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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • 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 14:50:56 -0600


Dear Antonio,
This has gotten a bit lengthy. And it will get worse by the time each of these passages is treated in its specific rhetorical context. May I suggest that we take one passage or letter at a time? I am pleased that you have articulated an argument, although I do not see that it is different from the standing views, of which I am familiar but unconvinced. Maybe you could choose the argument you think most significantly challenges my position in the future, and then we could go from there. Comments below.

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.

These preliminary matters are very important. First, your first statement does not make sense of Goodman's or Feldman's arguments, which are actually very different from each other on some important matters. But on this point they agree, following the basic commands of Torah is not what makes a gentile into a proselyte, regardless of how you label said gentile. And as far as I can see the Christ-believing Jewish groups did not think this either. Conversion is an entirely different matter than Torah-observance. Unless we get this straight the rest of this discussion is perhaps hopeless. You have a later note that seems to recognize this difference, but I am perplexed by the above comment and others made in this post that do not.

The difference between a proselyte convert (circumcised male) and a righteous gentile, if you will, is well illustrated in Josephus's relating of Izates; cf. Ant. 20.2-4. We also have examples in Josephus of various kinds of associates who are not distinguished as proselytes. The references are clear in the books to which you have referred, along with ample discussion.

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.

I see no indication that these Christ-believing gentiles are in any way proselytes or members of Israel. Quite the opposite is implied in all of his correspondence as far as I can see, certainly in my view in the passages to which you refer. Paul's argument is that they are equal members of the righteous ones precisely without becoming proselytes or members of Israel, because the day has dawned when the nations join with Israel in the worship of the One God of Israel as the One God of all humankind. That "truth of the gospel" is just why Paul is having so much trouble (5:11).

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 do not agree with your conclusions, but see my other post today on the specifics of Gal. 3. I have a book on the Romans situation, and an article in CBQ in '99, both of which agree with Stowers, N. Elliott, and W. Campbell, that the target audience of Romans is gentiles. I do not think your reading is confirmed.


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?

No. This is exactly what I refer to in my above objections to your first premise. Here you have it right. I suppose the problem is that you think Paul indicates a different view than other Jews. I know of no such passage, and see none in your post. Rather than repeat a few of your comments, for the sake of space I will just note that I do not think that Gal. 5:1 indicates otherwise. It is not the Law that these gentiles are returning too, since they were not under it. Of course this is a circular as your argument, that since they are returning to something that is a yoke they must be returning to the Law. In other words, this passage will not resolve the impasse, but will lead only to a longer and necessary discussion of the larger context in which the verse is found.


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,

No, neither do I find one in Paul! Back to you...although I would clarify again that you are mixing two things that lead to confusion. No Jewish group of which I am aware believes gentiles (or Jews) follow the Torah to become true members of God's people, as you put it. The question is not observing Torah for gentiles, but how do they become identified as "true members of God's people," i.e., by proselyte conversion or not. Again, this is not the same thing!

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.

No, neither did Paul. Back to you...

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?

I do not see that this passage says what you have drawn upon it to argue. And you have not included all of the statement that would pertain for a discussion. Moreover, it is a passage in the midst of an argument in chapters 8--10, another large topic to qualify Paul's point in its rhetorical context. It is a mistake to try to cite a verse of Paul's very occasional language to hang upon it a supposed absolute abstract truth such as you here attempt. Sorry, but I see no challenge to my view here that Paul was Torah-observant (always) and understood by other Jewish and non-Jewish people who knew him (not just by way of rumors that is) to be the same.

You wrote, Antonio, after skipping some:
... 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.

An interruption here might help again. You start out doing a better job of keeping two things separate, but then mix them and import some works-righteouness in the second clause. But no one thought that the issue of entrance for gentiles included keeping the Torah down to the last letter. That is just Paul's point; only after becoming proselytes will they be so obliged. His point is to undermine their present social concern for full and undisputed status with proselytes because on Paul's gospel they were indeed not granted such status. If they were, then the whole Law would apply. This need not mean that was a bad thing for a Jew or proselyte (for them it is a privilege instead), but a logical result of proselyte conversion by way of which he seeks to undermine their own confidence in their understanding of this "other message of good."

My point earlier made is simply that this has no teeth if they know Paul has the status they seek without the obligation. How do you explain this implication of his rhetorical stance?

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.

...I don't see how he subverts it; he exploits these gentiles failure to realize this point he shares with other Jewish teachers. It is the gentiles confidence that they have figured out how to reduce the dissonance of two conflicting messages of good that he subverts.

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).

...Where does he compare the Law to a slave yoke? That is your interpretive move, but not in the text, and I do not think that is what is at issue here. I will not take the time to explain my view here, just answer what you seem to think is a compelling case by stating that I find it anything but that, and slim ice to rest such an important case upon as well.

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.

...This I do not see at all in Paul, but in Christian gentile interpretive history, or so-called Paulinism instead.

I will leave off a response or listing of your argument here; this is long enough for one post I think. If you have said something important that I have overlooked please bring it back up. Although you appeal in the comments omitted to taking all of Paul literally, I wonder what you have made of his comment that the Law is spiritual in Rom. 7.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page