4.9.09

Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse

Indicative Bibliography

  • Brown, R E, An Introduction to the New Testament, New York: Doubleday, 1997

  • Fee, G D, New Testament Exegesis, 3rd edition Louiseville: Westminster John Knox, 2002

  • Hawthorne, G F, & Martin, R P, & Reid, D G, (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, Leicester: Apollos, 1993

  • Johnson, L T, The Writings of the New Testament: an Interpretation, revised edition London: SCM, 1999

  • Marshall, H, Travis, S, & Paul, I, Exploring the New Testament: Volume 2 The Letters and Revelation, London: SPCK, 2002

  • Ziesler, J, Pauline Christianity, revised edition. Oxford: OUP, 1990

Any other recommends?

6 comments:

Tim said...

Not from me unfortunately. I'm more history rather than exegesis. Have you managed to find a copy of that JT Robinson book though? If not then I can get my copy forwarded to you if you like.

Rachel Marszalek said...

Hi Tim
Thinking I might get somewhere with this http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html, which has some interesting links, but also I am off to college to pick up a copy tomorrow and the other books aforementioned. I'm really glad to see Fee on the list, I find him really readable.

Very good of you to offer forwarding your copy - thank you so much.

Will Robinson make me gasp a little, like Borg and Crossan, do you think, who seemed to speak with such authority that many of the letters were never written by Paul?

Tim said...

With regards their authenticity he wrote:
"Unless a date well after the death not only of Paul but of Timothy and Titus is presupposed it is hard to imagine a situation in which the fiction would either have deceived or have been taken for granted."

He went on to say that:
"...the case which makes a second century composition necessary or even probable has very far from established itself."

The summary of dates that Robinson gave for the Pauline epistles range from the early AD50s to the autumn of AD58, although he said that he could be a year out either way.

I personally see no reason to doubt that these letters were by Paul directly, or dictated/authorised by Paul. From studying the methods that many of those critics use I find them to have very poor analytical standards and tend to simply weigh things based upon their own prejudices. Additionally, their knowledge of history and archaeology can be appalling. C.S. Lewis didn't like them, and had good cause not to. He said they had a record of 100% failure where his own work was concerned. Neither did the author/historian Dorothy Sayers have much nice to say about them either, lol.

I remember my daughter asking me a few years ago why, with everything I had studied, I wasn't an atheist (she was sixteen and had just told me she wanted to be an atheist). I told her that it was precisely because of everything I had been taught, shown, studied, experienced, that atheism was an impossible and intellectually dishonest position for me to take. Six months later she changed her mind and was confirmed by the Bishop a year later, but that's part of another story, lol.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with Robinson's book.

Rachel Marszalek said...

Thank you and what a wonderful testimony!

Mike Aubrey said...

Luke Timothy Johnson & David A deSilva's introductions are great - maybe Randoph Richards Paul and First Century Letter Writing.

Rachel Marszalek said...

Thank you Mike for the advice and for dropping by.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

.

.
A little background reading on the two theological integrities in the Church of England regarding women in ministry.