Corpus-Paul

[Billy Evans <biblewje AT comcast.net>]

on 1/5/03 12:14 PM, Mark D. Nanos at nanosmd AT comcast.net wrote:

> Dear participants,
> I am working on the topic of Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem apostles.
> Virtually all contemporary interpreters understand Paul's oblique references
> in Gal. 1:1 (also 1:10-11) to his apostolic identity being "not from humans"
> (apparently meaning, "human agents") "nor through a human" (apparently
> meaning, "human agency") to indicate clearly to his audience the (other)
> apostles based in Jerusalem, since they (presumably) received their
> commissions directly from Jesus when among them (when a human), something
> Paul cannot (does not) claim. Paul never explicitly makes this connection
> (human/s = Jerusalem apostles), but there are obviously certain comments
> made in the text or in other NT texts that are understood to make this
> conclusion clear enough that it is not generally questioned.
> 
> Although it is clear to me how this connection is made in the commentaries
> and monographs on the topic (have consulted many), I am interested in the
> reasons why list members may find this to be so, or if not, what those
> reasons may be. In response, I intend only to probe, perhaps with relevant
> questions, but nothing more. It is not my intention to discuss my own view.
> 
> If open to the idea, I would like to solicit explanations (preferably
> without reference to the work of others) to what texts or arguments make
> this association of human/s = the Jerusalem apostles compelling, or
> alternatively, not compelling, for you?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
Paul insists on his independence of Jerusalem makes sence when Paul[s
opposition comes from Judaizers who appealed to the pillars in Jerusalem.
The Judaizes could have argued that Paul's authority came from Jerusalem's
leaders even when he visited them.  that visit was all about the first
principles (law, circumcision, etc) and now Paul is teaching something else,
to gentiles--something easier to practice even.  So Paul validates his call
via Jesus and not the Jerusalem few (1:12).  he says this because he already
knows what he is going to write in Gal 2: giving Peter both barrows

Philo let King Iaates off the hook with regard to having to get cut,  Hillel
excused circumcision too as long as one was baptized, but paul seemed to
stand above all this.  He was not trying to make gentiles into Jews before
making them Christians.

I am not sure about gnosticism in Jerusalem during this time.  could that be
a possibility? It seems tha they would have appealed to a higher calling
just like Paul to establish or put teeth into their teaching.  but, we still
have the authority issue being connected in the debate with his talks with
Peter etc.  In 5:11 paul argues that if he is advocating getting cut to
become Jews why was he still getting the shaft .  was the charge something
like Hey guys this paul is crazy because he rejects cutting you gentiles
while preaching it at the same time.  This would seem to add some weight to
Paul's 1:10 plea against his desire for masculine support

I guess a hunt into the North vs south theory could yield a different group
of candidates from Jerusalem.  (Mark I am obviously just throwing ideas out
on the mat for examination by others.)  I think 1:15 may have a word
enriched Pauline thought about his call from God He uses it in Rom 1:1 for
the same reason and memics Jer 1:5where the call was in the womb or before
that i should say.  What do we do about the Zealots of 1:14 and acts 21:20
where thousands of Zeaslots of the Law exist in the Jerusalem church

Well, Mark it's 5 am and my mind is only rambling or maybe it is still
half-dreaming.  Anyway, my comments sure look half-cooked to me.  Maybe the
trash is the best place for them.  billy