Corpus-Paul

[MillerJimE AT aol.com]

        I would like to raise this issue in another work - Acts.  I know the 
issues about the relationship between Paul's works and the theology of Acts 
is a messy one, but here goes.  Half of Acts centers on Paul's missions, he 
is not an insignificant player.  But sometimes Acts seems at odds with Paul's 
teachings.  In Acts 15 the council at Jerusalem decided that the gentile 
converts did have to observe one food regulation, the ban on blood.  After 
all, this was a gentile law, given to the father of gentiles, Noah (Gen 
9:4-5).  But, it doesn't seem to square quite with Paul's letters to the 
Corinthians written a couple years later.  When it comes up again in Acts 
(21:25), Paul is juxtaposed to this instruction, but he doesn't actually 
accede to it much less mention his approval.  Is the author of Acts possibly 
reticent about claiming Paul actually approved of requiring this food law?  
Or does Acts assume that everyone in the intended audience agrees on this law 
for the gentiles, and therefore we need not worry about Paul's agreement?  Is 
it possible to read the Corinthian letters and still conclude that Paul would 
uphold this ban on eating blood?
Jim Miller

In a message dated 04/20/1999 11:01:05 PM Central Daylight Time, 
corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu writes:

<< Dunn is a prime example who tried to find
 what was the fault of Judaism other than legalism. It was adherence to 
 identity marks such as circumcision and eating regulations. According to 
 Dunn, it was adherence to identity marks, which make a person Jewish,
 that was the fault of Judaism.  >>