Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: One or two covenants in the OT?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
  • To: "Corpus Paulinum" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: One or two covenants in the OT?
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:43:17 -0700


I wrote:

> >
> > At that point in the narrative, only 1 co. did exist, the 1 from
Genesis.
> > Beginning in Ex 6, God begins to alter the terms significantly.
> > Priests are
> > added. Laws and ritual obligations are required. God refers to this new
> > stuff as a "covenant" in Ex 19.5 and 34.27-28, and many times in Lev.
The
> > revision process goes on through much of the Pentateuch. At the end
God's
> > cov with Moses and Israel is altogether different from the one
> > with Abraham,
> > Isaac and Jacob.
>

Liz replied:

> I can see how you would read it that way. OT scholars do not believe that
> it was written to be read that way however.


Yes, it is certainly presented as one covenant that undergoes a major
revision. But, the problem of 2 radically different "relationship systems"
(if we can't say covenants) remains, and this was the basis for Paul's
distinctions.


> In fact, most likely the laws were
> indigenous to Israel much prior to the Exile


I would love to read the arguments and evidences, if you have any
recommendations.


>
> You assume the Genesis passages were written first, and the section of the
> laws written later.


Not really. I think Gen. was post-Exilic literature. But I was reading the
Pentateuch chronology *as Paul would have* -- not necessarily agreeing. We
were talking about his Torah views, which he'd have based on the 430 years
elapsing between Abraham and Moses.

>
> but the description in
> Chronicles is too similar to the description of Hittite and Canaanite cult
> pracitices - and so different from Mesopotamian cult practices -- to be
> tossed off.
>

Quite true. "The people of Judah were taken captive to Babylon because of
their unfaithfulness." (1Chron 9.1) "Unfaithfulness" to the covenant meant
the Jews were indeed practicing Canaanite religion -- a religion lacking in
the Torah rituals and values as we now know them from 2nd Temple (i.e., the
Torah Paul referred to).

But they were practicing the only cultus they knew! The problem with
pre-Exilic Israel was her non-observance of Pentateuch rituals, in
preference of Baal/Asherah.


> If you read the Hittite material, the Canaanite and Phoenician
> material, even Egyptian material from Bronze and early Iron Age, you will
> see the exact same preoccupation with purity and atonement. You will see
> the exact same devotion to the meticulous details of ritual and law. The
> preoccupation with purity and impurity is definitely not unique to Israel.

The parallels between 2nd Temple Judaism and Persian Zoroastrianism are
striking. By comparison, I've also been told that large chunks of Leviticus
were plagiarized from Canaanite liturgical books. Unfortunately I have never
seen this source material nor read a discussion of how this purity cult may
have interfaced with Baal/Asherah worship. (The Anchor Bible Leviticus
volume was too long delayed.) It would be interesting to discover whether
the biblical conflict between these religions was mirrored in a similar
pagan conflict. Can you give me some reading tips or names?


>
> The boundaries of the law was being argued vociferously in this period.
The
> status and the legitimacy of Torah is never argued -- except by Paul. If
> you notice the disagreements are all over points not explained fully in
> torah. This is shown even in the Gospels. Jesus does not attempt to
> abrogate the sabbath laws themselves, he only disagrees about what is
> permitted and what is not. He argues over points of law, he doesn't
abolish
> the law.
>
>


This issue boils down to: How much 'revising' can one do before 'revising'
is really abrogating and scrapping completely? And second, in answering
that, as you know there's always a distinction one must make between the
fixed law code and halakha rulings -- macro- and micro-Torah if you will.

As it happens, I recently drafted an article on Matthew chaps 5-8 addressing
these very points. The gist is, that Jesus presented a substitute Torah to
replace all Rabbinical traditions and halakha of his day, *as well as *
certain portions of the source code or written Torah itself. In so doing he
upheld the Deuteronomic covenant portions only (i.e., a Torah and
circumcision of one's heart (Deu 30:6) and love of God with all one's being
(Deu6:5). His Torah is accomplished by love of God and neighbor. Jesus also
advocated commandment-keeping, but only *his* commandments. As for what he
did about the rest of the Tanakh, Jesus' sect reinterpreted this to be a a
tapestry of hundreds of signs and symbols pointing to Jesus. My article is
brief and I hope to post it on the Exegesis e-group sometime this week.

I also find Paul's letters to be in perfect synch with Matthew, Luke and
John gospels in terms of the above antinomianism -- so much so, in fact,
that some scholars believe Paul's gentile clique hijacked the tracts early
and effaced the presumed Judaic and Torahnic elements. But that's another
story.

Best regards,

Jon





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page