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

Re: [GTh] In Solomon's Portico

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Bond
    ... mission to Samaria is associated with a general scattering of the followers in Jerusalem due to Saul s persecution (see Acts 8:3-5), not any disagreement
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 7, 2003
      Mike Grondin writes:

      >>But Philip isn't described as "going his own way" in the sense you mean. His
      mission to Samaria is associated with a general "scattering" of the
      followers in Jerusalem due to Saul's persecution (see Acts 8:3-5), not any
      disagreement with Peter's leadership. Furthermore, the author of Acts
      (presumably Luke) could hardly have had a "preference for Jewish practices",
      since Paul was clearly his hero, and of course Paul was very much at odds
      with the Jerusalem leadership. The purpose of chapter 5, as I see it, is to
      invoke a supposed "golden age" before the persecutions started. Has nothing
      to do with an authorial preference for circumcision and other Jewish laws,
      though it might have to do with an authorial yearning for "the good old
      days" of commune-type living. Solomon's Portico, BTW, is also mentioned in
      Acts 3:11. It was apparently a real covered gateway area on the east side of
      the Temple. We can't suppose that it was chosen by the disciples for any
      symbolic reason - it may have been the only (or best) free spot available.
      Or it could be that they preferred the east side (for sunrise services?),
      and "Solomon's Portico" just happened to be the name of an area available

      Thomas Bond writes:

      Philip, as said above, is not presented as going his own way. Philip plays into the theme of Christian expansion from Jerusalem. Peter, however, is the hero of part 1 of Acts, and he is an "apostle" for the author of Acts, so he serves the role of legitimizing and completing Philip's work. With reference to Paul, however, he appears as a completely observant Jew in Acts. One can argue from the letters that Paul was sometimes observant. But I have a hard time believing that the historical Paul would have had Timothy circumcised, as happens in Acts. Moreover, Paul is never in conflict with Jerusalem Christians in Acts. It seems that the author of Acts, if s/he had any close knowledge of the historical Paul, intetntionally glossed over Paul's conflict with Jerusalem Christians that is evident, e.g., in Galatians 2. Some suggest, even, that the conflict with Barnabas in Galatians 2 is made benign in Acts 15 by focusing the separation between them on John Mark rather than Jew-gentile issues at Antioch.

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