Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Prison in Ephesus?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Prison in Ephesus?
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:52:52 -0400


Dave Hindley wrote:

> Dave Inglis says in response to Steve Black:
>
> >>I'm assuming that both letters [Ephesians and Colossians]
> were written early enough that someone who knew what Paul
> wrote would have been able to denounce any forgeries. As
> far as I'm aware there is no evidence that either letter was
> written late enough for this knowledge to have been lost
> (Because Marcion included both letters it's reasonable to
> think that both letters were in existence and believed to be
> by Paul by about 120-130 AD at the latest.<<
>
> And how would someone "know" what Paul wrote?? If written in
> his "style," all the savvy reader/listener would know for
> sure was that they had not read/heard *that* letter before.
> I've labored about this here before, but David Trobisch's
> work (particularly _Paul's Letter Collection_) deals exactly
> with this problem.
>
> The general state of circulation of Paul's letters was not
> so free and uninhibited as we like to think. The fact is
> that, after sifting through all 779 existing mss of Paul's
> epistles, Trobisch came to the conclusion that the Pauline
> corpus as we have it (with the exception of Hebrews) appears
> to have been based on a single comprehensive edition, rather
> than from the amalgamation of individual manuscripts.

Here I completely agree with David Trobisch...

> There
> is internal evidence that they were first grouped into small
> collections, and these smaller collections were (later?)
> grouped into the corpus we have, but the mss do not suggest
> that the smaller collections circulated separately in any
> extensive manner from the comprehensive edition.

... but here I disagree (somewhat). I don't believe the evidence points
to internal collections, but even if that was the case, then I agree with
the latter conclusion regarding the lack of circulation of the 'mini'
collections.

> And if you think that unauthorized editions of letters or
> lectures could not get out in the author's own lifetime,
> then you are sadly mistaken. Harry Gamble provides several
> examples from classical writers in _Books and Readers_.
> Eusebius even preserves the griping of Dionysius, Bishop of
> Corinth:

That may have been the case. However, as I believe that the 'single
comprehensive edition' mentioned above was that kept by Paul or one of his
travelling companions, it would be difficult (in my scenario) for forged
Pauline letters to have gained any currency.

[snip]
> But getting back to Ephesians vs Colossians, Ephesians has
> the appearance of being an appendix added to the end of a
> collection that included only Rom-1Cor-2Cor-Gal.

I would move both 1 & 2 Thess from the second list to the first.

> Colossians
> is always associated with a second grouping that includes
> Phillippians-Col-1Th-2th. This second group almost always
> follows on the first. So in effect, Ephesians is the odd man
> out.

I don't like the word 'appendix' regarding Ephesians, but I do agree that
it was intended to supplement prior letters and teachings. I believe that
Paul wrote it when he believed he would not be able to return to those
areas, thus providing a very simple rationalle for an 'appendix' or
supplement.

> When was Ephesians created? I don't know, but I do know
> that Trobisch thinks that the Pauline corpus found in
> virtually all the manuscripts we have today are copies, with
> occasional rearrangement of individual books, of a
> comprehensive edition.

Again, I totally agree with this point.

> This comprehensive edition included Ephesians and even
> Hebrews.

...as per P46.

> Based on the fact that Irenaeus is the first early
> Christian writer to cite all of them (except Philemon), I'd
> place the comprehensive edition in the mid 2nd century.

Which logic suggests that P46 *could* be the first copy of this edition.

[snip]
> A while ago I created a Word for Windows document with a
> two-column table that allowed me to compare the parallel
> passages of Ephesians and Colossians. FWIW, after having
> stared at it for a good while just now, I am inclined to
> think that Colossians is the archetype upon which Ephesians
> was based, as Ephesians appears to be expanding on the
> subject matter that is found in Colossians.

That seems to me a perfectly reasonable conclusion. I believe Colossians
was written first, and Ehpesians was then created to cover the same issues
plus others within a much wider readership.

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page