152 Christoph Stenschke
to his lexical studies: â€œâ€¦ we suggest that the Gospelâ€™s answer lies in broadening
of the term [á¾¿Î™Î¿Ï…Î´Î±á¿–Î¿Î¹] to a universal scope via the use of Îºá½¹ÏƒÎ¼Î¿Ï‚. By these
means, the specific circumstances fade into the background, and the (gentile)
world becomes part of the drama. â€¦ Thus, modern Jews and Gentiles alike only
understand this Gospel when they finish it with the confession â€˜mea culpaâ€™ on
their lipsâ€ (217f). For a detailed presentation and assessment of Kierspelâ€™s case
see my review in Acta Theologica.
Stanley E. Porter, (Ed), The Pauline Canon. Pauline Studies 1 (Leiden: Brill,
2004). XIII + 254 pp. 16 x 24,5 cm. ISBN 90 04 13891 9, 68 â‚¬.
The present volume is the first in a new series called Pauline Studies
(PAST). Volume two is devoted to Paul and His Opponents (ed. S. E. Porter;
PAST 2; Leiden: Brill, 2005; cf. my review in Religion & Theology, in print).
Volume three addresses Paul and His Theology (PAST 3; Leiden: Brill, 2006).
Further projected volumes will cover Paulâ€™s World (PAST 4, 2007) and Paul:
Jew, Greek, Roman (PAST 5, 2008). Another series of five volumes has already
been planned to extend the series further.
The exact number of letters of Paul in the New Testament has been a
disputed issue in New Testament studies. While the canon contains thirteen
letters ascribed to Paul and some scholars up to this date have defended the
authenticity of all of them, most scholars only accept about seven of these
letters as letters of Paul the apostle. But much more than that is at stake.
At the beginning Porter provides a short â€œIntroduction to the Study of the
Pauline Canonâ€ (1-3) starting with a list of the questions involved:
Did Paul write all of the letters ascribed to him in the NT? If he did, can
we account for how these letters were preserved and complied into the corpus
that we now have? Did he write any other letters, of which we still have direct
of indirect evidence, that are not in the canon but that bear examination? If
we think that he did not write all of the letters, which ones did he write? How
do we know that he did or did not write these letters? What criteria can we
use to discuss this issue? For those that he did not write, how do we account
for their having been written and included in what is now our canonical col-
lection as found in the NT? How do we account for some of the problematic
juxtapositions of ideas in the letters that we do have? If we think that Paul
may have written some parts of individual letters, but not all of them, how do
we differentiate the parts that he wrote from the others? If Paul did not write
all of the letters ascribed to him, what are the canonical, historical and even
theological, implications of such a conclusion? (1).