➡📚Get his book! amzn.to/4ca6qpI

This topic is so interesting for anyone interested in Paul. I like to listen to the experts on the subject. Thank-you History Valley 👍🏼

Dr. Hughes reminds me of someone I don't like. But I like Dr. Hughes

Dr Hughes: please let people ask their questions and make their statements before you cut them off midway before they have finished. You do it over and over and over

@owenshaw7000

4 ай бұрын

This is not your show. You have no idea why he had to go. Support not criticize.

Nice discussion. It is so interesting and illuminating.

The ratio of conjecture to data in this field is absolutely staggering.

Thank you

You can kind of tell what you need to know about a biblical scholar by how they weigh in on the authenticity of interpolations, scribal errors, and outright forgeries. For example, anybody saying the Josephus wrote the TF, or that Paul wrote 1The2:14-16, will be a tendentious waste of attention. If they can't see anything fishy about the "brother of Jesus" line in Josephus, you know they don't think deeply about what they read. If they mention 1The2:13 and are not conflicted, that tells us a little more.

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

1 Thess 2:13-16 is a passage nobody is happy with. I simply cannot find any literary or historical evidence in favor of it as an interpolation. Neither could Bruce Johansson nor Robert Jewett nor Karl Donfried. Bob Jewett actually said in his Thessalonian book that he wished Paul had not written it.

@sciptick

4 ай бұрын

​@@fwhughes54 1Thess2 parallels 1Thess1, but there is nothing corresponding in 1Thess1. Further, Paul never blames Jews anywhere else. How are the Thessalonian churches supposed to be emulating Judean ones? By being persecuted? Or by keeping gentiles (themselves, mostly) from being preached to? And, what "uttermost wrath" could Paul have meant, anyway? Grammatically, it has to be a past event. It can really only be referring to the temple destruction in 70, which a late forger would know about, but Paul had no inkling of. Probably you should read Jensen 2019.

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

@@sciptick In my article, “The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians,” in *The Thessalonian Correspondence*, edited by Raymond F. Collins (BETL 87; Leuven, Belgium: University Press & Peeters, 1990), 94 116, I showed the rhetorical structure of that letter. You would expect the themes of the letter to be announced very briefly in the exordium, 1 Thess 1:1-10, and then some of them to be illustrated in the long narratio of 2:1--**3:10**. And that is what happened in 1 Thessalonians. The chapters are not parallel, but they are related, and everything is related to the triad of faithfulness, hope, and love in 1:3. Given the apocalyptic topics in 1 Thessalonians, and not only in **4:13**--5:3, it is not hard to see how **2:13**-16 does fit in, in terms of the apocalyptic topos of the persecution of the righteous (cf. the "endurance of hope" 1:3) and also the two standard epideictic topics of praise and blame. Much of the rest of 1 Thessalonians is taken up with praise, and so the (very unfortunate) passage **2:13**-16 does balance that out with blame. Bruce Johanson in his Uppsala dissertation *To All the Brethren* did an extremely different kind of literary criticism using the Scandinavian text-linguistic method, and he showed in quite a different way how 2:13-16 fits well into the ring structure that he saw in the letter.

Interesting to hear someone reading Paul on the basis of the three-letter theory for subdiving the material of 1 Corinthians. I wonder if John Coolidge Hurd Jr. Is stil around. He has argued, based on literary-rhetorical analysis of 1 Corinthians, that 1 Corinthians is a single coherent response-letter. His little collection of essays ‘The Early Letters of Paul, and Other Studies’ is an excellent example of careful methodology. Hurd emphasizes the letter as hermeneutic unit, and argues persuasively for the authenticity of 1 Thess 2.13-16 within the letter, taken as a hermeneutic literary unit, written at a particular time and in response to address a speciffic set of concerns. He also takes seriously the strong currently of apocalyptic thought evident in the two Thessalonian letters, and thinks that they are both Pauline, with 2 Thess probably being the earliest letter we have from Paul. My own studies have been enriched by my aim to practice the methodology of Hurd and also L T Johnson, who is very attentive to ancient rhetorical models.

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

I believe that John Hurd is still alive. In the book by Robert Jewett and me, *The Corinthian Correspondence: Redaction, Rhetoric, and History*, we partition 1 Corinthians as well as 2 Corinthians. There is no shortage of scholars who defend the literary integrity of 1 Corinthians. On why we wish to partition 1 Corinthians, see pp. 43-83 of our book.

@christianmichael8609

4 ай бұрын

@@fwhughes54 Thank you for the response. Sounds like the partitioning you take for granted might be based on a rhetorical analysis. I wonder if you consider carefully the response letter form that Hurd has identified in 1 Corinthians and see present also in 1 Thessalonians, as well as the literary A B A’ ‘sonata’-pattern that Hurd thinks is there, spanning chapters 8-9-10 and 12-13-14? I really ought to read an able defense of the opposing view to the one I prefer. Currently, I think Hurd’s analysis is persuasive. I have read his essays on the Thessalonian correspondance and on 1 Corinthians, where he first presents the vase for partitioning. I have also read a good portion of his ‘The Origin of 1 Corinthians’. I should give your book a fair hearing as well. I have found that I always learn from reading those with whom I disagree - it stimulates fresh thought :)

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

@@christianmichael8609 Robert Jewett's article from the JAARSup 46 (1978) argued, on the basis of literary criticism and redaction criticism in favor of his partition theory, a couple of years before I met him and several years before we worked together on Corinthians. When we finally got around to our book, chapters 2-4 are his, and they use a rigorous literary analysis of first 2 Corinthians and then 1 Corinthians, and then a theory of how and why the redaction of several letters took place, producing 1 Corinthians. Then in chapters 5 and 7-12 those are my chapters, and in chapters 5-12 we rhetorically analyze the reconstructed Corinthian letters A through H in order.

I'm only able to read Paul's letters in english but the authentic ones seem to have a folksy voice. More like you'd talk to a friend as opposed to writing a theological dissertation. Furthermore Paul is pretty upfront about his physical difficulties and his character flaws. He strikes me as a difficult person subject to sudden mood swings. Most of this is missing from the other letters.

@christianmichael8609

4 ай бұрын

The perceived ‘mood swings’ are simply ancient rhetoric - he took on a mask and argued ‘in character’ as the situation demanded. Luke Timothy Johnson is an excellent teacher on Paul. I have benefitted a lot from his Great Courses on the apostle Paul and on early Christian experience of the divine. Both are excellent and will likely enrich your studies.

Among the three Deutero-Pauline letters, there are quite a few scholars who defend the Pauline authorship of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, like Robert Jewett. A few scholars would defend the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy, but who would otherwise understand the Pastorals as pseudonymous. I don't have any doubts about the 7 letters of undoubted Pauline authorship, although there are a couple of interpolations: 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 and Romans 16:17-20. It is also hard to decide if Philippians is a single integral letter, or if has 2 or 3 letters embedded in it.

@christianmichael8609

4 ай бұрын

@fwhughes54 Have you consider L T Johnsons extensive commentary on the letters to Paul’s delegates: 1 Timothy and Titus? I happen to think 1 Timothy is contemporary with 1 Corinthians. That is where I can make sense of it. The themes are much alike, and the struggles in Ephesus with false teachers (‘wild beasts’) that are referenced also in 1 Corinthians 15, are evident also in 1 Timothy. The typological reading of the book of Numbers is a feature common to 1 Cor 10 (these things happened to them typologically) and in 1 Timothy 1 (fables and endless genealogies - possibly an allusion to the fable about Balaam and to the opening of Numbers) In 1 Timothy, it appears that there is no overseers is the ‘offshoot’ community in Ephesus yet. The structure of the chirch is very simple and as Johnson has pointed out, it may have been copied from the synagogue. It is not reasonable to suppose that intentional communities could have survived for long without basic local leadership. In 1 Corinthians, I think Paul has Stephanas and co in mind for appointment to oversers and deacons, judging by the prominent mentions in chapter 1 and 16. I know this view is held by nobody else, but nevertheless, that is what makes the best sense to me at the moment. The saying that most scholars think come from Luke is in fact closer to the same saying and context in Didache - which I think predate 1 Corinthians for the most part.

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

@@christianmichael8609 The fact that in the Pastorals there are details that are very similar to the undisputed letters is not earth-shaking, since these details add to the verisimilitude of the pseudepigraphical Pastoral Epistles. I do think that the structure of churches is quite different between the undisputed letters and 1 Timothy and Titus, and a big part of that in the latter the singularity of the episkopos, versus multiple episkopoi in Philippians. Also, Paul uses diakonoi of himself and Apollos in 1 Cor 3; but in the Pastorals the diakonoi are a subordinate ministry to that of the presbyteroi.

@christianmichael8609

4 ай бұрын

@@fwhughes54Thank you for the counter to my points in favor of 1 Timothy being authentic and even contemporary with 1 Corinthians. I think your point about the singular episkopos in 1 Timothy - the overseer (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, singularis with the definite article) - deserves to be taken seriously. It is a fair objection, because deacons (plural) are envisioned as a larger group in 1 Timothy, and in Philippians, as you say, both are plural. BUT: elders are not greeted in Philippians. Why not? Were there no elders? In Titus 1.5-7, the elders (πρεσβυτέρου) seem to all have the same character-profile requirement of ‘the overseer’ - it is the same characher-profile as in 1 Timothy, introduced even in the exact same grammatical construction (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον) so why wouldn’t ‘the overseer’ also be a distinct character-profile for an elder to be measured against - also in the case in 1 Timothy? Might it be the case that ‘elders’ (plural) all carry the same functional role (see 1 Timothy 5.17), and must all individually be held up to the same character-profile of ‘the overseer’ within the community, at this stage in the middle of the 1st century (if you are willing to suspend the consensus judgement of pseudoepigraphy/forgery for a moment) The way the overseer role is introduced in 1 Timothy suggests to me that it can be a godly aspiration for any male household-leader in the community. Further there is in fact no mention of elders being subordinate to the overseer within the hermeneutic units of the letters to Paul’s delegates - or am I mistaken? There is no separate character-profile for elders to be measured against, but elders are certainly implied to have a distinct leadership-role in the community. When it comes to actual tasks, there is only a simple structure of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy. ‘The overseer’ is not mentioned again, and only occurs as as a character-profile. I propose that elders are not greeted in Philippians, because the role of elders in the community and the qualifications for carrying out the role of an overseer is two sides of the same coin - an elder and an overseer is identical in the early Pauline communities. My question is then: Is there in any clear evidence of a single ‘episkopos’ President over and above’ fellow elders’ in any of the letters to Paul’s delegates (1 Timothy, Titus)? Or is the interpretation of the definite article and singularis case of ‘episkopos’ as being reflective of a three-level hierachy merely something we have been taught to read into the texts of the disregarded letters to Paul’s delegates, not because the texts demands it, but because these letters are universally asserted to postdates Paul by many decades?

@christianmichael8609

4 ай бұрын

@@fwhughes54 Thank you for the counter to my points in favor of 1 Timothy being authentic and even contemporary with 1 Corinthians. I think your point about the singular episkopos in 1 Timothy - the overseer (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, singularis with the definite article) - deserves to be taken seriously. It is a fair objection, because deacons (plural) are envisioned as a larger group in 1 Timothy, and in Philippians, as you say, both are plural. BUT: elders are not greeted in Philippians. Why not? Were there no elders? In Titus 1.5-9, the elders (πρεσβυτέρου) seem to all have to conform to the same character-profile requirements of ‘the overseer’ role. The NIV mistranslates the text. The NET is more accurate. This is virtually the same characher-profile as in 1 Timothy, introduced even in the exact same grammatical construction (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον). Therefore, why wouldn’t ‘the overseer’ be a distinct character-profile for any elder to be measured up against, also in the case in 1 Timothy? Might it actually be the case that in the so called ‘Pastorals’, the ‘elders’ (plural) all carry the same functional role (see 1 Timothy 5.17 - the tasks of elders are indistinguishable from the tasks of ‘the overseer’ role in Titus) and must all individually be held up to the same character-profile of ‘the overseer’ in the middle of the 1st century (if you are willing to suspend the consensus judgement of pseudoepigraphy/forgery for a moment) The way the overseer role is introduced in 1 Timothy suggests to me that it can be a godly aspiration for any male household-leader in the community. Further there is in fact no mention of elders being subordinate to the overseer within the hermeneutic units of the letters to Paul’s delegates - or am I mistaken? There is no separate character-profile for elders to be measured against, but elders are certainly implied to have a distinct leadership-role in the community. When it comes to actual tasks, there is only a simple structure of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy. ‘The overseer’ is not mentioned again, and only occurs as a character-profile in 1 Timothy. I propose that elders are not greeted in Philippians, because the role of elders in the community and the qualifications for carrying out the role of an overseer is two sides of the same coin - an elder and an overseer is identical in the early Pauline communities. My question is then: Is there in any clear evidence of a single ‘episkopos’ President over and above’ fellow elders’ in any of the letters to Paul’s delegates (1 Timothy, Titus)? Or is the interpretation of the definite article and singularis case of ‘episkopos’ as being reflective of a three-level hierachy merely something we have been taught to read into the disputed texts of the letters to Paul’s delegates, not because the text demands it, but because these letters are universally asserted to postdate Paul by many decades?

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

@@christianmichael8609 The presbyteroi do not occur in any of the undisputed letters. In Acts 20 they seem to be the same as the episkopoi, but they are plural in Ephesus.

Delicious.

That several greek letters have one author does not mean that they are from Paul nor that anything in them is not fictional.Not to mentikn that the Acts story and the letters do not match.

Thanks Nicolas Cage blows my mind again!!!

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

?

Paul😂👹😆

Discussing Paul is a bit like discussing the OT in respect to Jesus. Nothing of him to find in the OT and only the subjective vision of Paul in Paul's letters. Not what Jesus was preaching but imaginary vision of Christ Paul received after hurting his head and build on it from there on. These academic discussions is much about of anything useful as the underlying assumption is wrong.

@sciptick

4 ай бұрын

Yet, practically everything the gospel writers made up for their respective Jesuses to say started out as personal opinions in those letters. Mark seems to have had little else than them to draw upon, for doctrine, while cribbing plot points from Homer and the septuagint (in text order!). It is particularly interesting that Christianity had no food ritual to match other Mediterranean mystery cults until Paul related his "vision" in the 50s. Competition must have been fierce. They eventually came to need a virgin birth, besides.

Jacob, you have CRUCIFIED DR ROBERT M PRICE. The famous mythicist has become a CHRIST FIGURE in the ultimate irony

You CRUCIFIED DR ROBERT M PRICE

@Theslavedrivers

4 ай бұрын

In that case, he was looking remarkably well, the other day.

@catholicconvert2119

4 ай бұрын

@@Theslavedrivers he’s a Christ figure- I need Jacob to see the connection so he can repent

Thier are no authentic letters from paul , You liars for god. What's your doctorate in, lying about evidence.

@Theslavedrivers

4 ай бұрын

This is not the place for you.

@fwhughes54

4 ай бұрын

Ph.D., Northwestern University, Joint Garrett / Northwestern Program in Religious and Theological Studies, 1984. Qualifying examinations in New Testament Literature and Theology, New Testament Textual Criticism, Classical Rhetoric, and Patristics. Advisor: Professor Robert Jewett. Dissertation: “Second Thessalonians as a Document of Early Christian Rhetoric.” Later did postdoctoral research as a Fulbright scholar at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.

@owenshaw7000

4 ай бұрын

Yes!! That should shut up That troller. How is he qualified to question you.