corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "David @ Comcast" <davidinglis2 AT comcast.net>
- To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] 3 Corinthians
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:03:13 -0800
Ed Krentz wrote in response to my question on 3 Corinthians:
>Have your read it? You can find it in English on the web.
>
>It is a rather dull pastiche of bits and pieces from other Pauline
>letters. There is really nothing in it
> that sounds like the Paul we know from the NT.
Yes, I have read it. I agree that there's nothing 'new' in it, but I don't
see that this necessarily means it's not genuine. For example, if Paul
exchanged a number of letters with Corinth, then:
1) It's possible he may have been tiring of the whole conversation
2) It's possible he may have re-used existing arguments and/or phrases.
I don't believe that Paul always has to 'sound like' Paul. IMHO he (like
anyone) should be allowed to have written differently depending on the
circumstances and intended readers. What I was really looking for here was
whether anyone had done a detailed analysis of 3 Cor on the basis of
frequency of words used, use of hapax, people and place name tie-ins,
relative dating references, etc.? Or, is the general opinion that because
it's a 'dull pastiche' or doesn't 'sound like' Paul, then there's no point
in performing a proper analysis?
Dave Inglis
davidinglis2 AT comcast.net
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA
>>A question in an area where I am ignorant: What are the reasons for
>>believing that 3 Corinthians is apocryphal - apart from the obvious? In
>>other words, suppose that Paul had written another letter that became lost
>>for a long time, and re-surfaced too late to be included in the Canon.
>>Could 3 Corinthians be such a letter? What characteristics say no?
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] 3 Corinthians,
Edgar Krentz, 03/02/2004
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] 3 Corinthians, David @ Comcast, 03/04/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.