Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's persecution of the Church

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's persecution of the Church
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 12:18:38 -0400


Hyam Maccoby stated:

>>I think that what this correspondence has lacked is
reference to the 'God-fearers',' or as the Talmud calls
them, 'the children of Noah' (BENEI NOAH). These were
people who were semi-converts to Judaism and were regarded
as obligated to observe certain commandments (the 'Seven
Laws') which did not include circumcision. The New
Testament contains several references to the 'God-fearers'
(e.g. Cornelius) - see especially the work of Louis
Feldman.<<

Actually, this had come up about a year ago. If I recall
correctly, we determined that the rules handed down re.
Gentile "god-fearers" resembled but was not identical to the
later Rabbinic idea of "laws of Noah." There was some
skepticism expressed about the idea that rabbinic "laws of
Noah" could be traced to a period prior to 70 CE. Even if
so, the items in the edict would be a sub-set of the full
seven, raising all sorts of questions and potential
complications.

>>In my opinion, the topic discussed at the Jerusalem
Conference was whether 'God-fearers' could be admitted into
the Jesus movement, or whether this movement should be
confined to full Jews. For full discussion see my THE
MYTHMAKER (ch. 13). It was a real problem for James and the
Jerusalem Church whether 'God-fearers' could be admitted
into the Jesus movement, which centred on a Jewish messiah,
i.e. the King of the Jews, and therefore, from a purely
national point of view, might be thought to apply only to
Jews. James' decision was that God-fearers could become
members, and he laid down rules for them which, I argue, are
identical with the Seven Laws incumbent on 'God-fearers'.
The question of circumcision was therefore bypassed, since
God-fearers were not obligated to be circumcised.<<

This raises an interesting point. Assuming that the Jesus
movement was, at point of origin, a "native" Jewish
phenomenon, and that at some point Gentiles became
associated with it, what about the movement attracted them?
Was it the messianism (and if so, we must think very
carefully about why that would be attractive)? Was there
some sort of concession(s) extended to Gentiles from the
very start that made fearing God (and also considering the
social consequences that such expressions of devotion might
cause) worth doing?

>>Those who wanted to insist on circumcision were really
saying, 'Only Jews can belong to a Jewish national movement
of liberation. God-fearers, however admirable, are non-Jews
and cannot become the subjects of a Jewish king.' James, on
the other hand, saw the Messiah as a leader for the whole
world, Jewish and non-Jewish, in accordance with certain
utterances of the Hebrew prophets. Paul, however, took this
decision of the Jerusalem Council in a sense never intended
by James; namely that circumcision had been down-graded
even for Jewish adherents to the Jesus movement. This is
what led to the eventual split between Paul and the
Jerusalem Church.<<

Here, I think, you have boiled the issue (at least as we see
it in Acts and Galatians, if truly related) down to its
essentials. Jewish Messianism would, I think, nominally
imply the establishment of some kind of "kingdom" here on
earth in the holy land. The relationship of Gentiles to this
"messianic" kingdom, variously described in the several
prophets and other surviving pseudepigraphic works, would at
best be that of tributary nations and at worst crushed and
oppressed in just retaliation (sort of on the Assyrian
model) for how they treated the Hebrew people Israel in the
past.

Gentiles convinced that establishment of a Jewish messianic
kingdom was a likely prospect would, I think, be concerned
about the welfare of themselves and their families should
such a kingdom ever be established. These might, I think,
associate in exchange for protection, like Racheb in Joshua
6, hoping to become "strangers within the gate."

Some others may have felt that radical change in world order
was long overdue, and may also have found the Just and
Merciful God of the Jews as the national deity to be
preferable to the petty gods of the Gentiles. The most
pragmatic course for these, then, becomes full integration
as converts.

Paul, on the other hand, apparently does not think in terms
of Gentile relationship to a Jewish messianic kingdom, but
to Jews in general. There is little if any concern for
potential retribution against Gentiles or political
accommodation on their part. He thinks that Gentiles
respectful of the Jewish God had common ground with Jews
proper on the basis of the faith of Abraham prior to his
circumcision, and sought reconciliation on that basis.

>>Paul and James came to apparent agreement (that non-Jews
entering the movement did not need circumcision) but as time
went on, it became apparent that their understanding of the
agreement was widely different, for to James circumcision
was just as holy an obligation (for Jewish members of the
movement) as before. James' decision was a real one: for to
have a messianic movement consisting of both Jews and
non-Jews was something new in the history of Judaism, but
for James the Jesus movement would henceforth contain two
grades of membership, while Paul wanted to abolish all
distinctions within the movement.<<

The position you ascribe to Paul is dependent upon the
anti-law language in his epistles, but I have a hard time
reconciling these (and the closely associated Savior Christ
language) with those statements relating to the implications
of the common points of Jewish and Gentile faith in God. It
is as if they represent two entirely different agendas.

The savior Christ and anti-law language could, though, be
seen as reactionary language emanating from members of the
first two classes of Gentile associate/convert mentioned
above, though now bitterly disappointed with Judaism and
negatively inclined towards their former association or
conversion. How could such a reactionary movement,
reinterpreting their former faith in Jesus as a messiah
figure into Jesus as a savior figure that completely
replaces the importance of the Jews and their law? Look as
close as the development of Jewish Gnosticism, which
similarly redefined their former apocalyptic ideas and
traditional dogma into something no longer "Jewish" in the
classical observant sense.

The principal catalyst for this reinterpretation? The war of
66-73 CE. I take my cues from Birger Pearson in this regard.
The main difference between the Jewish Gnostics and the
Jesus Christians I describe above, is that the latter now
despised Jews and Judaism. The Jewish Gnostics, on the other
hand, had renounced their faith in the traditional Jewish
God, but I do not think they had anything bad to say about
Jews as a people. I take this as an indication that the
"Jesus Christians" I propose were not ethnically "Jews."

If these savior Christ and anti-law statements in the
Pauline letters are bracketed off, the remaining language of
conciliation and cooperation is quite coherent and even
follows normal lines of logical or rhetorical thinking
(although mostly reaching rhetorical and not so much logical
conclusions). It has no need for either a Jewish messiah or
even a savior Christ.

The savior Christ and anti-law statements, however, are
short and sharp, as if they are commenting and "explaining"
(read 're-interpreting") the conciliatory statements in the
Pauline letters. If this is so, then Paul's movement of
Gentile god-fearers and the ex-messianic Gentile associates
or converts movement must have crossed in some way, and the
Pauline letters as they have been handed down thus become an
attempt at synthesis.

What we have then, is a much more complex interaction
between the parties that ultimately synthesized into the
Christianity we know from the 2nd century onwards. The
records of this Christianity are not nearly so
straightforward as we tend to think of them. I think we do
ourselves a disservice by taking them so literally.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page