tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post4948335545170965313..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Romans as a "bread-and-butter" letter reduxMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-75796069448368790852010-09-28T09:01:29.953-04:002010-09-28T09:01:29.953-04:00Good job, Ken!
Interesting that the once hard-to-...Good job, Ken!<br /><br />Interesting that the once hard-to-find quote about Romans was in an article by Ephesians. That shows the benefit of reading widely.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-21481552794571271482010-09-28T08:31:57.377-04:002010-09-28T08:31:57.377-04:00It should be kept in mind that Romans, as we have...It should be kept in mind that Romans, as we have it in modern Bibles, is unlikely to be the work of a single author. Extensive redactions were made to Romans, and to Paul's other epistles, during the second century and there are several good reasons to think that Marcion's shorter gnostic versions of the Pauline letters are significantly closer to the originals of Paul's epistles than are the Catholic versions of the epistles that we find in traditional Bibles. <br /><br />For one good introduction to the textual issues that evidence the above conclusions, consult: "The First Edition of the Paulina" by <br />Paul-Louis Couchoud, 1928. An English translation is available online at: <br /><br />http://www.radikalkritik.de/couch_engl.htm<br /><br />I recommend you download the PDF, as some of the typography is corrupted in the HTML version.Otishpotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02470119796196129079noreply@blogger.com