https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Peter, thanks for the extensive blog post. I'll be sure to give it more time.Peter Kirby wrote:He uses different arguments to reach a similar conclusion. AFAIK, not the argument used in the final "summary" of this blog post.
Thanks!robert j wrote:Peter, thanks for the extensive blog post. I'll be sure to give it more time.Peter Kirby wrote:He uses different arguments to reach a similar conclusion. AFAIK, not the argument used in the final "summary" of this blog post.
Thanks!toejam wrote:Excellent post. Thanks for your work.
BeDuhn's book really opened my eyes to this problem of determining the "original" Pauline texts. I'm halfway through Price's "Amazing Colossal Apostle" at the moment (just about to start his commentary section). Thomas Whittaker's 1904 book "The Origins of Christianity with an Outline of Van Manen’s Analysis of The Pauline Literature" is also available online as an audiobook for anyone interested https://librivox.org/the-origins-of-chr ... whittaker/
This passage from Origen seems to add criterion 1 to the mix, an explicit note of denial.
Those letters are the letters which deal with the collection. Trobisch argues for these as being Paul's own recension. Arguments from authority aren't evidence either, but it does seem like a natural fault line.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:07 am I'm also willing to consider the possibility that the original collection only had 2-3 letters. I've toyed with it myself: Gal, Cor, Rom?????? But I'd really like to have more to go on.