The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Letters

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Robert,

Acts says this about Apollos:

24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit,[d] he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Acts has Paul rejected by the Jews of Corinth, so he preaches to the gentiles and has some success. Thus Apollos is the first to convert the Jews of Corinth, after Paul converts the Gentiles.

Likewise Paul finds that Apollos has success with the Jews of Ephesus where he has none:

19 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland[a] country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.[c] 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, we get confirmation that Ephesus had a Church before Paul came. He himself says he has never been to Ephesus. Obviously Apollos has converted the Jews of Ephesus before Paul arrives and fails to convert them.

Corinth and Ephesus in the letters and Acts both give the same story. In Ephesus, Apollos succeeds with the Jews and then Paul succeeds with the gentiles. In Corinth, we get Paul failing with the Jews and succeeding with the Pagans, and we get Apollos succeeding with the Jews. In both cases Apollos is successful with the Jews and Paul fails with the Jews, but succeeds with the gentiles.

Both Acts and Thessalonikians has no Apollos in Thessaloniki, but it does have Paul following his pattern of success with the gentiles, but failure with the Jews.

Acts: 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. 5 But the Jews[a] were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. 6 And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, 7 and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. 9 And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds. 14 Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea,

The last we hear about Apollos, he is in Ephesus again and associated with Paul: (from 1 Corinthians 16:12) Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity.

Apollos is given credit for creating the first church in Proconsular Asia at Ephesus. Acts wants us to know that he did a bad job there, only converting people to the baptism of John. 1 Corinthians gives Paul the credit for "planting the seed," while it gives Apollos the credit for "watering the plant" in Corinth.

The text of Acts works in a very convoluted way to put down the achievement of Apollos. It assures us that Paul meets Aquila and Prisca in Corinth. They have arrived from Rome. Paul gets kicked out of Corinth and he goes with Aquila and Prisca to Ephesus:

18. 2And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. 4And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks...
18After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothersc and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. 19And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there

The way it works out is that Paul teaches Aquila and Prisca/Priscilla in Corinth and they all go to Ephesus, but Paul has to leave because he is under a vow not to preach in Ephesus. Aquila and Prisca then meet Apollos and clue him in on Paul's gospel. They send him back to Corinth, where somehow he is more successful at proving Paul's Gospel to the Jews than Paul was.

Since the writers of these text both Acts and the Pauline epistles are Pauline aficionados, we have to wonder how much they have whitewashed the roll of Apollos in spreading Christianity, in order to build up Paul's roll in it.

One can easily imagine that they are turning things upside down and Corinth was first planted by Apollos and Paul did a bad job of watering it. One can also imagine that Apollos had everything to do with the conversion of Thessaloniki and Paul nothing to do with it.

But this type of speculation assumes that the text is relating historical information albeit naturally distorted. I think the form and ideology of the text is what we really have to concentrate on. The text will explain itself and its mythology, not from histories, but from other mythologies.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[beowulf]

Hi Philosopher Jay,

The passage of acts you are quoting from says


Acts 18

“24 Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately27And when he wished to cross over to Achaia, the believers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. On his arrival he greatly helped those who through grace had become believers, 28for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Messiah is Jesus.”

The passage says that there was an ignorant Jew [though he knew only the baptism of John]


The knowledgeable Christians in the synagogue had to pull him over to one side to instruct him


He was willing to lean and they sent the willing Jew away to learn


This Jew engaged in robust arguing with fellow Jews, which must be the reason for the inclusion of this trivial person in the political pamphlet that Acts is



NB. Why is it important to know whether or not Paul was the first one ever to speak to any assembly/church/synagogue?

[robert j]

Hi Jay,

I was hoping we could stay within the spirit of this thread. After all, you initiated this thread and gave it the title, "The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Letters". But oddly, in your initial post, you come up with an unusual list you called the "seven so-called "authentic" letters". Your list included Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians and left out Romans and Philippians --- without even a mention that your list deviated from the normative list.

In Pauline studies, the phrase < Paul's seven authentic letters > really needs no elaboration --- it is widely accepted as representing Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Anyone attempting to propose a different list as more authentic faces a significant burden of proof --- or at least needs to provide strong, reasonable arguments.

If you choose to use the much later Acts of the Apostles to characterize the life and times of Paul, then our basic assumptions are perhaps too far apart to result in beneficial interchanges on Paul. You did acknowledge that your "speculation assumes that the text is relating historical information albeit naturally distorted." Many scholars of early Christianity go much farther than your characterization in discounting the historical validity of Acts --- even including authors who write of the existence of an historical Jesus.

Professor Burton Mack, now retired, was a professor of early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology. In his book, "Who Wrote the New Testament?" (1995), Mack characterizes the Acts of the Apostles as (p. 230),

"… a fiction so well done that it has been read as factual history for nearly two thousand years …"

Professor James Tabor provides what I believe to be useful guidelines for Acts. Tabor is the chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina and specializes on Paul and Christian origins. In his book, "Paul and Jesus " (2012), which is primarily about Paul, Tabor writes (p. 229-230),

"Many historians are agreed that it merits the label, 'Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.' As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:

1. Never accept anything in Acts over Paul's own account in his seven genuine letters.

2. Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases.

3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use."

Using Tabor's guidelines, the only information of historical value about Apollos comes from Paul's characterizations in 1 Corinthians. Everything else --- including his Alexandrian origin, his method of baptism, his activities in Ephesus, and his facility with the scriptures --- has no "interpretive historical use."

I certainly don’t agree with a number of the conclusions in the books cited, but I believe both books are none-the-less excellent. And I do agree with the statements I've cited here.

In my studies of the Paulines, I believe the most logical and natural solution to the letters consists of the following --- Paul wrote a handful of letters to groups that he initiated as congregations of the Christ spirit in the mid-first century CE, and that Paul's letters represent the earliest extant writings of any believer in the Christ. I consider the letters historical, only sparsely interpolated, and a window on the mid-first century --- albeit one man's biased and self-interested version.

Relying heavily on the Acts of the Apostles and the pseudoepigraphic Ephesians, something "one can imagine" is the most confident statement you made supporting your claim that Apollos founded the congregation in Thessalonica.

And, so far I have seen no support at all for your assertion that Paul was not the founder of the Galatian congregation.

robert j.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Robert,

I agree that one has to be very careful in using the information in Acts. I am afraid that I have to rely on both information in Acts and the epistles for showing that the Galatia Church was not founded by Paul.

Acts 16.6 - Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the region Musia, they desired to go from there to Bithunia and The Spirit of Yeshua did not permit them.

The text explicitly says that the Holy Spirit kept them Paul from preaching in Phrygia and Galata. I assume that if the writer of Acts thought that Paul had founded a Church in Galatia, he would not hesitate to say so. Instead, he just says that Paul traveled through Galatia.

Again Acts notes: 18:23 After spending some time in Antioch, Paul set out from there and traveled from place to place throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
Acts does not say that he made disciples or a church, but that he strengthened the disciples who apparently became disciples through somebody else.

The message in Galatians is ambiguous:

12Brothers,c I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me.

It is hard to know what Paul means by "it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to at first." Is he saying that he was sick and delirious when he accidentally preached the gospel to them?

He does not say that he converted them or founded their church. Rather, he merely says that they treated him well and accepted him as an angel or Jesus Christ. People naturally tend to help sick people and give them aid and are generous with them. Again, Paul does not say that he baptized or converted them, only that since they left, they are following Jews from Jerusalem who are preaching another gospel then his gospel.

Contrast this ambiguity with what he clearly says about founding the churches in Thessalonika and Corinth:

1 Thessalonians 1.

4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. 6And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, 7so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

1 Corinthian 3.

6I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

10According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul does not hesitate to claim Corinth and Thessalonki as Churches that he started.

Also, unlike the epistles to Corinth and Thessaloniki where Paul names members of the church, in the epistle to the Galatians he does not mention a single name. Odd to found a church and not to remember the name of anybody in that church. This lack of naming churches members is only found in Ephesians, the other letter to a church not founded by Paul.

Given this evidence, I would tend to see Galatia as a church not founded by Paul.

I did make one mistake in my paradigm. I wrote that Galatians came after 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. Actually, Paul mentions sending a letter to the Galatians in 1 Corinthians. This strongly suggests Corinthians was written after Galatians. Thus I would say that the order should be:

• Good Churches: Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians
  Bad Churches: Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

I was hoping we could stay within the spirit of this thread. After all, you initiated this thread and gave it the title, "The Paradigmatic Rhetoric of Paul's Seven Authentic Letters". But oddly, in your initial post, you come up with an unusual list you called the "seven so-called "authentic" letters". Your list included Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians and left out Romans and Philippians --- without even a mention that your list deviated from the normative list.

In Pauline studies, the phrase < Paul's seven authentic letters > really needs no elaboration --- it is widely accepted as representing Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Anyone attempting to propose a different list as more authentic faces a significant burden of proof --- or at least needs to provide strong, reasonable arguments.

If you choose to use the much later Acts of the Apostles to characterize the life and times of Paul, then our basic assumptions are perhaps too far apart to result in beneficial interchanges on Paul. You did acknowledge that your "speculation assumes that the text is relating historical information albeit naturally distorted." Many scholars of early Christianity go much farther than your characterization in discounting the historical validity of Acts --- even including authors who write of the existence of an historical Jesus.

Professor Burton Mack, now retired, was a professor of early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology. In his book, "Who Wrote the New Testament?" (1995), Mack characterizes the Acts of the Apostles as (p. 230),

"… a fiction so well done that it has been read as factual history for nearly two thousand years …"

Professor James Tabor provides what I believe to be useful guidelines for Acts. Tabor is the chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina and specializes on Paul and Christian origins. In his book, "Paul and Jesus " (2012), which is primarily about Paul, Tabor writes (p. 229-230),

"Many historians are agreed that it merits the label, 'Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.' As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:

1. Never accept anything in Acts over Paul's own account in his seven genuine letters.

2. Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases.

3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use."

Using Tabor's guidelines, the only information of historical value about Apollos comes from Paul's characterizations in 1 Corinthians. Everything else --- including his Alexandrian origin, his method of baptism, his activities in Ephesus, and his facility with the scriptures --- has no "interpretive historical use."

I certainly don’t agree with a number of the conclusions in the books cited, but I believe both books are none-the-less excellent. And I do agree with the statements I've cited here.

In my studies of the Paulines, I believe the most logical and natural solution to the letters consists of the following --- Paul wrote a handful of letters to groups that he initiated as congregations of the Christ spirit in the mid-first century CE, and that Paul's letters represent the earliest extant writings of any believer in the Christ. I consider the letters historical, only sparsely interpolated, and a window on the mid-first century --- albeit one man's biased and self-interested version.

Relying heavily on the Acts of the Apostles and the pseudoepigraphic Ephesians, something "one can imagine" is the most confident statement you made supporting your claim that Apollos founded the congregation in Thessalonica.

And, so far I have seen no support at all for your assertion that Paul was not the founder of the Galatian congregation.

robert j.

[robert j]

Hi Jay,

Needless to say that I don't accept the passages from Acts as evidence. And the passages you present from Paul's letters and your argument from silence are not nearly convincing enough for me to give serious consideration to the possibility that Paul did not found the Galatian congregation --- or even for me to feel the need to provide a rebuttal. Just my opinion of course.

I do have a question for you. Where does Paul say that the troublemakers in Galatia were from Jerusalem?

You wrote about the congregation in Galatia,

"Paul does not say that he baptized or converted them, only that since they left, they are following Jews from Jerusalem who are preaching another gospel then his gospel."

robert j.

[beowulf]

Acts 16:6 can be used either way, for the existence of Pauline converts or against any primary contribution from Paul to the size of the herd in Galatia.

Galatians: introduction
USCCB

The Galatians to whom the letter is addressed were Paul’s converts, most likely among the descendants of Celts who had invaded western and central Asia Minor in the third century B.C. and had settled in the territory around Ancyra (modern Ankara, Turkey). Paul had passed through this area on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:6) and again on his third (Acts 18:23).
http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/0

Religion is like politics in that the same evidence can be used to support two opposite conclusions

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Robert,

Paul's whole discussion of his fights with the Jews in Jerusalem would be a long and pointless digression unless these Jews were the same people trying to get the Galatians to follow Jewish laws.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

Needless to say that I don't accept the passages from Acts as evidence. And the passages you present from Paul's letters and your argument from silence are not nearly convincing enough for me to give serious consideration to the possibility that Paul did not found the Galatian congregation --- or even for me to feel the need to provide a rebuttal. Just my opinion of course.

I do have a question for you. Where does Paul say that the troublemakers in Galatia were from Jerusalem?

You wrote about the congregation in Galatia,

"Paul does not say that he baptized or converted them, only that since they left, they are following Jews from Jerusalem who are preaching another gospel then his gospel."

robert j.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi beowulf,

In general, I agree that facts are often used to argue opposite sides of a question. However, it is also true that very often one side ignores the facts or interprets them in a fantastic way to reach their conclusions.

If I said "Daniel Dennett traveled through Georgia and South Carolina on his way to Florida," would you conclude that he converted groups of Atheists along the way?

Acts 16.6 - Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the region Musia, they desired to go from there to Bithunia and The Spirit of Yeshua did not permit them.

Fromhttp://ancienthistory.about.com/od/anat ... aMinor.htm

The northern states of Asia Minor were Mysia (8200 sq mi), Bithynia (12,500), Pontus (22,800), and Paphlagonia (13,700); the central states were Lydia (9,300 sq. mi.), Phrygia (23,200), Galatia (14,100), and Cappadocia (30,700); the southern states were Caria (5,700 sq. mi.), Lycia (3,200), Pamphylia (8,800), and Cilicia (12,300), according to A Grammar of Geography, by J. Goldsmith.

I think only by ignoring the fact that Phrygia and Galatia were considered a part of Asia can we leap to the conjecture that Paul converted people in Galatia based on Acts 16.6.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Acts 16:6 can be used either way, for the existence of Pauline converts or against any primary contribution from Paul to the size of the herd in Galatia.

Galatians: introduction
USCCB

The Galatians to whom the letter is addressed were Paul’s converts, most likely among the descendants of Celts who had invaded western and central Asia Minor in the third century B.C. and had settled in the territory around Ancyra (modern Ankara, Turkey). Paul had passed through this area on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:6) and again on his third (Acts 18:23).
http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/0

Religion is like politics in that the same evidence can be used to support two opposite conclusions

[beowulf]

Gosh!
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops writes:
The Galatians to whom the letter is addressed were Paul’s converts, most likely among the descendants of Celts who had invaded western and central Asia Minor in the third century B.C. and had settled in the territory around Ancyra (modern Ankara, Turkey). Paul had passed through this area on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:6)
http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/0

You affirm that Acts 16:6 supports your interpretation.

This kind of situation between intelligent and honest people cannot be resolved by one of them-or both- shouting louder and louder forever. If the question dividing them is important, they should look for additional information elsewhere. If the question is not important –as it is the case with this one –then Acts should be forgotten and tea be served for the participants in the discussion.

[robert j]

Hi Jay,

PhilosopherJay wrote,

"Paul's whole discussion of his fights with the Jews in Jerusalem would be a long and pointless digression unless these Jews were the same people trying to get the Galatians to follow Jewish laws."

Attempting to establish such an important conclusion requires evidence, or at least a well-developed argument. To support your assertion that the troublemakers for Paul's Galatian congregation were from Jerusalem, you have provided only a one-sentence argument from incredulity.

What, you imply, what else could it be? Would it be, as you claim, "a long and pointless digression"? I believe a very different interpretation provides a better fit with the evidence.

You characterized Paul's interactions with the Jerusalem group as "fights". Perhaps the incident in Antioch could fit that description --- but not the meeting with the "pillars" in Jerusalem.

Backing up a bit to set the stage --- The letter to the Galatians is primarily Paul's defense against some who were promoting certain Jewish practices, especially circumcision, for his congregation. He makes his arguments in chapter 3 and beyond, but he uses chapter 2 to claim the support of others for his position.

And what better source of approval for his position could Paul use? Who better than the earliest believers in the Christ spirit, and the figures of sect leadership --- in Jerusalem, the touchstone of Jewish authority?

On the big issue of circumcision, Paul made the important claim that his Greek companion Titus was not compelled by the group in Jerusalem to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3). According to Paul's story, the meeting in Jerusalem concluded with the "pillars" giving approval to Paul's "gospel of the uncircumcision" and approval of the work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7-9).

Paul used his story of the meeting in Jerusalem and the incident in Antioch to bolster his authority and his bona fides with his Galatian congregation --- to set the stage for his arguments to follow.

Regardless of your incredulity, as far as I am aware there is no convincing evidence in Paul's authentic letters to establish the conclusion that the troublemakers in Galatia were from Jerusalem.

robert j.