Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>]

> Ntsearcher AT aol.com wrote:
> 
>> I believe that most folks on this list are NOT familiar with Edwards' work 
>> on
>> the first century story. So I'd like to issue a challenge to those who are
>> interestred in taking a fresh look at the NT.
>> 
>> Read the Silas Diary (tyndale) and let's start a thread on it. Let's test 
>> it
>> for it's historical accuracy. but more, discuss the implications of
>> understanding the NT from this approach.
>> 
>> I personally will make this statement: we will never understand Paul's
>> letters fully without this approach.
>> 
>> If you read Edward's Silas Diary, i believe you will come to the same

>> conclusion.
>> 
>> Any takers?

May I suggest another way to go about making a challenge to this list that
is more likely--though far from certain--to achieve your aims. Failure to
consult your book has been posed as though it would suggest a failure to be
concerned with a new approach to the NT. I think I can speak for most if not
all on this list that it would constitute no such thing.

By the way, I am willing to make this statement: we will never be able to
fully understand Paul's letters. (For that matter, those of any other
historical figure. Perhaps not even the letters we receive ourselves today,
at least, not as they may have meant for us to understand them.) Any
advances to our understanding of Paul are welcome, but not all works offer
the same level of promise.

If you would be unwilling to do the work it takes to articulate the details
of a challenge, why presume that we will find it important enough to do so,
especially if we are not already familiar with the work? Why not presume we
are all busy with researching, writing, teaching, and whatever else we must
or choose to do, including whatever course we might be pursuing to
understand the NT better, including in new ways, (including trying to help
you rethink your approach to this list) so that it is your responsibility to
arouse our interest in adding this book to our list of things to do? Do you
have any idea how many (old as well as new, secondary as well as primary,
Biblical as well as non, Jewish-Greek-Roman-and Christian, methodological,
etc.) books a NT specialist must juggle? Or that they might be working on
something very different from your interest at the moment?

So, to get back to my suggestion, tell us what you think is so uniquely
historically accurate, or why this approach is so necessary to understanding
Paul. In other words: What is this approach? What makes it different--from
what other approach/es in particular? What difference does this difference
make? Then you will be merely asking us to respond to specific issues
you--and your author--raise, which some may find the interest and time to
engage.

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com