Corpus-Paul

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

> The historical usefulness of Acts is still debated.  But even if it 
> rightly reflects the situation, it does not address what greeks thought of 
> what Paul said.  A proselyte is not a greek any longer.

But my point was that Paul's first addressees were just such people, not 
outright pagans, most of the time.

> But again, it doesn't matter to his audience where he's coming from- it 
> only matters how they understand him.  Perception IS reality.  At least 
> for the person perceiving.

Au contraire. We are interpreting Paul, not his hearers. And if he is 
continually correcting their wrong perceptions, we can scarcely say that 
their perception was reality. It was an error he was bent on correcting.

> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure how you can date the activity of Paul on the mission field 
> with a letter fired off the next day.

I don't follow this comment at all.

> > 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.
>
> To what end?  Would they have run down to the local Synagogue and picked 
> up a copy?  If they had, could they have read it?

That is not the point at all. The first century culture was not a reading 
culture, but that does not mean that it was not rooted in literature.

In any case, when I said "Hebrew Scriptures" I was primarily referring to 
the corpus known to Jews as canonical, and not first of all to the original 
language. Forgive me for making the point muddy by using the term "Hebrew."

I think it scarcely questionable that the LXX found wide usage almost 
immediately in the Gentile churches (if not outright immediately). The 
question is not so much whether the texts used from Eucharist to Eucharist 
were in Hebrew or Greek; the issue is that the LXX (whatever its defects) 
just as much as the Hebrew gives an accounting of *Israel's* faith, gives 
the creational and messianic background to Paul's preaching, and everything 
else one could desire.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church

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