Commentaries

David Inglis david at colonialcommerce.com
Sat May 25 20:15:40 EDT 2002


Dave Delaney wrote:
> I published a review of the Barth/Blanke commentary, and to my surprise it
> was very engaging in terms of its possibilities for the imaginative modern
> person to gain entry into a wide range of problems in the ancient world and
> their modern corollaries.  The information on slavery alone is worth the
> price of the commentary.  I did indicate however that, as we all know, one
> must be ever-so-cautious of Barth's work on Paul because his Anchor -
> Ephesians commentary suffers throughout by its failure to take seriously
> enough the arguments against Pauline authorship of Ephesians.

The 'we' in 'as we all know' above implies membership of a club that not
everyone - even people on this list - are actually members of.  So, could
I please ask:

1)  Why should Barth's work on Ephesians affect your view of other work by
the same author?  Shouldn't each piece stand or fall on it's own?  Or are
you actually saying that his views on Philemon depend on his views on
Ephesians?

2)  The above sounds rather like: I don't agree with Barth's conclusions,
therefore I don't think he takes the arguments seriously enough.  So,
could you please explain exactly your objections, and also state what
would be 'seriously enough'?

Dave Inglis
david at colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA




More information about the Corpus-Paul mailing list