By way of comparison, Lüdemann presents this diagram of written sources (Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, p. 177):
Lüdemann would hypothesize an "archetype" written source, separate from and prior to "R 1" (my AoJ).
Lüdemann would suppose that the 2nd Apocalypse of James doesn't use this "archetype" directly, introducing another hypothetical written source in-between the archetype and the present form of the 2nd Apocalypse of James.
Lüdemann maintains that Eusebius misquoted Hegesippus, introducing an "interpolated version."
Lüdemann doesn't attempt to diagram historical events, oral traditions, or legends, as I did above.
I didn't attempt to diagram Acts.
I don't see the influence of Josephus that Lüdemann indicates.
Lüdemann would suppose that the 2nd Apocalypse of James doesn't use this "archetype" directly, introducing another hypothetical written source in-between the archetype and the present form of the 2nd Apocalypse of James.
Lüdemann maintains that Eusebius misquoted Hegesippus, introducing an "interpolated version."
Lüdemann doesn't attempt to diagram historical events, oral traditions, or legends, as I did above.
I didn't attempt to diagram Acts.
I don't see the influence of Josephus that Lüdemann indicates.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Fri Mar 22, 2024 9:32 am