Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 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: Re: Hyam Maccoby's theory
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:40:44 -0400


Hyam,

Re. your "the Jerusalem Church, led by James and Peter," I would like to
know what evidence you adduce that Peter was not James' subordinate, as is
clearly indicated in Galatians 2:11-14, in which Peter is described as being
embarrassed at having been discovered by James' men to have been violating
James' instructions, by Peter's dining with uncircumcised men. Galatians is
legally/forensically the highest quality evidence that exists concerning the
respective ranks of James and Peter within the Jesus sect (by "sect," I
refer to it as it had been up to that time, after which Paul and his
followers broke away from it to form Christianity). And, even though Acts is
not nearly as reliable evidence concerning this question, Acts provides
confirmation of this by indicating in 15:13-21 that it was James, and James
alone, who made the final decisions for the sect. Peter was shown there
(15:7-11) as being solely one of James' followers, rising to speak in
support of Paul's practise of accepting into the sect's membership
uncircumcised men. However, in any case, Galatians is first-person witness
evidence, not hearsay, regarding this matter, and it clearly indicates Peter
to be subordinate to James, and so I would like to know what evidence you
have to the contrary that is of higher legal/forensic standing upon this
particular issue than is Galatians.

Are you basing your assumption on other hearsay "evidence," such as the
Gospels of Matthew and John? Or are you basing it on even farther-removed
"evidence," such as Irenaeus, etc., who were themeselves building upon
those?

I think that it is critically important to be careful about such evidentiary
matters. No court in any democratic country would permit sloppiness about
these critically important matters, and I don't think that scholars ought to
have evidentiary standards that fall grossly short of legal/forensic
standards. Therefore, I am extremely interested to know on what basis you
make this assumption that Peter was the equal of James in the -- in the
Jesus-following what?

What do you think that it was? Are you also assuming here that it was "the
Christian church," or instead "the Jesus-following Jewish sect," or
precisely what is your underlying assumption on that very important
assumptive matter? This, too, is not clear to me.

Re. your: "James and Peter, as believing Jews, saw it as the tragic death of
a human liberator at the hands of a cruel occupying power, and as having no
effect on spiritual salvation, which was effected only by adherence to the
Torah."

It seems here that your underlying assumption about what this group was, is
that it was the Jesus-following sect of Jews, which is the viewpoint that
the book that I am doing holds likewise. However, your phrase "human
liberator," while, of course, being authentic to the Jewish messianic myth,
tends unfortunately to universalize the messianic concept beyond it, to the
Christian version, and to depoliticize it, which would tend to contradict
your subsequent phrase about its "having no effect on spiritual salvation."
Consequently, I am confused about what you are really trying to say here. Is
this, indeed, a Jewish group, or instead a Christian one? I am arguing, but
am not clear about whether or not you would agree, that Christianity began
precisely at the event that Paul recounts as having taken place in Galatians
2:11-21, at which he announced his opposition to James' circumcision-order,
and to the salvific relevance of obedience to the laws of God. Paul, when
finally challenged there by Peter and James' other representatives, was
driven, after his 17 years of evangelizing for this Jewish sect, to choose
between either being forced to circumcize his men or else to leave Judaism
altogether, and he made the fateful decision to leave Judaism, for the
reasons that he explains in Galatians 2:16-21. However, Paul's actual
reason, I contend, was that he did not want to order all of these men, whom
he had worked so hard to "convert" to the sect during the prior 17 years, to
subject themselves to this medical operation in that era that knew neither
anaesthesia nor antibiotics, inasmuch as Paul recognized (and implicitly
acknowledged at the end of Galatians 2:2) that, if he were to do so, then he
would lose most of what he had spent those 17 years building up; most of
these men would abandon him. It was from this tragic situation, I contend,
that Christianity had its actual start. However, I am not clear where you
stand on this.

Re. your references to the Noahide alternative:

On what evidence do you assert that Paul's invention of Christianity (i.e.,
Galatians 2:16-21) was upon a Noahide basis? I do not see Paul referring to
Noah, but rather to other features of the Torah.

Are you assuming that Matthew 24:37-38 was the basis for Galatians 2:16-21,
even though it was written actually by a follower of Paul?

Re. your: "Paul ... could not accept the validity of circumcision for any
Gentile members of the Jesus movement," your underlying assumption here
seems to be that Paul did accept the validity of circumcision for Jews.
However, Paul himself denies this in Romans 3:27-30. In Romans 3:23 (and
3:20), he makes clear that circumcision won't save any Jew, because every
Jew, just like every other person, commits at least some sin, and will
therefore be saved only by the same pathway that everyone else will be: by
Christ-faith, and not by doing what the Law requires (Romans 3:28).
Furthermore, Paul said the very same thing in Galatians 2:16. And he was
building upon this very same foundation in 2 Corinthians 3:6-9, by saying
that the Law brings death, and only faith brings eternal life. If everyone
is a violator of the Law (Romans 3:20&23), then how could things be
otherwise? Only the Christian pathway will work, said Paul. But you are
asserting something very different: you are saying that Paul asserted
circumcision to be irrelevant to Gentiles, but salvific for Jews. Where is
your evidence for that in Paul?

Also, your own posting of June 2nd had closed by saying, "Paul wanted to
abolish all distinctions within the movement." You are now implying to the
contrary, that Paul felt that circumcision would work for Jews, but not for
Gentiles. Would you, therefore, please be so kind as to clarify?

Re. your "For Jews like James and Peter, on the other hand, it was quite
acceptable for a Gentile to leave the Noachic Covenant and attach himself
instead to the Sinaitic Covenant," I see likewise no evidence cited. Would
you please be so kind as to inform us of the evidentiary source of this
knowledge of yours concerning what James and Peter thought?

Re. your "This is why James's emissaries were so busy: they were telling
Paul's Gentile converts, 'This is your last chance to elevate your status to
membership of the Jewish priest-nation'," I again would like to know where
you have obtained this information about James's thinking. Paul, from
letters that are generally agreed to be authentic, did himself express the
view that the Second Coming would arrive shortly, but I would like to know
what James thought about this, and if you have similarly sound evidence
concerning that issue, then I would certainly like to be informed as to what
it is. In my own book, I am thus far unable to say what James thought about
anything, except by reconstruction from Galatians as being first-hand
witness evidence on that, and so I reason very carefully and step-by-step
from that obviously extremely sparse base. I then use Acts only to
test/verify hypotheses that I have already formulated from that base, but
never to actually create an hypothesis on it. I have not found any
references in Paul to the distinction that you are focusing upon here,
between the Noachic and Sinaitic Covenants. There is a great deal in the
Torah that Paul ignored, and, so far as I am aware, this belongs in that
category. However, somehow, you believe that you have evidence to the
contrary. Would you please tell us what it is? And concerning the opinions
of James, I am especially interested to know what evidence you have.

Best,
Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page