tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post3234439614659122945..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: ‘Seven times in chains’: 1 Clement 5.6 and the New TestamentP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2671188519139387092015-06-26T21:36:09.770+01:002015-06-26T21:36:09.770+01:00Interesting. But in which way you reckon he might ...Interesting. But in which way you reckon he might have arrived, from reading the seven references to Paul's imprisonment in Acts, to speaking about the 'seven times in chains'? The references do not seem to indicate sever separate enchainings. An allegorical interpretation of Acts? If so, what sort of view of Acts would that presuppose for the author of 1 Clement to count references in it and come up with a number of imprisonments from that? I'm curious what you think.Dan Batovicihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09289918000614058009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50014451465950297652015-06-26T16:11:51.289+01:002015-06-26T16:11:51.289+01:00What about Andronicus or Junia as the source of kn...What about Andronicus or Junia as the source of knowledge of at least one of the times in chains (Rom 16:7)?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-866619114332767542015-06-26T14:03:45.086+01:002015-06-26T14:03:45.086+01:00(Not that the author of 1 Clement had this problem...(Not that the author of 1 Clement had this problem, of course—but if this is to be read by or to an audience, economy of reference suggests a preference for the most readily recognized sources to that audience.)Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61985579315071789642015-06-26T14:00:41.855+01:002015-06-26T14:00:41.855+01:00Seems plausible. 1 Clement shows signs of access t...Seems plausible. 1 Clement shows signs of access to some version of the circulating Pauline canon, but if Acts is in the mix, I see no reason why an only limitedly literate (i.e. predominantly audiate, oral) culture would be disposed to think of Acts as opposed to the Pauline canon. Having a <i>bios</i> available creates a ready point of harmonization for the letters, and this is what we see in the history of interpretation until very recently. When Acts appears, it seems reasonable for it to have begun to supplant as well as supplement the reading of Paul, diminishing the need for survey. And when writing an overview of Paul's life, where else would one turn? This could easily be an overview of the overview.Matthew Frosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10232613079168523464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-27761228563720157252015-06-26T10:59:17.674+01:002015-06-26T10:59:17.674+01:00I would not have thought those examples would be e...I would not have thought those examples would be easily interpreted as "seven times in chains," but an interesting consideration none the less. Is the author known to generalise in comparable ways elsewhere? Joshua Mannhttps://josh.donoreply@blogger.com