Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Acts and Paul's relationship to Jerusalem

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Acts and Paul's relationship to Jerusalem
  • Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 10:06:57 -0500


on 3/31/01 11:45 AM, Mesfin Atlaye at mesfin AT idirect.com wrote:

> We do not need to (and can not) harmonize the Lukan Acts and the
> Pauline letters!

I do not wish to argue with this point, or to harmonize, but only to point
out that the interpretation of Paul's own statements in the comment below is
not the only way to take Paul's language. It can be understood differently,
and it can be interpreted to be much closer to Luke's portrayal (as you
construe it) than you (and the consensus) suggest.
>
> The Lukan "Jerusalem motif" is quite evident everywhere in both Luke's
> Gospel and Acts. First, in the prologue of the Gospel, Luke associates the
> identity of Jesus with Judea- in Jerusalem- and (Temple, Simeon, Anna,
> etc.). Near the end of the Gospel the Lukan Jesus instructs the disciples to
> wait for the promise in "Jerusalem." Since the center of Israel is
> Jerusalem, Luke needed to establish the connection of Christianity in or
> near Jerusalem in his first 7 chapters of Acts. In Chapter 7 the long
> theological speech of St. Stephen followed by his death and at the closing
> of the chapter the Lukan Paul comes to the picture. Then throughout the book
> we read that Paul needed a Jerusalem visit every time he made a "missionary
> journey." (contrary to the fact Gal. 1:20-no one seems to believe him so
> far, even if he swears "before God!")Not that Paul necessarily did in that
> way but Luke portrayed the fact that way. Luke labors to connect Gentile
> Christianity with Jerusalem for acceptance.

Whether you are correct in all of the details of interpretation here, the
reason supposed for Luke's composition ("for acceptance") is an
interpretation that can be questioned, as is the meaning of Paul's statement
in 1:20 (e.g., it does not suggest to me that "no one seems to believe
him"). He did connect Paul with Jerusalem. Do we know why apart from his
understanding that this is so and that relating it in this way was somehow
useful in constructing his argument for the reader?

> Therefore, the Lukan Paul was
> dragged into this "Jerusalem motif" without his autonomy. In his letters
> Paul refutes such association with Jeruralem.

Whether you are right about what Luke has done to Paul's supposed autonomy,
I do not find that Paul refutes the kind of association with Jerusalem that
Luke details. For example:

1. Gal. 2:2: Paul expresses his subordinate concern of proclaiming his
gospel to the nations to the Jerusalem leaders of this coalition. Although
he has arrived at his understanding of the gospel independently, Paul goes
up to yield to (ANAThHMHV) their council his gospel to ensure that "he was
not and had not been running in vain." They find that Paul has received the
same revelation of the gospel as they had "independently" arrived at
themselves (2:7-8), although with a different focus, and Paul's gospel is
thus confirmed as one and the same. Paul now presents this to help persuade
the Galatian addressees that what he writes to them is the view shared by
the leaders of the Christ-believing coalitions everywhere: gentiles in
Christ become part of the people of God apart from proselyte conversion
(apart from becoming Israelites).

2. Rom. 15:19: "so that from Jerusalem..." is the way that Paul presents the
scope of his mission to the Diaspora (in arcs that begin and end in
Jerusalem), and it is toward Jerusalem that Paul tells the Romans he is
turning with the collection in the verses that follow, with "my service for
Jerusalem" in v. 31. It is possible that the coming of the Deliverer from
Zion to the Diaspora as developed in the context of Rom. 11:26 is also a
reference to the proclamation of the gospel in Paul's ministry. He intends
to travel from Zion to Rome and points west (Spain is mentioned) to open the
next arc after he has finished up the prior arc with the collection he is
bringing to Jerusalem to complete his "service for Jerusalem" of the first
arc.

Perhaps Luke is not so far off where the centrality of Jerusalem for Paul is
concerned.

> What I am saying is, simply,
> Paul and his thoughts are not the direct focus of Luke. Everything that Luke
> says in the book of Acts about Paul by putting words in his mouth are more
> of Luke's imaginative creativity to communicate his own agenda than are
> direct speeches of Paul himself. Luke did the same with Peter and Stephen
> and other personalities. You can notice some of these almost end to end in
> the book.

I do not wish to argue that Luke is not constructing the story in a certain
way to make his case, for he is, and it is clearly not the same way Paul was
constructing his arguments in the extent letters. However, it seems that
Luke (as you interpret him) is closer to the way that I interpret Paul with
respect to Jerusalem than he is to the way that you have interpreted Paul's
comments. Perhaps the divide on this matter is not as great as you have
concluded. What do you think in view of these examples from Paul?

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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page