A Hermeneutical parable

Archaeologists once discovered a small fragment of Greek text in the Egyptian desert. The name “Paul” appeared at the beginning of the text, and one of the words contained what looked like the first letters of the word “apostle.” Otherwise, the text did not conform to any known texts from Saint Paul.

Emendations were supplied to fill the gaps. Commentaries were written. Pauline theologies were revised in the light of this newfound evidence. In South Carolina, the revised theology led to a church split and the founding of a new denomination.

Decades later, archaeologists made another discovery, this time of a much longer text that contained the fragment discovered earlier. It was written by “Paulina” rather than Paul, and what had looked like the word apostle turned out to be a prepositional phrase. The larger text was an intemperate assault on the practices of early Christians in Egypt.

More commentaries were written, castigating the earlier commentaries. Pauline theologies returned to normal, but the history of Christianity in Egypt began to be re-written. The churches in South Carolina, of course, refused to be reconciled.

Question: Was the fragment the “same” text when it was construed as a lost apostolic document and when it was construed as an attack on the church from an unknown woman?

Another question: What do we make of the work that the text did when it was mis construed? What does that say about the potencies of texts?

This is fictional, but history has known such potent misconstruals: Donation of Constantine.