This blog, by Richard Fellows, discusses historical questions concerning Paul's letters, his co-workers, Acts, and chronology. You can visit my web pages here, but note that they are not kept up-to-date.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Things to click

Firstly, happy Christmas and seasons greetings to you, my reader.

There has been some interesting stuff on Paul recently:

Scot Mcknight has an article on "Jesus vs. Paul"

There is a new Journal called "Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters", which has its own blog.

Jonathan Robinson has put his thesis online: Sex, Slogans and Σώµατα: Discovering Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.

Mark Goodacre has a few podcasts on Paul in the last three months.

Phillip Long has now almost completed a series of blog posts that present a fairly conventional understanding of Galatians.

The Review of Biblical Literature discusses David Downs' "The offering of the Gentiles: Paul's Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts".

Ken Schenck has a well argued and clearly written post that shows that Luke's intended audience knew that Paul had died soon after the events recorded in Acts.

Deane Galbraith gave a very full account of biblical studies blogging for November.

4 comments:

  1. Hi there,
    I just had to pause in my reading to say that I really appreciate your blog. You present a point of view that I had been looking for for quite some time. I am sensitive to something missing in Acts and in fitting it all together with Paul's letters, but I have a lot of trouble doing it. I found your blog a few days ago and began reading it last night. I think I'll be reading and studying for quite some time.
    Thanks again for what you are doing and God bless you in your efforts.
    Ed Bromfield

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Ed,

    thanks for your interest in my blog and for your encouragement. The relationship between Paul's letters and Acts is a very important issue and it does not receive sufficient attention in my view.

    Readers may be interested in Ed's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Richard, thanks for the link. Never thought I would like being described as "conventional," but of course you are correct!

    ReplyDelete