Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Paul's Gnosticism (and Jesus?)

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    ... I m not sure I have any firm conclusions here -- just questions. Which, of course, recognizing that this isn t a Paul list, I m trying to pitch in terms of
    Message 1 of 34 , May 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Leon Albert wrote:

      > Bill, I look foreward to your ideas in any discussion of Paul.

      I'm not sure I have any firm conclusions here -- just questions. Which, of
      course, recognizing that this isn't a Paul list, I'm trying to pitch in
      terms of HJ questions. With this in mind, I want to be careful not to stray
      too far from the alleged subject-matter of this list.

      >Which, if any, of the recent spate of books on Paul, would you >recommend
      >*as a historian?*

      Paul's not my thing, so I'm probably mising lots of stuff here. Add to this
      that I find the vast majority of published work on Paul to be tedious
      rehearsals of modern Christian reflections on justification, etc. But the
      one that really jumped out at me is Horsley's edited volume, _Paul and
      Empire_. I think the great virtue of this text is that at least some of the
      essays get away from textual navel-gazing, and actually try to relate Paul
      to his broader ideological environment. I say this quite apart from any
      judgment about the accuracy of these efforts.

      >How much credence do you give to the idea of any degree of later >Christian
      >interpolations into, and/or revision of the "authentically" >Pauline
      >corpus?

      Now THIS is indeed a relevant question for this list, since it has serious
      and direct implications for the possible relationship between Paul and the
      HJ. Much as I regret to say it, I have found something intuitively
      attractive about the thesis of a revised and essentially second-century
      Pauline corpus. Indeed, at the very least, I think that the
      reception-history of Paul in the second century SHOULD be given serious
      consideration BEFORE directly addressing the letters themselves as direct
      conduits to first-century thought. The "problem of Paul" begins in the
      second century, not the first. But this is something *I'VE* never done, and
      am probably not competent to do. I also happen to think that although the
      "Dutch radicals" may be on to *something*, their specific arguments for the
      second century character of the Pauline corpus (as we have it) are NOT
      compelling; they tend to assume what needs to be proven, namely a particular
      developmental model of Christianity.

      >Finally, to what extent, and how, do you think Paul's writings/ideas >may
      >have influenced the writer(s) of Mark?

      Haven't a clue! What do you think?

      Bill
      ___________________________
      William Arnal
      Department of Religion
      University of Manitoba

      "I wish that I was born a thousand years ago.
      I wish that I'd sailed the darkened seas
      on a great big clipper ship,
      going from this land here to that,
      in a sailor suit and cap."
      -- Lou Reed


      _________________________________________________________________
      Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
      http://www.hotmail.com
    • Richard Anderson
      David Friedman wrote: Richard has actually written a paper on this subject. He makes some good points, [thank you] . . . . If Luke was following Josephus by
      Message 34 of 34 , May 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        David Friedman wrote:

        Richard has actually written a paper on this subject. He makes some good
        points, [thank you] . . . .

        If Luke was following Josephus by writing an apology dedicated to a patron
        that would make it more likely that Theophilus was a literary creation.

        Notice that "most excellent" connected to a Roman governor. That makes it
        inconceivable that Theophilus was meant to be a Jew.
        . . .
        I don't think so. Isaiah mentions vicarious atonement.

        Theophilus as the HP is the highest ranking Jewish official in Judea but he
        is nonetheless a Roman appointee; consequently Luke has correctly addressed
        him.

        There is no evidence that Luke is dependent upon Josephus or that Josephus
        is dependent on Luke. It is more likely, according to Gary Goldberg who has
        written on this subject, that Luke and Josephus are using a common source.
        See http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm

        Isaiah does has vicarious atonement according to most scholars (Whybray has
        a strong dissent in JSOT) but only in the Hebrew MT; there is no vicarious
        atonement in the Greek Septuagint and Luke quotes the Septuagint.

        Richard H. Anderson
        Wallingford PA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.