Re: Aorist of epistle in 1 Cor 5 ?

Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:16:05 +0400

Martin Arhelger wrote;
>> The fact that they had misunderstood what
>> Paul meant, Paul had learned of their misunderstanding and is now
>> correcting their misunderstanding in the later letter surely rules
>out any
>> possibility that Paul is referring to what we know as I
>Corinthians.
>
>Sorry, but I don't see any force in your argument.
>Where do you get from, that the clarification of 1 Cor 5:10-11
>is an answer to a prior misunderstanding ?
>In his letters, Paul often gave statements and then explained,
>what he thought and what was not meant by his words.
>So, 1 Cor 5:9 may be a statement, and V. 10 - 13 a
>clarification without any reference to a prior letter.
>
Verse 10 makes no sense to me unless vs 9 is referring to a prior letter
that they had misunderstood. Paul's sources (Chloe's people, the
Delegation in 16:17 and their own letter in 7:1 supplied Paul with the
info.

It is conceivable that 5:11 is epistolary, but even that I would take as a
reference to the previous letter. The use of NUN with aorist is not
frequent but is present both in and outside the NT to refer to refer to
recent action.

Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu