Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [gthomas] The "House" of Logion 71

Expand Messages
  • odell mcguire
    Dear Mike, Rick, Tim and other contributors to the House of 71 and Davies Point #3 threads: Kevin Johnson, also a member of this list, and I have been engaged
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 10, 2000
      Dear Mike, Rick, Tim and other contributors to the House of 71 and Davies Point
      #3 threads:

      Kevin Johnson, also a member of this list, and I have been engaged since March
      in researching a paper tentatively entitled 'Jesus and the Destruction of the
      Temple'. The paper has reached preliminary draft writing stage. I am temporarily
      out of touch with Kevin and think he is still at the beach. I just got back
      from same 2 weeks ago. But I'm sure I can speak for Kevin as well when I say I
      greatly welcome, appreciate and hope to learn much from this public airing out
      of issues of vital concern to our project.

      We began with the hypothesis (largely Kevin's) that GThom Log 71 or something
      very like it has a dominical origin (JS colored it black BTW), and was spoken by
      HJ in the temple when he was 'posessesed by the Spirit'; such was the language
      of the time. We were both, I think, very much influenced by Steve Davies 'Jesus
      the Healer' in formulating this hypothesis. And Kevin had already located the
      first of the (many) OT //s at Deut 13.14-16 where the HS uses similar language.

      For my part, I had noticed that several of the NT //s (including Greeven's
      retranslation of GThom) made use of the verbs KATALUW (tear down) and OIKODOMEW
      (build up), or close cognates, as a contrasting pair, thus fixing the meanings
      both words to the extent of their opposition, but not characterizing that
      opposition as literal or figurative. This gave us a valuable textual tool for
      concordance work and we rather quickly discovered //s in Paul (Gal2.18-20a,
      2Cor5.1, etc).

      Later on, in trying to get a fix for a pre-Pauline trajectory of the saying, I
      was led to Jerusalem in the days of Saul and Stephen, and saw that their story
      in Acts is is directly and inseperably associated with the stories of Philip's
      ministry. And the whole, told in Acts6.1-9.30, is fairly convincing as having a
      solid historical basis, completely unlike the fantastic surrounding parts of the
      1st half of Acts which are mainly interested in presenting Peter as a miracle
      worker, (resurrecting and healing some, killing others with a curse), and
      establishing his (very dubious) priority in the gentile mission. So Acts6-9.30,
      at the very least, comes from a different Lukan source and just possibly may be
      the only valid Lukan writing in 1st half of Acts. And it is not difficult to
      guess Luke's source-- the family tradition of Phillip. The first clue is in
      Acts9.30 when 'Saul' escaped thru Caesarea from 'the Hellenists' who wanted to
      kill him on his1st post-conversion trip to Jerusalem. Philip probably had made
      his home in Caesarea by that time, and he and the converted Saul would have
      swapped conversion and escape stories. And Paul could have picked up Philip's
      version of the temple destruction saying, especially the anti-legal spin. 20
      years later (Acts21.8-14) was again for several days at the home of Philip in
      Caesarea, on his way to Jerusalem and James for the last time. This time, he was
      accompanied by the 'we' source in Luke (Luke himself?) Also, 'we' mentions that
      Philip had 4 daughters who prophesied, that one Agabus, a 'prophet' from
      Jerusalem came up and warned Paul not to go, and in general the converstion over
      several days focused on the dangers that awaited Paul in the city. So we have
      the Lukan source 'we' located in the same house for the best part of a week with
      four women who knew the family tradition, and both Paul and Philip to check with
      for disputed details, and if Luke did not learn the material in Acts6-9.30 at
      this time, he missed a damn good chance.

      The point. We have credible, if not convincing, evidence that the temple
      destruction saying, probably in a form in which the temple was taken to
      symbolize the law, was circulating in Jerusalem as early as the early to mid
      30s.

      And it had already become a political football.

      Kevin and I have similarly, but not so specifically, developed notions about the
      early trajectory of the NAOS/TREIS HMERAI versions found in Jn.2x, Mt26.61, and
      Mk14.58. These differ significantly but obviously are linked to a common source
      by the above words. An early passion narrative; probably Fortna's *Signs
      Gospel*, but I don't know if Kevin has accepted this yet. I don't believe Jn is
      dependent on Mark. Is Matthew? Maybe. The other allusions in the synoptics
      (mentioned by Rick I think), the temple exit prophecy and the scoffers beneath
      the cross, we take to be secondary, pure Markan redactions and copies of same.

      There are many other //s and allusions in the OT and in the 1st and early 2nd
      century lit, both canonical and non-, a couple of them definitely from
      pre-synoptic sources, but thats about all I have time for.

      One more thing. We had NOT so much as dreamed of the priestly dynasty angle
      broached by Mark. It has interesting possibilities but I haven't thought them
      thru sufficiently to have anything useful to say as yet.
      --
      Best wishes, Odell

      Odell McGuire
      omcguire@...
      Prof. Geology Em., W&L
      Lexington, VA
    • DaGoi@aol.com
      In a message dated 8/9/0 9:43:50 AM, Odell McGuire wrote:
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 10, 2000
        In a message dated 8/9/0 9:43:50 AM, Odell McGuire wrote:

        << Because if, as some critics believe, a major
        point of his program in Acts is the reconciliation of what had become the
        Pauline
        and Jamesian wings of the church, it would not do for Luke to depict Stephen
        as
        a heretic representing one party and lynched by the other. >>

        First, a writing such as Luke's would not be the reconciliating factor, but
        would reflect and perhaps justify a reconciliation that is fait accompli
        already.

        Secondly, Saul/Paul was the chief witness against Stephen (he held the
        clothes). but he is represented and represents himself as a non-Jesus person
        at this time, hence it is unlikely that Stephen was lynched by the Jamesian
        party.

        William Foley
        http://members.aol.com/dagoi
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Michael Grondin wrote: ... Yes, this is a big difference, Mike. ... Perhaps the latter is a better explanation. ... In my view, the whole
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 10, 2000
          On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Michael Grondin wrote:

          ...

          > ... the striking difference between logion 71 and the corresponding
          > canonical versions is that in logion 71, "no one will be able to build
          > it up again", whereas in the canonicals, "I will build it up again in
          > three days".

          Yes, this is a big difference, Mike.

          > We can expect different commentators to make different things of this.
          > Some will say that GThom is post-canonical and gnostic, and that what
          > happened was that the originators of logion 71 changed it in order to
          > deny the resurrection. Others will say that GThom is pre-canonical and
          > low-christological, and that what happened was that the gospellers
          > took logion 71 and changed it, to add a reference to the resurrection.

          Perhaps the latter is a better explanation.

          > I think the one clear thing that impartial historians may be able to
          > agree on is that, if Jesus himself mentioned "three days", it almost
          > certainly wasn't with any foreknowledge of what was to come. That is,
          > if HE said "three days", it could not have been a reference to his own
          > (supposed) resurrection. On balance, it seems more likely to me that
          > what he said was "no one will be able to rebuild it" (whatever *it*
          > is)

          In my view, the whole "three days" business, and its association with the
          tomb burial, has to be later, if we accept Crossan's reasonable argument
          that the earliest tradition did not have a tomb burial.

          ...

          > But then why would the GThomists shrink from mentioning the
          > resurrection? The most probable answer, I fear, is that the GThomists
          > were basically docetists, i.e., they didn't view Jesus as a real
          > flesh-and-blood human being.

          Perhaps, but this would certainly imply that no contemporaries or
          eyewitnesses of Jesus were among these "GThomists".

          > And following down this line of thinking, we find ourselves at the
          > scene in GJohn where the writer forces "Thomas" to admit the physical,
          > literal nature of the resurrection - which indicates most clearly that
          > this is precisely something that the "Thomists" would *not* admit.
          >
          > What I would tentatively conclude from all this is that, within the
          > context of GThom, the phrase 'this house' in #71 might well have been
          > understood by the authors to mean 'this world'. As to whether this is
          > what Jesus himself meant (assuming he said it), I very much doubt it.
          > A prophet would be concerned with bringing about changes in religious
          > practices, not with destroying the world.

          Yes, this is reasonable.

          > Furthermore, J's actions in the Temple indicate that *that* was the
          > focus of his attentions and intentions. I think the apocalypticism was
          > a later development, as Jacob and the others pondered the meaning of
          > J's brief and charismatic public life, especially in light of their
          > failure to find his body,

          But you assume here that they were looking for the body, or that they were
          in a position to look for it. The best evidence indicates that the
          followers of Jesus fled to Galilee in terror after his arrest.

          > and the subsequent visions and sightings - and settled on Daniel 7 as
          > the most satisfying explanation. Henceforth, they would become the
          > Danielic "saints" waiting in Jerusalem for the impending arrival of
          > "one like a son of man" at the final judgement, even as they sent
          > apostles into the world to prepare the way and hasten the day.

          Yes, Jesus may not have been apocalyptic. But the earliest Christian
          (post-Easter) tradition probably was.

          Regards,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... Seems reasonable, Jack. [Joe:] ... But I think Paul s theology, i.e. divine sonship (in a stronger sense implying adoption as the chosen son ) at the
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 10, 2000
            > From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
            > Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:08:52 -0700

            > The "Son of God" was very Jewish in origin. The "bareh d'alaha"
            > emerges from 2nd temple Daniel/Enochian subsets of Judaism and
            > can be found in very un-roman like fashion in 4Q246 as:
            >
            > "He will be called son of God, and they will
            > call him son of the Most High. "
            >
            > But it was Luke that merged the "son of God" and "bar nasha"
            > with "Messiah."

            Seems reasonable, Jack.

            [Joe:]
            > > Yuri doesn't have it right when he says that God made Jesus into the
            > > messiah AFTER he was killed. 'Messiah' means, in Hebrew, one who saves.
            > > The Jewish tradition is that God specially sends this saviour. ie he is
            > > the saviour already as soon as he lands on earth. And this is certainly
            > > how Matthew portrays Jesus.
            >
            > The different communities of primitive Christianity place the
            > "sonship" of Jesus at different times. The Jerusalem assembly
            > of Nazarenes under his brother James placed the "adoption"
            > of Jesus by God at his baptism. Paul places it at his
            > resurrecftion. Luke takes it back to his birth.

            But I think Paul's theology, i.e. divine sonship (in a stronger sense
            implying adoption as "the chosen son") at the resurrecftion, is the most
            primitive. Then comes your "Nazarene understanding", i.e. adoption at
            baptism. Then came Lk's understanding as adoption at birth.

            > The Jewish bar d'alaha concept and the Roman filius dei are two
            > different animals altogether. Honi the Circle Maker was called
            > "son of God."

            Regards,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

            I doubt, therefore I might be.
          • odell mcguire
            ... First--I agree completely. I should have expressed the point differently. Secondly-- Here I was not expressing my own view but what I imagined to be that
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 11, 2000
              DaGoi@... wrote:

              > In a message dated 8/9/0 9:43:50 AM, Odell McGuire wrote:
              >
              > << Because if, as some critics believe, a major
              > point of his program in Acts is the reconciliation of what had become the
              > Pauline
              > and Jamesian wings of the church, it would not do for Luke to depict Stephen
              > as
              > a heretic representing one party and lynched by the other. >>
              >
              > First, a writing such as Luke's would not be the reconciliating factor, but
              > would reflect and perhaps justify a reconciliation that is fait accompli
              > already.
              >
              > Secondly, Saul/Paul was the chief witness against Stephen (he held the
              > clothes). but he is represented and represents himself as a non-Jesus person
              > at this time, hence it is unlikely that Stephen was lynched by the Jamesian
              > party.
              >
              > William Foley

              First--I agree completely. I should have expressed the point differently.

              Secondly-- Here I was not expressing my own view but what I imagined to be that
              of the Philipine family tradition as represented to Luke. And of course, there
              is no mention of James personally in Acts6-9.30 which I take to be Luke's record
              of that tradition. Luke's omission or Philip's??? Or was James a such a
              latecomer on the Jerusalem scene that he played no role in these early events???
              None of these options seems very likely to me, but perhaps a Lukan omission is
              the least objectionable. So I wrote what I wrote.

              There is another option which I have broached in a later post. The surrounding,
              more incredible and fantastic parts of the 1st half of Acts, portraying Peter
              working a host of offhand miracles and establishing his equally dubious claim to
              prority in the gentile mission, may be a late forgery and no work of the
              original Luke. And the envelopes being pushed have the fishy smell of early 2c
              Rome on them. Wouldn't it be in the same Petrine interest to remove mention of
              an early James from what was becoming the official annal of the pre-war
              church? But I have insufficient evidential ground to make this a formal charge
              so have just passed it on as a conjectured possibility.

              What you say of Saul is, of course, true in spades. But there is more. He
              himself testifies to the presence of James, in the role of church leader, in
              Jerusalem on his 1st post conversion visit. (Gal.xx) And we have it from Philip
              that he was chased out of that city by 'hellenists who wanted to kill him', the
              same people who initiated the charges against Stephen. Philip would have
              learned of this from Paul in Caesarea, when in his escape, he waited in that
              place for passage to Tarsus (Acts9.30) And Luke learned this and the other
              matter of Acts6-9.30 some 15+ yrs later, when he and Paul were staying Philip's
              house in Caesarea, talking of the dangers which awaited Paul in the Jerusalem of
              James (Acts21.8-14). But there is no mention of James in the 1st half of Acts
              at all. It doesn't add up. I have always considered the pre-conversion Saul as a
              somewhat overzealous temple goon, doing the dirty work of the temple
              priest-politicians. Maybe he exceeded his commission in the case of Stephen.
              Wouldn't surprise me.
              But the assembly which heard Stephen's case can't have been too upset about it.
              Nor were Peter and the apostles, who did not flee Jerusalem. And from Acts6.7b,
              we are to understand that 'priest-believers' could have well made up a part of
              that assembly. Etc.
              --
              Best wishes, Odell

              Odell McGuire
              omcguire@...
              Prof. Geology Em., W&L
              Lexington, VA
            • Michael Grondin
              ... wanted to ... made ... So the Hellenists wanted to kill Saul even after his conversion, for having (years?) earlier had a significant role in Stephen s
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 13, 2000
                Odell McGuire wrote:
                >... it is not difficult to
                >guess Luke's source-- the family tradition of Phillip. The first clue is in
                >Acts9.30 when 'Saul' escaped thru Caesarea from 'the Hellenists' who
                wanted to
                >kill him on his 1st post-conversion trip to Jerusalem. Philip probably had
                made
                >his home in Caesarea by that time, and he and the converted Saul would have
                >swapped conversion and escape stories. And Paul could have picked up Philip's
                >version of the temple destruction saying, especially the anti-legal spin.

                So "the Hellenists" wanted to kill Saul even after his conversion, for
                having (years?) earlier had a significant role in Stephen's execution and
                the driving of the others (including Philip) out of Jerusalem. And yet
                after he himself flees Jerusalem for fear of "the Hellenists", he is
                welcomed into the house of one of the supposed leaders of the Hellenists?
                You see the problem, I'm sure. And indeed, 9.30 says nothing about staying
                at anybody's house. Likely Caesarea was simply a convenient port of entry
                and departure for certain locations, and Philip came to reside there after
                Paul had passed thru (in spite of the chronology suggested by the ending of
                chapter 8). But it isn't necessary to speculate that Saul got the temple
                saying from Philip at the time of his (Saul's) passing thru Caesarea in
                Acts 9.30 - he had presumably become acquainted with it years earlier,
                before his conversion, at the "trial" of Stephen! Indeed, it must have been
                one of the charges upon which the persecution at that time was based!

                >We have credible, if not convincing, evidence that the temple destruction
                >saying, probably in a form in which the temple was taken to symbolize the
                >law, was circulating in Jerusalem as early as the early to mid 30s.

                I don't know what you mean by "a form in which ...". Do you mean that some
                interpreted the reference to the Temple as a reference to the entirety of
                the Law? Well, maybe so, but who? I don't see any challenge to the Torah
                proper in Stephen's speech. It sounds to me more like a political challenge
                to the Judean claim that Yahweh resided in the Temple at Jerusalem - a
                challenge consistent with the position of the "northerners" that Yahweh
                doesn't reside in a fixed location, but stands astride the world, as on the
                two seraphim that the northerners constructed at opposite ends of their
                kingdom after the death of Solomon. True enough, the charge specified
                against Stephen is that he spoke "against this holy place and the Law," but
                the climax of his speech mentions only the Temple:

                "David found favor in God's sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling
                place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.
                However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made of human hands. As the
                prophet (Isaiah) says, 'Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool of
                my feet. What kind of house will you build for me? Or what place is there
                for my repose? Was it not my hand which made all these things?'"
                (Acts 7.46-50)

                What seems to be envisioned here is the "destruction" of the *centrality*
                of the Temple, and, by implication, the central religious role enjoyed by
                its priesthood. From the Judean perspective, it's pretty easy to see this
                as being not just "blasphemy", but treason as well. It was all very well
                for such attitudes to be voiced way up north in "the sticks" of Galilee,
                and it was even OK for the Yeshuines to operate in the south - as long as
                they weren't too vocal. But when firebrands like Jesus, then
                Jacob-bar-Zebedee, and then Stephen insisted on openly riling up the
                residents of Jerusalem, there was often hell to pay, particularly when the
                High Priest was a "hard-liner". And in the politico-religious mix of the
                times, the question of where Yahweh resided was at heart a question of who
                was to wield political power (even the limited power allowed by the
                Romans), and how they were to do so.

                This denial of any central role for the Temple and its priesthood can be
                seen also in the Transfiguration scene, where Peter is chided for wanting
                to construct a tent (or tabernacle) for Jesus, Elias, and Moses. No such
                "house" is to be allowed - at least as far as the wandering itinerants of
                the north were concerned - who can perhaps be identified as the "son of
                god" faction. The "son of man" faction of Jacob-the-Just may have been a
                different story, however, for they seem to have lamented the fact that "The
                Son of Man has no place to lay his head and rest", rather than rejoicing in
                it. For them, the "destruction of the Temple" seems to have meant an
                apocalyptic replacement of the then-existing Temple with a temple "not made
                with human hands", to be presided over by the "gentle yoke" of Jacob, for
                whom "heaven and earth have come into being." (Not to mention a third, "son
                of David" faction.)

                As you said, Odell, the "Temple saying" became a political football among
                factions of the J-movement.

                Mike
              • odell mcguire
                ... having (years?) earlier had a significant role in Stephen s execution and the driving of the others (including Philip) out of Jerusalem. And yet after he
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 15, 2000
                  Mike wrote:
                  >>So "the Hellenists" wanted to kill Saul even after his conversion, for
                  having (years?) earlier had a significant role in Stephen's execution and
                  the driving of the others (including Philip) out of Jerusalem. And yet
                  after he himself flees Jerusalem for fear of "the Hellenists", he is
                  welcomed into the house of one of the supposed leaders of the Hellenists?
                  You see the problem, I'm sure.<<

                  I read it as a problem myself --at first. But I soon corrected this impression
                  by a closer reading of Acts6.9-12 which shows that the legalist/antilegalist
                  dispute originated *among* Hellenists, not between Hellenists and 'Hebrews',
                  as Luke refers to the Aramaic speaking believers. The Synogogue of Freedmen,
                  where it all began, was apparently composed in part of former Jewish slaves
                  from 'Alexandria, Cyrene, Cilicia, and Asia' --Luke is explicit about this--in
                  other words Greek speaking diaspora Jews. Now these are some of the very people
                  whom the 7 were commissioned to 'serve' as agents or diakonoi of the 12. And
                  Stephen was functioning in this service when 'some arose to dispute... etc.'
                  They then stirred up 'the people, the elders, and the scribes,' against Stephen
                  etc etc. So when Philip, via Luke, says 'the Hellenists wanted kill' (the
                  converted) Saul, he was talking about the ones left in Jerusalem, when he
                  (Philip) and the other Greek speaking, antilegalist partisans of Stephen had
                  been chased out out. Its a little complicated but not nearly complicated enough
                  to defy analysis.

                  Mike again:
                  >>And indeed, 9.30 says nothing about staying
                  at anybody's house. Likely Caesarea was simply a convenient port of entry
                  and departure for certain locations, and Philip came to reside there after
                  Paul had passed thru (in spite of the chronology suggested by the ending of
                  chapter 8). But it isn't necessary to speculate that Saul got the temple
                  saying from Philip at the time of his (Saul's) passing thru Caesarea in
                  Acts 9.30 - he had presumably become acquainted with it years earlier,
                  before his conversion, at the "trial" of Stephen! Indeed, it must have been
                  one of the charges upon which the persecution at that time was based!<<

                  >>*Philip came to reside there after Paul had passed thru (in spite of the
                  chronology suggested by the ending of chapter 8).*<<

                  The end of ch8 is only part of the story. Philip had 4 daughters 'who
                  prophesied.' If we assume that the oldest was 21 yr old at the time of Luke's
                  stay --a probable minimum-- then Philip had already begun his family about 20
                  years before at the time of Paul's escape. He had to be making a home someplace
                  in Samaria. Why not Caesarea, the site of his later home?

                  I dont suggest I have proved any of this. I am a geologist cum historian. I try
                  to link all known facts which can be objectively ferreted out of the (rocks cum)
                  texts together in the most probable manner. So I pose this dependence of Luke's
                  Acts6.1-9.30 on the family tradition of Philip as an admission (not a proof) of
                  the most likely scenario to be in accord with historical truth. And of course,
                  it is just waiting for someone to drop a (reductio ad ab)surd(um) into the
                  punchbowl. Two nice tries (and much appreciated), but no cigar yet, Mike.
                  There is more to reply to but I have to beg off til tomorrow.

                  --
                  Best wishes, Odell

                  Odell McGuire
                  omcguire@...
                  Prof. Geology Em., W&L
                  Lexington, VA
                • Michael Grondin
                  ... If I want a cigar, it looks like I ll have to buy my own (as usual). I hope that in tomorrow s reply you ll give your reasons for rejecting what
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 15, 2000
                    Odell McGuire wrote:
                    >Two nice tries (and much appreciated), but no cigar yet, Mike.
                    >There is more to reply to but I have to beg off til tomorrow.

                    If I want a cigar, it looks like I'll have to buy my own (as usual). <g> I
                    hope that in tomorrow's reply you'll give your reasons for rejecting what
                    appears to be the most straightforward explanation, namely that Saul became
                    familiar with the Temple saying during his activities in the persecution of
                    Stephen and the Hellenists. Else what did he think they were being
                    prosecuted for? (Others also believed that Jesus was "the anointed one",
                    and they weren't run out of town, so it seems that can't be it.)

                    As I said in my note:
                    >... it isn't necessary to speculate that Saul got the temple
                    >saying from Philip at the time of his (Saul's) passing thru Caesarea in
                    >Acts 9.30 - he had presumably become acquainted with it years earlier,
                    >before his conversion, at the "trial" of Stephen! Indeed, it must have been
                    >one of the charges upon which the persecution at that time was based!

                    Mike
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    ... Mike, I would just like to note that many scholars cast considerable doubt of the idea that Paul was in Jerusalem during the persecution of Stephen, or
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 15, 2000
                      On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Michael Grondin wrote:
                      > Odell McGuire wrote:

                      > >Two nice tries (and much appreciated), but no cigar yet, Mike.
                      > >There is more to reply to but I have to beg off til tomorrow.
                      >
                      > If I want a cigar, it looks like I'll have to buy my own (as usual).
                      > <g> I hope that in tomorrow's reply you'll give your reasons for
                      > rejecting what appears to be the most straightforward explanation,
                      > namely that Saul became familiar with the Temple saying during his
                      > activities in the persecution of Stephen and the Hellenists.

                      Mike,

                      I would just like to note that many scholars cast considerable doubt of
                      the idea that Paul was in Jerusalem during the persecution of Stephen, or
                      that he had anything at all to do with the persecution of Stephen. Koester
                      makes this case quite well, for example.

                      So it may be doubted that this is the most straightforward explanation.

                      Regards,

                      Yuri.

                      Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                      Reality is that which, when you stop believing
                      in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
                    • Michael Grondin
                      ... It may be, then, that I am about to be educated by Odell in this area. I only wish that you had provided something more - such as a short statement of the
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 15, 2000
                        Yuri wrote:
                        >I would just like to note that many scholars cast considerable doubt of
                        >the idea that Paul was in Jerusalem during the persecution of Stephen, or
                        >that he had anything at all to do with the persecution of Stephen.

                        It may be, then, that I am about to be educated by Odell in this area. I
                        only wish that you had provided something more - such as a short statement
                        of the *grounds* on which these scholars cast their "considerable doubt".
                        Again, as I've stated before, it's of no help to make statements about what
                        scholars believe. The reader needs to know *why* they believe as they do,
                        so as to make possible one's own assessment of the strength of those
                        positions, supporting evidence, etc. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to
                        authority.

                        >Koester makes this case quite well, for example.

                        Where? And what's the case? (Needn't be book-length - a few pithy sentences
                        should do.) I'm aware, of course, that the presumed "historical account" in
                        Acts is not to be generally trusted, but why not this particular point?

                        >So it may be doubted that this is the most straightforward explanation.

                        It "may be doubted", but there's nothing in your note to indicate the basis
                        of that doubt.

                        Mike
                      • odell mcguire
                        ... saying from Philip at the time of his (Saul s) passing thru Caesarea in Acts 9.30 - he had presumably become acquainted with it years earlier, before his
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 15, 2000
                          Mike wrote:
                          >>But it isn't necessary to speculate that Saul got the temple
                          saying from Philip at the time of his (Saul's) passing thru Caesarea in
                          Acts 9.30 - he had presumably become acquainted with it years earlier,
                          before his conversion, at the "trial" of Stephen! Indeed, it must have been
                          one of the charges upon which the persecution at that time was based!<<

                          Absolutely. I should have said so myself. I believe Luke's account of the
                          presence of Saul at the stoning of Stephen as related in Acts7.58-8.1 is not
                          only based on fact but accurate in detail. (Tho I would lke to hear Koester's
                          argument mentioned by Yuri.) But how did *Luke* come by this seemingly solid
                          information? According to the hypothesis we are currently testing Luke picked
                          it up as part of Philip's family tradition some 25 yrs later when he and Paul
                          were staying at Philips house in Caesarea (Acts 21.8-15). So where did *Philip*
                          get the information? We might possibly postulate the presence of Philip at the
                          same event, but there is no textual evidence for it and it would be a little
                          strange if it got left out of Luke's account by chance. Certainly it would have
                          formed a part of the tradition as related to Luke. And so it is with the other,
                          numerous activities of Saul mentioned in Acts6.1-9.30. So you may be even more
                          right than you suspect. Paul has to be the *ultimate* source of information on
                          the early activities of Saul. But he is always called 'Saul' in this part of
                          Acts, even after his conversion. And his activities, whether in Damascus,
                          Jerusalem, or the Palestinian countryside, seem to be viewed from the Samaria of
                          Philip, with whose stories they are inseperably intertwined. So the 'necessity'
                          of of this Caesarea conference or some kind of early conference between Saul and
                          Philip depends on what Philip knew and when he knew it, to paraphrase a former
                          senator from NCar, and not on Paul's knowledge. In other words, the conference
                          is an *implication* of the working hypothesis which is being tested, and I
                          merely wished to point out that what we can glean from the texts is entirely
                          consistent with such a conference and, indeed, points in that direction.

                          Of course if Koester has convincing arguments, the bottom falls out of all my
                          theories. And yours too.

                          Are we having fun yet?

                          Its daylight and I have to feed my animals.


                          --
                          Best wishes, Odell

                          Odell McGuire
                          omcguire@...
                          Prof. Geology Em., W&L
                          Lexington, VA
                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                          Mike, When we have the testimony of Acts come into conflict with that of the Epistles of Paul, generally the Epistles can be preferred. The view that Paul was
                          Message 12 of 25 , Aug 16, 2000
                            Mike,

                            When we have the testimony of Acts come into conflict with that of the
                            Epistles of Paul, generally the Epistles can be preferred. The view that
                            Paul was completely unknown in Jerusalem until much later is well
                            supported by Gal 1, so this is what Koester and others base their case on.
                            Here's the relevant part,

                            Galatians 1

                            15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called
                            me by his grace, was pleased
                            16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among
                            the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
                            17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were
                            apostles before I was, but I went immediately into
                            Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
                            18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get
                            acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
                            19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's
                            brother.
                            20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no
                            lie.
                            21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.
                            22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that
                            are in Christ.
                            23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly
                            persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to
                            destroy."
                            24 And they praised God because of me.

                            Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew from Asia Minor, and all of his early
                            activities are generally associated with this area and Syria. It seems
                            like in Gal Paul is narrating his first ever visit to Jerusalem, that was
                            a private visit. He stayed with Peter for fifteen days and didn't see many
                            other movement leaders. And he says that he was otherwise "personally
                            unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ". But this hardly
                            squares with him being some kind of a big man in Jerusalem before
                            conversion.

                            Koester's INTRODUCTION TO THE NT is where more details can be found.

                            Best,

                            Yuri.

                            Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

                            I doubt, therefore I might be.
                          • Mike Grondin
                            ... Not so. It only means they hadn t met him personally. But let s break this last sentence of yours into several parts: 1. Did Paul have any role at all in
                            Message 13 of 25 , Aug 16, 2000
                              --- Yuri wrote:
                              >The view that Paul was completely unknown in Jerusalem until much
                              >later [than the time of the persecution of the Hellenists -MG] is
                              >well supported by Gal 1 ... Here's the relevant part ...
                              >
                              > 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that
                              > are in Christ.
                              > 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted
                              > us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
                              >
                              >... It seems like ... Paul is narrating his first ever visit to
                              >Jerusalem. ... "personally unknown to the churches of Judea that
                              >are in Christ" ... hardly squares with him being some kind of a
                              >big man in Jerusalem before conversion.

                              Not so. It only means they hadn't met him personally. But let's break
                              this last sentence of yours into several parts:

                              1. Did Paul have any role at all in the persecutions (which may have
                              taken place in 36CE upon the installation of a new High Priest)? I
                              think this is undeniable.

                              2. Did Paul have a *major* role? This seems far more questionable.
                              Luke's account gives him one, but Luke is interested in elevating his
                              (Paul's) status, so we can't put too much reliance on that. Gal 1
                              gives him one, especially with the word 'the' ("THE man who formerly
                              persecuted us" - as opposed to 'A man who ...'). But here again, the
                              account is being written by someone (in this case, Paul himself) who
                              wants to elevate Paul. So maybe Paul was nothing more than a sort of
                              "policeman" during the persecution, as some have suggested. My own
                              intuition is that that's unlikely, but I can't think of any
                              relatively untainted evidence to the contrary.

                              3. Was Paul in Jerusalem during the persecution? Well, first I don't
                              buy your suggestion that Gal 1 implies, or even "sounds as if", Paul
                              had never been in Jerusalem before. That would mean that he had
                              never, for example, made a pilgrimmage to Jerusalem for any of the
                              festivals. Being the kind of a footloose guy that we know him to have
                              been, this seems highly unlikely. But was he there *during the
                              persecution*? And, more specifically, did his activities during the
                              persecution take place in Jerusalem, in Judea outside of Jerusalem,
                              or even outside Judea? I myself don't have any strong intuitions
                              about this, but it does seem to me (on the basis of (1) above) that
                              one has to match the location of the persecution with the location of
                              Paul. It won't do to claim, for example, that the persecution was
                              limited to Jerusalem (or Judea), but Paul wasn't there.

                              Anyway, I feel we're drifting further and further away from "the
                              dock". I guess it's up to Odell to say how all this affects his and
                              Kevin's search for the source of "the Temple saying".

                              Mike
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.