Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's Gospel

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Elli Elliott" <elli AT kci.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's Gospel
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:54:36 -0600


Harold Holmyard writes:
(In response to Mesfin's comments:>>Besides,
> >the general consensus is that the pastoral epistles are not strong cases
to
> >argue on Paul's thought.
>
> HH: Having read 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus for many years, along with the
> rest of Paul's letters, I am quite comfortable with the idea that they are
> what they claim to be. It is true that they are not in the Chester Beatty
> Papyrus, or in Marcion's canon, but they were accepted as Scripture by the
> Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria.
>


I've been wondering in connection with several strands on this list whether
we need to inform list participants of some of the basics of scholarly
consensus in the field.

I would hope that we could assume that our discussion of Paul proceeds from
the seven undisputed letters. (For any of you who are unaware, these
letters are: Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, 1st Thessalonians,
Philippians, Philemon.)

If you want to introduce evidence from the other letters attributed to Paul,
an argument needs to be made that the letter is Paul's own. Such arguments
need to be based on evidence, and it's a very uphill battle against a
general consensus that has stood the test of a time.

(And thanks, Mark Nanos for clarifying the use of the term EUAGGELION in
Paul's time, before it had become a "churchy" word.)

Elli Elliott (elli AT kci.net)
Pastor, Zion United Church of Christ, Sterling, Colorado
PhD, New Testament & Early Christianity, Loyola University Chicago






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page