My Thesis about Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul

So here it is, an important reason for my months of blog silence: my the thesis of my Master of Biblical Studies. Much of it may be too specialized for readers not familiar with the history of second century Christianity, but many may find chapters 6 and 7 about pseudepigraphy and letter element interesting nevertheless.

 Whenever I tell people who inform about the subject of my thesis that I am writing about 3 Corinthians, they usually react with a mix of curiosity and surprise. Most, including several students of theology, have never heard of it in spite of the fact that it was still part of many Armenian copies of the Bible as late as the eighteenth century. Some who did some New Testament study, usually think that I refer to a part of what is now known as second Corinthians. My own knowledge of this document did not extend much further when I started to do research for a paper last year. What interested me at first was the existence of a document that could be shown to be an epitome of orthodox teaching and could be proved beyond doubt as pseudepigraphal. I then probably hoped that perhaps it could solve some of the riddles surrounding the pseudepigraphal status of other New Testament letters, especially those of Paul. I am not sure that my study of the document did that, but in regard to 3 Corinthians, that hardly seems to matter anymore. Looking at the correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians and its relationship with the apocryphal Acts of Paul, opened a new window on Christianity in the second century, providing extra, exciting pieces to a puzzle which is still far from complete.

During my examination of the available pieces of information, my view on this correspondence changed. At first, I saw a picture of some frustrated church leader, who enlisted the famed apostle to help him fight the battle against some heresy. That is no longer how I see it. I became convinced that the Corinthian correspondence did not have a separate origin, but was from the start a part of the Acts of Paul. I found the reasons for a separate origin unsatisfactory, reaching this conclusion after considering the manuscript evidence in the light of good textual criticism practices, examining the letter elements of both letters in comparison with that of other letters in the New Testament and second century Christianity and observing narrative elements in the two letters and the Acts of Paul. My attempt to consider the correspondence as an intended integral part of the original composition of the Acts of Paul may still be in need of correction, but I think it opens up new perspectives on both 3 Corinthians and the Acts of Paul.

 

For more see my thesis: