Ted Hoffman

Hebrews 10:37 draws from Habakkuk 2:3.

The eschatological imminence has completely no bearing on the dating.

Hebrews 10:37 "For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." (KJV)

Habakkuk 2:3 For the vision [is] yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

"Some here will still be alive" expresses no more urgency than "though it tarry wait for it".

Dead people cant wait.

An eschatology, naturally is either graphically violent or imminent otherwise people get bored and go to sleep

Rick Sumner

That still doesn't place it in the first half of the first century CE. And you haven't shown any dependence on Habbakkuk. You don't get to just chant it and say it's true. Hebrew scripture is vast. You can find a parallel to virtually anything you want. You need to demonstrate its reliance on it. Why wouldn't Matthew have cited the prophet, he certainly liked to do that elsewhere.

And it's not the imminence itself, it's the fact that both Paul and Matthew believe that people alive in the first half of the first century CE will still be alive. They both ascribe the imminence to the same time period. You can't take that from Habukkuk, because Habbakkuk doesn't say that.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

The commentators must be wrong. Oh, or the location of exact sequence of wording in a phrase that has over six words must be merely coincidence.
Enjoy your weekend.

ichabod crane

Hey, for interest sake, I emailed Earl Doherty the Matthew problem re. the imminent end of the world, to see if he has a response. I'll post to let you know when he gets back to me.

Rick Sumner

Is it the exact sequence of wording? See, now that's demonstrating it. You hadn't said that before, and one can't look at the Greek and presume--do you see the difference between what you said earlier, and what you are saying now?

Now why should I presume that Habbakkuk is the source of the belief that it is in the first century, rather than that Habbakkuk is being used as support for an already existent idea?

You are proposing Habbakkuk > imminent apocalypse in the first century. But why? How does the former lead to the latter?

I am proposing Imminent apocalypse > Habbakkuk. This is easily explainable--Jews who believed the end was near did the same thing Jews did in support of all such ideas, they searched scripture.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

The author of Matthew inherited it from Paul who based it on his belief that the resurrection of Christ constituted the "first fruits" of the general resurrection associated with The End. This was part of Paul's gospel which he claims was learned from no man but obtained directly from the Risen Christ. Even if we ignore this claim of Paul's and assume he did, in fact, obtain this belief from the existing community, I don't see why we should assume they had any different basis for their belief (ie the resurrection experiences).

Rick Sumner

We aren't assuming they had different basis for their beliefs. We're presuming that they both drew their belief from the same source, rather than from each other.

Paul discusses disputes at length. If anyone disagreed on so crucial a point as the imminent end, you'd expect he'd have to rebut them. Yet no such rebuttal is ever tended. It seems reasonable to conclude, thus, that Paul's stance on this point was conducive to the earlier community's--that the initial source, common to Paul and Matthew, was at least a point commonly held among early Christians. Whether it goes back to Jesus or not remains irrelevant--it's still multiply attested.

What argument do you present suggesting that Paul came up with it on his own? It definitely predates 1Thess--if it hadn't already existed, Paul wouldn't need to clarify points of it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Earlier, I referred to the following passage as a potential example of just such a dispute:

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1Cor15:12, KJV)

And wrote:I also followed up to your reply to the above in another post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...62#post1698262) but I think it got swept under a deluge of posts on a different line of argument.

It is part of his gospel and Paul claims he obtained that gospel directly from the Risen Christ rather than from another man.

Why should we look any further into the past than Paul's initial preaching of his gospel in Thessalonica? He is writing to clarify points he had made while there in person.

Rick Sumner

Is the question being asked here whether or not the eschaton will come? Or whether or not the eschaton will be accompanied by the raising of the dead?

It seems to me to be the latter, with the former being implicitly accepted.

Does he claim that in his letter to Thessalonica? In fact, we should be even more specific, does he claim to have received this in particular from the risen Christ?

Paul claims a lot of things that he's prone to waffling on. Appealing to consistency on the source of his message is a bit of a stretch.

Because if he was presenting points that diverged from the Christian community he apparently joined, we'd expect him to have to defend them. He doesn't defend them, thus they didn't diverge.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Only if the idea of an imminent End was considered objectionable and only if the particular letter(s) containing such an objection were preserved.

Paul gives no indication that he means bits and pieces of his gospel were given to him by the Risen Christ. I would think that the additional assertion that no man informed him suggests he was claiming the entire gospel to have been obtained by revelation.

Even if we assume he obtained his belief in an imminent End from predecessors, there doesn't appear to be any reason to to also assume he obtained the basis for it from them as well (ie the resurrection experiences).