Talk:Pauline Epistles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
imported>Martin Wyatt No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
" Some of his other precents simply reflect the values of his time" I'm wondering about the neutrality of this. This is one of the ways people often explain away scriptures they don't like. So, in this particular case, does it in fact represent the consensus of scholars? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 11:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC) | " Some of his other precents simply reflect the values of his time" I'm wondering about the neutrality of this. This is one of the ways people often explain away scriptures they don't like. So, in this particular case, does it in fact represent the consensus of scholars? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 11:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC) | ||
:I think it is a fairly standard comment. For instance, in a commentary on Colossians 3.18ff, I find the statement that "it is for the most part run-of-the-mill ethical teaching taken straight from the Jewish (or pagan) tradition". Another commentary on the same passage says much the same about Jewish and pagan writers, and adds that the principle of subordination is assumed. It is difficult to say that the judgment is consensus, as some commentaries simply avoid the issue, presumably as not significant. Myself, I think the only thing to argue about is the use of the word "simply", which could be removed. --[[User:Martin Wyatt|Martin Wyatt]] ([[User talk:Martin Wyatt|talk]]) 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:38, 29 December 2017
Just noticed Galatians missing. I've put it in what I think is the right category, but the basis of the ordering isn't stated. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Can't think how it was missed. I am not sure if I have understood your point about ordering, but I think I originally listed them in a presumed chronological order within the categories, in which case Galatians is in the right place. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering whether the order was meant to be chronological. Last I heard, there were two theories, putting Galatians or 1 Thessalonians first. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
" Some of his other precents simply reflect the values of his time" I'm wondering about the neutrality of this. This is one of the ways people often explain away scriptures they don't like. So, in this particular case, does it in fact represent the consensus of scholars? Peter Jackson (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is a fairly standard comment. For instance, in a commentary on Colossians 3.18ff, I find the statement that "it is for the most part run-of-the-mill ethical teaching taken straight from the Jewish (or pagan) tradition". Another commentary on the same passage says much the same about Jewish and pagan writers, and adds that the principle of subordination is assumed. It is difficult to say that the judgment is consensus, as some commentaries simply avoid the issue, presumably as not significant. Myself, I think the only thing to argue about is the use of the word "simply", which could be removed. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)