Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul as apostate (was:Paul Not a Pharisee?)
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:01:52 -0600


Sakari,
I do not find that the following data supports the claim. Below the data (all but reference omitted) I will comment accordingly.

In response to Sakari I had asked:
for evidence from the "supposed" opponents of Paul
(concerning the apostacy of the Torah):
> Whether Paul had been or was still a Pharisee or not, of
this
> evidence from supposed "opponents of Paul" I am unaware.
Would you
> mind supplying some data?

And Sakari replied:
1) Acts 21,20-21

This case makes my point I think. This is a rumor that the leaders of the Christ-believing communities in Jerusalem do not believe to be true, and thus against which they advise Paul to take measures so they will no longer be considered legitimate. And with this Paul agrees; he takes the actions, which assumes that the rumors are not true in his opinion either. By the way, the action Luke describes, a Nazarite vow in the Temple, involves a burnt offering! (I find this amazing for Luke to relate, whenever written, and however construed). Note too that the rumor is about what Paul teaches Jewish people, which is a misunderstanding of what he teaches gentiles instead, which would not be outside of the "common" Jewish view of differentiating between Jews and gentiles where Torah observance is concerned; in other words, the rumor would have had no teeth if Paul's teaching was properly understood.

That is your data source, and thus the implications of it must be considered. Here Paul is Torah observant, even sacrificing in the Temple, as are the other Christ-believing Jews. Faith in Christ has not changed their opinion of the value of Jewish identity or behavior according to Luke; and why should it, if a conviction that Jesus was their Messiah? The assumption of exception is a later Christian non-sequitur, but upon which the judgement of your following later "Christian" sources rely.



2) Irenaeus, Against Haeresies 1,26:
2....

What Paul do they repudiate? The one that Irenaeus is so certain would not "adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God"? The one that is an apostate according to his judgement as wrong "the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law"? This is a much later and unfriendly source, where Torah defined identity and lifestyles are concerned. I do not see that it should take priority over the implications of Luke's Acts, and certainly not where it is contrary to the implications of Paul's own letters, of which I provided at least two in my last post (are you going to comment upon those?).

3) Epiphanius, Panarion 30,17.8-9

4) Epiphanius, Panarion 30,25.1-4

5) Ps-Cl Homilies 17,19:

...The last paragraph
does not explicitly prove that Paul was regarded as
apostate, although he is accused to have taught contrary to
His (Jesus') teaching. I guess you find it interesting also
otherwise. The writer is "Peter".

Of course none of the writers of these texts should be
considered to have been a contemporary of Paul. However,
they prove ( with more similar texts?) that Paul was
regarded as apostate at least in the second century.

But was he rightly regarded as an apostate according to Torah-observance is precisely my question. That he was so regarded does not mean it represents what was the case. The ideological vantage point of these sources biases the polemic. And these sources express views more than just a few years later that that which they purport to describe as well. How this came to be believed, and the nature of this belief are interesting and important, but another topic, as far as I can see. In the case of the Pseudo-Clemintine Homily, we do not know by whom, are when, or where it was written with any certainty, although I look forward to your work on this.


From
his own letters we know that
1) he had opponents
2) his opponents had a different view to the Torah
3) Paul's view to the Torah was such, that some groups could
regard him quite well as an apostate of the Torah, although
the exact word is not used in the letters.

Now you are back on the topic from my perspective. But I do not know from Paul's letters that he 1) had opponents, at least in the context of supposed apostasy from Torah, or 2) that they had a different view of Torah, or 3) of any groups that regarded him as an apostate of the Torah, exact word used or not. In this sense my response to your previous post has not changed at all, and I do not see any data that would warrant such.

It seems to me that Paul, in his letters, opposed (sometimes Jewish) people indirectly, and anticipated (rightly) that the letters, if acted upon, would create opponents thereafter. But this is not because of apostasy from Torah, but because of his view of gentiles as members on age to come basis within the communal life of the present age, legitimated by his appeal to the meaning of Christ for them, by which argument he called for these gentiles to resist the traditional interpretation of their need to complete proselyte conversion. That appeal is made within and by the Scriptures, i.e., Torah, not on the basis of apostasy from their legitimate role for defining what is right for a Jewish person, like himself. That is to say, while he taught gentiles not to become proselytes, the data implies (on my reading) that he would have circumcised his own son (if he had one). His views are modifications of communal norms "for gentiles" based on the revelation of Christ, but precisely according to Torah, as he understands it to apply to them, and thus the Jewish people who associate with them, when the age to come dawns. I do not see why this would oblige him to compromise Torah-observance as a Jewish person; or why he would regard himself, or be regarded as, an apostate (trouble-maker, yes!; in need of a good whipping to banish this foolish policy for gentiles as full members without becoming proselytes, yes!, but apostate, no--at least, not yet!).

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page