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: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 18:25:41 +0100



Antonio Jerez wrote:

>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.

Mark Nanos replied:
>>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.

I fear that I slight misunderstanding of my use of semantics may have caused
you to question point B) in my first premise. By "steps" I wasn´t meaning
that A) B) and C) are separated in time throughout a lengthy conversion
process. What I wanted to say is that both A) B) and C) was something that
you took upon yourself the moment you were admitted into Jewish community
as a fullblown member of the people of Israel - and the precise moment of
that was when you became circumcised. Are we agreed know?
Also another little clarification of our respective use of semantics: are we
agreed that the term proselyte should only be reserved for a former gentile
who has completed A) B) C) and become a Jew? Would you call a gentile
who is on his who is on his way through the process of becoming a Jew a
righteous gentile (Godfearer?). Is Julia Severa such a righteous gentile?

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

>>Yes.

Maybe I should modify this premise a bit. Doesn't the evidence point
towards Jews expecting Godfearers to as a minimum adhering to
the Noahide Laws? Or wasn't even this necessary for a gentile to
be reckoned as a Godfearer/righteous gentile?

> 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.

I don't know why it couldn't be described as putting on the "yoke" since
the Jews themselves refered to Torah as a yoke, though a good yoke.

>
>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.

I must say that this aspect of your overall thesis struck me as very odd,
to say the least, when I begun reading your "Mystery of Romans" yesterday.
I hope we can return in more detail to this particular problem, though I
must confess already at this stage that your claim appear to face some
heavy obstacles. For example: how probable is it that "orthodox" Jewish
synagogues would have embraced and welcomed "Christian" Godfearers
who were known to confess a crucified Messiah? How probable is it that
"orthodox" Jewish synagogue authorities would have admitted those same
"Christian" Godfearers into their sabbath services after knowing the
Godfearers
also having participated in an Eucharistic rite to commemorate their crucified
Messiah? Or are you implying that those same synagogue authorities would
have nodded in consent and lent out the Synagogue building to the
"Christians"
(gentiles + jewish-christians) for their particular messianic service? In
short: I
think you are seriously underestimating the opposition among "orthodox" Jews
to a group of Jews who proclaimed a "folly" about a crucified Saviour.
Differences
about interpretation of Law was not the only thing that was at stake in
Paul's (and
other jewish-christian apostles) dealings with other Jews.


> 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.

I don´t agree with your interpretation of the evidence - at least not yet
We'll see how things may look after I have read your book on Romans
and heard your clarifications here on the list.


Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg, Sweden






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page