Jerusalem or Damascus? Part 2 of 3

Having previously made the case for the view that Paul persecuted Christians in Damascus, not Jerusalem, here I summarize scholarly arguments in favour of the traditional view. Of course, if we could accept uncritically the evidence of Acts, there would be no discussion. It will be necessary therefore to turn to Paul's letters. Galatians 1 is front and centre once again.

Galatians 1.13-14 reads:

"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."

Martin Hengel makes two points about this text. First is the connection between Paul's advancement in Judaism and his persecution of the church; the latter is parallel to the former. Second is the Pharisaic colour of Paul's progress in the "ancestral traditions" (cf. also Phil 3.5). Josephus regularly associates similar terminology with the Pharisees (cf. Ant. 13.297, 408; 17.41; 20.43; Life 191; also Mark 7.5 and Acts 22.3). Since Pharisaism as a movement was limited to Judaea, and most prominent in Jerusalem, the most likely context for these activities is pre-eminently Jerusalem. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 35-38; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 29-34, 41-42.

Evidence is also drawn from the very text on which the Damascus interpretation is based: Gal 1.22-23:

"I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, 'The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.'"

Hengel's explanation for this text assumes Paul's persecution of Christians in Hellenist Synagogues in Jerusalem. Thus to the majority Aramaic speaking Christians of Jerusalem and Judaea Paul was unknown by sight. Only to the Hellenists whom he persecuted (the "us" in the above verse) was Paul known by sight. Obviously, this explanation rests on extra-textual data concerning Paul's persecution.

Arland Hultgren (JBL 95 [1976]: 97-111) offers a different explanation. His argument rests, in part, I think, on the premise that the "us" (the persecuted ones) in the report circulating in the Judaean churches is most naturally identified with the Judaean churches themselves; the text offers no other possibility.

Concerning the phrase "unknown by sight," he argues that the point is no more than that from the time of God's revelation to him (1.15-16), Paul stayed out of the sight of the Judaean churches; that is, he was unkown to them as an apostle. Three arguments support this.

The context. In Galatians 1, Paul is concerned to demonstrate his independence from Jerusalem and by extension the Judaean churches; that is the very specific point he wants to underscore. The terminology. The word for "sight," literally, "face" (Gr. prosopon), is elsewhere (2 Cor 8.24; 1 Thess 2.17) used to speak of personal presence. That Paul was unknown by sight means simply that he stayed away. The structure. Paul delineates a sequence of events (then...then...then, Gr. epeita, 1.18, 21, and 2.2), each of which is followed by a statement demonstrating his independence (1.19, 22, and 2.2; introduced by the conjunction de in Greek). These statements apply specifically to the intervals. Paul only claims, therefore, that, after the meeting with Peter in Jerusalem (1.18), he passed into Syria and Cilicia without being seen by the Judaean churches.

One might also point out that if Jerusalem was the centre of Paul's activity then there is no necessary contradiction with Paul's claim that the Judaean churches did not know him. Since he had already spoken of Jerusalem in v. 18, that city is not necessarily included in the "Judaean churches" in v. 22.

Such is the case for Jerusalem. Do you find it convincing?

(I still haven't figured out how to post Greek fonts.)