The study about Paul seemed to be problematic due to the sources of the description on who Paul is. This aggravates the minds of critical thinkers to ask, who is Paul? How do we know the real Paul? What are the sources through which we can identify Paul? There are two sources presented to us as media of knowing Paul. These sources are the book of Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of Paul. But which of these sources gives the authentic and accurate account of Paul. The major concentration of this work is to explore the authenticity and accuracy of Acts’ account of Paul. I will briefly explain the authorship of the Acts of the Apostles. Emphasis will be laid on these points: chronological account of acts on the personality of Paul, the account on his missionary journeys, his conversion and, his relationship with early Jerusalem church.
AUTHORSHIP
It is a generally accepted claim by New Testament scholars, that, the authorship of Acts is attributed to Luke. No one quarrels with this, its controversy lies in the accuracy of his account with regards to chronological life of Paul.
Who is Luke? In Acts 1:1, Luke identified himself as the author of the book of Acts of the Apostles and this confirms that it is a continuation of his Gospel. Many authors regard Luke as a companion of Paul. This is debatable and likely to be questioned. Elmer, I., argues that, “it is widely recognised that the data supplied by Luke in Acts is late and secondary, and scholars have long debated Luke’s historical reliability”. This could mean that the age gap between Paul and Luke is somehow distanced. There is a clear distinction between Paul’s teaching and Luke’s presentation of Paul. Jerome Biblical Commentary argues on the companionship of Luke to Paul saying, “ to admit this is not to admit that Luke was with Paul during the major part of his apostolic activity or while most of his letters were written. The author goes on to explain that, it is still a plausible hypothesis to authorship of acts. This idea is double barrelled. It is not definite to explaining Luke’s companionship to Paul.
ACTS’ CHRONOLOGICAL INFORMATION ABOUT PAUL
Acts of the Apostle is one of the longest books o the New Testament, containing 28 chapters and 1,003 verses. It explains the salvific plan of God for the new era through Jesus Christ. Our only significant source of information on the pre-Pauline period is the initial eleven chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, and therein lays certain problems. Ludemann, G., identifies a contradiction between world history and Lucan historical excurses of Paul. Elmer, I., argues that, “it is generally accepted that in composing Acts Luke has woven together disparate and conflicting traditions to present an artificially idyllic picture of primitive Christianity that glosses over all instances of conflict and division”. This argument is based on the inaccuracy of dates on Luke's historical data. The Acts is regarded as a sociological, historical, and a theological work describing the basement of early Christian community.
The framework for the chronology of Paul is irrefutable in his letter to the Galatians 1-2. It is the fundamental and valid standpoint for the life of Paul, but it is problematic, because it gave half-baked idea of the life of Paul. It is unfortunate that both Acts and the letters of Paul give no deep insight about Paul’s life before conversion. Darrell L. Bock accused Irenaeus of exaggeration on his claim that Luke was constantly with Paul. Marshall notes that, “this is a key reason why many doubt the historical value of Acts.” Vielhauer made a compactible and powerful view, detecting four inconsistencies between Paul and the portraits of Paul in Acts relating to natural law, Jewish law, Christology, and eschatology . He went on to say that Luke has a place for natural theology, (Acts 17), where as Paul in (Rom. 1). What does Acts of the Apostles tell us about Paul? The major concern is to see whether the letters of Paul compared to acts, might give us an understanding about geographical and chronological life of Paul. Victor P. Furnish, asks, “where shall we go to find Paul” and “where do we put him?” He identified Paul in two aspects, Paul in history and the churchly Paul.
However, many scholars, such as E. J. Goodspeed, G. Bornkamm , J. Murphy-O’Connor, M. Henge and J., do refer to Paul pre-Damascus. However, they do not attach any theological meaning to the pre-Damascus period in Paul’s life. Although they discuss Paul’s life before Damascus and investigate the pre-Damascus Paul, it is approached as nothing more than a subsidiary issue or a point of departure apart from the main issue.
The contribution of the author of Acts to the picture of Paul obviously does not consists only the same collection of individual tradition, in the linguistic refurbishing of the same, and in connecting to one another. The book of Acts seems to have its own theological agenda that rooted in the situation of the eve of the first century. J. Becker argues that Acts was not the work of Luke because, for him, the book was written years after Luke and Paul, definitely by the church fathers. This is an exaggerated reality because Luke’s account of history seems to synchronise with the secular world history. What is argued in Luke is not the authorship but the accuracy of his accounts to Paul. The basic argument to acts accuracy is centred more on the expeditions of Paul.
PAUL’S MISSIONARY JOURNEYS
Michael Grant in his book, Saint Paul, commends that, to write a history of Paul’s life and achievements demands not only a god sense of history but also a vast knowledge of the exegetical work done on Paul’s letters. But exegesis is the art of explaining and drawing out a philosophical, historical, literal interpretation of a piece of biblical literature. Why did Luke frame a wrong itinerary account of Paul? This throws one into serious thought to cipher which of the Pauls are the authentic Paul. In the discussion of the purpose of Acts, the author wishes to show the expansion and spreading of the gospel to the entire world.
Nonetheless, scholars have rejected the accuracy of Luke’s account of the journeys. Paul claimed to be an Apostle for the gentiles. His apostolic works were channelled towards the conversion of the Gentile communities. Both also concur that prior to this Paul was a persecutor of the church (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Acts 7:58; 8:1; 9:1–2). Acts states that at the time of the death of Stephen, Paul (Saul) was “a young man” (Acts 7:58), and Galatians 1:14 also implies that the “persecutor” was at least a young adult. The basic point here is that Luke duplicated Paul’s travel records. The letter to the Galatians counter-runs this acts travel data of Paul. Luke was trying to put his historical data to synchronise with the world history.
PAUL AND THE JERUSALEM CHURCH
Scholars have interpreted Paul’s encounter with the Jerusalem church as between Hebrews and the Gentiles. Ian Elmer regards it as the movement between Law-Observant Christian Judaism and Law-Free Christianity. Basically what Paul seeks for is not against the entire laws but against the segregation of the gentiles from the Christian communion because they were regarded as uncircumcised.
PAULINE THEOLOGY
The teachings of Paul have theological imports. Paul theology was based on christology, ecclesiology and eschatology. Ecclesiologically, he teaching was to unify the factions are seen among the Hebrew Christians and gentile proselytes. Paul always proclaims that Christ is not only for the Jews for the whole humanity.
CONCLUSION
The importance of Pauline teachings is highly regarded by the contemporary Christians. Some scholars regard him as their model. That is not a problem. But I will suggest that Paul should not be only understood theologically. It is scholarly to know the historical Paul so as to know his psychology. I think his temperament runs although his teaching. Above all his did a remarkable work in his approach towards the unity of the Christian community according to mind of Christ. For Christ prayed, Father, that they may be one (John 17:21).
REFERENCES
Alexander, L. C. A., “Chronology of Paul” in Hawthorne, Gerald F.; Martin, Ralph P. ; Reid, Daniel G.: Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993).
Becker, J., Paul Apostle to the Gentiles, Trans. O. C. Dean, Jr., Westminster: John Knox Press, 1993.
Bock, D. L., Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Michigan: Baker Academy, 2007.
Bock, D. L., The Proclamation of Prophecy and Pattern: The Lucan Old Testament
Christology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series, 1986.
Bornkamm, G., Paul, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971).
Brown, R. E., (ed.)The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, London: Chapman, 1969.
Donaldson, T. L., Paul and the gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World, Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1997.
Elmer, I. J., Paul, Jerusalem and Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in Its Broadest Historical Context (WUNT II.258; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007)
Goodspeed, E. J., Paul, (Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1947)
Grant, M., Saint Paul, New York: Phoenix Press, 2000.
Hengel, M., The Pre-Christian Paul, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1991),
J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
Ludemann, D., Early Christianity According to Traditions in Acts (English Trans): Minneappolis 1989.
Marshall H. I., David Peterson: Witness to the Gospel: the theology of Acts
Theology, Biblical Studies: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.
Riesner, R., Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology, Michigan: Ederdmans’ Press, 1998.
Vielhauer, P., “On Paulinism of acts” in Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in honour of Paul Schubert. Edited by Keck, L. E., and J. L. Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1966.
LAWRENCE UZOEGBU
No comments:
Post a Comment