From: Nichael Lynn Cramer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 02 1996 - 14:22:27 EDT
Mr. Timothy T. Dickens wrote:
> ...the question I have for you today (and certain others)
>has to do with a comment from Dennis Duling and Norman Perrin's book
>"The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History"
> Duling and Perrin 'surmise' that the earliest collection of
>Paul's letters originally consisted of only ten letters, and that
>the later three (the Pastoral) were included 'sometime in the second
>half of the second century C.E."
> My question to you is what do you think lead Duling and Perrin
>to make such a statement? I can not find information from any
>source, contemporary and ancient, that even suggests that the first
>collection of Paul's letters consisted only of ten letters. Can you
>offer any suggestions regarding why Duling and Perrin would make
>such a statement, or is this truly a 'surmise' on their part?
The passage that you quote is from the new edition of Perrin-Duling (or, as
it is now noted Duling-Perrin) is from their chapter on the development of
the canon of the NT.
One feature of this book is the extensive bibliography that they include at
the end of each chapter (a feature this book shares with many/most other of
the so-called "introductions" to the NT).
Perhaps this would be a good place to search for Perrin/Duling's arguments
in support of the ten-book model of Paul --or the bibliography to the
chapter on the Pauline Epistles (chapt 7).
http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:44 EDT