There's a lot here, I'll have to get back with some points later; but will try some basics first (and will go in a kind of logical order, rather than chronological order).
I still don't know what an echo is in the way that you are using the term. Can you provide an specific example of something that would be correctly called an echo?
[INDENT]As an example, we see an echo of the motif seen in Dan 12:1,2; Isa 26:19, in Mat 27:53;
we see an echo of the pericope seen at Zec 13:7, in Mk 14:50; Mt 25:56b, etc.;
we can see a quite possibly so echo of the Jacob story motif in Gen 27:40 area onward, in Lk 24:13~32;
we see an echo of Gen 1:1, in Jn 1:1;
we see pericope and motif echos from a number of canonical and non-canonical texts in Ro 1:24~31; etc.
[/INDENT]Just as 1 Co 1:10~12 is not a pericope or motif echo, neither is 1 Co 1:19~25--although we can see application of the wording of Isa 19:12
That's interesting. Could you point me to the other literature of the time where that linguistic style is present?
Early Christians were embracing beliefs that did not rest on the authority of ancestral transmission or social acceptance. They themselves were not accepted.
Here we can see one more point of needed clarification. It is common enough that folks do not take the care to more precisely distinguish the true early Christian movement with the later, 'early Christianity
,' and it causes some confusion. When we speak of early Christianity, we should always limit that to up to mid first century. The early Christian cult, just like that of the Essenes and Herodians, and a few others, was very much a YHWH-based religious belief system within Judaism proper. If those hot-headed people had not rebelled against Rome, and the temple had not been destroyed (at least then), we'd probably also see a very different Christianity today (if, in fact it would have survived).
The spirit of the early Christians was one of excitement and expectation of dramatic events. They felt they were in the "know" regarding the future of the Roman Empire and humanity in general.
This is the best understanding of the early cult, yes, but not only of theirs; it was the general expectation of the time which is likely why the nation had the boldness to revolt against Rome--they really had faith in YHWH's said promised etched in their prophetic documents
. Of course, Paul really highlighted this element (since his writings are the earliest which survived), and, of course, he was dead wrong. . . it was all myth and emotion.
My narrative is that in the Christian world the religion occasionally relives it's origin. . . So I'm saying that we can deduce a fair amount about the early Christians from more recent experience.
Thank you for that explanation, Arjuna
. The problem with that, is the starting place. From what I can see of what you have said thus far, here and there, and in light of the post quoted above, your starting place (premise) is in historical error. Firstly, what can be to any serious degree ascertained about the early Christian cult, tells us that it was very much a politico-religious eschatological movement within Judaism which did focus on Mosaic code re-interpretation and (somewhat like the Muhammadan movement) lower social-class focused.
Nothing became so overly secretive about it until the real persecution had begun (and that was well post-mid first century, so not early). Additionally, the main theme, much more than anything else, was that kingdom which would be set up by YHWH's messiah; pure myth which can easily be seen so today, thus making it easier to focus on the emotional elements within the canonical texts we have today.
The spiral of events post 70CE, especially, and further, post mid second century, will be found to be markers to which Christianity has never returned to;and most likely would never be able to return to
. Therefore, in summary, it is a misconception and a fallacy to hold the position that any development in Christianity today, can shed knowledge on the early cult; way too much has happened since those days.
This here, then, quite readily has connection with the thread on 'how to read the Bible
.' As I had mentioned there on a number of occasions, it takes much more than mere present life-time/style based emotion to actually be able to really
read those documents...whether canonical or not.