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 18:31:47 +0200


Dear John

Thank you for the references, I'll investigate the matter and ask Detering,
Doughty etc for a response.

> Whereas the authenticity of the Epistles of Polycarp to the Philippians,
of
> 1Clement and Ignatian Letters being strongly questioned by D. Doughty; R.
> Price; H. Detering; comes as no surprise. What do you do when an obstacle
> is thrown in your path? You remove it! This type of scholarship, once
> again, reflects assumptions (biases) on the part of the researchers that I
> would rather avoid discussing altogether since I prefer to stick to
> objective scientific and historical arguments.

What does a pauline researcher do when he find two different position (or
analogue difficulty) in Pauline Epistles and/or in Acts? He harmonize them!
The assumption of an harmonization and the assumption of the inauthenticity
of a Christian text are both assumptions, neither the first nor the second
being somehow privileged!
I don't share with you this negative view about the JHC.
The authenticity and historical reliability of a text are absolutely not the
starting point of an historical study, but only the result of a critical
investigation.
Could you offer such critical investigation?
I'm extremely interested in each evidence pro authenticity.


> Even if all the patristic authors were found
> to be 4th century ( a view I would never hold to and one that could never
be
> demonstrated as tenable)

No one, in the JHC, propose a 4th century origin for 1Clement, Ignatian etc.
They regard this text as second century tractates.

> the problem of P46 firmly fixed c. AD 150 (or as
> you would prefer c. AD 140-160) still poses a serious obstacle to this
> interpretation.

I share this point with you, as I already said.

Thanks for the interesting and polemical posting!
Best regards

Fabrizio Palestini







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page