Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>]

on 2/15/01 6:45 PM, David C. Hindley at dhindley AT compuserve.com wrote:

> Mark Nanos commented:
> 
>>> These references seem to imply that the monies (including gold,
> silver, and other precious materials) were actually transported, but
> that protection by Roman law was important for a voluntary association
> or group of any kind which sought to undertake this kind of
> activity.<<
> 
> Thanks for bringing up the issue! While I had thought of doing so, you
> are better able to expound on the topic than I would be.
> 
> It should not automatically be assumed that Paul (or anyone, except an
> "official" functionary) would be able to transport a sizeable sum
> without risking confiscation by suspicious authorities. For awhile, as
> you hinted, even the temple offerings were sometimes confiscated
> despite the imperial stamp of approval. If I recall correctly, the
> Jews' authority to do so was quite unique. The epistles offer not so
> much as a hint of that possibility.
> 
> From what I am gathering, outside of the officially sanctioned (and
> hence organized and instituted) temple offerings, banking activities
> of the size that are suggested by the Pauline letters (and reinforced
> by Acts) would seem to have been restricted to well-connected (read
> "wealthy wheeler-dealer") types of the retainer class and made
> available mainly to trading interests (as a means to ensure a flow of
> hard to get goods for the ruling classes to conspicuously consume) or
> struggling client princes (sort of to keep them in the pocket of the
> ruling class, ready to be put to use at a minute's notice). I doubt
> that "banks" for the common folks were developed even as much as the
> informal "postal system" was. At best, it would function on the level
> of personal guarantees between traders, clients, patrons and their
> associates.
> 
> Does this mean you have been re-considering the question of whether
> Paul was a bona-fide functionary of the temple "government?" The last
> time you and I discussed this (off list, I think) it seemed you were
> on the fence.

Hi David,
Sorry, I do not remember the context of that discussion, but I appreciate
the point you are making. That Paul had been such a representative seems
quite possible, e.g., when a zealous persecutor of Christ-believing
synagogue groups. But is he still, now that he is based in the Diaspora, if
we can even call what he was doing based (even though he indicates that his
mission originates from Jerusalem, as I interpret Rom. 15; see my Mystery of
Romans, pp. 39-40, esp. n 39, and ch. 5)? Or is it more likely that it is
those to whom he brings this collection who have such an official capacity
in Jerusalem? 

I imagine that Paul was a representative of a bona-fide (although to some
degree usually regarded as deviant) Jewish coalition within Jewish
communities in various cities and towns/villages of the Diaspora as well as
in Judea, and within this framework I can understand that he could be
involved in transporting monies and gifts to Jerusalem. I assume that this
means this coalition is still Temple oriented, and understood to be so by
Jewish authorities outside of this coalition, as well as Roman authorities
and those local elites of the various locations from which the contributions
originate. I do not understand how such matters are accounted for by those
who take Paul's movement to be already a separate religious organization
(Christianity, not to mention Pauline as differentiated from Judean
Christianity), e.g., with no subordination to other Jewish leaders of the
Diaspora or especially of Judea, and not Temple oriented. I wonder if the
implications of such questions have really been considered much in any of
the constructions of Paul's collection project to date. (It would be useful
to look up Nichol and Georgi on this, among others.)

The exact details of the form of these monies, Paul's capacity to do this,
or how transportation took place are not clear in the sources as far as I
know. Regardless of how much or little he carried, it seems logical to me to
suppose that he would likely be understood (by local as well as Judean pagan
and Jewish authorities with an interest in such matters) to represent
specific Diaspora Jewish communities' interests in a rather specific task
that was Jerusalem and also Temple oriented, and one to which they did not
(could not?) object sufficient to stop it from taking place (i.e., as
discussed in my earlier post about Jewish communal privileges granted by
Roman governing authorities). It is in such a context that I understand the
concerns Paul expresses in Rom. 15:30-32 about his anticipated reception,
not only by those who lead this coalition in Judea, but also by other
authorities who are not a part of it.

Would not those communities from which he departed have to first allow such
a collection and transportation effort? And would not also those through
whom he had to pass? As I understand such issues, the Roman empire was no
Euro-America in terms of free movement of goods, especially of subversive
groups claiming another king (20th century communist regimes seem closer to
the case). These questions alone lead to the kind of interesting matters
being discussed. Moreover, apart from larger theological constructions, in
addition to such practical matters, it remains to ask why he was engaged in
such a task, certainly so from the standpoint of Paul the sectarian
Christian. Any takers?

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com