My, Acts of the Apostles 9:1-7 is an exciting bit, isn't it? "Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord...," and later, while traveling to Damascus, "there shines round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me" (King James Version, as it is beautiful and is "The Bible" to oh, so many).
All of this was written by the same person who wrote Luke (How do we know? Read the introductions to both the Gospel and Acts, for a start.). Luke wrote more than 25 years after the events related, in Greek. Soon after Saul/Paul's conversion (as recounted in Acts 13:16-41), Luke puts a speech into Paul's (as he can now be known) mouth, even including a rhetorical flourish or two. It's a dandy speech, recounting Salvation History as it leads to Christ, a favorite Lucan theme. All of this leads to the question: How Greek were these people?
Saul/Paul knew Greek. He was born and raised in the Greek-speaking world. He visited the marketplaces, the temples, the magistrates' courts (Oh, to be able to see them in the same condition as Paul did!). They were part of his daily life; he even wrote about the propriety of buying meat in the market of Corinth. Although he doesn't exhibit much talent for Greek rhetorical composition (alas), he does know who he is and among whom he lives.
Yet on his trip to Greek-speaking Damascus, Saul/Paul met Christ, who spoke to him. In what language? Greek? Hebrew? The tongue of the heart's understanding? And to whom was he on his way to persecute? "Christians," is the usual answer, but that may not be correct. Gunther Bornkamm, the great Pauline scholar, posited that Paul took on as his quest the eradication of Hellenism from the synagogue. When Jesus asked, "Why do you persecute me," Saul may well have been perplexed; he had been confronting an idea, not a person. Luke does not tell us exactly how, but apparently, Saul/Paul somehow got the message. After a few more tussles with the Hellenists, he broke from the synagogue and began to minister to the same people he had persecuted. This was the beginning of a Christianity from Judaism.
Paul developed a Grecian taste. Always honoring the Mosaic Law, he nonetheless immersed himself among the people called "Gentile." I always believe that his claim that there is neither Jew nor Greek was a tad disingenuous. As it had conquered Rome, the Greek world conquered Paul. And the multi-faceted Greek language conquered the Christian Scriptures, and provides biblical scholars with a myriad of possibilites as to what Paul actually said when he used certain words, a pastime always good for an argument (Today's New International Version, anyone?).
Stodgy, sturdy, legalistic Latin eventually took over in Western Europe, and robbed that Church of a lively sense of debate (except for some of those sparkling Medieval disputations). The relic of Greek in the Roman Liturgy ("Kyrie eleison") was not enough. Western Christianity needs to develop the Grecian taste, even as the Roman Church appears to be embracing the Latin liturgy once again. Flexibility of thought in the classical vein, coupled with the knowledge of human-ness of the 21st century, may well lead to a Renaissance of thought. As a colleague of MFoD stated: "The Church doesn't need new laws; it needs a new anthropology." The Greeks, humanists par excellence, provide the road map to Damascus. All we need to do is get on the horse.
All of this was written by the same person who wrote Luke (How do we know? Read the introductions to both the Gospel and Acts, for a start.). Luke wrote more than 25 years after the events related, in Greek. Soon after Saul/Paul's conversion (as recounted in Acts 13:16-41), Luke puts a speech into Paul's (as he can now be known) mouth, even including a rhetorical flourish or two. It's a dandy speech, recounting Salvation History as it leads to Christ, a favorite Lucan theme. All of this leads to the question: How Greek were these people?
Saul/Paul knew Greek. He was born and raised in the Greek-speaking world. He visited the marketplaces, the temples, the magistrates' courts (Oh, to be able to see them in the same condition as Paul did!). They were part of his daily life; he even wrote about the propriety of buying meat in the market of Corinth. Although he doesn't exhibit much talent for Greek rhetorical composition (alas), he does know who he is and among whom he lives.
Yet on his trip to Greek-speaking Damascus, Saul/Paul met Christ, who spoke to him. In what language? Greek? Hebrew? The tongue of the heart's understanding? And to whom was he on his way to persecute? "Christians," is the usual answer, but that may not be correct. Gunther Bornkamm, the great Pauline scholar, posited that Paul took on as his quest the eradication of Hellenism from the synagogue. When Jesus asked, "Why do you persecute me," Saul may well have been perplexed; he had been confronting an idea, not a person. Luke does not tell us exactly how, but apparently, Saul/Paul somehow got the message. After a few more tussles with the Hellenists, he broke from the synagogue and began to minister to the same people he had persecuted. This was the beginning of a Christianity from Judaism.
Paul developed a Grecian taste. Always honoring the Mosaic Law, he nonetheless immersed himself among the people called "Gentile." I always believe that his claim that there is neither Jew nor Greek was a tad disingenuous. As it had conquered Rome, the Greek world conquered Paul. And the multi-faceted Greek language conquered the Christian Scriptures, and provides biblical scholars with a myriad of possibilites as to what Paul actually said when he used certain words, a pastime always good for an argument (Today's New International Version, anyone?).
Stodgy, sturdy, legalistic Latin eventually took over in Western Europe, and robbed that Church of a lively sense of debate (except for some of those sparkling Medieval disputations). The relic of Greek in the Roman Liturgy ("Kyrie eleison") was not enough. Western Christianity needs to develop the Grecian taste, even as the Roman Church appears to be embracing the Latin liturgy once again. Flexibility of thought in the classical vein, coupled with the knowledge of human-ness of the 21st century, may well lead to a Renaissance of thought. As a colleague of MFoD stated: "The Church doesn't need new laws; it needs a new anthropology." The Greeks, humanists par excellence, provide the road map to Damascus. All we need to do is get on the horse.
Image credit: The British Museum, courtesy of ihistorylink.net
No comments:
Post a Comment