Re: [XTalk] Paul's Gnosticism (and Jesus?)
- 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 >recommendPaul's not my thing, so I'm probably mising lots of stuff here. Add to this
>*as a historian?*
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 >ChristianNow THIS is indeed a relevant question for this list, since it has serious
>interpolations into, and/or revision of the "authentically" >Pauline
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 >mayHaven't a clue! What do you think?
>have influenced the writer(s) of Mark?
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.
- 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
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.
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