Timeline for answer to How can the Pastoral Epistles not be Pauline? by Bruce Alderman
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:51 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2012 at 19:59 | vote | accept | Jon Ericson | ||
| Apr 4, 2012 at 17:49 | comment | added | Frank Luke | @Mallioch, one of my professors at AGTS did something like that for his doctoral thesis. It was huge. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 21:45 | comment | added | Mallioch | I don't know of anyone saying that they weren't Pauline, so no dispute there. In leau of many early church lists, a lot of this same data could be gathered just by seeing which books were quoted as authoritative and assumed to be by Paul by which fathers. Of course I say "just", but that's a pretty monumental task. This kind of wide-sweeping data would be even stronger evidence than a canon list, but not nearly as convenient to reference :) | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 21:21 | comment | added | Bruce Alderman | I'll try to add more early church references; while the canon wasn't fully settled until the 4th century, the 13 letters with the name Paul at the top were not disputed. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 21:14 | comment | added | Mallioch | Lots of good information here but I would avoid painting early Christian canonical thoughts in such broad strokes just based on the Muratorian canon. Other second century/early third century discussions make it clear that things weren't settled. You can at least say that at least part of the Roman Christian community accepted them as Pauline. | |
| Apr 3, 2012 at 21:08 | history | edited | Bruce Alderman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
reformatted
|
| Apr 3, 2012 at 20:57 | history | answered | Bruce Alderman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |