Re: [XTalk] Proto-Marcionite Paul?
- STEVE BLACK wrote
According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary it was Thekla who
had this above experience with the "wild beasts", and not Paul.
Unfortunately I can only cite the German Version of PH (Hamburger Papyrus):
"Und fortgeführt wurde er (Paulus) sogleich in das Stadion geworden...Paul
was thrown into the stadion ...er (Hieronymus) befahl einen sehr wilden
Löwen .. auf ihn loszulassen ... etc.
Hennecke Schneemelcher II 1964, p 256ff.
... Am I wrong to suggest that Marcion leaned towards
celibacy? If this document was a source for the writer of 1
it conflicts rather distinctly on this issue.This would make
authorship by Marcion of 1 Cor less likely.
I do not claim that the author of Gal knows Acta Pauli etTheclae but make
the suggestion that he used (earlier) traditions, which had been worked up
than in this romance.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- Steve Black wrote:
> According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary it was Thekla who had thisHermann is right, according to the AoP in Hennecke-Schneemelcher's
> above experience with the "wild beasts", and not Paul. (Alas, I
> don't have a copy of the Acts of Paul in my library)
"New Testament Apocrypha". Both Thecla and Paul have experiences
with lions and other wild beasts in the arena - Thecla in Antioch,
Paul in Ephesus. But your other point is completely in accord with
mine, namely that there is anti-Marcionite stuff in AoP that needs
to be explained if the author of 1 Cor is a Marcionite who embraces
the AoP. (As well it needs to be explained by more conventional
theorists what this reference to fighting with lions is doing in
a genuine Pauline letter!)
>--- Mike wrote:A fairly straight forward suggestion might is that Paul was speaking
>... needs to be explained by more conventional
>theorists what this reference to fighting with lions is doing in
>a genuine Pauline letter!)
figuratively when using the word "beast". This is a typical Pauline
use of rhetoric. Acts of Paul might have misunderstood this as
literal (not unlike ourselves???), and constructed a whole story
No way to prove any of this, but this seems very reasonable to me!
Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question
- --- Steve Black wrote:
> A fairly straight forward suggestion (re: 1Cor15:32) ... is thatMe too (and I apologize for using the word 'lion', which is not in
> Paul was speaking figuratively when using the word "beast". This
> is a typical Pauline use of rhetoric. Acts of Paul might have
> misunderstood this as literal (not unlike ourselves???), and
> constructed a whole story around it. No way to prove any of this,
> but this seems very reasonable to me!
the text), but now two possible avenues for supporting this: (1) if
Paul had in mind some personal conflict in which he had been involved
in Ephesus, it should be possible to point to a specific incident,
or (2) if he had in mind that Ephesus was generally known for its
arena "games" involving "beasts" (so that he was arguing via the
counter-factual "If I were one of those who fight with beasts in
Ephesus, what do I gain if there's no resurrection?"), again it
ought to be possible to find something in the historical record.