No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
In the April, 1956 issue of the Harvard Theological Review appeared an article by Jack Finegan on “The Original Form of the Pauline Collection,” which purports to be a refutation of some suggestions of my own about the order of the letters in the primitive collection. Without intending to do so, he seriously misrepresents my position. I should like to correct this error in understanding as well as to make a few additional comments.
1 See his New Solutions of New Testament Problems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927)Google Scholar and The Meaning of Ephesians (University of Chicago Press, 1933).
2 I think especially of Roberts, C. H., “The Christian Book and the Greek Papyri,” Journal of Theological Studies L (1949), pp. 155 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and earlier, of Goodspeed, E. J., in Christianity Goes to Press (New York, Macmillan Company, 1940), pp. 67 ff.Google Scholar, and of McCown, C. C. “Codex and Roll in the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review XXXIV (1941), pp. 219 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.