Paul alluded to in Apoc. 2:2?

[StephenGoranson]

For centuries, some scholars (e.g., F. C. Baur) have suggested that Rev. 2:2 referred, negatively, to Paul.
If—big if—this proposal is correct, then Paul existed, and existed before the date that this was written.

Bibliography in p. 457 n.11 in S. G., “Essene Polemic in the Apocalypse of John,” Legal Texts & Legal Issues:Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the Intl. Org. of Qumran Studies, Pub. In Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (STJD 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 453-60.

[gryan]

Re: Is Rev. 2:2 referring negatively to Paul?

Rev. 2:2
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.

------------

I had not noticed that verse before. This language strikes me as Pauline in character, and so it could represent a judgement against Paul's opponents:

2 Cor. 11:13
"For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ."

[Irish1975]

It is an allusion at best, not a reference. The bare idea of a phony apostle doesn’t go anywhere.

[neilgodfrey]

As per Irish, the framing of the proposal is merely begging the question.

It's like saying, If this news story refers back to the Spanish flu epidemic then the Spanish flu epidemic must have really happened. Well, of course, but the historicity of the Spanish flu is not the conclusion but the premise of the question.

There is nothing in Rev 2:2 which tells us how those claims of apostleship were being propagated or how they were being tested. We simply don't know.

Imagine this: the speaker to the angel or messenger of Ephesian church says I know you have tested those who say they are apostles.... What is the scenario being imagined? Is it that the angel or others in the church have studied writings (treatises, letters) written under the names of various persons claiming to be apostles? Have those Ephesian critics decided that the contents of those writings are "heretical" and that therefore the apostolic claims of their authors are false?

So if that is the scenario, then Rev 2:2 is read from a very different perspective. It becomes:

I know you have tested the claims of those who present themselves as apostles in those writings that have been infesting the churches, and have found those apostolic claims to be false....

The apostolic claims could, in that situation, be referring to pen-names, pseudonyms, forgeries.

In other words, begin with a different premise and we have a different type of conclusion.

[Giuseppe]

On a point StephenGoranson is correct: if Revelation is anti-Roman, then one as Paul, even if he was unknown personally by the real author of Revelation, had to deserve ipso facto the same hostility addressed against these false apostles.

My question is: how many scholars think that Revelation is anti-Roman?

Does someone know how many scholars believe that "Babylon" is not Rome but Jerusalem? Are their arguments plausible?

[StephenGoranson]

I think I agree with Giuseppe that Revelation is anti-Roman.

As for "framing the question," please notice the question mark, and the fact that others raised the question. Open question. Not framed. Merely asked.

[Giuseppe]

Another implication I am arrived to in my own reflections:

If Revelation is anti-Roman, then the Earliest Gospel couldn't be written in Hebrew.

Proof: because an anti-Roman Revelation assumes that "false apostles" were preaching among Gentiles, which was surely not the goal of an hypothetical Hebrew Ur-Gospel.

[StephenGoranson]

But, Giuseppe, isn’t it possible that Hebrew and Greek gospels both existed before Revelation was written, and if so, then this would not tell which language was used first?

[neilgodfrey]

I think I agree with Giuseppe that Revelation is anti-Roman.

As for "framing the question," please notice the question mark, and the fact that others raised the question. Open question. Not framed. Merely asked.

Yes, it is merely asked, and it is an open question. And there was a big IF there, too.

But nonetheless, question begging is one of the most common faults found in argumentation -- even in scholarly publications. Few are worthy to cast the first stone. You're not alone, and my record is not without blemish. (It is right to question the logic of our propositions and suggestions and to do so in a collegial manner. Trust you don't see my contribution as rebarbative or motivated by grievance. I'm thinking you are a great guy I can have a beer and discussion with! )

By framing I refer to the structure of the question: If X, then Y. That is the frame.

If—big if—this proposal is correct, then Paul existed

Where the frame's premise is the basis of the conclusion, then we have a tautology.

Compare the same structure elsewhere:

If (whether it's a big if or a little if makes no difference to the structure itself) the Sheriff of Nottingham hunted Robin Hood, then Robin Hood existed.

If Caesar crossed the Rubicon, then Caesar existed.

If Paul met the Lord's Brother, then the Lord's Brother existed.

If the apostles found to be false include Paul, then Paul existed.

If King Arthur fought the Saxons, then King Arthur existed.

Some of those are true, some false, some debatable. It all depends on the premise because it is the premise that is being repeated in the conclusion. Even where true, the argument itself is fallacious.

[neilgodfrey]

I should clarify the above. It is not the If-then frame per se that is fallacious, -- here is where it goes awry:

If B is involved in X, then B exists.

If the Sheriff of Nottingham hunted Robin Hood, then Robin Hood existed.
If the Apocalypse refers to Paul, then Paul existed.

The conclusion is merely repeating what is assumed in the premise.

If B is involved in X, then of course B existed -- that's what is being assumed from the outset.