Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Time and place of Philippians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Time and place of Philippians
  • Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 00:26:18 -0400


Dear Bob,

I do not think that Paul’s self-description is a problem for Pauline
authorship at all; i.e.
"This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed
(attested – RSV) to us
by those who heard him." (2:3)

If Paul was writing, in the first instance, to the faithful in Asia, then
there are two, perhaps three, ready explanations for the self-description.
1. Many of the Christians in Asia were so because they had been converted
at the preaching of Peter and others ‘who heard him (Jesus)’ at Pentecost
(Acts 2:9) or in subsequent visits to Jerusalem.
2. We know that many eyewitnesses were involved in mission away from Judea
and some may have helped in Asia. If Epaphras (Col 1:7) was an eyewitness
he would be an example, but we know that the other apostles and the Lord’s
brothers traveled about (1 Cor 9:5), as would others who knew Jesus
(Philip the evangelist, for example, who has a traditional association
with Heirapolis or as the Bisop of Tralles).
3. Paul could identify himself with them as one to whom the gospel had
been attested. He may not have been converted by the preaching of those
who shared the faith before him, but it was certainly ‘attested’ to him.
He would have heard the final testimony of Stephen and, no doubt, the
testimony of many whom he arrested in his preconversion hostility to the
Church.


<<<Does Paul ever describe himself this way? >>>
Perhaps not (in any other Pauline work), but that does not mean that he
could not have done so.

<<<Could this have been written by the man who wrote "Am I not an apostle?
Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Paul never describes himself removed at
second hand as is implied here - "to us" - "by those who heard him".>>>

No he didn’t, unless he wrote Hebrews. And, as I have explained, there is
no reason why he could not have so described himself. The lack of another
example is not conclusive.

<<<Hebrews itself seems to be little studied by current scholars compared to
the Pauline Corpus. It seems to me to be important in the scheme of thought
of the period.>>>

If I am right about the early date of the Revelation (no later than mid
62), Hebrews was written to deal with the issues addressed in Rev 2&3 and
probably only 6 months or so before John received the Revelation.

<<<1. Why does the author imply that the temple is still standing and
sacrifice continuing? >>>

Because it was.

<<<How would this square with Paul's final vow in Jerusalem c 58 (per Acts)
where he shows himself still part of the cult.>>>

Though he did not see himself as bound by the cultic laws (i.e. he did not
see himself as free from the moral law), Paul was free to work
within/under the law if it gave opportunity to the gospel (1 Cor 9:19f).

<<<Could this man have written "we have an altar at which those who serve in
the tabernacle
have no right to eat"? >>>

The altar is the heavenly one (Heb 9:11f), access to which is gained by
faith, not by the keeping of the law through which ‘those who serve in the
tabernacle’ (Heb 13:10) were still seeking to be sanctified. This is the
context of in which 13:10 is given (i.e. 13:7-15).


<<<2. How would this letter's description of the meaning of Christ (the veil,
the High Priest, the sacrifice outside the gate) illuminate the intra-Jewish
disagreements in Galatia, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome? >>>

Sorry, you will need to explain this a bit more for me.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page