Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Colossians Pauline?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jim Hester <hester AT jasper.uor.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Colossians Pauline?
  • Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:44:20 -0700


Daniel Streett wrote:

> Fine. Barth, who has authored three volumes
> in the Anchor series (and numerous other
> volumes, is not a top scholar,
> while Rev. Hughes, who has published a
> smattering of journal articles, is. If you
> say so. I have not read Hughes' work on
> pseudepigraphy, though I find it hard to
> believe that rhetorical analysis can be
> determinative in questions of authorship.
> If anything, I find textlinguistic, or
> "text-immanent", methodologies
> to be supportive of authenticity in
> most cases (cf. the works by S. Porter
> and J. Reed).

Daniel, you misunderstand me. My judgment of Barth is independent of my
support for Frank Hughes' opinion.

A modest observation: Barth's commentary on Ephesians was published in
1974. The development of critical methods in the meantime, including such
things as epistolary analysis and socio-rhetorical crticism, hold promise
for getting at issues of pseudonymity in ways Barth's methods couldn't.

It might be useful for you to read Dr. Hughes' book, Early Christian
Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians, and in particular chapter 4, to see his
argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hester "Never be afraid to try something new.
736 Buckingham Drive Remember, amateurs built the ark.
Redlands, CA 92374 Professionals built the Titanic."
(909) 792-0533
hester AT uor.edu http://rhetjournal.uor.edu
http://www.ars-rhetorica.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page