corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <ekrentz AT earthlink.net>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Jerusalem conference
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:00:15 -0500
Bob MacDonald wrote:
Bob: I don't see any connection between Galatians 2:11 and the Jerusalem
council of Acts 15.
If the council had sent the letter from the apostles (Acts 15:23-29), I
think Paul would have appealed to it in Galatians. This is too long a topic
for the current window.
This has for a long time seemed to me to be a very important point, one
that appears to get overlooked. Acts 15:23-29 gives us the text of "the
decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem
for the Gentile believers" (Acts 16:4) that were then delivered by Paul
and Silas to "every town where we proclaimed the word of the Lord" (Acts
15:36). Therefore, IMHO the best explanation for Paul not mentioning
these decrees in Galatians is simply that Galatians pre-dates the decrees!
Any more complicated explanation is, I believe, unnecessary.
Dave Inglis
How about the possibility that Paul simply didn't like the decrees, and did not want to actively support them or spread them in his churches. This is certainly not a "complicated explanation", and is in fact quite straightforward.
As an aside, complicated explanations are not to be discarded too unduly. It is true that the more complicated a theory is the more uncertain it becomes, yet as we all know - history is in fact often VERY complicated.
--
Steve Black
It is curious that neither Paul or subsequent narratives in Acts ever speak of the Jerusalem decree being actively used. And the Jerusalem leaders also sent along two prophets to make sure that it got delivered.
Paul never refers to the decree in discussing the problems with food in Corinth, even though Peter has also been there. Why did Paul not mention The decree in Galatians, if written after the Jerusalem meeting? Because there is not record in Galatians of any of the items the Jerusalem meeting wanted enforced being a problem, whether diet or rules for ritual purity.
I do not see the problem that Dave Inglis thinks he solves above by dating Galatians early. Instead his solution raises more issues in terms of the linguistic affinities of Galatians to other Pauline letters and related to the earlier 1 Thessalonians.
If one dates Galatians earlier, then one must needs revise much more of the chronology of Paul, as has been done by some.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Edgar Krentz Professor Emeritus of New Testament Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Telephone: (773) 256-0773 Home Tel: 773-947-8105
Office e-mail: ekrentz AT lstc.edu Home e-mail: ekrentz AT earthlink.net
GHRASKW D' AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.
"I grow older, learning many things all the time." [Solon of Athens]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
-
Re: Jerusalem conference
, (continued)
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Bob MacDonald, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Hyam Maccoby, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Eric Zuesse, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Vince Endris, 08/28/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Bob MacDonald, 08/30/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Hyam Maccoby, 08/30/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, RSBrenchley, 08/30/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, David Inglis, 08/30/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Steve Black, 08/30/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Edgar M. Krentz, 08/30/2002
- Re: Jerusalem conference, Bob MacDonald, 08/30/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.