corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: rfellows AT intergate.ca
- To: <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:17:15 -0700
Steve back wrote:
>I guess I'm not fully convinced that this need be anything more than
>a random detail that Paul "threw in" (no extra charge).
What benefit do you think the Corinthians received for this "no extra charge"?
> .... he may not have
>meant or intended anything special with the inclusion of this detail.
Then why mention the names at all? There must be SOME reason, however minor.
My suggestion is that Paul is defending himself and his co-senders (of the
former letter) from the charge of inconsistency. He has no word for
'co-senders' (for the practice was rare), so he names them. What is wrong
with this suggestion?
Dave Hindley wrote:
<<It may be a good idea to look into the possible editorial history behind the
several publications of the book we know as 2 Corinthians.>>
But I see no reason to partition 2 Corinthians. (see my last e-mail). Can you
see any problems with my particular theory of unity?
Richard Fellows.
-
Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19,
rfellows, 07/27/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, Jack Kilmon, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, David C. Hindley, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, Steve Black, 07/27/2002
- Re: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, rfellows, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, rfellows, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, Steve Black, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, Steve Black, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, David C. Hindley, 07/27/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, rfellows, 07/29/2002
- RE: Silvanus and Timothy in 2 Cor 1:19, David C. Hindley, 07/29/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.