Re: PTWCOI = the community of the STULOI

From: Shaughn Daniel (
Date: Tue Apr 23 1996 - 13:25:17 EDT


The answer which follows is simplified and as brief as one 30 minute
sitting allowed, but the only answer to most of these questions relating to
"community collections," "missions," "Gentile-Jewish relations," etc. that
I can give here now. The Jewish community behind the Synoptics and Paul's
submission and/or working with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem after his
calling and Paul's post-Pharisaical position in Jerusalem and Antioch and
to what extent the diaspora synagogues were "controlled" from Jerusalem are
the bigger issues. Matthew is still the tax-collector, yes? "Render to
Caesar, what is Caesar's and to God, what is God's" is not that far away
from an ideological phrase summing up "designation of funds" thinking in
the earliest communities. "They held everything in common" from Lk's Ac
also would fit in here as well. That Tempelfeindlichkeit was no concrete
reality for the Jesus' movement, one wonders where and who is getting all
this money (directed away from the temple officials to Jesus' movement
deacons under the direction of first disciples) and from where and how is
it being distributed (election of Greek-speaking deacons in Ac calls this
problem and temporary solution to mind). Paul's problems are "authority"
problems, boiled down in simple terms. There are traces of tendencies
towards "community rules" in Corinthians (see the "as in all the church"
phrases). We don't find the receipts and numbers in Pauline letters, but
there are detailed-enough administrative issues to make us alert to a
bigger financial arrangement than previously suggested.

>> Is the reference to the Matthaean form of the beatitude yours or does it
>>come from
Schlier & Bammel?<<

I don't recall exactly, but I don't think Schlier & Bammel first off for
the gospels. They are commenting on Romans and then I parenthetically
mentioned Mt beatitude material (and didn't wish to include the comments
about how that relates to "curse" because it would just go on into eternity
with that). The reference would certainly be treated in Jeremias'
materials. I am timid to suggest too much for the gospel materials because
I'm not a gospels expert by any means. A quick look at Udo Schnelle
(Einleitung in das NT (1994) 277) has U. Luz and J. Roloff understanding Mt
as a Jewish-Christian book with the implication that NOT ONLY was Mt's
community open to Gentile mission, BUT WAS in the process of debate with
present juridicial authority of the Pharisees and synogogue rulers, which
could result in discipline (too a much lesser degree than stoning or
whipping and what not; issues concerning temple and synagogue financial
laxity incurring penalties and/or judgments), concerning their already
present Betrieb (functioning or business) in Gentile missions--which may be
an overstatement, seeing that it is an issue of Aramaic-speaking vs.
Greek-speaking earlier and only later develops into Gentile vs. Jew in Ac
and Paul.

But, of course, I couldn't fail to mention the importance of Lk as primary
evidence of second generation christianity and Paul's coming forth as the
representative. Hengel argues that the work of Lk has to be taken
seriously-- "als Quelle ernst nehmen"--insofar that Paul's letters are not
a representation of community theology like Lk, but apostolic-based
theology, namely, Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles as title authority, I

>> that PTWCOI should be an
"honorific" title; but if it IS, then my question would be, How did it
become that? (My first inclination is to say that, as soon as Paul said he
wanted to do missionary work among the Gentiles, they started begging him
for money from any churches he founded--but I'm hardly serious!)<<

I suppose by mirror-reading the strongest phrases in Pauline theology one
could suggest that Gentiles were a distant problem for Saul; non-law
abiding disciples/missionaries (like Stephen) who spoke Greek (I don't
want to call them Gentiles; Gentiles are different groups from
Greek-speaking Jewish missionaries, deacons, etc.) were his problem. So how
does PTWCOI get to be "honorific"? I don't know. STULOI in Gal is
"honorific," yes? My best guess is that PTWCOI gets "honorific" sometime in
the time period between Jewish community Mt redacted PTWCOI (Mt 5.3) and
second generation Gentile-tendential Lk redacted PTWCOI (Lk 6.20) if we
read them slowly enough to understand "Kingdom of God" theology in a
circulated document--in other words, their selection of words and lack of
explanation on Jesus' sayings could be an important point to consider the
already-happened transformation of terminology in the gospels and/or any
writer of the NT. Was it a self-title? I don't know. Surely someone has
written on this: titles used by and for early christians. But I don't know

I'm sorry that I cannot point to this and/or that passage at the moment. I
know that the above is very swift and painted in big strokes. But it all so
very intriguing, nit wahr? =)

Shaughn Daniel
Tuebingen, Germany

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