corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: Jeff Peterson <peterson AT mail.ics.edu>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Disputed Pauline letters
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:33:56 -0700
I'm wondering whether recent discussion of the authorship of the disputed
Paulines has altered the assumptions and vocabulary employed in the study
and teaching of Paul. E.g., do folks now refer to the "seven undisputed
letters" rather than the "genuine letters"? (In addition to not prejudging
the question, I find that this terminology also reduces student resistance
to entertaining the questions involved.) And has anyone's mind been
changed by e.g. Luke Johnson on the Pastorals or by Markus Barth on
Ephesians and Colossians? I'll start the bidding by admitting that I
presently see no grounds for denying 2 Thess to Paul and very little for
Colossians, and 2 Timothy seems quite debatable.
I'm not at this point proposing an all-out debate on any of these examples,
although that might be fun, just wondering about the current state of
affairs in the study and classroom.
Jeff
------------------------------------
Jeffrey Peterson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of New Testament
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------------
-
Disputed Pauline letters,
Jeff Peterson, 03/30/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Disputed Pauline letters, Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D., 03/30/1999
- Re: Disputed Pauline letters, Christopher Hutson, 03/30/1999
- Re: Disputed Pauline letters, Edgar Krentz, 03/30/1999
- Re: Disputed Pauline letters, Frank W. Hughes, 03/30/1999
- Re: Disputed Pauline letters, J.E.Harding, 03/31/1999
- Re: Disputed Pauline letters, Frank W. Hughes, 03/31/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.