Corpus-Paul

[Jeff Peterson <peterson AT austingrad.edu>]

On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 09:01 AM, Edgar Krentz wrote:
> I find the argument that there is no manuscript evidence ambiguous. 
> The earliest manuscript of Paul, Papyrus 46. is written about 150+ 
> years after the Pauline letters. That is as long a time back then as 
> it is now, as far from Paul as we are from the Civil War. While it has 
> some force, it may not be as compelling as you think.

It seems to me the question of method here is how to move from what is 
possible to what is probable. A century and a half certainly leaves 
room for editing, and the MSS attest that some took place in the 
transmission of the Pauline corpus (e.g., the omission of EN RWMH(I) 
from Rom 1:7, traceable to the 3d or 4th century; the 4th/5th century 
absence of Rom 16:25-27). So there should be no question that partition 
theories are possible and deserve a hearing.

On the other hand, the absence of any MS evidence for (e.g.) an edition 
of 2 Cor lacking chaps. 10–13 seems to coun against the probability of 
this specific proposal; it's difficult to imagine that an earlier 
edition of the letter would have left no trace at all in the MS 
tradition, and if it did it's almost unimaginable that (say) Origen 
wouldn't have commented on it. This doesn't render the critical 
consensus on 2 Cor impossible, but it does mean that very strong 
evidence for the presence of a seam between chaps. 9 and 10 is needed 
to establish it. Scholars inclined to support the consensus are obliged 
to engage very closely epistolographic and rhetorical analyses of 2 Cor 
and other letters where partition has been proposed.

Best,

Jeff Peterson


Jeffrey Peterson
Associate Professor of New Testament
Austin Graduate School of Theology
Austin, Texas