Re: Dating Paul
- --- Gordon Raynal wrote:
> You use the metaphor of "silk purse out of a sow's ear" andHi Gordon-
> that doesn't fit the judgment of role and station and actual
Just to clarify - the "sow's ear" I was referring to in that
passage was Paul. What I meant was that if he had been regarded
as a "relatively minor character" at the time of writing of Acts,
Luke's "history" of the movement would probably not have been so
successful. But I see you've covered that by appealing to the "black
hole" of pre-Pauline history which had evidently been largely
forgotten by the time of Acts.
> In fact I think of those nameless folks who spread the work intoD'accord. But Martha and the Magdalene as "major historical
> Syria, up to Antioch, down to Egypt... to Rome!... on the basis
> of the establishment work done by James, Peter, Martha, Mary
> Magdalene etc. etc. are the major historical players. I think
> Paul had ***a real movement*** to join...
players"? Based on what? Even with respect to most of the twelve,
we can only guess at what they were doing.
> ... one where the central theogical ideas, the ethical ideas,I think you're on slippery grounds here. Something was in place, no
> the chief symbolic ideas, the pattern of midrash, the dining
> practices... to name some key things;)!, were in place.
doubt, but it evidently wasn't the same as what came to be in place
via Paul's confrontational efforts with the pillars. Dining
practices in place? If so, why the later dispute over them? As
for "central theological ideas" and "chief symbolic ideas", that
seems to deny any significant degree of originality to Paul's
thinking, which surely can't be right. And if the ultimate
relationship to the gentiles hadn't been worked out pre-Paul, then
what was it that was "in place" with respect to that?
What we do know for sure is that by the end of the first century,
we have Clement writing from Rome appealing to Paul's authority,
and Ignatius on his way from Syria (Antioch) to Rome appealing to
Peter and Paul both, so that even in those communities not founded
by Paul, his status as a major player has been solidified some
thirty years later, while others have been forgotten.
Mt. Clemens, MI
- (from the site you mentioned):
"Half Shekel - the currency of the Jerusalem Temple
At the Great Temple in Jerusalem the annual tax levied on Jews
was 1/2 shekel per male. The 1/2 shekel and shekel were ... the
only coins accepted by the temple."
I'm confused. The Tyrean half-shekel contained an image of Melqarth,
yet it was acceptable at the Temple? Practically speaking, it may
have been the most stable non-Roman currency, but I was under the
impression that the reason the Herodian coinage - as well the shekel
minted 66-70 by Jewish revolutionaries - contained no human image,
was a supposed ban on "graven images". What's the story? Money win
out over principle, no such principle, or was the principle not so
Mt. Clemens, MI