Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:47 pm
You people are crazy.
They are, totally!
Not you and me though.
You're the craziest one of all. lol No way the letters date that far back.
There's a good chance that Paul/Aquila/Marcion was an agent of Hadrian, and the Pauline letters reflect policies enacted by Hadrian on the Jews. Even the term εὐαγγέλιον implies that the original Gospel was an imperial edict issued by the Emperor. Apostle just means messenger. And we have such a figure who worked in Christian circles, and had ties to Hadrian: Aquila and Phlegon, who also may be the same individual.
What was the original εὐαγγέλιον? That Hadrian was the messiah.
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:47 pm
You people are crazy.
They are, totally!
Not you and me though.
You're the craziest one of all. lol No way the letters date that far back.
There's a good chance that Paul/Aquila/Marcion was an agent of Hadrian, and the Pauline letters reflect policies enacted by Hadrian on the Jews. Even the term εὐαγγέλιον implies that the original Gospel was an imperial edict issued by the Emperor. Apostle just means messenger. And we have such a figure who worked in Christian circles, and had ties to Hadrian: Aquila and Phlegon, who also may be the same individual.
What was the original εὐαγγέλιον? That Hadrian was the messiah.
Jax wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:14 pm
^ I just have two observations to make on your post.
1: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is described by William O. Walker Jr as a later interpolation.
William O. Walker, Jr, '1 Corinthians 11.2-16 and Paul's Views regarding
Women', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 94-110; Lamar Cope, '1 Cor 11.2-16: One Step
Further', JBL 97 (1978), pp. 435-36; G.W. Trompf, 'On Attitudes toward Women
in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 and Its Context', CBQ 42
(1980), pp. 196-215; William O. Walker, Jr, 'The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians
11.3-16: Pauline or Non-Pauline?', JSNT 35 (1989), pp. 75-88.
2: 2 Thessalonians is regarded by many as not having been written by Paul but is rather regarded as much later than Paul.
Don't mean to be a kill joy.
Hey, I admitted that someone will possibly object to both 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 2 Thes 2:2-10. I'm just saying, they come across to me as true historical tags.
These kinds of allusions or side references can be used to give verisimilitude to a pseudepigraphic work, *or* they can just simply be side references to current events.
It does not matter to me what the texts *should* say, or try to sift out inconvenient evidence (remember the Edg. Krentz quote in my earlier post) as that is entirely subjective, but what does matter to me is establishing "facts" like these for use in reconstructing the theology and history of the movements that came together as NT Christianity.
Jax wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2019 12:14 pm
^ I just have two observations to make on your post.
1: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is described by William O. Walker Jr as a later interpolation.
William O. Walker, Jr, '1 Corinthians 11.2-16 and Paul's Views regarding
Women', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 94-110; Lamar Cope, '1 Cor 11.2-16: One Step
Further', JBL 97 (1978), pp. 435-36; G.W. Trompf, 'On Attitudes toward Women
in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 and Its Context', CBQ 42
(1980), pp. 196-215; William O. Walker, Jr, 'The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians
11.3-16: Pauline or Non-Pauline?', JSNT 35 (1989), pp. 75-88.
2: 2 Thessalonians is regarded by many as not having been written by Paul but is rather regarded as much later than Paul.
Don't mean to be a kill joy.
Hey, I admitted that someone will possibly object to both 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 2 Thes 2:2-10. I'm just saying, they come across to me as true historical tags.
These kinds of allusions or side references can be used to give verisimilitude to a pseudepigraphic work, *or* they can just simply be side references to current events.
It does not matter to me what the texts *should* say, or try to sift out inconvenient evidence (remember the Edg. Krentz quote in my earlier post) as that is entirely subjective, but what does matter to me is establishing "facts" like these for use in reconstructing the theology and history of the movements that came together as NT Christianity.
DCH
Fair enough. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that whoever wrote 1 Cor 11:2-16 may have culled it from Josephus. I consider it very likely actually.
Josephus as a go to source for the early Christian writers seems very reasonable.
