Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sakari H�kkinen" <sakari.hakkinen AT sci.fi>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:52:19 +0200


Dear Mark,

You wrote:
>, an assumption of his negative
> relationship to Torah (e.g., a Law-free gospel, or in this
case, his
> apostasy from Torah),
No. I do not mean that Paul had a negative relationship to
Torah, or rejected it in any ways. He interpreted it in
another way than some other teachers.

>Yes we agree that others would oppose Paul, and they
> would do so on the basis of appeal to Torah. No, because
my question
> for your view still stands: on what basis do you contend
that Paul
> had opponents among his contemporaries who argued that he
was an
> apostate according to Torah (of course some disagreed with
him, but
> apostasy was the issue, and that according to Torah)? You
have only
> supplied later affirmation of this point, not
contemporary, i.e., as
> implied in his correspondence.
The accusations of apostasy are clear in later writings, and
I admit they were wrong in the respect, that Paul did use
the Torah like any Jewish teacher, although his
interpretations were different from many other teachers.
Now, let us return to our original issue: Was Paul a
Pharisee? I told that he might have been, but I am not at
all convinced he was. One of my arguments was that his
opponents did not accuse him to have been too faithful to
the Torah (i.e. Paul did not obey the Torah same way as
they did). Just the opposite, they accused him of apostasy.
If Paul was a Pharisee, he was quite a special one because
of his more liberal attitude to the commands of the Lord in
written Torah and Halakhah than other Pharisees had. I
understand quite well the accusations of apostasy, if the
opponents were Pharisees or at least influenced with
Pharisaic Judaism. If Paul himself was a Pharisee, who
respected the Torah and interpreted it in Pharisaic way
(which he did not, if I compare his writings to known
Pharisees), how did some people regard him as an apostate,
whether later or contemporary? For Paul the Torah was
important, but he did not demand all of its commands to be
obeyed in daily life of true believers.

>These are two different things, being
> disciplined (included) as a sinner, or dismissed
(excluded) as an
> apostate.
Yes they are, but they could be two phases of the same
judgment: at first Paul was regarded as a sinner, later as
an apostate. Again: if he was a Pharisee, it is interesting
that he was regarded as a sinner, since wasn't it usually so
that the Pharisees defined who is a sinner?

Best wishes,

Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
University of Helsinki
Department of Biblical Studies
sakari.hakkinen AT evl.fi
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page