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: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:17:06 -0600


Dear Antonio,
This looks like a good approach, and I appreciate your personal note.

You wrote:
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.

The difference between our views is the way that B) is stated. A gentile does not follow the Mosaic Law and is not expected to do so beyond whatever may be expected of gentiles who associate, which would vary of course. Those who were no more than mere friends such as benefactors who did not participate in Jewish communal life may have been expected to do little. Julia Severe appears to have dedicated a synagogue in Asia Minor about the time of Paul's letter, but not to have been a Jewess. She was the chief priestess of the imperial cult and head of the gymnasium, for example. What kind of righteousness would have been expected of such a benefactor as she went about her public life?

Those engaged in the rite of passage, a process taking some time, might have conformed entirely by the time of completion, i.e., attainment of proselyte status. Surely many others fell somewhere in between.

The point is that gentiles are not "indebted to do the Law," as Paul puts it in 5:3, until they have become proselytes. Thus the point is that circumcision and Law observance are two different things; one is a symbol of entrance and identity, the other is the obligation and privilege that will accompany that identity once acquired. C) would likewise need to be nuanced along this line.


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).

Yes.

These were probably called Godfearers.

Arguable, so I call them righteous gentiles to avoid the present debate about whether and when this was a formal label for a category of people. There are all kinds of people and situations to account for. Have you read S. Cohen's The Beginnings of Jewishness, 1999, U. of Cal. Press? I recommend it along with those you have mentioned.

It was up to the
Godfearers themselves to choose how much of the Jewish religious
customs they wanted to take upon themselves.

Yes.

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.

I think you have gotten it backwards, as per comments above. If this righteous gentile completed proselyte conversion then he or she would be a full member of God's historical people and then would take up the observance of Torah; I don't think yoke helps to imagine the view of a gentile just described as choosing this identity and concomitant obligation.


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.

It is not clear that churches existed as your language might imply, that is, as sectarian entities. They seem to be rather subgroups within the Jewish communities, or voluntary associations. I doubt they had the kind of institutional identity with all of the political aspects of such an organization in this Roman world.

This entire topic is in debate, but it is important to clarify to what kind of communal identity one images Paul admitting these gentiles. Gentiles were admitted to synagogues as welcome guests, et al., even up to proselyte candidates. This move on Paul's part is not unique in Jewish communal terms, although the baptism in the name of Christ is different, and a feature of these particular subgroups of believers in 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).

Here we depart entirely, as my last post I think explained. They were not admitted to Israel, because they did not become proselytes, or visa-versa. Israel does not equal church. The difference between members of Israel and members of the other Nations remains, but the new community (creation) of Israel and the Nations gathers in Christ to worship the One God of all humankind, as expected in the age to come. Paul believes that age has dawned, and calls his communities to live accordingly; different but without discrimination across this boundary by which the difference is defined in the present age.

This claim was something
radically new among first century Jewish sects.

Yes, even as I have stated it, for which other group claimed to modify their understanding of reality in view of the dawning of the age to come.

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.

Yes, and rightfully so, if that is what he taught. But it is not in my view. Being children of Abraham and children of Israel are kept distinct in Paul's argument (children of Israel are both, non Israelites may become children of Abraham by the promise received in Christ). I imagine that the problems he did have were because his rather nuanced view was not generously repeated by those who disagreed about the time it was or the implications that Paul said that this change in time called for among the Jewish communities where these gentiles were concerned because of the meaning of the death of some Judean martyr of the Roman regime.


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.

This I cannot find in Paul's writings, but rather the opposite seems to be implied.

I hope you will consider the other posts I have sent these past two days as well.

Thanks,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page