is interesting; but if someone propose the
pseudonimity of the entire Pauline Canon, ah!, the theory is not seen in a
scientific way, but as an offense!
The pseudonimity of the entire New Testament Canon (apart from Paul), and
the primitive sketch offered by Q scholars and Thomas scholars for Early
Christianity points to a reconsideration of the authenticity of the Epistles
(in particular their date in the 50/60 CE!), in consideration of their much
more developed theology, too.
>From this starting point, what kind of evidences can be offered
pro-authenticity (and pro first century date)?
I believe that the burden of proof, contrary to what the greater part of
Pauline specialists asserts, "has already shifted" ("Pauline Paradigm and
Pauline Authenticity" D. Doughty).

> What strikes me is that the methodologies are not as rigorous as should be
> required today to substantiate such arguments, and are as rifled with
> ideological assumptions (is this what you mean by prejudice?) as are the
> traditional approaches they seek to challenge. They begin with a portrait
of
> Paul that is anachronistic, in my view, basically built upon the
traditional
> portrait of Paul (the supersessionist ex-Jew with a Law-free gospel
> beginning Gentile Christianity, to which Jews can enter, as long as they
> give up the value and life-style of Jews!), and then find the texts
> anachronistic for the historical Paul of the traditional view. Can that
Paul
> be anything else?

Detering et al. offer a completely different theory, with the idea that it
could give better explanation of the data. This is the point. Among the
various theories, what is the more coherent? Who gives more satisfactory
explanations?
In this "battle" I believe that the critical approach of the JHC (exhalt
each discrepancies! The scientific knowledge make progress exactly in this
way!) is superior to the others.

I don't understand if you have an alternative methodology and/or hypothesis
to offer.
If this is the case, obviously I'd like to know it.

> But it is very interesting to read and think through their arguments, in
> their context.

Yes, I too.
Thank you very much for the response

Fabrizio Palestini






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page