Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: One or two covenants in the OT?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: One or two covenants in the OT?
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:57:15 -0400


> From: Jon Peter > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 1:43 PM

>
> Jon wrote:
>
> > >
> > > At that point in the narrative, only 1 co. did exist, the 1 from
> Genesis.
> > > Beginning in Ex 6, God begins to alter the terms significantly.
> > > Priests are
> > > added. Laws and ritual obligations are required. God refers
> to this new
> > > stuff as a "covenant" in Ex 19.5 and 34.27-28, and many times in Lev.
> The
> > > revision process goes on through much of the Pentateuch. At the end
> God's
> > > cov with Moses and Israel is altogether different from the one
> > > with Abraham,
> > > Isaac and Jacob.
> >
>
> Liz replied:
>
> > I can see how you would read it that way. OT scholars do not
> believe that
> > it was written to be read that way however.
>
>
Jon answered:
> Yes, it is certainly presented as one covenant that undergoes a major
> revision. But, the problem of 2 radically different "relationship systems"
> (if we can't say covenants) remains, and this was the basis for Paul's
> distinctions.

Liz replied:
I understand that Paul presented it as two separate covenants, and made a
big deal of this. However, the Jew never saw it this way, and it certainly
was not written this way. It was written by the same person (or group) and
written to be construed as one. The point is that the covenant was formed
with Abraham and Abe's physical descendants (the authors). It is because of
that covenant that God gave the Hebrews the priestly laws. The whole thing
was written by and conceived by the priests, the Mosaic and the Abrahamic.
To describe them as two defies authorial intent. Paul is the first to my
knowledge to separate these out. He did this to bring the gentile Christ
believer in. He found a wedge. That is fine. But it was certainly not the
intent of the author(s).

>
>
> > In fact, most likely the laws were
> > indigenous to Israel much prior to the Exile
>
>
> I would love to read the arguments and evidences, if you have any
> recommendations.
You must read Milgrom's Leviticus 1-16. It is magesterial. It completely
explains all of this.
He argues that P is 8th C. Most people think P is Persian period. But even
those who think that P is Persian maintain that the institutions being
described are pre-Exilic.
>
>
> >
> > You assume the Genesis passages were written first, and the
> section of the
> > laws written later.
>
>
> Not really. I think Gen. was post-Exilic literature. But I was reading the
> Pentateuch chronology *as Paul would have* -- not necessarily agreeing. We
> were talking about his Torah views, which he'd have based on the 430 years
> elapsing between Abraham and Moses.

I agree that this is how Paul read it. I disagree with the contention that
Jews read it this way, or that this is the natural interpretation.
>
> >
> > but the description in
> > Chronicles is too similar to the description of Hittite and
> Canaanite cult
> > pracitices - and so different from Mesopotamian cult practices -- to be
> > tossed off.
> >
>
> Quite true. "The people of Judah were taken captive to Babylon because of
> their unfaithfulness." (1Chron 9.1) "Unfaithfulness" to the
> covenant meant
> the Jews were indeed practicing Canaanite religion -- a religion
> lacking in
> the Torah rituals and values as we now know them from 2nd Temple
> (i.e., the
> Torah Paul referred to).

I think you misunderstand me. The description of the cult presented in
Chronicles as genuine YHWHistic worship is so similar to Hittite worship and
to Canaanite worship that the YHWHistic worship described there must be seen
as part and parcel of *pre-Exilic* Levantine worship. It is perfectly at
home in the ane. It was not created de-novo in the Persian period as
Wellhausen would have us believe.

>
> But they were practicing the only cultus they knew! The problem with
> pre-Exilic Israel was her non-observance of Pentateuch rituals, in
> preference of Baal/Asherah.

You have been reading the prophets too much. The prophets had to blame the
exile on someone. It couldn't be God. Thus they ascribed it to an unfaithful
people. There is no archaeological evidence for non-YHWHistic cult practice
anywhere in Israel and Samaria. People dredge up these pillar figurines,
but they have never been found in a cultic setting. They don't know what
they were used for. The cult settings that have been found contain only
incense stands and matzevah, aniconic pillars. These were YHWHistic cult
places.

>
>
> > If you read the Hittite material, the Canaanite and Phoenician
> > material, even Egyptian material from Bronze and early Iron
> Age, you will
> > see the exact same preoccupation with purity and atonement.
> You will see
> > the exact same devotion to the meticulous details of ritual and
> law. The
> > preoccupation with purity and impurity is definitely not unique
> to Israel.

You can find references to this in Milgrom.

>
> The parallels between 2nd Temple Judaism and Persian Zoroastrianism are
> striking. By comparison, I've also been told that large chunks of
> Leviticus
> were plagiarized from Canaanite liturgical books.

First you say it is due to the anguish and guilt from the exile, and now you
say it is from Canaanite liturgical books.
Neither is the case. This is just normal cultic practice for the Levantine
area.

Unfortunately I
> have never
> seen this source material nor read a discussion of how this
> purity cult may
> have interfaced with Baal/Asherah worship. (The Anchor Bible Leviticus
> volume was too long delayed.)
Lev. 1-16 is out, has been out several years, and will answer these
questions.
I understand Lev. 17-26 is at the typesetters.

It would be interesting to discover whether
> the biblical conflict between these religions was mirrored in a similar
> pagan conflict. Can you give me some reading tips or names?
The biblical conflict with Asherah/Baal is, imo, a literary topos which the
prophets used to explain the exile, first of the Northern kingdom, and then
the southern.

>
>
> >
> > The boundaries of the law was being argued vociferously in this period.
> The
> > status and the legitimacy of Torah is never argued -- except by
> Paul. If
> > you notice the disagreements are all over points not explained fully in
> > torah. This is shown even in the Gospels. Jesus does not attempt to
> > abrogate the sabbath laws themselves, he only disagrees about what is
> > permitted and what is not. He argues over points of law, he doesn't
> abolish
> > the law.
> >
> >
>
>
> This issue boils down to: How much 'revising' can one do before 'revising'
> is really abrogating and scrapping completely? And second, in answering
> that, as you know there's always a distinction one must make between the
> fixed law code and halakha rulings -- macro- and micro-Torah if you will.
There is no concept of a fixed law code or halakha rulings prior to the
rabbis. The rabbis didn't begin codifying the law until after 70. Before
that, each group made their own halakhic rulings. There were no rabbis, per
se.


>
> As it happens, I recently drafted an article on Matthew chaps 5-8
> addressing
> these very points. The gist is, that Jesus presented a substitute Torah to
> replace all Rabbinical traditions and halakha of his day,
There were no rabbinical traditions or rabbinic halakha during the time of
Jesus. My teacher, Lawrence Schiffman, believes that the attribution of the
title "rabbi" to Jesus is anachronistic. The first mention of rabbi we have
is in the Bar Kochba letters. This is after the destruction of the temple.


*as well as *
> certain portions of the source code or written Torah itself. In
> so doing he
> upheld the Deuteronomic covenant portions only (i.e., a Torah and
> circumcision of one's heart (Deu 30:6) and love of God with all
> one's being
> (Deu6:5). His Torah is accomplished by love of God and neighbor.
What about "you shall love your neighbor as yourself?" That's from
Leviticus.

> Jesus also
> advocated commandment-keeping, but only *his* commandments.
Jesus was much stricter in his observance than what eventually became
rabbinic doctrine. For example, he permitted no divorce. He permitted no
"lusting in your heart." He permitted no hating your neighbor. This is what
the rabbis called "a fence around the torah." These are all impossibly
strict.

As for what he
> did about the rest of the Tanakh, Jesus' sect reinterpreted this to be a a
> tapestry of hundreds of signs and symbols pointing to Jesus. My
> article is
> brief and I hope to post it on the Exegesis e-group sometime this week.
OK.
>
> I also find Paul's letters to be in perfect synch with Matthew, Luke and
> John gospels in terms of the above antinomianism -- so much so, in fact,
> that some scholars believe Paul's gentile clique hijacked the tracts early
> and effaced the presumed Judaic and Torahnic elements. But that's another
> story.
I don't find Jesus anti-nomian. But maybe I confuse the historical Jesus
with the gospels. I don't find the HJ antinomian.

>
> Best regards,
You too.

>
> Jon
>
Liz
>
Lisbeth S. Fried
Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
51 Washington Sq. S.
New York, NY 10012
lqf9256 AT is3.nyu.edu
lizfried AT umich.edu





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page