Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Dale wrote:
> 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.

Dale, if letters or letter fragments were fused together as often as you
suggest, why are there few, if any, known examples? The empirical data
speaks for itself, surely.

To say that letter editors/collectors had individual charactistics does not
really add anything. You would need to show that they often had the
particular characteristic of combining letters. Again, I would like to see
examples where this was done.

Anyway, I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that an editor of Paul's
letters may have combined letter fragments together, and I would be very
happy to embrace a partition theory for 2 Cor if all other posibilities can
be excluded.

Paul's tone in 2 Cor 10-13 is very different from that in 1-9. The question
is whether this means he addresses more than one community in 2 Corinthians,
or whether the letter should be partitioned.

Partitioning creates a number of problems. There are well known arguments
against putting 10-13 at an early date than 1-9, and equally solid arguments
against placing it at a later date than 1-9. Chapters 10-13 does not seem to
belong in either time period, so the whole partition project comes into
question. It is usual to pace 10-13 after 1-9, but is it likely that Titus
would have so completely misread the loyalty of the Corinthians and
underestimated the threat posed by the intruders? And is it really likely
that the suspicion about Paul exploiting would have arisen AFTER the
precautions that Paul takes in 8:20-21? And why does Titus have two
companions in chapter 8, but only one in 12:18?

If, on the other hand, we partition the audience instead of the letter, the
problems disappear. Paul takes precautions in chapter 8 precisely because of
the suspicion that he has come under in city X, to which he responds in
12:14-18. And, though Titus traveled with a companion as far as city X, he
went on to Corinth alone.

There are other reasons to believe that 10-13 was not aimed at Corinth.
Frstly, it is clear from 10-13 that Paul had already visit that community
twice, but it is very unlikely that Paul had made two visits to Corinth
before 2 Cor 1-9. It therefore seems likely that Paul had made an second
visit to Achaia, but not to Corinth, and that 10-13 was not aimed at
Corinth. Secondly, the Corinthians were self-confident (see 1 Cor), but the
target audience of 2 Cor 11:20 is perhaps more submissive.

> 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?

I don't know what the conventions were for letter writers when they wrote to
more than one city in the same letter. Most letters, I guess, were written
to individual people or individual cities. Exceptions like Galatians and 2
Corinthians may have been uncommon, but I am open to correction.

But I do think that Ignatius's letter to Polycarp is a good parallel to what
I am proposing for 2 Cor. Two thirds of the way through the letter Ignatius
abruptly switches his audience without mentioning that he was doing so. The
switch of audience at 2 Cor 10:1 would be abrupt and unannounced, but no
more so than that in Ignatius's letter. Another point to mention is that
Paul does not name those he opposes, so it would not be surprising for him
to omit to name city X.

In any case, it is possible that Paul DID explicitly indicate his change of
audience and name the city in question. A couple of lines could easily have
been removed from the text by an editor. The tactful removal of the name of
the offending city from the text would be far more likely than the arbitrary
fusion of two letters. Would this excision theory remove your concerns about
the unity of 2 Cor, Dale?

All in all, I think it is better to partition the audience than the letter,
but I am open to persuasion.

Richard Fellows.