Thu Apr 11 20:22:10 1996

From majordom  Thu Apr 11 20:22:10 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA14257; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:22:10 +0500
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus)
In-Reply-To: <9604111059.AA48616@mail.uni-muenster.de>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3281
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote:

>I would like to comment on Timothy's argument concerning the "different
>sets of Pauline Letters in different MSS". Our extant Greek MSS display
>three points where there are differences with respect to the set of the
>Pauline Letters. 

>a) The first and major point of difference with respect to its
>dissemination is the position of Hebrews: partly after 2.Thess, partly
>after Philemon, at least once after both (minuscule 794), once after
>Romans (P46), two times totally absent (F G). 

>b) A minor point of difference with respect to its dissemination is the
>changing position of Eph Phil Col: only two times the position Eph Col
>Phil can be found (D minuscule 5). 

>c) Only P46 displays a canging sequence with respect to the position of
>Gal: Eph Gal Phil Col. 
 
> What conclusions can be drawn therof? 

This all is true, but does not necessarily say anything about the nature 
of the Pauline Corpus as a corpus.  It does say much about the manner in 
which the books within that same corpus might be re-ordered, just as the 
Gospels themselves may appear in the so-called "Western" order (Mt Jn Mk 
Lk), but without suggesting that the 4-gospel "corpus" was necessarily 
shorter or longer once it had come into general acceptance by the end of 
the first century (which implies that until the completion of John's 
gospel there probably was a recognized 3-gospel corpus circulating, and 
before Luke, a 2-gospel corpus, etc.).  But the order of placement within 
a corpus does not imply or indicate partial collections circulating 
independently at the same time as the 14-epistle collection.

> 1) Should we take it this way: There are _only_ three points of
>difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek
>MSS tradition?  Conclusion: If we favoured the multiple collections model,
>more points of difference should have been expected. 

I would not think so, since I do not see mere order affecting whether 
churches would want to possess or distribute "incomplete" collections.

> 2) Or, should we take it that way: There are _at least_ three points of
>difference with respect to the sets of Pauline Letters in the extant Greek
>MSS tradition? Conclusion: If we favoured the single collection model,
>even three points of difference should not have been expected. 

Again, probably correct, if differences imply previous partial collections.
Since it does not seem that they do, then even the single collection 
model would continue to preserve the 14 epistles as a single collection, 
and order would not be an issue.

> 3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive
> error"  with respect to the single collection model? 

Hebrews may also vary due to the later issues of canonicity applied to 
that book.

> 4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model?  

This I do not see at all as a logical deduction from the data.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back