Re: [XTalk] Paul's Gnosticism (and Jesus?)
- Out of curiosity, why is Paul thought to have had little 1st century influence?
>And,Il ne matter pas. The question is how much influence on Paul the HJ
>as an aside, I seriously wonder about the 1st century influence the
>historical Paul actually had?
(mediated through the earliest "Christians," of course) might have had. I
tend to agree that Paul's influence in 1C was VERY limited. But he is
himself a 1C thinker, and so may tell us something about those who
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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