Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Gal 2:16 (Liz)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Myers <mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Gal 2:16 (Liz)
  • Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:33:25 -0800


Liz asked today, June 2:

"Dear Mike, I haven't a clue what the context of my comment {below}
was. When I said "believed as Paul did" what was I referring to
exactly??? In any case, when I referred to Paul's audience, I
referred to the recipients of his letters. I take these to be
non-Jews."
*******************************************************************

Sorry Liz, I was trying to minimize snips. Today's my first chance
to get back to where this left off last Thurday... Here's the
context:

###############################################################
###############################################################
You wrote on Thursday May 27:

"Those Jews who say the sacrificial system was valid then, also say
it is valid now. Those who say it was never valid, ie., never
decreed from God on Mt. Sinai, but just custom, say it is not valid
now."
*************************************************************
I responded that day:

Liz, These are certainly useful distinctions. Though "valid" is
perhaps a word that needs some unpacking. I used it because you
originally did so. One can contemplate a (big) aspect of the law,
the Levitical cultus, from very different points of view, of course.
I can easily imagine modern spectators who look back at the ancient
world (just post-Exile, say) and observe that the Levitical cultus
was valid for those people at that time. It makes lots of sense for
an Iron Age civilization to wrap up in one sacralized literary cloth
its need for meat, ritual, atonement(s), a priesthood, a holy place
etc.

This is one species of "valid". I don't know what label to give it.
Maybe a "secular historicist" view. One could hold this view and be
an atheist, skeptic, agnostic, cynic whatever. But I think it's also
possible to hold the above position or something like it and 1)
believe in the God of Israel, 2) believe that this God reveals
himself via history, among other modes, 3) believe that in some
sense, this law was given to the children of Israel, 4) that it was
meant by this God for this people for a finite stretch of historical
time, or had his "blessing" as it were, 5) believe it had served its
purpose, 6), live in 1CE, 7) be a Jew (at least for awhile, until
definitions got rigid). Seems to me that Paul was such a Jew, at a
historical crossroad for this people.
************************************************************

Then you responded on May 27th:

"Paul was indeed such a Jew. You must notice however that his
audience did not consist of such Jews. His audience was composed of
Gentiles. He was the apostle to the Gentiles. Among Jews he received
the 39 lashes 5 times. If you can believe Acts, Paul attempted to
preach at various synagogues around the world, but the ones who
accepted him at these synagogues were Gentiles. You would have to
show me evidence that there were Jews besides Paul who
believed as he did."
###############################################################
###############################################################

So that was the context....



You observed today:

"I'm not sure the author of Hebrews was Jewish. Do people consider
him Jewish because he refers to "our ancestors?" Should that
necessarily be viewed in physical terms?"
***************************************************************
I'm not SURE either. Doubt anyone could prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the author of Hebrews was Jewish. Guess it depends on
where you position the threshold of proof. Whoever he or she was,
(s)he knew a whole lot about the HB and the Levitical cultus.
Reading the book (and it's a very good read--I hope you have read it
carefully), one cannot help but think it's at least really possible
that the author was Jewish, and on grounds much more extensive than
just the cite of "the Fathers" in verse 1. We hear various theories
about just who: Apollos, Timothy, Barnabas, Paul ... lots of
candidates.

btw... Some these days are attempting to deconstruct Paul's (former)
Jewishness. Some tried this with y'shua too, a long time ago.
Anything's possible I suppose and I certainly like to keep an open
mind...but this book definitely has a 1CE insider's ring to
non-specialist me.


####################################################################

>Your point about his being accepted only by Gentiles at the
>synagogues where he preached is one I don't fully accept, btw. I'll
>get back to that later.

You responded:

"This is the view expressed in Acts. I don't believe Acts in every
instance, so this could be polemical. Paul does say tho that he
received the 40 lashes minus 1 five times, I think. This definitely
supports the description in Acts and suggests that Paul did not find
his audience among those who refer to themselves as Jews, and who
would have been at the synagogues. Among the synagogue-goers his
appeal seems to have been primarily to the god-fearers, the
hangers-on at the synagogues, but who could not bring themselves to
circumcise themselves."
*******************************************************************

Acts doesn't inspire great confidence, does it? But we must try to
squeeze some play out of the hands we're dealt. I agree with your
reading -- it seems likely that much to most of his constituency was
comprised of god-fearers, but I see no evidence whatsoever for
limiting his churches to them ALONE. And much to the contrary. This
is very important.


You wrote:

"I don't include the descendents of the ten lost tribes under the
appelation Jew. Except for the Samaritans, they lost their identity.
I consider as Jews those who call themselves Jews. The Samaritans
didn't call themselves Jews.

[snip]

A Gentile was someone who did not call himself a Jew.
Not nuanced, but there you are."

****************************************************************
Right...we agree, so we're completely on the same page here. TBC..

Mike



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
06/02/1999
14:33:25





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page