corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: George Goolde <goolde AT mtnempire.net>
- To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu (corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu)
- Subject: Re: Pauline authorship and Canon
- Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 17:45:40 -0700
Thanks Chris and Sheila and others of you who responded to my not so clear
statement about the canon. I agree heartily with some of your responses -
I'm sorry I did not make that clear in my postings.
1. I believe we are the discoverers of canon, not the establishers of
canon.
2. I understand that there IS a canon, established by God, which
constitutes the Word of God, as to its quality theopneustos in the
autographs. It is clear that not all scholars agree with what the canon
IS.
3. I agree that the contents of a writing should be examined to determine
whether or not they contradict other teachings of Scripture.
4. When I referred to my understanding of the canon, I did not mean to
suggest that I established it, but only that I recognized it - and yes, I
do hold to the "traditional" 66 books as being canonical.
5. I don't think that I - or any scholar - ought to discard a writing
because we do not like what it says. That is what I tried to communicate
when I said I recognize canonicity before I do exegesis. Once I
understand that the PE are canonical, and it may be that I have taken this
by faith, then I accept what they say - that Paul is the author.
6. I do employ a literal, historical, grammatical i.e. "normal"
hermeneutic, which IMHO does not allow for pseudapigraphy. I think Paul
means Paul, not a disciple of Paul, with or without intent to deceive.
7. The bottom line for me is that I recognize 27 canonical books in the
NT.
When I open my Bible to study I concentrate on what does the text say
and
what should I do about it, rather than picking out pieces with which I
struggle and finding someway to question their authenticity. I already
"bought-in" when I accepted the 27 books as canonical.
I apologize for notstating my view more clearly. I admit I was using my
own conclusions when I asked why someone would study a book if they did not
believe it to be canon. I was basing this on my own conviction (see #7
above.)
George
George A. Goolde
Professor, Bible & Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: goolde AT mtnempire.net
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
George
George A. Goolde
Professor, Bible & Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary
-
Pauline authorship and Canon,
Christopher Hutson, 05/04/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, Jim Hester, 05/04/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, George Goolde, 05/04/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, Jeffrey B. Gibson, 05/04/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, Licia Kuenning, 05/05/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, Jeffrey B. Gibson, 05/05/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, Christopher Hutson, 05/05/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, David Amador, 05/05/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, George Goolde, 05/05/1999
- Re: Pauline authorship and Canon, Jeffrey B. Gibson, 05/05/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.