Re: [XTalk] Paul's Gnosticism (and Jesus?)
- Bill Arnal wrote:
> Now THIS is indeed a relevant question for this list, since it has seriousand
> 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,
> am probably not competent to do. I also happen to think that although thethe
> "Dutch radicals" may be on to *something*, their specific arguments for
> second century character of the Pauline corpus (as we have it) are NOTparticular
> compelling; they tend to assume what needs to be proven, namely a
> developmental model of Christianity.Bill,
I hesitate to ask, as it may seem to side-step off this thread. On the other
hand your questioning (though 'regretting' - why so?) of the Pauline corpus
as "direct conduits to first-century thought" is very important to it.
So I would be very grateful if you could give us a few lines more about your
reasons for saying the Dutch radicals' arguments were NOT compelling, in as
far as they "tend to assume what needs to be proven". As I know from Hermann
Detering's dissertation 'Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus' (edited by Peter Lang)
some of them started as defenders of the traditional vieuw of 7 genuine 1st
C Pauline letters...
- 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