Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!hsdndev!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: St Paul and Women Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 91 05:46:19 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 30 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes: +In article John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: + +> +>According to Dr. Jeffrey Hopper, Professor of Theology at the Methodist +>....putting forth that certain letters of Paul's are possibly not +> directly from him.... + +I wanted to comment on this post since it brings to a head many of the +difficulties I have with modern scripture scholarship. I have read +only small amounts of critical scholarship on the authorship of the +Pauline epistles--my general reaction has been negative, as the The 'problem' is only due to the assumption that the canon is 'sacred' and all others are false. Since the collection of books was in a sense arbitrary, the fact that some books were 'mis-attributed' to Paul is insignificant. For an interresting and short example of text analysis, there is a discussion in May/June(I think) "Biblical Review" on the intripolations of later scribes into the works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish writer of the 70-90 A.D. period. The author of that article was 'able' to point out 'phrases' which he believed to be from other sources than F. J. The author does not really give any new news on the subject, since he indicates that most authorities on the subject concur on some of the issues. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu