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

David Trobisch - Paul's Letter Collection

Expand Messages
  • idou747
    I was wondering... what the general consensus about the hypothesis and argument put forward in the book Paul s Letter Collection by David Trobisch, that Paul
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 27, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I was wondering... what the general consensus about the hypothesis and argument put
      forward in the book "Paul's Letter Collection" by David Trobisch, that Paul himself may well
      have assembled and published his own writings?



      http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letter-Collection-Tracing-Origins/dp/0966396677/
    • Mitch Larramore
      Anonymous/idou I would find it hard to believe that Paul, and hundreds of others, did not put the Pauline epistles together in some way/collection. What I find
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 27, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Anonymous/idou

        I would find it hard to believe that Paul, and hundreds of others, did not put the Pauline epistles together in some way/collection. What I find amusing is those who assume that first century Christians are different than 21st century Christians. Would you have put his letters together, at least as many as you could put your hands on?

        Mitch Larramore
        Sugar Land, Texas

        --- On Fri, 2/27/09, idou747 <idou747@...> wrote:
        From: idou747 <idou747@...>
        Subject: [textualcriticism] David Trobisch - Paul's Letter Collection
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 8:00 AM


        I was wondering... what the general consensus about the hypothesis and argument put
        forward in the book "Paul's Letter Collection" by David Trobisch, that Paul himself may well
        have assembled and published his own writings?

        http://www.amazon. com/Pauls- Letter-Collectio n-Tracing- Origins/dp/ 0966396677/


      • David Hindley
        Unfortunately, it seems to be generally ignored. Per Trobisch:
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 27, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Unfortunately, it seems to be generally ignored.

          Per Trobisch:

          <<I grew up with a picture of Paul traveling through Asia and Europe, founding congregations, counseling and teaching the men and
          women who had given their life to Jesus. If he could not visit them, he sent letters. When Paul died, his letters were kept as
          treasures. Each church that had received one of his letters saved it, had it read during worship services, and exchanged copies of
          the letter with other congregations close by. Later the congregations tried to complete their collection.

          But this view does not match the uniformity of manuscript evidence.

          I will have to explain this more closely. Today, before a book is published, the author presents a manuscript to the publisher. The
          publisher very often will suggest changes and will have the manuscript edited by professional editors. After author and publisher
          agreed on the final version, one single manuscript only is forwarded to the printer. This manuscript becomes the ancestor of the
          whole edition or, in other words, this manuscript is the archetype of the text tradition.

          The view I grew up with does not suggest that there was any archetype of the letters of Paul. There were several collections and
          different editors combined these collections at different places until all known letters were included.

          ...

          Let me sum up the two points I wanted to make so far. First, the complete manuscript evidence can be interpreted to testify to an
          edition of thirteen letters of Paul with the order Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1
          Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon. Second, it is very unlikely that two editors would arrange the
          letters of Paul in this way independently of each other.

          These two assumptions lead me to conclude that the canonical edition of the fourteen letters of Paul as it is presented in the New
          Testament today goes back to one single copy of thirteen letters of Paul, and that only the letter to the Hebrews was added at a
          later stage of the text-tradition.>>
          http://www.bts.edu/Trobisch/CV/Publications/PaulsLetterCollection1.pdf

          Trobisch has expanded on this idea of a canonical edition of the letters of Paul, extending it to a canonical edition of the New
          Testament itself. See _The First edition of the New Testament_ (Oxford U.P., 2000). I have seen web articles in which Trobisch
          suggests that this canonical edition was published around 150 CE possibly by someone like Polycarp, and that it quickly became the
          standard, replacing all other collections, leaving almost no trace behind.

          This concept was briefly discussed on this list, but was met with universal scorn. Still, it seems that many text critics who post
          here seem to cling to the romantic ideas that Trobisch was taught as a youth: that individual letters or books were cherished and
          shared, then over time collected together by various churches, eventually accreting into the collection(s) we have today. The
          problem is that we should expect much greater variety of titles and relative order of individual texts within collections than we
          actually seem to have. I am not even a 'believer' yet I have to admit there is a certain logic at work there.

          Perhaps the early Christianity the produced the collected books of Paul, or the NT itself, that we have today, was more monolithic
          than we generally suppose. Either that or one particular publishing house published a collection that, whether individual churches
          accepted all of the books in the collections or just a subset, filled a need so well that it dominated Christian literature to the
          exclusion of all alternate collections.

          Are there any good, comprehensive monographs on the subject of the possible *early* publication history of the NT and its
          sub-collections e, a, p & r?

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          5 miles from the Center of the World, Ohio USA


          -----Original Message-----
          From: sentto-12544309-4527-1235750235-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
          [mailto:sentto-12544309-4527-1235750235-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of idou747
          Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:00 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] David Trobisch - Paul's Letter Collection



          I was wondering... what the general consensus about the hypothesis and argument put forward in the book "Paul's Letter Collection"
          by David Trobisch, that Paul himself may well have assembled and published his own writings?



          http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letter-Collection-Tracing-Origins/dp/0966396677/



          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Tommy Wasserman
          Dave (and list), Dave Hindley wrote: This concept was briefly discussed on this list, but was met with universal scorn. I briefly responded concerning this
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 1 6:07 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave (and list),

            Dave Hindley wrote: "This concept was briefly discussed on this list, but was met with universal scorn."

            I briefly responded concerning this matter a while ago, but I definitely hope I did not give any impression of being scornful. As I said then, David Trobisch is a respected scholar and friend of mine, but there are some problems with some of his theories which is important to consider (note that I say "theories").

            >Still, it seems that many text
            critics who post here seem to cling to the romantic ideas that Trobisch was taught as a youth ...

            I am not interested in "romantic ideas" unless they can explain the data we have. One observation I mentioned last time this was discussed is the fact that different parts of the NT reflect a distinct history of transmission; We have one textual history for e.g., Revelation, which is very different from e.g., Matthew, Romans, or Jude, etc. If there was one canonical edition that was the archetype of the extant textual evidence we would expect a more homogenous textual history for the different sections and books of the NT. There are other problems with this particular thesis (one canonical edition of the NT) which I will not go into now.

            As for the adopted codex format, the wide use of nomina sacra, the homogenous titles of the books in various sections, etc. reflects the early spread and wide availability of good standard copies.

            Dave Hindley "that individual letters or books were cherished and shared, then over time collected together by various churches, eventually accreting into the collection(s) we have today."

            There are many possible models, it is not necessary to set the "one canonical edition-theory" against an "individual books-collection theory," and maybe that is not what you are doing, but it is good to clarify. When you say "collection(s)" in singular or plural, maybe you are implying that there are some subcollections within the larger collection? I think the data confirms the fact that the subcollections (Gospels, Pauline letters, Catholic Epistles; or even sub-sub, like 1-2 Peter) generally were brought together earlier on in transmission.

            Tommy Wasserman





            _______________________________________________________________

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.