I'm with you --- I don't like getting mucked-up over semantics.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:17 pmI used the word as I intended to use it, and correctly, just as it has been used countless times in Pauline scholarship; I stand by it, and do not plan to be drawn into a semantic debate.robert j wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:57 pmSure, we're discussing shades of gray.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:40 pmSpurious = "not what it purports to be" = not written by the author under whose name it appears. Nothing loaded intended. Anything deutero-Pauline is spurious by definition.robert j wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:57 pmWhy "spurious"? Why such a loaded characterization of the doxology?Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2017 5:59 pm ... Romans ... the spurious 16.25-27 as an ad hoc conclusion.
I think the real issue here is the nature of the doxology. I would like to kick that around with you, but I can't do it now. Perhaps we could delve into the nature of the doxology at a later date?