Paul's background

[stranger]

ooops, wrong forum
[ read only ]

My protector has me on a diet of crumbs, but my stomach is grumbling for more.

 

[wil]

ooops, wrong forum
[ read only ]

Wanna discuss a topic brought up in another forum...take it to a forum that allows that discussion. Want to deride another's belief as ludicrous? Or ridicule in another way? Take that thought to another forum.

 

[Ahanu]

Of course, if one is of a mind to dismantle the Acts on account of Paul, then this quote is meaningless to begin with, considering it comes from the Book of Acts.

Lol. I am not here to dismantle Acts. I am interested in following the thread the author was weaving in the article Thomas shared. Have been investigating it since I haven't heard his theory of a far less violent Paul before.

Paul, at this time still known as Saul, was consenting to the stoning to death of Stephen,

So as I've heard it described before, Saul was zealous for protecting and enforcing his Pharisaic faith, and being part of the "in crowd" and having social connections, he was able to get authoritative legitimacy for carrying out his persecution.

There may be a bit more elsewhere, none is coming to mind, point being what is written is pretty sparse. From what is written, it would appear Saul / Paul did not physically do any of the dirty work himself, he directed others to do it by his order. If, as I surmise, he was grooming for the priesthood, he would not have been allowed to "get his hands dirty." In the previous chapter (7), we know he stood by in approval watching the stoning of Stephen, and even held the garments of those who performed the deed. He was guilty by association, but not in fact. I have no reason to doubt that the other, frankly vague, accusations against him were of similar caliber. He ordered others to do the actual dirty deeds, though he did stand by in approval, as an authority figure of a sort having these "letters from the High Priest."

Sounds like a guy Christians would be able to recognize, yet Paul writes: "I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ" (Gal 1.22). Here is what the article Thomas shared has to say:

"Clearly, the account of Pauline persecution in Galatians cannot include acts of physical violence, or else Paul would have surely have been identifiable to those who had suffered under his literal blows. How could one 'persecute' the church and the faith without ever being seen by one’s victims? Clearly, only by engaging in a nonviolent, ideological struggle over one’s perception of truth."​

I am not sure about the accuracy of his translation here. The Expositor's Greek Testament disagrees with translating the Greek here as "unknown by sight":

""Galatians 1:22. ἤμην δὲ ἀγν. The correct translation is not I was unknown (as our versions render it), but I was becoming unknown. At the beginning of this period he was a familiar figure in Jerusalem, but in the course of ten years’ absence he gradually became a stranger to the Christians of Judæa.—ἐκκλησίαις. This passage speaks of the Churches of Judæa in the plural, as does also 1 Thessalonians 2:14. In the Acts the Church throughout Judæa, Galilee and Samaria is described as a single Church according to the text of the best MSS. (Acts 9:31): the funds contributed for the relief of the poor Christians in Judæa are handed over to the Elders at Jerusalem (Acts 11:29, (Acts 12:25); brethren from Judæa are censured as members of their own body by the assembled Church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1; Acts 15:24). It would seem from this that an effective unity of administration and control existed in Jerusalem side by side with local organisation of the several Churches of Judæa."
​

I was becoming unknown? I was unknown? What did Paul write here?

 

[Thomas]

Here is what the article Thomas shared has to say:

"Clearly, the account of Pauline persecution in Galatians cannot include acts of physical violence, or else Paul would have surely have been identifiable to those who had suffered under his literal blows. How could one 'persecute' the church and the faith without ever being seen by one’s victims? Clearly, only by engaging in a nonviolent, ideological struggle over one’s perception of truth."​

​

In retrospect, I am inclined to think the argument doesn't hold. Paul could have ordered and/or initiated violence, he might have enthusiastically supported it. He wouldn't have to be physically attacking people, he'd have used strong-arm types to do that for him – even so, the conclusion assumed here does not hold either. His 'clearly' assumed interpretation of nonviolence is not really tenable, it seems to me?

I am not sure about the accuracy of his translation here.

No, nor am I. I'm not sure of the reliability here – it's the only source that says 'becoming'?

This passage speaks of the Churches of Judæa in the plural (whereas in) Acts the Church throughout Judæa, Galilee and Samaria is described as a single Church.
I'd say, again in light of later scholarship, both are right. Authority would rest with the disciples, notably Peter, James and John, in Jerusalem. But the then nascent 'Catholic' church was a collection of communities around a teacher, and the teaching would vary. In Acts 8 we read of Peter and John making a pastoral visit to the Church in Samaria: "
Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.
For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." (Acts 8:15-17 my emphasis)

It's evident elsewhere that there were different baptisms — in Acts 18 we have Apollo teaching about Jesus in Ephesus, but only according to the
'Baptism of John', leading Priscilla and Aquila to "expounded to him the way of the Lord more diligently."

In Acts 19, Paul baptises Christians – already baptised in the name of Jesus – according to the triune formula, they having never even heard of the Holy Spirit.

 

[juantoo3]

I was becoming unknown? I was unknown? What did Paul write here?

The Greek word is anglicized as "de": but, and, now, (a connective or adversative particle)

Easier to point here: Strong's Greek: 1161. δέ (de) -- but, and, now, (a connective or adversative particle) (biblehub.com)

The nuances of this particle are way beyond my grammar, but two things I noted: Gal 1:22 is not referenced directly at the link, though it is a common word found in most of the New Testament letters, but the only references I saw to Gal is 1:11 and 2:2 (used in different ways, which is a grammatical function). The second thing I noted is the lack of any correspondent to "becoming." A linguist may well be able to flesh it out, but by the extensive write up at the link I don't see it as a reasonable interpretation. <shrug> I've been mistaken before, but I simply don't see it.

 

[juantoo3]

I don’t do a lot of hanging around in the Christianity subforum, but I have it on good authority that there are Jews still active on IF, including at least one rabbi, who might have useful insights.

Apparently not.