It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I did not realize that was the case exactly, about Conzelmann, until I read that last night but it seems appropriate that the editors of the Hermeneia commentary series would use him to do 1 Corinthians, since it would provide him with the perfect opportunity to build on those concepts.
Conzelmann, along with other post-Bultmannian scholars, challenged the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic figure, but rather focused on the message of Christ as the kingdom of God breaking into the present. This was a challenge to the portrait of Jesus as expecting an imminent eschaton.
Conzelmann contends that Jesus' teaching about eschatology is unconnected to his words about God and ethics. These areas of his teaching are, however, linked by Jesus' understanding of himself "as one who opens up immediacy to God in every relationship"
I have a copy of Conzellman on 1 Corinthians, thanks to the reading list of an old Theology course.
I take it that Dibelius doesn't understand v2 in terms of "persecution", because if he did he would not be able to relate vv1-4 with the rest of the chapter.
. . . its place in the overall context of the letter is a later development.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
As in an edit?
Do you think James made the edit, or someone else?