From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 18 1995 - 16:57:40 EDT
Marty Brownfield has raised a telling point, not only about the chiasmus
issue re: 14:33b-36, but about the authenticity of these verses.
One common signal of a gloss is a "movable text"--one which is
found in more than one place in the text. (John 7:53--8:11 is the locus
classicus.) It is not proof, of course, but what begins as a gloss
sometimes is inserted into the text itself by scribes who see it in
the margin, at places different from each other. This is only one of
a number of reasons which lead many scholars today to regard 14:34-35 as
a gloss, not by Paul. Conzelmann's commentary states the case briefly,
but by now a very high percentage of NT scholars in major universities
agree with him. (I don't want to argue the case here; we went through
this several years ago, and I read far too many student papers on the topic
as it is.)
The passage sounds like the Pastor, as many point out -- and to
me it also sounds like Polycarp, which may be one more reason to think
that Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen was right when he guessed that the
Pastor in fact WAS Polycarp!
As for the question as to whether this was a view of the
Corinthians: This view has been often expressed (even, in a perverse
way, as long ago as Lietzmann), though not often in print. One of my\students at Harvard, over a decade ago, presented a paper to the SBL arguing this
very position on the "Taceat" passage. I thought it was a good paper, though
it didn't convince me. Sorry that I can't remember this name (after close
to a half-century of teaching, I hope I may be forgiven for forgetting
some of their names).
Edward Hobbs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:27 EDT