Corpus-Paul

["Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>]

> Tim Gallant wrote:
>
> > Jim West asks,
> >
> > > How will OT texts be any more authoritative for non jews than would 
> > > Homer or Socrates?
> >
> >
> > For the same reason that Paul identifies Jesus as "Christ" for those same 
> > non-Jews.
>
> What would the typical Greek have understood by the word "anointed"? 
> Because, as you will surely know, when Paul uses "christos" it isn't yet a 
> Title or a capitalized term.  Its just a word.  Jesus "the" anointed would 
> have meant something completely different than most Christians today 
> understand it.  But the problem is, what?
>
> > He never pretends that they are adopting a new religion just dropped 
> > fresh out of the sky. The gospel for the world is the salvation of 
> > Israel.
>
> Im not sure if the average greek on the street would have given a thought 
> to the salvation of Israel.  Would they have really cared all that much? 
> I dont think so.  I think, in fact, that any language Paul used would have 
> resonated from their own upbringing in the Mysteries.  Blood, washing, 
> salvation, all that stuff wouldn't have been heard by greeks the same way 
> it was by jews.  When Paul spoke to greeks did they hear what he meant or 
> what they understood?

A few notes:

1. If Acts is of any historical value at all (and on this point, I would 
think the letters are confirmatory), most of Paul's preaching to Gentiles 
was in fact to God-fearers and proselytes. In their case, it is 
unquestionable that they understood that he was bringing a "Jewish message." 
Even where Paul does not limit himself to cities that have a synagogue, he 
begins with those who have adopted the faith of Israel in some sense (e.g. 
Lydia in Acts 16.14).

2. It is, of course, hard to say how Paul's message would resonate with a 
Gentile who had not been instructed in the Jewish faith. I think it is fair 
to say, however, that there was misunderstanding, and that, in fact, some of 
Paul's letter-writing is necessitated by that. I think of the Corinthian 
correspondence, for example. (If Acts 18 is any indication, Paul started 
with the synagogues there too, but his ministry ultimately was much 
broader.) Paul is dealing with a very Gentile attitude toward sophia, as 
well as Gentile-influenced dualism etc. And what does he come back with? 
Interestingly, well-integrated into his response is an appeal to the Shema 
(1 Cor 8) and the experience of Israel in the wilderness (1 Cor 10). And 
that is quite aside from the Jewish presuppositions involved in his view of 
resurrection, not to mention his appeal to Adam (1 Cor 15), and the strong 
possibility that chapter 14 is directed at countering a pagan sort of spin 
upon the charismata by (in part) appealing to Israel's Scripture (14.21).

3. Beyond this, our starting point cannot be the hearers, but the preacher, 
particularly since, other than Acts, we simply do not have access to Paul's 
initial "evangelistic" preaching. All we can presume is that it was in 
continuity with his letters.

4. What would Christos mean to a Gentile? Frankly, I doubt it would have 
meant much apart from explanation. Soter would have meant more, and that 
puts us in the "political" realm. But Paul could scarcely have got very far 
in his message without identifying this soter who rivalled Caesar as in fact 
a Jew, and his political significance as rooted in Israelite history. If 
that is anywhere close to the mark, we are already getting into "Messiah 
territory."

As you yourself note, Christos was not yet anything like a last name, as it 
has virtually become today. Paul's nearly ubiquitous usage of the term 
demanded explanation. I find it simply unfathomable that he did not provide 
that explanation, or that his explanation was fundamentally different from 
that of his letters.

5. I am highly skeptical of the old attempts to transform Paul's preaching 
into a form of the ancient mysteries. Certainly he retains the Jewish 
polemic against paganism, and the mysteries simply never were antithetical. 
You could celebrate them and everything else you wanted, because salvation 
was entirely a matter of cult, not creation (whether old or new). Again, I 
point to 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul stands the Christian cult in 
continuity with the OT and in fundamental opposition to the pagan cult, and 
does so in such a way that it is clear that salvation is not simply exposure 
to a mysteriological cult, but includes a fundamental reorientation of all 
of life. (BTW, it isn't by any stretch an exegetical treatment of Paul, but 
Alexander Schmeman's discussion of the 4th-5th centuries of Christianity in 
_Introduction to Liturgical Theology_ has a very insightful discussion of 
the shift to a mysteriological piety from a more Hebrew/OT-oriented 
liturgical piety in the earliest Church.)

In short, I'm sure that some of the terminology probably came across as 
ambiguous, as is so often the case. On the other hand, we see Paul 
correcting such ambiguities in his letters, which suggests to me that he 
would have attempted to correct them from day one.

One further note regarding 1 Thessalonians: "the Day of the Lord" which lies 
back of 4.13-5.11 is an Old Testament prophetic theme. I doubt it would have 
meant anything in an absolutely untutored Gentile setting. I continue to say 
that Paul from day one was building an understanding of the Hebrew 
Scriptures among his hearers.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church

http://www.timgallant.org
tim | gallant site group