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: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's persecution of the Church
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 22:06:20 +0100


Dave Hindley wrote:
>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.

Even in the Talmud there is great disagreement among various rabbis about
which laws ought to be included in the Noahide Laws. But one thing is
certain: that the law of circumcision could never be included among them,
because this is the defining law of the Jewish Covenant. The Noahide Laws
define another Covenant, the one made by God with Noah, the patriarch of the
Gentiles. The God-fearers are Gentiles accepted into the Noahide Covenant.
Paul, however, wished to institute a new single Covenant, applicable to all
mankind, Jews and Gentiles, sealed by the sacrifice of Jesus. The doubts
that were expressed at one time about whether Noahide Laws existed at all
before 70 CE have been definitively quashed by the work of Louis Feldman, to
whom I referred before. See also the work of David Novak. Other laws that
could never form part of the Noahide Laws are the dietary laws, because they
are part of the Holiness Code, which again define the Jews as a
priest-nation. Roughly speaking, the Noahide Laws are universal ethical
principles (which apply to all mankind), while the ceremonial laws of the
Holiness Code, of which circumcision is the most important, form the Rule of
the priest-nation, the Jews.

Hyam Maccoby
___________________________________________________________________

Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Paul's persecution of the Church


> 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
>
> >>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
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page