Pauline Epistles

It may be more difficult to understand what one agrees with than with what one disagrees with.

I can think of two book examples of this. My systematic theology class used as the major textbook a book on dispensational theology by a guy who did not believe it at all. The first two thirds of the book he spent describing his "prey" very accurately. Then in the last part he described his opposition. We were not assigned the last part. But our professor felt his description was very acute.

The best book I have ever read on the subject of the textual accuracy of the Bible (about how accurately the Bible was copied by hand over the centuries before the printing press) was written by a man who has serious doubts about how accurate the Bible is at major points. That is a minority view.

I am greatly enjoying a book called Pauline Epistles by Kech and Farnish (1984) though I do not agree with their supposition that half of the epistles were not written by Paul. But their description of the problems caused if one assumes that is very accurate and interests me greatly.

So even though their conclusions may not be ones I like or agree with their honesty and clarity are making this an interesting book. I am being challenged. Their descriptions of problems have been thought provoking, so far.