corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?
- From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <ekrentz AT earthlink.net>
- To: dhindley AT compuserve.com, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Cc:
- Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 09:41:56 -0500
Steve Black ASKS:
"familiarity with the other Paulines"? I haven't thought this in the past -Dave, why do you think that Hebrews would only make sense if one had some
am I missing something?<<
late-ish - but I have wondered at the lack of mention of the destruction ofOn a related - but also unrelated note - Usually Hebrews is dated
the temple in it. As I follow the argument as presented by its author - it
seems like it would have been a powerful means to further his/hers aims in
the letter. More so than any where else in the NT - as I see it. His flow of
"logic" "calls out" for an explicit mention of the temple - and because this
is not to be found - it makes me wonder if the temple had not yet been
destroyed when it was written - making it earlier than usually thought.<<
Isn't it significant that the auctor ad Hebraeos does not refer at all to the temple, but to the tabernacle as instituted in the exodus? Which means, perhaps, that the date of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem is irrelevant to the dating.
Note also that the Mishnah discusses at length the proper modes of sacrifice in the temple more than 125 years after the temple was destroyed--even though the discussion is not immediately relevant to its own time.
Peace!
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Edgar Krentz Professor Emeritus of New Testament Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Telephone: (773) 256-0773 Home Tel: 773-947-8105
Office e-mail: ekrentz AT lstc.edu Home e-mail: ekrentz AT earthlink.net
GERASKO D' AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.
"I grow older, learning many things all the time." [Solon of Athens]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
-
[Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
David ATTBI, 05/03/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, Steve Black, 05/03/2003
-
[Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
David C. Hindley, 05/04/2003
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Steve Black, 05/04/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, stephen.finlan, 05/04/2003
-
RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
David C. Hindley, 05/10/2003
-
RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Steve Black, 05/10/2003
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, David C. Hindley, 05/16/2003
-
RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Edgar M. Krentz, 05/10/2003
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, Steve Black, 05/11/2003
-
RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Steve Black, 05/10/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, Frank W. Hughes, 05/04/2003
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Steve Black, 05/04/2003
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, Charles Savelle, 05/04/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, Jim West, 05/04/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, David Inglis, 05/04/2003
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Jim West, 05/04/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, LARRY SWAIN, 05/04/2003
-
[Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?,
Brian Sullivan, 05/06/2003
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, LARRY SWAIN, 05/06/2003
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] Why was Hebrews ever thought to be by Paul?, David Inglis, 05/11/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.