PTWCOI = the community of the STULOI

From: Shaughn Daniel (
Date: Tue Apr 23 1996 - 08:03:32 EDT

Carl Conrad spake thus saying:

>Very interesting. Throws a different light on matters if we read Paul in
>Galatians 2:10 as saying " ... however, we should remember the street
>people [or 'the homeless']." Furthermore, I've just noticed something I
>never noticed before, that Gal 2:10 does NOT specificy these PTWCOI as
>being members of the Jerusalem church, as it has always been understood.
>And now, as I think on screen, another purely speculative ramification of
>Gal 2:10 teases my mind: IF "PTWCOI" should be a designation for the
>missionaries sent to evangelize in accordance with the Missionary Discourse
>parallels in the Synoptic Gospels, which have at least occasionally been
>thought to be post-Easter regulations for missionary work in the primitive
>community, then perhaps the "collection" that Paul conscientiously sought
>from his Gentile congregations was never intended to relieve poverty in the
>Jerusalem church but rather to promote its missionary activities? What
>think ye about that?

Carl, the following thoughts are not as clear as I could wish, but are
submitted here for mutual edification and discussion:

PTWCOI in Gal 2.10 could refer to members of the early community when
compared to Ro 15.25f, the PTWCOI TWN AGIWN TWN EN IEROUSALHM. But that
doesn't mean that the PTWCOI and the AGIWN are synonymous because AGIWN is
a partitive genitive. The collection in Ro is grounded in the
responsibility to "the poor," interpreted by Schlier and Bammel as an
abbreviation of a messianic honorific title for the earliest Jerusalem
community (perhaps in connection with the sermon on the mount--MAKARIOI OI
I don't recall. Their "blessedness," however, to read back between the
lines, rests not only in possessing and/or belonging to the kingdom of
heaven, but also in directing it).

Somewhere in the great debate of Gal is the idea that Paul's opponents were
accusing him of a. dependence on men and b. a mishandling of apostolic
responsibilities. This comes most in focus when one argues for a collection
as a substitution of a form of temple taxes in the earliest community (K.
Holl). The argumentational logic of Gal 1-2 would seek to a. show Paul's
independence from "men" and b. a proper handling of apostolic
responsibilities (like in the collection: Paul has good marks is the claim
of Paul himself). Paul's collection should prove that he is working in
conjunction with/for the PTWCOI of Jerusalem (James, Cephas, and John are
the STULOI "pillars"). Of course, what happened with the collection once it
reached Jerusalem is another matter altogether. For the moment, however, we
are just focussing on Paul's motives for the collection, which can be
summarized as: 1. indebtedness and responsibility to the PTWCOI of
Jerusalem (Ro), 2. the agreement between Paul and the "pillars" and HIS
subsequent "eagerness" to do it (Ga; notice the change from plural to
singular in 2:10), and 3. to enhance the fellowship between Gentile and
Jewish groups in the early church (Cor--where "abundance" balances out

Rohde asks an interesting question in his discussion of Gal 2.10:
"Auffaellig ist, dass Paulus in diesem Vers wieder aus dem Plur. in den
Sing. uebergeht. Ist das moeglicherweise ein Hinweis auf die Trennung von
Barnabas, von der Apg. 15.37-40 berichtet?" ("It is noticable that Paul in
this verse goes from the plural to the singular. Is that possibly a hint at
the separation from Barnabas which Acts 15.37-40 reports?" my translation;
Rohde ThHK 93f). At this point, my answer to this question is, of course,
unsatisfactory for thesis purposes: I don't know. But I'm not writing a
thesis on the subject, so it will have to do for now.

Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT