Corpus-Paul

["Jill & Dale Walker" <jillendale AT 21stcentury.net>]

Let me add two quick responses.

1) The classical historian with whom I studied commented to me that he
admired the critical analysis New Testament scholars brought to bear on
our texts. He regarded our discipline's skepticism as good (and
superior) method.

2) Good data and good interpretation are two different things. The
presence of factual reporting in Acts does not mean we must also trust
the author's interpretation of those facts. For example, in Acts 20:4
there is a list of Paul's traveling companions. I think the author of
Acts has an accurate tradition listing people who accompanied Paul to
Jerusalem, but the issue of the collection for Jerusalem is not
mentioned. The collection was a major element of Paul's ministry, but
Acts says little about it. This is an interpretation of Paul'l life that
strikes me as out of step with Paul himself. So, good data, but
questionable interpretation. Other potential problems leave me wary of
Acts: e.g., are valid traditions mistakenly applied to Paul? (I will add
that "Christianity as Paulinism," a dissertation by Christopher Mount
(Chicago) has given me pause in the use of Acts. He has inclined me to
think that Acts draws on traditions arising from within the
Jewish-Christian mission but then links them (mistakenly) to Paul, whose
persona provides a means of organizing the narrative of Acts.)

Dale Walker
Chicago, IL



Ray Pickett wrote:
> 
> I have been working my way through Riesner's PAUL'S EARLY PERIOD in
> which he uses Acts as a supplement to the letters to construct the
> chronology and strategy of Paul's mission. Hengel has been advocating
> this for years. However, to my knowledge, it has only been in recent
> years that others have adopted this approach. I am thinking not only of
> Murphy-O'Connor (PAUL: A CRITICAL LIFE), but also classicists like
> Wallace and Williams (THE THREE WORLDS OF PAUL OF TARSUS) and the
> Russian classicist Irina Levinskaya (THE BOOK OF ACTS IN ITS FIRST
> CENTURY SETTING: DIASPORA SETTING). It's interesting that classical
> historians have typically found Acts
> to be a more reliable historical source than NT scholars, even though
> they are not naive about Luke's theological agenda.
> 
> I am wondering what list members think about the critical use of Acts in
> reconstructing Paul's missionary endeavors. Do you use Acts at all (and
> if so how) in trying to piece together Paul's missionary journeys? There
> are obvious inconsistencies, and I assume preference would be given to
> the letters. But in those places where the data agrees, is
> there any reason not to use Acts critically?
> 
> The fundamental difference which I can't seem to reconcile is that Paul
> gives the impression that he is interacting primarily with pagans while
> Acts has him in the synagogues. Yet it seems plausible to me that Paul
> and his communities have
> some kind of relationship with the Jewish communities in these cities. 2
> Cor. 11:24 would seem to confirm this, though in a way that corroborates
> a negative Jewish response as is
> depicted in Acts. What do list members think about Paul's relationship
> with Jewish communities in the cities where he established communities?
> How do you imagine Paul interacting with Gentiles, and what, if any,
> relationship do he and converts have with the synagogues?
> 
> Ray Pickett
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: jillendale AT 21stcentury.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')