yalla

I'm reading about Paul at the moment and got to the bit in Galatians where he says god entrusted him to preach to the gentiles.And I wondered why [just] them.The reason can't be connected to Judea, the "pillars" of Jerusalem or Peter's cornering of the market of preaching to the circumcised, 'cos paul has'nt met them yet-won't for years.And his message is the same as theirs [ at least according to Paul]. Paul claims to be a Jew, just like Peter, and the job specification came from the same boss.Just idle speculation of course but care to venture an opinion or provide a plausible answer?

Chris Weimer

Because the Jews wouldn't believe him (and look! they still don't). Any Jew can easily pick apart the gospel's weak use of "prophecy".

andrewcriddle

'ev tois ethnesin' (Galatians 1:16) may well mean 'among the Gentiles' ie in non-Jewish areas of the mediterranean world.

IMO Paul here refers to the geographical area in which he was called to preach. This meant that the great majority of his converts would be Gentile but not all of them. (FWIW 2 Corinthians 12:24 probably implies that Paul frequently preached in Jewish synagogues and was flogged for causing disturbance there.)

Andrew Criddle

yalla

Mmmm.Nice suggestion.But then Gal.1.16 should say that "..I tried it on the Jews and they giggled so I stuck to the rest".And Peter was preaching to the Jews with, I presume, at least some success.And just how informed would the average Jew be about Paul's LXX references and his sophisticated arguments which on the surface appear plausible [ I just read the seed of Abraham stuff and it has the earmarks of a good sales pitch, probably well above the education level of the majority of ordinary Jews I suspect].Your suggestion would imply some degree of dishonesty on Paul's part [I have no great problem with that in itself] in claiming god initially directed him at the gentiles.By the way, I have no preformed theory here [well maybe just a slight suspicion that it MAY be related to Paul not actually being Jewish] and am just trying on some thoughts.

yalla

Thanks Andrew.I suggest that Paul actually intends the gentiles as people rather than as regions.I'm basing that partly on Gal.2.7ff which I read as people-oriented.As well as that he refers to the tiff with Peter in Antioch which suggests that their roles were not separated on geographic grounds - the preacher to the circumcised and the preacher to the uncircumcised being in the same place.I welcome suggestions incidentally but can we keep Acts out of this [not that it has been referred to yet].I have a sneaky voice suggesting to me that all was not as Paul states, that there is a spin being practised by him.On the issue of 2 Cor 11.24: I reckon that this shows Paul as a real whinger, look at who has done him wrong..the Romans [rods],the sea , robbers, rivers, gentiles ,cities, wilderness, false brethren... I think Paul has a real persecution complex, everyone and everything is out to get HIM. Frankly I doubt his credibility because of this.

andrewcriddle

Galatians 2:7ff is referring to the situation as it had developed 14 years after Paul's conversion, and (particularly in the Greek) ther are differences in how things are phrased.

Eg Galatians 2:8 and 2:9 have 'eis ta ethne' which IIUC more straightforwardly means 'unto the Gentiles' than does 'ev tois ethnesin' in 1:16 and 2:2, which is probably better 'among the Gentiles'

Andrew Criddle

yalla

Thanks andrew, my RSV has the wording as you say and I appreciate your point.But we are still left with the previous suggestion that it has to be the gentiles because the Jews would not buy Paul's arguments..what is your opinion? It seems to me that just about all the commentaries on Paul that I have read assume his mission was to the gentile people and that a major issue of his writings is that of whether converts should be circumised or not etc and that reflects a people approach rather than regional.Do you have an opinion on my image of Paul as paranoid? tThanks for the comments.

andrewcriddle

IMO passages such as 1 Corinthians 9:20 indicate that Paul attempted where possible to preach Christ to Jews and Romans 9-11 indicate that Paul was deeply distressed by the failure of his fellow Jews to agree with him.

I think that Paul began with a vocation to preach the Gospel in Gentile areas, found that the great majority (though not all) of his converts were ethnic Gentiles and came to hold that it was his special mission to bring the Gospel to ethnic Gentiles who were the great majority of those who accepted his message.

Romans 9-11 IMO indicates Paul's hope that by preaching to ethnic Gentiles he would indirectly bring his fellow Jews to accept Christ.

Whether Paul was paranoid or not depends on how objective is his account of things. If he was (as I suspect) really getting beaten up regularly or worse as a result of his preaching then his statements in 2 Corinthians are entirely understandable.

Dharma

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity itself is at all Jewish (perhaps that is why Jews for the most part rejected Christ and Christianity)...

If we look at Roman Catholicism, it's completely European and based on European religion.

They take the name of God as "Christ" not "messiach" which is the Hebrew equivalent. They honor a whole host of saints and worship Mary with a Rosary.

Most of Roman scripture is in Latin -- not Hebrew.

Fortuna

By "Roman scripture" I assume that you refer to the NT. While it is true that later scripture in the Roman Christian church was latin, the early(pre-4th century CE) papyri and codexes are in fact written in greek. (except that one of the codexes is syriac, I believe, and a few other papyri).

In fact ,the majority of the early NT is in greek. Take for example ,the earliest fragment known, P52. Here is a pic of it. Notice that it is greek.

Now, that is not to necessarily say that they weren't Roman in origin. It is believed that many educated Romans seem to have been bilingual latin/greek. (and that may only be for reading and writing, of that I'm not certain)
If you have ever visited Pompeii, Herculaneum, or the Catacombs of Rome, you will notice that you see both greek and latin inscriptions.

According to tradition, and history, it was Jerome who translated the entire Hebrew scriptures and NT into latin, not that some parts weren't previously translated before then.

Point being, the majority of earliest papyri and codexes of the NT that we have are written in greek, not latin.