Timeline for Evidence for/against Romans chapter 16 being a later addition to the text?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2023 at 21:12 | answer | added | M. Wm. Ferguson | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 8, 2023 at 21:55 | comment | added | Dan Fefferman | There is also a theory, however, that ch. 16 is authentically Pauline but not originally part of the main letter. | |
| May 8, 2023 at 21:49 | answer | added | Dan Fefferman | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 29, 2022 at 17:06 | history | edited | Hold To The Rod |
updated tags
|
|
| Apr 15, 2021 at 3:50 | history | edited | Hold To The Rod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarified question
|
| Apr 14, 2021 at 20:18 | comment | added | Dottard | The acceptance of any part of the Bible into the canon of Scripture is a complex question but it mostly boils down to the early and continued acceptance by the early church PLUS its consistency with the rest of of scripture. (All pseudepigraphons are fairly easy to recognize.) By this standard, Rom 16 is canonical. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 18:45 | comment | added | Hold To The Rod | Thanks @Dottard - what about evidence going the other direction - affirming the originality of chapter 16? | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 6:46 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 17, 2021 at 14:18 | |||||
| Apr 14, 2021 at 1:30 | comment | added | Dottard | I agree that "arguments against the originality of Romans 16 based upon what we do/don't know about the individuals mentioned therein are arguments that beg the question they are supposed to be answering". I think you have answered your own question. | |
| Apr 14, 2021 at 1:04 | history | asked | Hold To The Rod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |