Corpus-Paul

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

Richard,

There isn't really much I can say in response. I don't share your
confidence in the manuscript tradition. I also think that the evidence
I provided demonstrates that editors in the ancient world edited
the texts they put together. (And I could add the Synoptics to
the equation: why should Paul's editors be more exacting than
Mark's?) There's no reason for Paul's letters to be treated any
differently. And in comparing different collections from antiquity,
each editor approached his job in a way different from the others,
so it isn't speculation to speak of an editor's individual characteristics.

I concede I don't have a perfect parallel to 2 Cor. The Dio Oration
however is very similar, but his editor was working with orations,
not letters. A different genre, sure, but I don't think that editors
of letters held themselves to some loftier standard than editors
of other genres.

As for chs. 10-13 addressing a different city, your original question
comes to mind: can you provide an ancient example of a letter
that 2/3s of the way through begins to speak to an audience
different than the first 1/3, and in a different city, but doesn't
bother to mention this?


Best,
Dale
Chicago


At 08:52 PM 10/21/03 -0700, you wrote:
> Dale and Ron,
>
> thanks for the interesting information. The cases that you cite are not
> close parallels to the NT partition theories, and I am still rather
> concerned that the fusing of two letters into one was rare at best. It is
> also troubling that there is no manuscript evidence for the partitioning of
> 2 Cor (or Phil). Of course we can indulge in all sorts of speculations to
> try to defend the partition theories. Perhaps the original copies of the
> letters became fragmented. Perhaps the scrolls were lost for a time so that
> no copies were made before their discovery. Perhaps someone then created our
> 2 Cor from the fragments. Perhaps he destroyed the originals. Perhaps the
> creator had his own idiosyncratic style. But it seems to me that assumptions
> like these are often rather lightly accepted, and I am wondering whether we
> should not rather abandon the whole project.
>
> I used to partition 2 Corinthians, but I now consider it a unity, and see it
> as being written to more than one audience. Perhaps you could comment on the
> suggestion that 2 Cor 10-13 was aimed at a city other than Corinth. Do
> partition theories have any advantages over this type of explanation?
>
> Richard.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul