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: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:28:18 +0100


Mark Nanos wrote:

>>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.

Dear Mark,
First I want to thank you for the time and effort you put into this
discussion. I appreciate it greatly. I don't claim to be an expert
in the Pauline field, but I have read quite a lot on the subject
through the years. As you mention my arguments so far may
sound familiar to you, since they many of them probably echo
what many paulinist scholars have argued in book after book.
Maybe I have (mistakenly) fallen for the conventional wisdom.
That is why I find it refreshing to hear a voice that offers a very
different interpretation. I can't say that your arguments have
persuaded me yet to switch side, but I can promise you that
I am prepared to change opinion as soon as I think the balance
tips over in your favour. I don't have any theological interests in
this debate since I'm not a Christian (or Jew, Buddhist, atheist
or whatever). I am merely interested in this subject as a historian
who tries to make sense of early Christianity.
I think your proposal that we concentrate on specific passages
or one letter at a time is a good one. But I still have some
questions that I would like you to clarify before we dig more into
the letters.

I earlier wrote:
> 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.

Mark replied:
>>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.



The confusion between us does appear to be due in large part to
us working with differing premises. My premises may very well be
wrong and therefore I present them again in (hopefully) a clearer
and more comprehensible manner. I would like you to say if you disagree
or agree with each premise. Then I think it will be much easier for our
discussion to move forward:

Premise 1: Did Jews think that gentiles could become members
of the people of Israel, Gods people? As I have understood it Jews
(at least most of them) did indeed believe it was possible. How did
a gentile become an Israelite? As I understand it the "norm" requiered
three steps; (A) belief in and allegiance to the Jewish God alone (B)
following the Mosaic code of laws, including circumcision (C) allegiance
to the new community of the convert - Israel. As I understand it these
gentile converts were usually called proselytes.

Premise 2: There does appear to have existed another kind of gentiles
who, while sympathetic to Judaism, did not want to become full converts
(proselytes). These were probably called Godfearers. It was up to the
Godfearers themselves to choose how much of the Jewish religious
customs they wanted to take upon themselves. But as long as a Godfearer
did not take upon himself the whole "yoke of the Torah" most Jews would
not have considered him to be an Israelite, a true member of God's
people.

Premise 3: (I guess that this is where Mark's and my views diverge
radically) Paul admitted many Godfearers (is that what you call
righteous gentiles?) and pagan gentiles to
his Churches and had them baptised in the name of Christ. As I read
the evidence Paul also told his "Godfearers" that by faith in Christ and
by following the Law of Christ (not the same as Torah) they were now
members of Israel, God's true Israel (= Church). This claim was something
radically new among first century Jewish sects. To claim, as Paul did,
that gentiles and Godfearers were true Israelites, children of Abraham
without first becoming proselytes was a thing that would have enraged
many (most?) born Jews and earned him a good beating in almost any
synagogue, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Many Jews would
also have accused him of being an an apostate.

Premise 4: But Paul was even more radical than that. He also believed
that the time of the Torah was also a thing of the past for born Jews like
himself. He claimed it wasn't necessary to follow (all) the Mosaic
prescriptions
to remain a full member of God's people. He didn't say that other
Jews or jewish-christians MUST throw the Torah overboard for themselves
if they didn´t want to , but he said that the Law of Christ was enough for
them too, just like it was for him.

P.S I did get hold of your book on Romans today. I'll read it with interest.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg, Sweden






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page