Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: corpus-paul digest: June 11, 2001

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ntsearcher AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: corpus-paul digest: June 11, 2001
  • Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:26:41 EDT


This post is rather lengthy as I'm trying to address a number of replies in
one shot.

I've divided it up into sections with subtitles:

***The Story***

Mark N. sent a wonderfully enlightening and gracious challenge my way.

Thank you Mark.

German scholars use the term 'sitzenlaben' (sp?) to describe the situation in
real life behind the epistles.

It is my own observation that most pastors (the scholar's main audience...
bracketing that of their colleagues) come to the NT with scissors and glue,
pasting together various proof texts to dissect the NT.

And it is this cut-and-paste mentality that most modern sermons are built
around.

(Incidenally, there is a natural influence of our discussions here. scholars
do research. they publish their findings, teach at seminaries. Pastors are
the recipients of this information. they in turn teach God's people. so
whatever is trickling down to the level of the congregation, does have an
affinity to what's happening in the scholarly world... at least in some
measure.)

My obervation: Most of the Body of Christ today is plagued by what I'm about
to say... because, to my mind, the scholarly community has given great
attention to dissecting Paul's letters with a microscope at the expense of
looking at the _entire_ backdrop (=the story) in which they were written with
a telescope.

Let me explain.

Pick up your NT. Let's get a good look at it.

In 1227, chapters were added. In 1551, verses were added.

It has been divied up into disjointed sentences.

What is more: The letters of Paul are not arranged according to their
chronological order.

What order then?

They are arranged according to descending length.. a custom of the time in
which the corpus was bound.

The problem is that most of us... even scholars... are trained to read the NT
outside of its historic setting. We have a cut and paste mentality. The out
of order arrrangement of the NT... plus the numbered sentences... have
strengthened this approach.

The upshot: The average Christian today, including clergy, is not
conversantant at all with the entire story of the first century church. Nor
the background to Paul's letters for instance. But he is very converstant
with disjointed sentences from books written at different times, places, and
to different circumstances.He may also specialize in the Greek text. Or even
the historical setting of each book 'individually'.

But the entire, free flowing saga.

This leads to the seminary.. or bible school... that which produces many
modern clergy.

In the typical seminary, acts and paul's letters are divided into 'nt
studies' and 'church history'. and rarely do the twain meet to make one
holistic model of what really happened.

i realize that we can't be sure on all details of chronology, etc.. but we
can construct a model that will help us to understand the NT. we have enough
information to make attempts at this. even so, if each professor would
construct their own model, we'd be all the better.

Let me give you an example of how ignorant (i use this in its most benign
way) we are of 'the story.'

How many of us on this list can, without researching it, rehearse the
movements of such obscure souls as Apollos, Epaphras, Demas, and Trophimus?

When one looks at the story, they all come to life. And help shed light on
our NTs.

Or how many of us can rehearse what happened before and after Paul got to
Thessolonica and discuss what provoked the 2 letters? What is more, how many
of us can tell how many books Paul wrote before and after he wrote this
letter? (use n. galatian or s. galatian theories... take your pick.)

I trust my point is becoming somewhat coherent.

G. Edwards, to my mind, is the only person that has built a NT model of the
story based upon all avaialbe evidence... arrcheological, social historic,
etc.

Like Watchman Nee, T. Austin Sparks, and others preacher/theologians of that
ilk, Edwards writes at a popular level to broaden his audience and go
straight to the laymen. it is for that reason that their work is not
noted/quoted among scholars much. (and why it's not in your toronto library..
but silas diary is very new.)

Yet, their work is built on solid scholarship. and their insights
sophisticated.

I'm no fan of historical fiction. I'd like to see a work that does the same
think written from a left brain perspective. the closest i've come across is
donald guthrie's THE APOSTLES. good, but not detailed enough to my mind.

anyways, i trust this helps to underscore why my question about 'the
story'... this approach.. is unique and important.

So any sources on this score would be appreciated. And if I've peeked some
interest in some of you, I'd greatly appreciate it if you were to pick up
Edwards' THE SILAS DIARY. mark it up. and get back with me. you can email me
in private if you like. but to my mind, nothing has ever been written that
has opened up the book of Galatians like this work. (despite that it's in
written in a narrative.) Why? because the author gives a full blown
sitzenlaben (sp?) behind the writing of Galatians.

***The origin of Missionary Journey and Church Planter***

I want to know this because i find missionary journey to be a misleading
term. what modern missionaries do is not what Paul did. Paul planted
communities of house churches. then left them without designated leadership.
I just want to know where the term developed.

I feel the same way about 'the pastoral epistles.' that term was invented in
the18th century.

'church planter' is one I like. it's better, to my mind, then the
transliteration 'apostle.' it best describes the function of such men as
paul, silas, barnabas, etc. so i'd like to know who coined it or at least
when it was coined.

***Contradiction of 2 Cor. 8 and Php. 4:15***

Bert P. said that he saw no contradiction. for he said that he was in no need
to tell the philippians who supported him.

You may wish to look at the text again.

Paul said in Php. 4, "no church helped... you (philippians) ONLY helped."

that statement goes beyond him 'not' mentioning the others who helped him.
the language suggests that NO other churches helped him. while in 2 Cor. he
said that some have... "i robbed other CHURCHES, plural." (And taking into
acct. the story, he is referring to the same time frame.)

I thought John D's explanation of it being hyperbole in 2 Cor. (churches) is
possible. but i'd like to think that there is another explanation that
doesn't paint Paul as dishonest.

household churches in Philippi is interesting. but as far as we know from the
record, there was only one house church in philippi at the time.

well, I drone on. I hope this post is helpful. And I genuinelly want to hear
your responses and reflections on this materail. I'm building my own model of
the first centurystory... provoked by Edwards. And I'm looking for missing
pieces to reconstruct certain things... fine tuning them.

btw/ feel free to email me in private if you wish to discuss these subjects
off line. NTsearcher AT aol.com

Regards,
Frank A.
Tampa




  • Re: corpus-paul digest: June 11, 2001, Ntsearcher, 06/12/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page