We are very accustomed to reading theologies of Paul and sometimes even theologies of the "Gospels". But I don't recollect ever seeing a serious theology of the Catholic Epistles as a unified corpus. What is more, the Catholic Epistles and Acts comprised a literary unit in the Ancient Church called the "Apostolos" and you can find manuscripts that contains these writings and lectionary readings based around them. Part of the problem is, as David Horrell states, a perception that the contents of the Apostolos, "do not constitute a collection of texts with a distinctive and closely shared theological perspective". But is this really the case? Is the theological complexity (read "diversity" if ya like) of the Apostolos no different from the complexity within the canonical Gospels, within the Pauline corpus, or within the Book of the 12 Minor Prophets. The Book of the 12 is probably a good example. If it constituted the one literary "corpus" then it was probably meant to be read synchronically. Should we read the Apostolos (or even just the Catholic Letters if ya want to leave Acts with Luke) the same way as a distinct literary unit that comprises a mutually interpetive collection of texts? Some unity of the collection might well be inherent like elements of christology and praxis, but some elements of unity would be constructed when these writings are read as a literary whole. I think this is a good Ph.D thesis in the wings waiting to be done by some brave soul. A canonical reading of the Apostolos as a single corpus with its own theological texture!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Mike opined: "If [Bk XII] constituted the [sic] one literary 'corpus' then it was probably meant to be read synchronically."
Hmmm.... Not sure about the "probably". It is (almost!) certainly arranged chronologically. Wouldn't this militate against an intended "synchronic" reading? So it seems to me.
I wonder why we might assume that a single literary work from antiquity would also requires a single chronological horizon? Hmmm....
OTOH, such thematic threads in the Bk XII as the Day of the Lord suggests a unified (rather than fragmentary) reading -- it's just that the "unified reading" need not be reflected on a chronological level.
But maybe the unaccustomed summer sunshine is addling my brain. Or I'm insisting on too limited an application of "synchronic"!
What is more, the Catholic Epistles and Acts comprised a literary unit in the Ancient Church called the "Apostolos" and you can find manuscripts that contains these writings and lectionary readings based around them.
Is that really the case? To the best of my knowledge, "Apostolos" is the designation for the lectionaries containing Acts and both the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, but excluding Revelation (see Aland and Aland, Text of the NT, p. 163). This is still the case with our epistolaries in the Orthodox Church, which indeed still bear the name "Apostolos" (Sl. Apostol'). If lectionary manuscripts have surfaced that contain only the Acts and the Catholic Epistles alone under that name, I would be most interested to learn of them!
That aside, I hope that someone picks up on your proposal to produce a Theology of the Catholic Epistles. It's very frustrating to me that they continue to be treated as a mere dumpster for all non-Pauline NT epistles rather than as a defined corpus.
The problem seems to be on the level of relationship. Is the level of similarity in the non-Pauline letters high enough to espouse wide-ranging comparisons and contrasts? The other sub-copra are all unified either in intent or authorship. The letters of Paul, Luke-Acts and the Johnannine Literature by author and the Gospels as biographies with the intent to show Jesus as the Messiah. Even in the OT the sub-copra are arranged by genre (wisdom) or final editions (Pentateuch, DH, Chronicler and Books 12). I am not sure if the level of continuity between James, Peter, John, the writer of Hebrews and Jude allows for a consistent theology that is any more specific than NT theology as a whole. The diversity seems too great.
I gave a lecture on this very topic in Cameroon last month and will post a summary of it on my blog in a few days. In addition to all the unity/diversit issues, there is the question of how you define the Catholic Epistles. Technically, they are seven in humer and do not include Hebrews or Revelation. "Catholic" is not synonymous with "non-Pauline" or "non-Pauline according to modern judgments."
Make that "diversity" and "seven in number." Sorry!
Thanks for the clarification Dr. Gorman. I think I would still assert the same thing considering only James, Peter, John and Jude.
Post a Comment