Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and synagogue

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Paul and synagogue
  • Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:59:47 -0400


Bob MacDonald wrote:

> >>Paul's failure to mention synagogues is one of the key bits of (lack of )
> evidence that leads to the distrust of Acts scheme of Paul starting each
> local mission in the synagogue and only then going outside of the Jewish
> community. <<
>
> A quiet group this week or my mail is not functioning.
>
> The above is a quote from the recent Horsley seminar. (message 70)
>
> When beginning my study of Paul, I was warned from several books and sources
> not to 'trust' the Acts version. Ma[n]y seemed to say: it is impossible to
> reconcile the Acts account and chronology with Paul's letters.
[snip]
> What I am wondering is why Paul would not have used the term synagogue at
> all in his letters. (I couldn't even find a use of the corresponding verb)
> He is also careful (except chapter 16) not to use church in the letter to
> the Romans.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bob

I would like to make two points here:

1) I don't personally find Paul's 'failure' to mention synagogues as a
problem. Generally speaking, I think we can regard much of Acts as 'scene
setting', e.g. descriptions of where Paul went, who he met, etc. As a
result, it is perfectly natural for Acts to mention where Paul went to
meet people. On the other hand, I see no reason to expect Paul to have to
write things like '... when I spoke to you in the synagogue ...'. This is
especially true for letters written after Paul had known people for some
time, where it is most likely that he had last seen the people he was
writing to in someone's house. IMHO Luke is providing some of the context
for many of Paul's letters, and hence it is not surprising to find Luke
providing details like this where Paul didn't.

2) To suggest that it is impossible to reconcile the Acts account and
chronology with Paul's letters is plain nonsense. However, it is fair to
say that *under some sets of assumptions* it becomes impossible. For
example, one common 'assumption' (and that's all it is) is that Acts
*must* record all of Paul's trips to Jerusalem as recorded in Galations
(and vice versa), an assumption that causes all sorts of problems. As a
result of relying on these assumptions, many people reject the Acts
account. However, it is just as likely that the Acts account is correct,
and it is the assumptions that should be rejected instead.

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA



  • Paul and synagogue, Bob MacDonald, 07/07/2002
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Paul and synagogue, David Inglis, 07/24/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page