Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
Hi Andrew,
what you say again would depend on the context, would it not ?
I raised 1 Cor 14:23 (augmented by 14:11, 14:14) recently in which Paul speaks of a 'hypothetical' event of a whole congregation speaking in tongues and outside observers commenting. But surely these comments speak volumes about Paul's 'silence' on the Pentecost event in Luke's Acts 2. Would you not say ?
In other words, is it probable that Paul spent two weeks with Cephas in Jerusalem and he did not know that an event such as he imagines not only occured but was thought of as the church'es consecration by Christ ?
Best,
Jiri
|
Hi Jiri
I think you may be misunderstanding what I was trying to say.
Assuming FTSOA that Paul's silence in 1 Corinthians is evidence against the historicity of the Pentecost event as described in Acts 2, it is not IMO evidence that the passage in Acts 2 is a later interpolation in the original text of Luke-Acts.
(This thread is a sort of spin-off from a discussion as to whether or not the fact that, apart from Tacitus, all claims that Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome are late and go back directly or indirectly to our present text of Tacitus is evidence that the passage about Christians in Tacitus is a later interpolation in the original text.)
Andrew Criddle |
Indeed, I misread your intent: my bad. :blush:
You are right, Paul's 1 Cor 14 would not be evidence for interpolation in Acts 2. It would only help to establish that the Pentecost event in Acts 2 was a tradition later than Paul.
Jiri
06-13-2009, 09:08 AM
