Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Hyam Maccoby's theory

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Hyam Maccoby's theory
  • Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 11:04:37 -0400


First Clive Jacks, and then David Hindley, have referred to Hyam Maccoby's
recent comments as being addressed against views that I have expressed, and
Clive has also said that I should respond to Hyam's comments. So, I shall do
so:

I see from Hyam no evidence cited in support of his theory that "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 as holy an obligation for Jewish members of the movement as
before. ... For James the Jesus movement would henceforth contain two grades
of membership, while Paul wanted to abolish all distinctions within the
movement."

Above all, nothing is cited by Hyam in Paul's writings to support this, the
source that contains by far the highest evidentiary reliability concerning
what Paul thought. Acts has lower reliability on this, but some, and nothing
is cited from Acts either; however, I believe that to the extent that Hyam
has based this speculation of his upon relevant evidence, Acts was likely
his chief source of that evidence, which, again, is of unnecessarily low
reliability upon which to base an hypothesis concerning what Paul thought.

Concerning Hyam's speculations regarding what James thought, it is difficult
to know what might have inspired these speculations, but credible evidence
on that is lacking in any case, since we don't have any reliably
authenticated writings from him; and, even if the letter James were to be
considered to be authentic, that letter is silent on the issues upon which
Hyam speculates. As to Acts 15:13-21, that is hearsay about what James said,
and it contradicts Paul's direct witness evidence about that subject, given
in Galatians 2:10; however, because of Paul's own testimony in Romans 3:4-7
and a few lines later in 3:28 versus 3:31, Paul's reliability as a witness
is very low, absent an accompanying legal/forensic analysis of this witness'
motives that can reasonably be assumed to be guiding/shaping/distorting that
testimony, and that can thus be sufficiently identified so as to be stripped
out so as to leave a reasonably reliable evidence concerning the views of
James.

Consequently, I cannot consider Hyam's theory about the intentions of either
Paul or James. I apply in consideration of the reconstruction of an event
the same things that a court of law does--the best evidence that is
available and that is materially relevant to a given hypothetical account of
how and why that given event took place. Hyam's theory appears instead to be
based, if it is based upon any materially relevant data at all, upon Acts,
which is not best evidence concerning the intentions of either party, and
which consequently would probably be excluded at court as being "evidence"
at all, even if Hyam were to wish to cite it as being so. Indeed, according
to court standards, no theory is even brought before a jury, and no charges
can be filed concerning any party to any dispute, if there exists no good
evidence upon which a charge can be brought either by a party to it, or else
by the state. Consequently, I do not involve myself in issues concerning
which I, as an investigator, have no evidence that I believe would be both
presentable and persuasive in court. This restricts me from dealing with
many questions concerning which scholars commonly speculate, and not only
from dealing with Hyam's speculations here concerning the intentions of Paul
and of James in their dispute.

However, I might address one core part of Hyam's theory upon which plenty of
reliable evidence does exist: my reading of Paul's seven letters leads me to
believe that Hyam's "Paul wanted to abolish all distinctions within the
movement" is true in one sense, meaningless in another, and false in a
third.

It is true in the sense that Paul held there to be only one basis for
personal salvation for all people--movement members or not--and that that
sole basis was membership in the movement; non-members were excluded from
salvation. Even Jews were excluded from salvation, because, according to
Paul, the covenant was impossible to obey fully, and only complete obedience
to it would bring a Jew to salvation.

It is meaningless in the same sense that "the movement" in Hyam's
formulation is meaningless: the very question at issue at the council in
Jerusalem was who was in the movement, and who was not, and Hyam is assuming
an answer to that question, instead of reasoning his way towards one on the
basis of the best available evidence concerning it.

It is false in the sense that Paul approved of Israelites, in Romans; but
disapproved of Judaism, in Philippians, Galatians and Romans; and
disapproved of Jews themselves in 1 Thessalonians; however, Paul approved of
all Christians, irrespective of their personal background, Jew or pagan.
Furthermore, Paul condemned homosexual males outright, irrespective of
whether one was even a Christian, and this was obviously inconsistent with
Paul's having said that all Christians would be forgiven their sins by a
merciful God. Finally, even among Christians, Paul held that women should be
seen but not heard. So, it is false to say, "Paul wanted to abolish all
distinctions within the movement." He was, in fact, according to his own
testimony, clearly a bigot, and not only against non-Christians.

Therefore, even though I cannot consider Hyam's theory that "Paul and James
came to apparent agreement that ..., but ...," since Hyam's theory there was
vague and unsupported, I am able to evaluate one (presumably key) part of
it, and I find that part to be poorly formulated by him, but true in one
narrow sense.

Finally, I would like to point out also the unsupported character of Hyam's
important assertion that what was at issue between James and Paul was
"whether 'God-fearers' could be admitted into the Jesus movement." The
supposed evidence that Hyam introduces on this concerns a matter, the BENE
NOAH, that he merely assumes to be relevant to this particular dispute
between Paul and James, but that he offers no evidence, other than that mere
supposition, to have been so. Again, a court might rule Hyam's Noahide
discussion to be immaterial unless Hyam were to demonstrate materiality to
the Paul-vs.-James dispute at issue, which materiality he has not even so
much as addressed, other than simply to assume it.

I would argue that the Noahide issue is not materially relevant, but that,
instead, what was at issue between Paul and James was solely whether or not
uncircumcised males were members of the Jesus sect of Jews. Hyam is assuming
that the point at issue was whether to accept uncircumcised men into this
sect of Jews, and that "James' decision was that God-fearers could become
members ... since God-fearers were not obligated to be circumcised."
However, this merely assumes that to be "members" did not, in fact, entail
their being Jews. Yet whether or not it did, is not something that should be
thus assumed, at all, but is instead something that should be demonstrated
by solid evidence. Hyam fails to provide any, but instead relies solely upon
Acts, which would fail to meet a court's standard as being best evidence on
this subject, inasmuch as Paul's testimony, which is available on this, was
first-person witness evidence on such a matter, and Acts wasn't, and
inasmuch as Paul's testimony in Galatians 2:11-12 indicates clearly that
James had changed his mind on this subject of whether or not uncircumcised
men were members, and indicates clearly that James had finally decided that
Paul's men would have to become circumcised after all. Acts does not say
that James didn't change his mind on this, but instead ignores this question
of change-of-mind altogether. However, even if Acts had asserted that James
never changed his mind on it, Paul's contrary testimony on this matter,
given in Galatians 2:11-12, would have higher evidentiary standing at court.
In fact, by contrast, the relevant allegations in Acts would constitute mere
hearsay on this matter, and would consequently likely be excluded even from
presentation, concerning it.

Furthermore, I see no evidence provided by Hyam that the Jesus-followers,
who, in Galatians 2:12, were clearly headed by James, constituted anything
other than a Jewish sect. If they were, then it is clearly not possible that
there could have been any question of uncircumcised men having been
"members" of it on anything other than a merely provisional or temporary
basis, unless and until these men should make up their minds on whether they
were willing to pay the price of admission and subject themselves fully to
the covenant, including to the covenant-forming commandment, circumcision,
Genesis 17:14.

Instead of Hyam's theory, I contend that what is described in Galatians
2:11-21 is James' finally deciding, after 17 years of Paul's men's having
been merely provisional, or candidate, members, that these men would now
finally, themselves, have to make that commitment as to whether or not they
were going to become actual members. I contend that James, after 17 years of
having enjoyed the financial and other benefits of the collections by and
from Paul's men, finally demanded from them to become actual members or else
to consider themselves to be not members at all. Paul, in the incident that
he is recounting in Galaians 2:11-21, tells what he said in response to
James' command; he said, in effect, no, I won't obey you, because the
covenant itself has been cancelled by God. That was the conception of
Christianity, the moment when the Christian faith that we subsequently know
as Christianity, first came into existence. Prior to this event shortly
after the council in Jerusalem, Paul had never said anything like Galatians
2:16 or Romans 3:28, which is the core of Christianity, Christianity's
existence as a non-Jewish religion. Indeed, in the rest of that statement,
Galatians 2:17-21, is even the statement of the crucifixion as the sacrifice
that has brought the covenant itself to an end, and the total passage,
2:11-21, thus was germinally the essence of Christian
soteriology/eschatology. And this was not said by Paul in submission to
Jesus' successor James, but in opposition to him, and to his authority over
Paul, and consequently as a coup d'etat against Jesus' organization.
History records that this coup succeeded. The organization's best salesman
took it over gradually thereafter, and Paul's followers finished the job
that he had merely started: Paul and his followers wrote the New Testament;
Jesus and his followers did not. The letters that we have from Paul were all
written by him after that crucial encounter, and not prior to it when he had
been both a Jew and a follower of Jesus. After that event, Paul was a former
Jew, and a Christian, and this is the reason why Galatians 1:13 and
Philippians 3:6-8 have Paul referring to his own Judaism in the past tense.
He was henceforth still an Israelite, but only formerly a Jew and now both
anti-Judaic (Philippians 3:2-8) and anti-Semitic (1 Thes. 2:15-16).

Best,
Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page