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: Antonio Jerez <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)
  • Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 16:43:11 +0100


On 00-01-27 Mark Nanos wrote:

> Dear Antonio,
> Glad you stepped in; these are addressed to each other, but for the
> list to interact, which has actually been missed by those of us
> making the effort to communicate all along.


> >My impression is that Paul's views on Torah and
> >Halakhah would had put him at loggerheads with just about
> >any firstcentury Jewish sect we know about, including the
> >Pharisees - be they of Hillelite or Shamaite colours. Which
> >Jewish sect does Mark Nanos think would agree with Paul's
> >words in passages like Gal. 3:22-26 or Gal. 6:21-30, which
> >I interpret as Paul claiming that neither Jew nor Gentile is really
> >in need of the Mosaic Law in the messianic age. Or what about Paul's
> >words in 1 Kor. 9:21-21? Which Jewish sect would have agreed
> >with him about that posture and not claimed that those are the
> >words of an apostate?
>
> Now first of all I do not see that you have made any argument about
> what these passages say or about what other Jewish groups besides the
> so far unaccounted for Pharisees say, vis-a-vis what you interpret
> them to say for Paul. Do you assume that if I read these passages, as
> though I had not already, I will see the obvious folly of my earlier
> arguments? Come on.

Dear Mark,

Sorry for the delay in answering your message, but I have been quite
busy this weekend. Let's see if I can make some sense out of what
I´m trying to express. First of all I´m claiming that we have no knowledge
of any first century Jewish group (besides the Christians) which argued
that gentile "godfearers" or proselytes could become full members of the
people of
Israel, God's people, without following the basic commands of the Torah.
I know that there have been some studies made on the subject by different
scholars. One of the most important is probably Martin Goodman's "Mission
and conversion: Proselytizing in the religious history of the roman empire"
(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1994). Goodman's conclusion is that there is no
evidence for conversion without Torah abidance outside Christianity. Louis
J. Feldman has also written on the subject and I believe that he comes to
much the same conclusion as Goodman. Other scholars may of course have
dug up evidence that contradicts this picture, but if so I must have missed
those scholars and their evidence. If so I would be grateful if you could tell
me where to look.
Secondly I'm claiming that Paul's basic theology is that his "Christian"
proselytes are full members of God's people Israel without circumcision
and full adherence to Torah and Hallakah. I think passages like Gal. 3:19-
26 in conjunction with passages like Rom. 9:1-30 show that Paul believes
God had created a "new" people for himself where there were to be no
distinction between uncircumcised proselytes and jewish-christians.
Let us take a closer look at the verses in Gal. 3:22-26. Paul writes:
"But the scripture has all men imprisoned under sin, so that the promise
might be given to those who believe through faith in Jesus Christ. Before
faith came WE were confined under the Law, awaiting in custody faith
that was yet to be revealed, so that the Law served as OUR custodian
until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But with
the coming of faith we are no longer under a custodian; for through your
faith in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God".
I'm sure Mark and I can agree about at least one thing - this passage is
definitely directed at former gentiles who have become Christians.
But does it only deal with gentiles? I do not think so. Paul's use of the "we"
and "our" indicate that jewish-christians like himself are also included
among those for whom the Law has really stopped working as a paidagogos.
I also believe this reading is confirmed by further Pauline passages like
Romans 7:6 ("Now, however we are released from the Law; we have been
dead to that which once held us in its grip...). Romans does definitely
appear to
be directed at a Christian congregation of both proselytes and
jewish-christians
and Paul's words in verse 7:1 does lend support to this since he
directs his words at brothers "such as understand the Law", i e
jewish-christians.

I believe there is also another interesting angle to this problem; why would
Paul claim that the Law had once been binding on the people in his audience
if he was only directing his message at former gentiles? As far as I can glean
from the ancient sources Jews in the first century did not believe that the
Law was meant for the gentiles.The standard view appear to have been
that righteous gentiles could find salvation by following the Noachide laws
(see the Apostolic decree in Acts and the Noah story in Genesis). On the
other hand this didn't mean that these "godfearers" became Israelites - to
become true members of God's people they had to take on "the yoke" of the
Torah. Maybe Mark has some additional information that contradicts this
picture?


> I do not mind working with general categories like Sanders' "common"
> Judaism or Judaisms, but the view should at least be expressed that
> you would like compared. As far as I am concerned Paul may be
> measured as an observant Jew according to fairly rigorous "common"
> "traditional" Jewish terms for his time in a Diaspora setting, and
> the rhetoric from which we work to construct him written to
> non-Jewish people. He says he was a Pharisee, after all, and
> blameless according to the Law (Phil. 3).

I agree with people like Neusner that we should be wary of lumping
all Judaisms together. There does appear to have been many varying
forms of Judaism, but my claim is that the total textual evidence from the
time does not indicate that any of the major forms of Judaism of the
time would not have seen Paul as at a minimum a highly deviant Jew, and
more probable a true apostate. I actually think the ball is on your side.
Can you show me ONE ancient text (outside the Christian corpus) that
indicates that a majority of firstcentury Jews believed that gentiles could
become true members of God's people without following the Torah,
or that a born Jew could choose to disregard the basic commandments
of the Torah whenever he wanted to and follow the Torah again whenever
he felt the urge. That appears to be meaning of Paul's words
in 1 Cor. 9:19-23 ("Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved
myself to all of them in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave
as a Jew to win Jews; to those under the Law as one who is under the
Law - ALTHOUGH I AM NOT UNDER THE LAW - to gain those who
are without law as I am without law...). Have I overlooked something in
Paul´s dialectic? If so please correct me?
And as I explained earlier I do not agree with you that Paul's letters
are only directed at gentiles. Romans indicates otherwise.
I also believe you are using Paul's words in Phil. 3 for a strange kind
of exegesis. As you yourself seem to acknowledge the verse about
Paul's past as a Pharisee is about just that - his past. I thought our
discussion was about what Paul had become and believed when he
switched sect an became a follower of Jesus Christ. Besides, Paul
himself appear to contradict exactly the point you are trying to make
in Phil. 3:7-10 - his past is "rubbish".

> Please also define what you mean when you say "Mosaic Law in the
> messianic age." Seems to me that you imply what I would take as an
> oxymoron; why have a messianic age without Mosaic Law; is that not
> the character of the present evil age? I thought a messianic figure
> would save from the lawless Romans and Greeks. Please explain.

Your questions surprises me a bit. I thought every exegete were
in agreement that Paul's letters show that he believed that the
eschatological Messiah, Jesus, had already arrived. In that sense
Paul believed that the messianic age had already begun, in contrast
to most other Jews who would not have agreed with him about the
arrival of the Messiah. This does of course not mean that Paul believed
that the full consumation of the messianic age was already present - that
would have to wait until after the Parousia (see 1 Cor. 10:20...).
Your rethorical questions also sound like the kind of questions
"normal" Jews would have put to Paul. I think it is obvious that
Paul does try to give answers in his letters. If other Jews would have
found them convincing is another matter (se among other passages
Romans 7-8).

> In Gal. 3:22-26 and the rest of the letter Paul is relating to
> non-Jewish people in a diaspora setting who are uncertain of how they
> are to understand themselves in the context of other "traditional"
> views, if you will, for how they do or do not fit in according to
> prevailing Jewish communal membership and reference group norms prior
> to incorporation by way of proselyte conversion. That is at least how
> I approach his rhetoric; you have not explained how you do, which
> would be necessary for any sustained conversation.

I think I have given a short summary of my take on Paul earlier in
the message. I also believe that we have to read Galatians in
light of the other letters.

> Do you know of some parallel Jewish text dealing with gentiles within
> its own subgroup by which to measure this "rhetoric."

Possibly. There are some passages in the DSS scrolls where the Qumran
people appear to deal with both conversion by Jews to their own sect and
conversion by gentiles. I quote from Thomas M . Finns book " From death to
rebirth - ritual and conversion in antiquity" (Paulist press 1997):
"The usual term for converts underscores the problem: proselyte meant
in Greek what the Hebrew ger meant: resident alien, foreigner, stranger.
Although it could designate a sympathizer rather than a convert, by the
first century C.E,,proselyre was well on its way to becoming a technical
term for a convert. It suggested a special status - not an outsider, but
not an insider. In fact, the Jewish sectaries that produced the DSS divided
Israel into four groups: priests, Levites, Israelites and proselytes; they
also forbade proselytes entering the Temple. (Damascus covenant 4:3-6).

And as I said earlier we have texts, among others from early
rabbinic times, that deal with the topic of how gentiles were to
be saved.

>Anyway, I see
> nothing in what he says that runs counter to continued Jewish
> identity for himself as Law observant: how can you have neither Jew
> nor Greek if you have no Jew? What sense does the keeping of
> difference make, which Paul does in this argument, by inclusion of
> slave and free, and male and female categories, wherein the point is
> that while differences do remain, whether socially or biologically
> constructed, discrimination within this community nevertheless does
> not? Otherwise you would collapse a boundary that Paul leaves intact,
> but appeals to each side to respect the difference of identity and
> obligation across, because they are all bounded by their identity in
> Christ. I do not see what challenge you believe is implied by this
> passage.

I have never claimed that Paul's logic is faultless or easy to follow.
That is probably one of the reasons why scholars keep debating
these questions year after year. But I have to take him at his words
when he says things like in Rom. 7:1, Gal.3:13 (how many Jews would
have agreed that the Law is a "curse" and a "slaveyoke"?) or 1 Cor. 9:19-23.
And my clear impression after gleaning at the textual evidence from the time
is that
most Jews would have applauded a public lashing of Paul for statements
like that.

> I cannot find Gal. 6:21-30. Besides, what do you think the intended
> passage says, and the constructed Jewish group with which you would
> like me to compare it?

Sorry, but I think I mistyped. The passage I'm referring to is Gal. 4:21-5:1.
The allegorical interpretation is pretty straightforward; Hagar stands
for Jews who cling to the earthly Temple and Torah (practically all Jews
at the time) while Isak stands for the Church, the true Israel (a mixture of
jewish-christians and gentiles). As for comparing it with a "constructed
Jewish group" I don't know what you mean.

> What about 1 Cor. 9:21-21 is problematic? I am afraid that I cannot
> be expected to supply your argument as well as refute it. I would
> love to answer your challenge, but I do not know just what it is.

I mistyped again. The passage is 1 Cor. 9:19-23:
"Although I am free from everyone, I have enslaved myself to all of them
in order to win a larger number. To the Jews I behave as a Jew to win
Jews; to those under the Law as one who is under the Law - although
I am not under the Law - to gain those who are without law as I am
without law..."
Again I take Paul directly at his words, perhaps naively. But what
would other Jews have said about another supposed Jew that claims
that he is "not under the Law"? I think the answer would be lashing or
stoning.

> And I have offered Sakari two specific challenges where Paul's
> argument implies that he is Torah-observant according to "common"
> Jewish terms; those need to be answered as well. For convenience I
> repeat them here:
>
> Moreover, Paul as apostate runs against my reading of Paul or any
> other data of which I am aware. For example, as a circumcised person
> Paul could tell the Galatian gentiles considering circumcision that
> circumcised people are "indebted to keep/guard the whole Torah"
> (5:3). Seems to me a meaningless rhetorical point if his addressees
> know that he has the standing as circumcised that they desire, but
> without the obligation upon which he hangs his dissuasive point
> against them changing their state from gentiles to proselytes. How
> would you account for this kind of implication?

As I said earlier - Paul's logic is not necessarily faultless. I believe we
are
in a sense discussing matters that only Paul himself could answer -
and I'm not convinced that it would be to our satisfaction from a
logical standpoint. My personal impression after reading Paul's
letters is that he is a sort of chameleon who says and does one
thing in one milieu and a says and does a logically contradictory thing
in another milieu. Paul admits it himself in the passage I quoted from
1 Cor. 9:19-23.
That said I believe it is possible to make some sense of the passage
you refer to in Gal. 5:3 even when contrasted with other passages were
Paul talks about the Law as "abolished" both for jewish-christians and
gentiles (Gal. 3:13 or Rom. 7:1 and10:4). My reading of Gal. 5:3 is that
Paul is saying to his gentile converts that it if they want to follow the
erroneous path of first becoming Jews (circumcision) in order to be
saved and part of Israel they must also logically keep the Torah down
to the last letter. Paul thinks this is deadly wrong. He as after all told
them time after time that faith in Christ and following the Law of Christ
is enough for salvation. In order to get his point through as forcefully
as possible Paul even has the daring to subvert the standard Jewish
understanding of the Law. When most Jews blessed the Law and saw
it as God's special gift to Israel Paul turns everything around by comparing
the Law to a slaveyoke (Gal. 5:1). Paul also believes that faith in Christ
and the Law of Christ is all that is really needed for jewish-christians like
himself - though he won't condemn jewish-christians who want to go on
keeping the whole of Torah.

> In a similar vein, Paul claims to have received disciplinary stripes
> from synagogue authorities (2 Cor. 11). This implies that these
> authorities saw his behavior (his non-circumcision inclusion of
> gentiles as full members as though proselytes; cf. Gal. 5:11) as
> wrong and dangerous, but nevertheless as reconcilable, not apostate.
> After all, Paul subordinated himself to their authority to punish him
> for this behavior. For such rights of discipline where exercised only
> within this voluntary (and minority) community--perhaps not always in
> Judea--at least in the Diaspora environments in which Paul worked.
> The world was Roman, not Jewish, and such treatment of a "former"
> Jewish person, especially if a Roman citizen, is difficult to square
> with Paul as apostate. It seems that Paul was still working within
> the confines of Jewish communal affairs, and his presence being
> accepted, albeit not without the expression of (extreme)
> dissatisfaction on some matters, by the authorities thereof.

I think you forget that Paul directed much of his mission to
the synagogues in the Diaspora. Paul could hardly have
admitted to himself or to others that he was an apostate
since this would effectively have cut him off from even entering
a synagogue. Another point is that we don´t know exactly what
message Paul preached in the synagogues (Acts is in my opinion
not much to go on). Maybe Paul the Chameleon was more diplomatic
when talking to other Jews than when preaching to his gentile proselytes?
Maybe that is because he only got the stripes? Or maybe it is because
the synagogues had no authority to give the death sentence ,
since this appears to have been the privilige of the roman governor.
You also forget that in the same passage you quote from 2 Cor. 11
Paul tells us that he has been stoned at least one time. I doubt that
the stoning was officially sanctioned but it shows at least that some
Jews were angry enough at Paul to wish him the penalty for apostasy.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg, Sweden






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page