Corpus-Paul

[Jill and Dale Walker <jilldale AT rcn.com>]

Richard,

I think the first important point is that letter collections
from antiquity had editors. Someone compiled them,
which required selecting, ordering, and copying. And then
there were subsequent editors who had to decide whether
to expand the corpus. What each did was in my opinion
idiosyncratic, which opens the door to many things.

When I read the letters of Isocrates, I wonder if the
prescripts were deleted and if the endings were dropped
off. Many of the Socratic Epistles raise the same
question in my mind. In the process of compiling, the
adscripts of a number of Crates'  letters were edited.
And looking at the Socratic Epistles as a whole
suggests an editor (or editors) who took liberty in
how they compiled their anthologies, particularly where the
introductions of letters are concerned.

Where the appending of 2 Cor 10-13 to chs. 1-9 is
concerned, I think these examples open the door to an
editor who wished to compile two pauline letters.

Also akin to 2 Corinthians are a couple of texts from
Dio Chrysostom. Oration 65 appears to be a compilation
of passages on Tyche from a variety of sources and not
a single original discourse. (This compilation may be part
of a habit of anthologizing exordia. An anthology of
Demosthenes' exordia is extant. Cicero slipped up and
recycled an exordium from one essay in a later essay.
Oops. He probably kept a book of exordia, some probably
written as ideas for future use, others that he used.)
Back to Dio Chrysostom, Oration 66 may also be a compilation.

Not a perfect parallel to 2 Corinthians, but worth bearing
in mind, is the popularity of anthologies in antiquity. Stobaeus
provides one example, but I suspect it is too elaborate
to use as a model for what anthologies were typically like.

Best,
Dale Walker
Chicago


At 06:20 PM 10/18/03 -0700, you wrote:
> In his letter to Polycarp, Ignatius abruptly shifts his audience. The first
> part of the letter is directed at Polycarp, but at 6 he suddenly turns to
> the Smyrnaean Christians as a whole. It seems to me that Paul might be doing
> something similar in 2 Corinthians. 2 Cor 10-13 might be directed at a
> different city within Achaia, or at a different group within Corinth.
>
> Many have suggested that 2 Cor was originally two or more letters, but do we
> have precedents for the joining together of two letters in the ancient
> world? This is an important question, and was raised by Vince last month. I
> am surprised that the major commentaries on 2 Corinthians do not address
> this question. Partition theories for 2 Cor (and Phil) are surely
> sustainable only if the practice of combining letters can be shown to have
> been common, or at least attested. Could someone point us towards some
> possible precedents for the sort of editorial practice that many believe
> resulted in 2 Cor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard Fellows.
>
> Vince Endris wrote:
> > I have read the partition theories of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Philippians.
> > Some of these are very convincing.  My question is not on any specific
> > theory, but on partition theories in general.  Do we have any evidence,
> > besides that some people think it would just make a lot of sense, that
> this
> > actually happened in historical documents?  Any historical documents?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul