corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk (Peter M. Head)
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Paul's Interpreters
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:01:30 +0000
Karl Donfried's comment is a helpful reminder:
"your eighth category doesn't far enough since it doesn't seem to take into
the account the newest paradigm shift, viz. the Dead Sea Scrolls and such
key texts as 4QMMT. For Fitzmyer and others, the so-called "new
perspective" is indeed a dead end."
Do you have in mind something specific on this from Fitzmyer? My impression
from reading his commentary on Romans was that he didn't really rate the
new perspective, but this wasn't because of the DSS (which hardly feature
in the commentary by comparison with the history of interpretation within
the Christian tradition).
It is interesting that the new perspective is under-represented in
commentaries. Is this because commentary writers are generally more
conservative? or because of the long lead-time involved in commentary
writing? or because the new perspective can only be made to fit selective
texts?
Peter
Dr. Peter M. Head
Tyndale House
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge CB3 9BA
Tel: 01223 566607
Fax: 01223 566608
email: pmh15 AT cam.ac.uk
-
Re: Paul's Interpreters,
Michael T. MacDonell, 10/30/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, Peter M. Head, 11/01/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, Edgar Krentz, 11/01/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, Peter M. Head, 11/01/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, Andrew Goddard, 11/01/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, myron kauk, 11/01/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, l. j. swain, 11/02/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, Peter M. Head, 11/02/2000
- Re: Paul's Interpreters, W.S. Campbell, 11/02/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.