What if all the things Paul left out (in the letters of his we have) were common currency amongst the churches he dealt with and were not needed in what he was writing about.
Of course, anything's possible. But once you start adding claims that aren't in the text for the sake of convenience, you've gone beyond interpretation. At that point, you can justify adding whatever you like to make the Bible say what you want.
That's actually how Islamic doctrine stays internally consistent: not by sticking to the text, but by allowing outside additions whenever they're convenient and it works.
That last line is the grenade. Christians will often treat Paul’s silence as harmless because “he didn’t need to mention everything,” then turn around and treat silence, late sources, or transmission gaps in Islamic history like prosecutorial evidence. Either arguments from silence are weak and need caution, or they aren’t. Historical method shouldn’t suddenly change religions halfway through the exam.
What if all the things Paul left out (in the letters of his we have) were common currency amongst the churches he dealt with and were not needed in what he was writing about.
Of course, anything's possible. But once you start adding claims that aren't in the text for the sake of convenience, you've gone beyond interpretation. At that point, you can justify adding whatever you like to make the Bible say what you want.
That's actually how Islamic doctrine stays internally consistent: not by sticking to the text, but by allowing outside additions whenever they're convenient and it works.
That last line is the grenade. Christians will often treat Paul’s silence as harmless because “he didn’t need to mention everything,” then turn around and treat silence, late sources, or transmission gaps in Islamic history like prosecutorial evidence. Either arguments from silence are weak and need caution, or they aren’t. Historical method shouldn’t suddenly change religions halfway through the exam.