Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

tc-list Re: Paul's Life

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Huh? How are we to know this? Are you conflating the Acts with the epistles? That is a very dangerous procedure. ... Its really rather difficult to
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 10 11:41 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:02 AM 9/10/99 -0700, you wrote:

      >Mainly, most of the time he was rather busy. The prison epistles
      >may be another matter, but many of the others seem to have been
      >written during his journeys, and much of the time during those he
      >was fleeing for his life.

      Huh? How are we to know this? Are you conflating the Acts with the
      epistles? That is a very dangerous procedure.

      >How many of these authors wrote on the run? I'm not saying Paul
      >didn't keep copies, merely that in at least some cases he may not
      >have had time to make, much less gather and transport, such
      >copies of his letters.

      Its really rather difficult to superimpose modern life's quick pace with
      that of Paul- who, when travelling, would have had more than ample time to
      write whatever he wanted to. "On the run" doesn't even really fit in the
      world of the first century. Travelling on foot, by donkey, or even by boat
      was not exactly quick!

      From your comments one almost gets the picture of a frenetic Paul unable to
      make or dicate copies of his stuff cause the hounds are on his heels and he
      has a train to catch! One can hardly make a case from the sources for such
      a pace. Paul would have had more than enough time, again, to write whatever
      he wanted. Whats surprising is that we dont have MORE of his stuff!

      >> c) Moreover, the exchange of letters with the Corinthian community seems to
      >> imply that the various parties kept copies of the letters they wrote,
      because
      >> Paul refers to written documents of his own as well as the Corinthian
      community
      >> (e.g., 1 Cor 5:9; 7:1; etc.).

      Ulrich is simply right here. Copies were kept, the the sender and the
      recipient when letters were passed along.

      >
      >And he could just as easily have been quoting from memory, since
      >memorization in his day (especially as a Pharises) was quite a
      >different matter than it is today.

      The whole "pharisees with the faultless memories" myth has yet to be shown.

      >I find it interesting that you at least implicitly accept Pauline
      >authorship of 2 Timothy (as do I), but I'll let that pass.

      Surely you jest.

      > First, it
      >doesn't say "books and parchments," it says "books, and
      >especially parchments." Would he call his own letters "books"?
      >What is special about the parchments? I tend to think they were
      >probably OT books (Septuagint-based?) and perhaps some literary
      >works of the type that he cited on Mars Hill and in Titus.

      In Titus????? Paul wrote it too???? Hardly.

      > I don't
      >see anything in that statement that hints that copies of his own
      >letters were among the things he asked for. As well, we know that
      >by the writing of 2 Peter his letters were called "scriptures," which
      >suggests very, very early publication.

      Not at all- it merely suggests the very, very late date of the composition
      of 2 Peter.

      >Again, this is what I have
      >been saying all along.

      In all of this I have to say that Ulrich seems to have a better grasp of the
      historical process of writing, "publication" and preservation. In spite of
      grandiose comments to the contrary we shall never, ever, have an autograph
      of any NT document and we shall never, ever, agree on the Urtext of any NT
      (or OT) document. Thus, the text critic who spends his or her life on that
      goal will simply be wasting a lot of time. Instead, critics would do much
      better to pursue the history of individual texts.

      Best,

      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      email- jwest@...
      web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
    • Dave Washburn
      ... According to some, not so dangerous according to others. ... When chased by an angry mob, any mode of transportation can be quick. I m not about to debate
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 10 12:53 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim West wrote:
        > >Mainly, most of the time he was rather busy. The prison epistles
        > >may be another matter, but many of the others seem to have been
        > >written during his journeys, and much of the time during those he
        > >was fleeing for his life.
        >
        > Huh? How are we to know this? Are you conflating the Acts with the
        > epistles? That is a very dangerous procedure.

        According to some, not so dangerous according to others.

        > >How many of these authors wrote on the run? I'm not saying Paul
        > >didn't keep copies, merely that in at least some cases he may not
        > >have had time to make, much less gather and transport, such
        > >copies of his letters.
        >
        > Its really rather difficult to superimpose modern life's quick pace with
        > that of Paul- who, when travelling, would have had more than ample time to
        > write whatever he wanted to. "On the run" doesn't even really fit in the
        > world of the first century. Travelling on foot, by donkey, or even by boat
        > was not exactly quick!

        When chased by an angry mob, any mode of transportation can be
        quick. I'm not about to debate this with you, Jim, because you
        presuppose certain things that I don't.

        [snip]
        > >And he could just as easily have been quoting from memory, since
        > >memorization in his day (especially as a Pharises) was quite a
        > >different matter than it is today.
        >
        > The whole "pharisees with the faultless memories" myth has yet to be shown.

        Who said "faultless"? Memorization was much more common
        then than it is now, since the invention of printing.

        > >I find it interesting that you at least implicitly accept Pauline
        > >authorship of 2 Timothy (as do I), but I'll let that pass.
        >
        > Surely you jest.

        I do not jest, and don't call me Shirley...

        > > First, it
        > >doesn't say "books and parchments," it says "books, and
        > >especially parchments." Would he call his own letters "books"?
        > >What is special about the parchments? I tend to think they were
        > >probably OT books (Septuagint-based?) and perhaps some literary
        > >works of the type that he cited on Mars Hill and in Titus.
        >
        > In Titus????? Paul wrote it too???? Hardly.

        Again, that's one of your more common assumptions, and you're
        entitled to it. But it is far from established fact, and actually has
        nothing to do with TC.

        > > I don't
        > >see anything in that statement that hints that copies of his own
        > >letters were among the things he asked for. As well, we know that
        > >by the writing of 2 Peter his letters were called "scriptures," which
        > >suggests very, very early publication.
        >
        > Not at all- it merely suggests the very, very late date of the composition
        > of 2 Peter.

        Again with the assumptions. I'm done with this thread.

        Dave Washburn
        http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
        "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.