The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Alright, one more wild speculation and then I'll call it a night. You (and commentaries) seem to suggest that there is an element of Daniel's Antiochus behind all these "deceiver" allusions in various Christian writings, so could 2 Thes. 2:1-4 then have anything to do with Mk. 13, which mentions "the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong," i.e., the Temple?
Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen ... When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong ... At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
2 Thes. 2:3-4:
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


Could the man of lawlessness refer to one of Mark 13's "I am he" people?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:55 pm Alright, one more wild speculation and then I'll call it a night. You (and commentaries) seem to suggest that there is an element of Daniel's Antiochus behind all these "deceiver" allusions in various Christian writings, so could 2 Thes. 2:1-4 then have anything to do with Mk. 13, which mentions "the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong," i.e., the Temple?
Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen ... When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong ... At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
2 Thes. 2:3-4:
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


Could the man of lawlessness refer to one of Mark 13's "I am he" people?
Well, I think that the reference to the abomination of desolation in the synoptic apocalypse is absolutely a callback to Antiochus as he is portrayed in Daniel and in Maccabees. That does not necessarily mean that the (pseudo-)Pauline stuff about the man of sin or whatever is directly connected to the synoptic apocalypse; hypothetically, both (pseudo-)Paul and the synoptics could be independently developing Daniel and Maccabees.

That said, I currently think that Matthew's synoptic apocalypse is a conflation of Mark and Didache 16; that Paul's treatment of the advent of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 depends upon a scenario similar to what we find in Didache 16; that 1 Thessalonians 5.1-11 is an interpolation (and not Pauline), one based upon the synoptic apocalypse or something very much like it; that 2 Thessalonians is not Pauline; and that there was a lot of development of the motifs in all of these passages "behind the scenes" (so to speak); that is, apostles and preachers and teachers kept developing scenarios quite apart from the texts we currently have, meaning that there is not necessarily going to always be a straight line of absolute dependence between our texts.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Stuart »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:38 pm
Stuart wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:54 pm lawlessness is ἀνομίας "against the Law." Opposition to the Law (i.e., Law of Moses, from the OT God) is a trait of Gnostic and Marcionite type Christians in nearly every usage in the NT. Why do we assume it is different here.

In fact this is considered a textually difficult case, and is cited by Metzger {B} rating. It seems ἁμαρτίας ("sin") is supported by three text types A; D, G it vg; K L P most miniscules. Metzger incorrectly says Marcion reads ἀνομίας based on Tertullian, but I think he is wrong per my footnote for verse 2:13:
AM 5.16.4 Quis est autem homo delicti, filius perditionis, quem revelari prius oportet ante domini adventum, extollens se super omne quod deus dicitur et omnem religionem, consessurus in templo dei et deum se iactaturus? Tertullian reworks verse here. But he reads homo delicti which Metzger thinks supports ἀνομίας. However Tertullian in eleven other cases in AM only uses delict* for the Greek ἁμαρτία (sin) or παράπτωμα (transgression), (see 2 Samuel 12.13, Galatians 3:22, Romans 7:8, 8:10, Colossians 2:13); never is it used for ἀνομία (lawless). This is a misreading of the source by Metzger, Marcion in fact reads ⌐ ἁμαρτίας for ἀνομίας.
I am still thinking about the temple, but if the Marcionite text is original, then the ἀνομίας replaced ἁμαρτίας to switch the target of the anti-Christ type figure from a "Jewsih Christian" or Catholic type of Jesus to a Gnostic/Marcionite type of Jesus.
I can with some probability see my way clear to accept all of this in principle.
The Temple would probably symbolic in this reading of internal Christian debate.
How this conclusion follows from all of that, however, is less clear to me.
You got me on that point. :D

"I am still thinking about the temple" was meant to be a qualifier, that I'm not done with it, and not ready for prime time defending it. Might have been better served dropping that for now. I will come back to it, but who knows when?
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:17 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:38 pm
Stuart wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:54 pm lawlessness is ἀνομίας "against the Law." Opposition to the Law (i.e., Law of Moses, from the OT God) is a trait of Gnostic and Marcionite type Christians in nearly every usage in the NT. Why do we assume it is different here.

In fact this is considered a textually difficult case, and is cited by Metzger {B} rating. It seems ἁμαρτίας ("sin") is supported by three text types A; D, G it vg; K L P most miniscules. Metzger incorrectly says Marcion reads ἀνομίας based on Tertullian, but I think he is wrong per my footnote for verse 2:13:
AM 5.16.4 Quis est autem homo delicti, filius perditionis, quem revelari prius oportet ante domini adventum, extollens se super omne quod deus dicitur et omnem religionem, consessurus in templo dei et deum se iactaturus? Tertullian reworks verse here. But he reads homo delicti which Metzger thinks supports ἀνομίας. However Tertullian in eleven other cases in AM only uses delict* for the Greek ἁμαρτία (sin) or παράπτωμα (transgression), (see 2 Samuel 12.13, Galatians 3:22, Romans 7:8, 8:10, Colossians 2:13); never is it used for ἀνομία (lawless). This is a misreading of the source by Metzger, Marcion in fact reads ⌐ ἁμαρτίας for ἀνομίας.
I am still thinking about the temple, but if the Marcionite text is original, then the ἀνομίας replaced ἁμαρτίας to switch the target of the anti-Christ type figure from a "Jewsih Christian" or Catholic type of Jesus to a Gnostic/Marcionite type of Jesus.
I can with some probability see my way clear to accept all of this in principle.
The Temple would probably symbolic in this reading of internal Christian debate.
How this conclusion follows from all of that, however, is less clear to me.
You got me on that point. :D

"I am still thinking about the temple" was meant to be a qualifier, that I'm not done with it, and not ready for prime time defending it. Might have been better served dropping that for now. I will come back to it, but who knows when?
Oh! Sorry, yes, I misunderstood you on that.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by neilgodfrey »

With Turmel's argument in mind, of related interest is "Hadrian's Actions in the Jerusalem Temple Mount According to Cassius Dio and Xiphilini Manus" by Yaron Z. Eliav in Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol 4, No 2 (1997) 125-144 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753183)

From pages 139-140:
Indeed, apart from Diodorus’ case explained above, the phrase ‘the Temple of the God’ does not carry the meaning of the Jerusalem temple throughout Greco-Roman writings. In contrast, in Jewish or Christian writings coming out of a monotheistic environment, the phrase ‘the Temple of the God’ has only one possible meaning, and in hundreds (!) of examples it is directed, in one way or another, to the Temple in Jerusalem. A comparison of Dio’s words here -καί ές τον τού ναού τού ύεού τόπον ναόν τφ Διί ετερον άντεγείραντος - with Paul’s words in the letter to the Thessalonians regarding the Antichrist - ό άντίκει- μενος καί ύπεραιρόμενος έπί πάντα λεγόμενον θεόν ή σέβασμα ώστε αυτόν εις τον ναόν τού θεού καόίσαι άποδεικνύντα εαυτόν δτι έστιν όεός - demonstrates the lexical proximity of these descriptions in referring to “the Temple of the God’’. Moreover, such a comparison may shed light on the theological motives behind the choice of terminology in the Dio paragraph: the writer may have wanted to substantiate Paul’s words.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Thanks for that, Neil.

This is an unexpectedly interesting subject and I want to try and get my mind around it. I see that some actually argue for the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, and there are some things going for that idea (and it would, then, of course, help to date 2 Thes.), but another idea, that it was written by an associate of Paul, seems just as intriguing and would more or less give 2 Thes. the same date as if it was written by Paul (i.e, possibly when the Temple was still standing?). As Wikipedia puts it:
Many today believe that it was not written by Paul but by an associate or disciple after his death, representing what they believed was his message. See, for example, Ehrman, Gaventa, Smiles, Schnelle, Boring and Kelly. Norman Perrin observes, "The best understanding of 2 Thessalonians ... is to see it as a deliberate imitation of 1 Thessalonians, updating the apostle's thought."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Campbell lays out the arguments for and against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians (beginning on page 204) here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wYtsA ... ns&f=false

And my biggest takeaway for authenticity is the possibility that the man of lawlessness is Caligula. He writes on page 221:
The underlying episode [in 2 Thes. 2] is, as Hugo Grotius (1679 [1640]; 1829 [1641]) suggested some time ago, "the Gaian crisis," meaning specifically the plan of Gaius to erect a statue of himself as Jupiter in the temple at Jerusalem, along with the plan's consequences. Scholars often resist this suggestion, but invariably for weak reasons.
He writes on page 224 that this plan was:
...inaugurated, at the latest, during the winter of 39-40 CE. Moreover, only at this time in the Common Era was the Jerusalem temple specifically threatened with the installation of a cult statue celebrating a mortal man's divinity and, in effect, only with this -that is, not also with the destruction of the city or the desecration of the altar.
This is the best idea I've heard yet. When I read 2 Thes. 2 in this light it makes a lot of sense (and also explains the "lawless" part, which I think suits Caligula more than Bar Kokhba).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

The key issue for the Caligula idea is the dating of 1 Thessalonians (which is usually thought to be in the early 50's CE). But as Donfried notes:
The traditional dating of ca. 50-52 CE is heavily dependent on a non-critical reading of Lucan chronology according to the book of Acts. Some have argued for a date in the early 40s. While this early dating is resisted since it would alter traditional Pauline chronology, to place 1 Thessalonians earlier would allow for a far broader understanding of the development and growth of Paul's articulation of the gospel in vastly different situations over a longer period of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ygcgn ... ng&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:50 pm The key issue for the Caligula idea is the dating of 1 Thessalonians (which is usually thought to be in the early 50's CE). But as Donfried notes:
The traditional dating of ca. 50-52 CE is heavily dependent on a non-critical reading of Lucan chronology according to the book of Acts. Some have argued for a date in the early 40s. While this early dating is resisted since it would alter traditional Pauline chronology, to place 1 Thessalonians earlier would allow for a far broader understanding of the development and growth of Paul's articulation of the gospel in vastly different situations over a longer period of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ygcgn ... ng&f=false
This is an option too seldom pursued, IMHO, once one eschews the dating in Acts. The tendency seems to be to date Paul later, but he could in fact come earlier.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by DCHindley »

If I may be so bold, and make Charles Wilson proud, might I offer an alternative suggestion.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 wrote: 1 Now concerning the [royal] coming of our Lord Jesus Christ [this might be an expectation that deposed king Antipas, in exile, would triumph and be appointed king in place of Agrippa I] and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren,
2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord [Herod Agrippa] has come.
3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the [expected] rebellion [of Agrippa I, see Ant 19:326-327, & 338-341] comes first, and the man of lawlessness [Agrippa I] is revealed [i.e., exposed for what he is], the son of perdition,
4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship [in his lavish building programs], so that he takes his seat in the temple of God [see Jos. Ant. 19:331-332, where he is said to delight in living full time in Jerusalem and quick to disarm criticism of his legitimacy, and if so this would have to be symbolic, not factual], proclaiming himself to be God [an allusion to his glittering outfit and the accepting the flatteries of his gentile subjects, see Ant. 19:344-346a].
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?
6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it [Claudius, who suspected that Agrippa was planning revolt, see above] will do so until he [Claudius] is out of the way.
8 And then the lawless one [i.e., Agrippa I] will be revealed [as a rebel], and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, [witness Agrippa's extreme luck in escaping imprisonment as a debtor to the emperor, or being released by Gaius from the prison that Tiberius had condemned him to upon Tiberius' death, and made a king to boot!]
10 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth [that Agrippa I was bad, very baaaad] and so be saved.
11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
12 so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in [Agrippa's] unrighteousness.
This would suggest that Paul was a former retainer of Herod Antipas, and this would date the episode the between 41 & 44 CE, probably closer to the latter date. Josephus has Agrippa's glittering clothes debacle where he didn't give glory to God, occurring almost immediately before he died, but there could have been a delay of some months in reality. The moral to be learned is far far far far more important than any fact, as any apologist knows.

In reality I do not put a lot of credibility in such a reconstruction, but only offer it as an example of what pretty much anyone can do with almost nothing here on this message board. :tomato:

Amen

Ohh, look, he even has footnotes!
Ant 18: wrote:155 So he [Agrippa] was reduced to the utmost necessity, and came to Ptolemais; and, because he knew not where else to get a livelihood, he thought to sail to Italy; but as he was restrained from so doing by lack of money, he desired Marsyas, who was his freedman, to find some method for procuring him so much as he wanted for that purpose, by borrowing such a sum of some person or other.
156 So Marsyas desired of Peter, who was the freedman of Bernice, Agrippa's mother, and by the right of her will was bequeathed to Antonia, to lend so much upon Agrippa's own bond and security;
157 but he accused Agrippa of having defrauded him of certain sums of money, and so obliged Marsyas, when he made the bond of twenty thousand Attic drachmas, to accept twenty-five hundred drachma as less than what he desired, which the agreed to, because he could not prevent it.
158 Upon the receipt of this money, Agrippa came to Anthedon, and took shipping, and was going to set sail; but Herennius Capito, who was the procurator of Jamnia, sent a band of soldiers to demand of him three hundred thousand drachmas of silver, which were by him owing to Caesar's treasury while he was at Rome, and so forced him to stay. 159 He then pretended that he would do as he bade him; but when night came on, he cut his cables, and went off, and sailed to Alexandria
Ant 19: wrote: 236 Now, as soon as Gaius was come to Rome, and had brought Tiberius' dead body with him, and had made a sumptuous funeral for him, according to the laws of his country, he was much disposed to set Agrippa [who, still a private citizen, was in jail because he had too freely expressed his desire that Tiberius would soon die and Gaius would then be emperor] at liberty that very day; but Antonia hindered him, not out of any ill will to the prisoner, but out of regard to decency in Gaius, lest that should make men believe that he received the death of Tiberius with pleasure, when he loosed one whom he had bound immediately.

237 However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, ...
238 Now, in the second year of the reign of Gaius Caesar, Agrippa desired permission to sail home, and settle the affairs of his government; and he promised to return again, when he had put the rest in order, as it ought to be put.

239 So, upon the emperor's permission, he came into his own country, and appeared to them all unexpectedly as a king, and thereby demonstrated to the men that saw him the power of fortune, when they compared his former poverty with his present happy affluence; so some called him a happy man; and others could not well believe that things were so much changed with him for the better.

...

326 As for the walls of Jerusalem that were adjoining to the New City [Bezetha], he [Agrippa I] repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in height; and he had [almost] made them too strong for all human power to demolish, unless Marcus, the then governor of Syria, had by letter informed Claudius Caesar of what he was doing. 327 And when Claudius had some suspicion of attempts for sedition, he sent to Agrippa to stop the building of those walls presently. So he obeyed, as not thinking it proper to oppose Claudius.

...

331 Accordingly, he loved to live continually at Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country. He therefore kept himself entirely pure; nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice.

332 However, there was a certain man of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly, while the king was absent at Caesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him of being unclean, and that he might justly be excluded out of the temple, since it belonged only to native Jews. ... 333 So the king [Agrippa I] sent for him; and, as he was sitting in the theatre, he bade him sit down by him, and said to him with a low and gentle voice, "What is there done in this place that is contrary to the law?'' 334 But he had nothing to say for himself, but begged his pardon.

So the king was more easily reconciled to him than one could have imagined, as esteeming mildness a better quality in a king than anger, and knowing that moderation is more becoming in great men than passion. So he made Simon a small present, and dismissed him.

...

338 ... Now, he was in great esteem among other kings. Accordingly there came to him Antiochus, king of Commagene, Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa, and Cotys, who was king of the Lesser Armenia, and Polemo, who was king of Pontus, as also Herod his brother, who was king of Chalcis.
339 All these he treated with agreeable entertainments, and after an obliging manner, and so as to exhibit the greatness of his mind, and so as to appear worthy of those respects which the kings paid to him, by coming thus to see him. 340 However, while these kings stayed with him, Marcus, the governor of Syria, came there.

So the king, in order to preserve the respect that was due to the Romans, went out of the city to meet him, as far as a mile. 341 But this proved to be the beginning of a difference between him and Marcus; for he took with him in his chariot those other kings as his companions.

But Marcus had a suspicion what the meaning could be of so great a friendship of these kings one with another, and did not think so close an agreement of so many potentates to be for the interest of the Romans. He therefore sent some of his domestics to everyone of them, and enjoined them to go their ways home without further delay.

...

343 Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city of Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he held shows in honour of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety.

At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province.

344 On the second day of these shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a texture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those who looked intently upon him: 345 and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good) that he was a god; and they added, "Be merciful to us; for although we have hereto reverenced you only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own you as superior to mortal nature.'' 346a Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. ... 348 When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly, he was carried into the palace [in Caesarea? or Jerusalem?]; and the rumour went abroad everywhere that he would certainly die in a short time.

348b But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, 349a with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. 349b Now, the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping.

350 And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; 351 for he reigned four years [37 CE - 41 CE] under Gaius Caesar, three of them [37 CE - 40 CE] were over Philip's tetrarchy only, and, on the fourth [ca. 40 CE], he had that of Herod [Antipas, who had ruled Galilee & Perea, after Antipas was deposed by Gaius] added to it; and he reigned, besides those, three years [ca 41 CE - his death in 44 CE] under the reign of Claudius Caesar: in which time [starting at the beginning of Claudius' reign, 41 CE] he reigned over the before mentioned countries, and also had Judea added to them, as well as Samaria and Caesarea [that is, all of the realms formerly ruled by Herod the Great]
Acts 12:19 wrote:19 ... Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea, and remained there. 20 Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and they came to him in a body [while at Caesarea], and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. 21 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. 22 And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!" 23 Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.
The story of how Agrippa I was eaten from inside after he failed to "give the glory [heaped upon him by the flatterers] to God" is told differently by Josephus and by the author of Acts.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply