corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: HILASTERION
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:11:48 -0600
Dear Dan,
I appreciated the argument of your abstract. I wonder if you engaged the argument of Stan Stowers' A Rereading of Romans, pp. 206-13. If so, I wonder if you might recite some of the agreements and disagreements of your investigation of this matter. His reading departs from the standard views on Romans but not 4 Macc., if I remember correctly, and it would be helpful to see how yours interacts with his reading in both cases.
Thanks,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City
-
RE: HILASTERION,
Daniel P. Bailey, 02/21/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: HILASTERION, Mark D. Nanos, 02/21/2000
- RE: HILASTERION, Daniel P. Bailey, 02/21/2000
- RE: HILASTERION, Stephen.Finlan, 02/23/2000
- RE: HILASTERION, Stephen.Finlan, 02/24/2000
- RE: HILASTERION, Daniel P. Bailey, 01/30/2024
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.