(For part one and two see below.)
I've tried to present a cogent and evenly argued case for Damascus and then Jerusalem as the site of Paul's persecutions of the early Christians: Now I'll show my colours (or are they already clear?).
But first a few general observations on the state of the question.
Paul does not say in so many words where he persecuted Christians; he only leaves a hint that his "conversion" was associated with Damascus.
I think that from Galatians one can draw either conclusion--Damascus or Jerusalem--without doing serious harm to the text. The reason for this is simply that Paul did not intend to answer the question and, thus, the the matter is unclear.
Nevertheless, it is fairly certain that Paul on a previous occasion had already told the readers all about the activities of his former life (Gal 1.13; at the very least, someone told them). This means that the recipients of the letters were not expected to be able to infer from Paul's words the location of his persecution.
These last two points are particularly important because they indicate the problem, in this case, of trying to base one's answer solely on the present text (even if it is the primary source material).
However, I do think that one position is a little more likely than the other based on Paul's own words in Galatians. I'll tell you why and then offer some further thoughts on Knox's use (or exclusion) of the material in Acts.
The argument made from Gal 1.13-14 carries some weight, though it is possible to separate the place of Paul's training and the location of the persecution, even though the association is implied in the text. Furthermore, the language employed in Galatians 1.13-14 to describe Paul's progress in Judaism is not exclusively Pharisaic language. Torrey Seland (Biblica 83 [2002]: 449-471) has recently written an article demonstrating that very similar language is used by Philo, a Jew in a Diaspora setting. The language used in Gal 1.13-14 reflects a tradition of zeal/zealotry for Torah that was apparently not exclusive to Pharisees. Nevertheless, Paul, in another context, names himself a Pharisee and thus the association is quite possible in this case. So this argument lends weight to the Jerusalem view but is not airtight.
As for the statement concerning Damascus in 1.17, as stated, it does not answer the question where the persecution occurred, nor even directly where the revelation occurred. Though the latter is clearly implied, there's no reason the two had to occur in the same place. And we can be certain that Paul did not expect his readers to infer from the statement where the persecutions occurred.
I think that the report circulating in the Judaean churches about Paul (1.23) lends credence to the Jerusalem theory. I confess that for the longest time it never occurred to me that it could be read in a manner that challenges the traditional view. Such is the power of uncritical harmonization Knox might say! Perhaps. I still think it the slightly more plausible reading which identifies the persecuted ones, the "us", with (some) members of the Judaean churches themselves or persons from Jerusalem, with whom the churches would closely identify and who perhaps fled to such churches as a result of the persecution. It seems to be the simplest reading.
Finally, the statement in 1.22. How do I handle the phrase "unknown by sight"? I'm not sure which is the correct answer but there are three plausible options: (1) It implies that the Judaean churches did not even know what Paul looked like and, therefore, that he could not have persecuted them. No problem here. A reasonable argument can be made from the context to exclude Jerusalem from the Judaean churches (cf. 1.17-18). Furthermore, we do not know the extent of Paul's activities either within or outside Jerusalem. (2) The phrase means no more than that during the period under discussion (the time following Paul's conversion but preceding the events recorded in chapter 2) Paul had no personal contact with the Judaean churches; they had only an oral report concerning his change in life. (3) Hengel's solution, that the Judaean churches are Aramaic assemblies and the persecuted ones are Greek speaking Jewish Christians, is possible but not likely in my view; even if Paul only or primarily persecuted the Hellenists, his language in Galatians fails to reflect any such distinction in the church.
Because I think that the simplest understanding of the report does not divide between the persecuted ones and the Judaean churches (1.23; see above), I prefer the second option above but cannot be certain because the precise nuance of the Greek is unclear to me. (Any help?)
Well, this is the third really long post, and I haven't even touched on the use of Acts yet! (I promise to come up with some shorter posts in the future.) I think this three part series will require an appendix, which may be a first in blogdom! Stay tuned for some reflections on Knox's principle for the use of Acts in constructing a life of Paul.
I'm really interested in what you, the readers, are thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment