Corpus-Paul

[Mike Myers <mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>]

Liz wrote:

Insofar as I understand how Christians feel about the OT there is a 
major difference between Jewish and Christian attitudes toward the 
Law.  My understanding is that the Christian says that for the 
Christian the law is no longer in force. To me that implies that it 
once was in force, that prior to Christ it was valid and in force 
but now no longer is.  The Jew does not say that. You point out the 
many Jews who feel the law is not valid.  But these Jews do not say 
that it once was valid and now no longer is.  They say that the law 
is really nothing but Jewish customs and mores then attributed
to God. These Jews don't believe in the sort of God who stands on 
Mt. Sinai and hands out commandments.  To these Jews, the law was 
never valid in the way you're talking about.  Those Jews who do say 
the law was valid then say the law is valid now.  Jews do not say it 
was valid then and not now. This is includes the sacrificial system. 
Those Jews who say the sacrificial system was valid then, also say 
it is valid now. Those who say it was never valid, ie., never 
decreed from God on Mt. Sinai, but just custom, say it is not valid 
now.
*************************************************************

Liz, These are certainly useful distinctions. Though "valid" is 
perhaps a word that needs some unpacking. I used it because you 
originally did so. 

One can contemplate a (big) aspect of the law, the Levitical cultus, 
from very different points of view, of course. I can easily imagine 
modern spectators who look back at the ancient world (just 
post-Exile, say) and observe that the Levitical cultus was valid for 
those people at that time. It makes lots of sense for an Iron Age 
civilization to wrap up in one sacralized literary cloth its need 
for meat, ritual, atonement(s), a priesthood, a holy place etc.

This is one species of "valid". I don't know what label to give it. 
Maybe a "secular historicist" view. One could hold this view and be 
an atheist, skeptic, agnostic, cynic whatever. But I think it's also 
possible to hold the above position or something like it and 1) 
believe in the God of Israel, 2) believe that this God reveals 
himself via history, among other modes, 3) believe that in some 
sense, this law was given to the children of Israel, 4) that it was 
meant by this God for this people for a finite stretch of historical 
time, or had his "blessing" as it were, 5) believe it had served its 
purpose, 6), live in 1CE, 7) be a Jew (at least for awhile, until 
definitions got rigid). Seems to me that Paul was such a Jew, at a 
historical crossroad for this people. The author of Hebrews would 
seem to be another such Jew. I think we can safely extrapolate the 
existence of many similarly minded Jews from mid-1CE to its end. 
This is after all a highly fertile set of concepts. So it's not 
surprising that we have evidence for lots of religious ferment at 
this time in Judaea, Galilee and the diaspora.

You wrote:

"My understanding is that the Christian says that for the Christian 
the law is no longer in force."

But wouldn't the historian, also, say, "From 70 CE on, the law by 
definition cannot be culturally 'in force', for Jews or Jewish 
'Christians', because there is no temple. God or no God. This people 
whose elite constructed a theological culture centered on the Temple 
cultus faced a genuine problem." One might say this objectively, 
purely as an historian, or cultural anthropologist. The Temple's 
non-existence is historical fact. Its centrality to Torah-based 
Judaism is another fact. So there is a dilemma. How is one to be 
righteoused?

The dilemma gave rise to two principal (clear) historical 
trajectories, evidently: Paul and Yavneh. Are you with me so far?

Mike

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers 
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
05/27/1999
16:20:57