Corpus-Paul

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

on 2/17/01 1:04 PM, Sakari Häkkinen at sakari.hakkinen AT sci.fi wrote:

> If he managed to get to Jerusalem with quite a large amount of money,
> isn't it odd that the collection is not mentioned in any of the documents
> preserved? Luke does not mention it at all when he reports on Paul's arrival
> to Jerusalem in Acts 21. Didn't he know of the collection? That sounds
> improbable to me, because I am of the opinion that Luke knew and used at 
> least
> some of Paul's letters. So, it seems to be so, that for some reason he did 
> not
> want to highlight the collection (it might be referred to in Acts 11:29-30,
> but in that case Luke has rearranged the material so that the collection 
> need
> not to be mentioned in Acts 21). It looks like the collection was not 
> accepted
> by the recipients, just what Paul was afraid of (Rom 15:31).
> 
Hi Sakari,
I have wondered also about the silence of Acts, but I have considered it
likely to mean something rather different than you (and Baur, et al)
suggest; actually, quite the opposite. Much depends upon what one decides
the purpose of Acts, and its audience to be (not to mention Paul). Might not
the topic of transporting monies (of whatever value, all the more so if a
significant amount) from Diaspora communities to Jerusalem be
counter-productive to the story Luke wishes to communicate about this
coalition if writing for a Roman audience, or for those who are under
pressure from such an audience?

As my previous posts sought to bring to the surface for consideration of
this topic, in addition to the question of how whatever was collected was
transported (quite a range of possibilities have already been helpfully
described by list members), there are other issues that would arise if a
collection was being taken up and transported, such as the authority to do
so under the Roman regime. How was this activity understood by those engaged
in it, their local populations, those through whom they passed, and those to
whom they brought it, as well as others of significance within their context
to which they would have to answer for such activity? Such matters seem to
me to arise for how the interests of Paul and those involved are to be
conceptualized in the Roman and Jewish worlds which we are trying to
understand when we evaluate the language of these texts. Might not Acts 21
imply just such kinds of issues did arise among those in Judea upon Paul's
arrival?

I do not see where the evidence suggests the collection was not accepted,
but the opposite. As I read Acts 21, although the collection is not
mentioned, it seems that Paul and his right to be present in good standing
is supported by the Jerusalem Christ-believing coalition's leader James.
James provides guidance (to go to the Temple and be involved in Nazarite
vows, including significant financial expense [D. Hinley is on a similar
track]) to dispel certain rumors about Paul as unfounded. If anything about
the collection is to be implied from this passage, I suggest it is along
this line: This the kind of concern James would likely demonstrate for
Paul's reputation if the collection had been accepted rather than rejected.
Demonstrating the legitimacy of the collection in Jewish/Judean terms (i.e.,
confirming the central place of Temple and zeal for Torah) would seem to me
to be of significance to the Jerusalem Christ-believing establishment, along
with demonstrating publicly the legitimacy of this action to those outside
of this coalition (representatives of non-Christ-believing Judaisms) who may
inspect such actions, who have to date heard rumors of unacceptable things
about Paul, and perhaps his entourage, and maybe also their purpose for
coming to Jerusalem.

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