Subject: autographs and archetypes (Pauline Corpus)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 13:00:05 +0100

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Timothy J. Finney wrote:

>In partial reply to the comments by Maurice Robinson on 4 Apr 1996
> concerning the scenario I put forward for the assemblage of an
> archetype of the Pauline Corpus, I offer the following: 

>It occurs to me that there is an important difference between the
> multiple collections model of Maurice Robinson and the single
> collection model which I reiterated (someone else must have 
> already said it)...
> So to answer the question of the extent to which the autographs
> of the Pauline collection are recoverable, it is necessary to
> decide between these models, if we can...
 
> I say that it is a lesser assumption that one person made the 
>collection than a number of people or churches acting 
> simultaneously. A kind of early canon would also be required for
> the multiple model, otherwise one would expect different sets of
> Pauline Letters in different MSS.

[quoting Robinson:]

>> My main argument against the single-corpus = archetype scenario
>> is again transmissional: if errors existed in the
>> corpus-archetype, why do they not exist among the extant MSS in
>> significant quantity, transcending the various texttype limits?

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? 
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.
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. 
3) Should the varying position of Hebrews be judged as due to "primitive error" 
with respect to the single collection model?
4) Or, should it be judged as indicating at least a two collections model?  

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:19:16 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996 [email-masked] 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.

>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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:49:18 -0400 (EDT)

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

How about the possibility that Hebrews was later independently added to 
Paul's letter collection in the single collection (10 or 13) model?  I am
intrigued by the suggestions of David Trobisch, PAUL'S LETTER COLLECTION:
Tracing the Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), who holds that
the original collection of Paul's letters Rom-1Cor-2Cor-Gal was actually
compiled by Paul, himself.  After his lifetime, as parallels to other letter
collections in the ancient world show (e.g. Cicero's letters), other
letters, both genuine (e.g. Phil.) and spurious (e.g. Heb.), were added to
the Pauline corpus.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
[email-masked]              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35