Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Dave wrote:

> ...we have to ask ourselves hard questions
> about what, if any,
> changes may have gone into that standard edition.
> It seems to me that the only clues we have will
> be those identified by literary criticism.
> Consequently, if 1 Cor 14:34-35 seems to be a
> literary aporia, then the question of its 
> originality is a legitimate one. An appeal to canon 
> only serves to preserve the traditions of the
> parties that consider the canon closed and solely 
> authoritative on matters of doctrine and faith. Not
> everyone shares that view, and they have equal right
> to evaluate the texts.

I seriously doubt anyone is contesting the "right" to
evaluate texts from any angle one chooses -- certainly
not I, who am non-Christian and have no interest in
preserving canonical traditions. My point is simple: I
Cor 14:34-35 and I Thess 2:14-26 are comprehensible as
coming from the Paul we know from the seven or eight
authentic letters; certain tensions are not only
explainable but to be expected from someone like Paul;
that contradictions are often the hallmarks of
apocalyptics, and we should become more comfortable
than we have been with the idea.

Anyway, I gave my reasons for viewing these two
particular texts as original. I'm not saying scribal
changes and interpolations never occur; nor am I
saying we should not ask the questions you are asking
(even if texts like these often become "hot button" items).

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the 
social sciences he is remembered for his worst."


                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com