As I have tried to suggest, it would be better to think of “First Corinthians” at the pre-collection stage as an active site or open file, more along the lines of an archive or dossier, and certainly not a unified, much less actual, letter. So conceived, the process that yielded the letter known as “First Corinthinas,” as well as the collection known as the corpus paulinum, would be analogous to the process of the composition of the gospels. In other words, at some point in the second century materials of heterogeneous origin, date, and provenance began to be fashioned into a loose epistolary form and attributed to a figure from the first century. What would such a scenario imply about the authenticity of the very texts upon which Pauline scholarship is based? At a minimum it would challenge the current scholarly consensus that presumes it is in possession of six (or seven) of Paul’s authentic letters. It would also require greater circumspection on the part of scholars who would presume to read these letters as if they provided a gateway to the first century, as well as access to a “real” (viz., historical) first-century figure whose biography can be recovered. It would mean, in other words, that the corpus paulinum will no more yield a historical Paul than the gospels have yielded a historical Jesus. But we would surely be none the worse for that.
footnote 72: On this, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1975), 1–6, 57–59, 88, though she is working from the premise that 1 Cor. 2:6–16 is
Pauline. To be clear, my point is not that 2:6–16 influenced the Valentinians, but that the Valentinians
“influenced” Paul. Yet this was not only true of the Valentinians. “Paul” (or better, “Pauls”) was (were) a
literary fabrication of the second century, and in general assumed three separate generic forms: epistolary,
commentarial, and narratival. Cf. the similar second-century creations of “Peters,” “Johns,” “Thomases,”
“Jameses” et al.]Whether a “historical” Paul can be disentangled from this is a question to which I will
return shortly.
Fortress Press, 1975), 1–6, 57–59, 88, though she is working from the premise that 1 Cor. 2:6–16 is
Pauline. To be clear, my point is not that 2:6–16 influenced the Valentinians, but that the Valentinians
“influenced” Paul. Yet this was not only true of the Valentinians. “Paul” (or better, “Pauls”) was (were) a
literary fabrication of the second century, and in general assumed three separate generic forms: epistolary,
commentarial, and narratival. Cf. the similar second-century creations of “Peters,” “Johns,” “Thomases,”
“Jameses” et al.]Whether a “historical” Paul can be disentangled from this is a question to which I will
return shortly.
“Whodunnit? Paul’s Peculiar Passion and Its Implications”
Arthur Droge
Pre-print version. Forthcoming in a collection of essays on Paul.
https://www.academia.edu/43327375/_Whod ... lications_
Arthur Droge says he will return to the question of whether a 'historical' Paul can be disentangled' from his study of the Pauline epistles.
If the ahistoricst position on the gospel Jesus is ever going to move beyond the confines of a fringe interest - then the historicity of the NT figure of Paul has to be addressed. Mythicists like Carrier and Doherty have failed to take this question seriously. They have, in effect, not followed through with their cosmic 'crucifixion' insight. Over the years I've often said to Doherty - don't put all your eggs in a Pauline basket. If the NT Paul is a fabricated figure - then Carrier and Doherty have to go back to the drawing board. Interpreting 1 Cor. 2.6-8 as a cosmic 'crucifixion' is not the end of the road - a supposed arrival point - a this is it position. A cosmic 'crucifixion' is not the end but the beginning of a search for an understanding of early christian origins - just as viewing the gospel Jesus as a literary figure is not the end but the beginning of a search for early christian origins. The question mythicists should have been asking themselves is 'what now?' - instead they have been digging into their entrenched positions instead of exploring the possibilities their insight had presented them with. Perhaps it's now time for the 'ball' to be taken from them by scholars like Arthur Droge and Thomas Brodie.
"The historicity of Paul is the last line of defense in the battle to save the
veracity of the Bible." Jake from JM list.
veracity of the Bible." Jake from JM list.
