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: "Sakari H�kkinen" <sakari.hakkinen AT sci.fi>
  • 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 17:39:56 +0200



Mark,
It seems to me that you have not understood me quite right.
Sorry.
I do not claim that Paul was an apostate of the Torah. What
I wanted to prove with the texts is that he was regarded as
such by some of his opponents. These are not same things.
"Was Paul an apostate?" depends on who defines the right
interpretation of the Torah. As far as I know there were
several remarkable interpreters already in first century,
Paul one of them.

Now, let us look the evidence once again.
> >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. ...(snipped)
This kind of rumor proves that some of his opponents
REGARDED him as apostate, that is they claimed he did not
observe the Torah. If this was true or not, is another
thing, which you are interested in.

>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.
>
I agree. Certainly the Torah was important to Paul and he
would never admit the accusations that he rejected it.

>
> >
> >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?).
Once again, this source proves that there were such
Jewish-Christians who repudiated Paul, because he was an
apostate. The dating of this text (about 170) is not so
important. The text reflects later situation than Paul's
lifetime: now there are some kind of sects among Christians.
The Ebionites did not accept Paul, because their tradition
of interpreting the Torah was different.

The same is true with the other evidence. The essential
difference in our views is here:

You wrote:
> But was he rightly regarded as an apostate according to
> Torah-observance is precisely my question.

This was not at all my question. I am not wise enough to
give my judgment on the possible heresy/apostasy of Paul.
But you are right, when you write:

>That he was so regarded
> does not mean it represents what was the case.

>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.
Oh, now you got it yourself!

>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.
You'll have to wait that for a good time, I am afraid. I do
not investigate these issues at all in my dissertation
(which has been published in Finnish, BTW, I hope to have it
translated soon).

>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.
Well, here we are again. Paul had opponents that accused him
at least for accepting the Gentiles to become converts
without circumcision. According to these opponents this was
against the Torah. Is that right?

Paul interpreted the Torah in some respect differently than
some other Jews, among whom were Jesus-followers. In many
respects he might have agreed with them. However, when
disagreeing with these other teachers both Paul and the
opponents used hard language. The accusation of apostacy is
quite understandable in this way. It does not mean that Paul
was historically an apostate and his opponents the only
faithful disciples of the Torah. But it could be used as
evidence that Paul's opponents in the preserved writings
never explicitly said that he was a Pharisee - quite the
opposite, since a Pharisee could be considered to have been
faithful to Torah and have the right interpretation of it.

Best wishes,

Sakari

Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
University of Helsinki
Department of Biblical Studies
sakari.hakkinen AT evl.fi
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page