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: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Hyam Maccoby's theory
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:15:59 +0100









Dear Eric,

I have never stated that James and Peter were equal in status in the
Jerususalem Church. On the contrary, I have argued carefully that James was
the leader and Peter was his second-in-command. I explain at length why
this was so (despite Jesus' apparent election of Peter) in THE MYTHMAKER
(pp. 120-123). The mere fact that I refer to the two leading figures as
James and Peter, putting James first, does not imply that I regard them as
equal.
I am afraid this is typical of the hasty misunderstandings in your latest
contributions. Again and again you attribute some opinion to me which I
have never held, and then upbraid me for not providing evidence for it.
Just to mention one more example, I have never argued that Paul's thinking
was in any way based on the doctrine of the Noahide Laws.
It would be too wearisome for me to go through all your misunderstandings
and confusions. I will only say this. I agree that in scholarly work, as
in a court of law, evidence is very important. But the careful, receptive
reading of texts (including secondary texts) is also very important.
Perhaps if you adopt a less impatient, hectoring approach you will have more
chance of reading with understanding and appreciation. I say this entirely
out of a desire to be helpful to you.

Cordially,

Hyam
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________


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: "Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Hyam Maccoby's theory


> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> 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