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, 2 Feb 2000 07:23:11 -0600


Dear Antonio,
I am leaving parts of our last messages so that the material does not need to be repeated. Discussion below.

Antonio Jerez wrote:
>Premise 1: Did Jews think that gentiles could become members
>of the people of Israel, Gods people? As I have understood it Jews
>(at least most of them) did indeed believe it was possible. How did
>a gentile become an Israelite? As I understand it the "norm" requiered
>three steps; (A) belief in and allegiance to the Jewish God alone (B)
>following the Mosaic code of laws, including circumcision (C) allegiance
>to the new community of the convert - Israel. As I understand it these
>gentile converts were usually called proselytes.

Mark Nanos replied:
>>The difference between our views is the way that B) is stated. A
>>gentile does not follow the Mosaic Law and is not expected to do so
>>beyond whatever may be expected of gentiles who associate, which
>>would vary of course. Those who were no more than mere friends such
>>as benefactors who did not participate in Jewish communal life may
>>have been expected to do little. Julia Severe appears to have
>>dedicated a synagogue in Asia Minor about the time of Paul's letter,
>>but not to have been a Jewess. She was the chief priestess of the
>>imperial cult and head of the gymnasium, for example. What kind of
>>righteousness would have been expected of such a benefactor as she
>>went about her public life?

>>Those engaged in the rite of passage, a process taking some time,
>>might have conformed entirely by the time of completion, i.e.,
>>attainment of proselyte status. Surely many others fell somewhere in
>>between.

>>The point is that gentiles are not "indebted to do the Law," as Paul
>>puts it in 5:3, until they have become proselytes. Thus the point is
>>that circumcision and Law observance are two different things; one is
>>a symbol of entrance and identity, the other is the obligation and
>>privilege that will accompany that identity once acquired. C) would
>>likewise need to be nuanced along this line.

I fear that I slight misunderstanding of my use of semantics may have caused
you to question point B) in my first premise. By "steps" I wasn´t meaning
that A) B) and C) are separated in time throughout a lengthy conversion
process. What I wanted to say is that both A) B) and C) was something that
you took upon yourself the moment you were admitted into Jewish community
as a fullblown member of the people of Israel - and the precise moment of
that was when you became circumcised. Are we agreed know?

Antonio,
On this new point we are agreed. But I still want to make a distinction clear as my last post to you stated between circumcision, a last part of completing a process, and being a Law-person, the first part after the process has been completed. Of course reality is messier than this, and Torah would be observed earlier; but for the sake of argument, until a proselyte, he or she is not obliged as though "under the Law." Clear?

Also another little clarification of our respective use of semantics: are we
agreed that the term proselyte should only be reserved for a former gentile
who has completed A) B) C) and become a Jew?

Agreed.

Would you call a gentile
who is on his who is on his way through the process of becoming a Jew a
righteous gentile (Godfearer?).

Yes, although the term is not reserved for proselyte candidates, whichever term is chosen.

Is Julia Severa such a righteous gentile?

Good question. Here we have to both nuance our terminology and make historical guesses. We do not know what she was or was not considered in Jewish or pagan identity terms. She dedicated a synagogue, perhaps a home she already owned. But she held pagan offices that would seem to suggest she was not a Jewess. This is from material evidence, not literature about her. Any conclusion will be circular depending upon how terms are defined and identities imagined. Anyway, someone dedicating synagogues and yet chief priestess of the imperial cult and a leader of the gymnasium seems not to be either a Jewess or proselyte or proselyte candidate, but yet a friend of the Jewish community. I would call her a righteous gentile, but not expect that this meant she was considered obliged to observe Torah in any way except as required for guests if she came within the Jewish communal sphere, for example, when the synagogue was dedicated. Otherwise she might be regarded as an idolater in daily life.

I imagine the early Christ-believing gentiles were obliged to observe some higher level of Jewish observances because of their identity affiliation with Jewish communal life, and the claim to have turned from idolatry to the worship of the One God. They are also righteous gentiles, but of a different kind than a mere benefactor, say. Someone engaged in proselyte conversion, I assume a lengthy process overall, would be a different kind of righteous gentile too, but perhaps not that different from these Christ-believing gentiles; and this may have caused confusion. It is logical for other Jewish people who are not part of this subgroup of Christ-believers to assume that they were proselyte candidates based upon their claims, expectations, and treatment in these subgroups. Finding out what was actually believed (that they were not, but already regarded full members because of belief that the age to come had dawned due to the life and death and resurrection of a Judean martyr of the Roman regime) may be precisely where the friction would be generated, the differences and implications of the beliefs of this groups now salient, and the dangers of not responding perceived.

>
>Premise 3: (I guess that this is where Mark's and my views diverge
>radically) Paul admitted many Godfearers (is that what you call
>righteous gentiles?) and pagan gentiles to
>his Churches and had them baptised in the name of Christ.

>>It is not clear that churches existed as your language might imply,
>>that is, as sectarian entities. They seem to be rather subgroups
>>within the Jewish communities, or voluntary associations. I doubt
>>they had the kind of institutional identity with all of the political
>>aspects of such an organization in this Roman world.

>>This entire topic is in debate, but it is important to clarify to
>>what kind of communal identity one images Paul admitting these
>>gentiles. Gentiles were admitted to synagogues as welcome guests, et
>>al., even up to proselyte candidates. This move on Paul's part is not
>>unique in Jewish communal terms, although the baptism in the name of
>>Christ is different, and a feature of these particular subgroups of
>>believers in Christ.

I must say that this aspect of your overall thesis struck me as very odd,
to say the least, when I begun reading your "Mystery of Romans" yesterday.
I hope we can return in more detail to this particular problem, though I
must confess already at this stage that your claim appear to face some
heavy obstacles. For example: how probable is it that "orthodox" Jewish
synagogues would have embraced and welcomed "Christian" Godfearers
who were known to confess a crucified Messiah?

What is the problem? The issue for Jewish sensibilities is often less "theological" than for later "Christians." All kinds of differences of opinions might be tolerated, the question of importance is what social life impinges on others who do not share this view. Consider the implications of Paul's own statement in Gal. 5:11. It implies that he would not be having the problems he has with other Jewish leaders if he believed in Jesus but continued to circumcise gentiles seeking full membership. Or consider the Bar Kochba revolt some 80 years later!

How probable is it that
"orthodox" Jewish synagogue authorities would have admitted those same
"Christian" Godfearers into their sabbath services after knowing the Godfearers
also having participated in an Eucharistic rite to commemorate their crucified
Messiah?

I think they commemorate this in synagogues; how quickly do you think that a separate institutional identity developed anyway? This looked a lot like any other Jewish meal, just with gentiles sitting in places they generally did not, I suppose.

Or are you implying that those same synagogue authorities would
have nodded in consent and lent out the Synagogue building to the "Christians"
(gentiles + jewish-christians) for their particular messianic service?

This is an anachronistic assumption. Synagogue appears to have been a reference to a communal identity, not a structure, at this time. That is not to say there may not have been some structures; it is probable that there were, especially outside of striking distance for getting to the Temple (another important aspect that is usually overlooked in these discussions: if the members of this group still attended and observed Temple life according to prevailing norms this would be a more determinative identity issue I imagine; but yet consider the Qumran community; where they not a Jewish group?). The available evidence suggests that these were houses, probably lived in and also met in. Just as many imagine early Christian house assemblies. No permanent structures dedicated solely to Jewish meetings in the way you imply in your use of synagogues are unambiguously attested until the next century. So people just met in the home of so-and-so who believed in one way, and others met in the house of so-and-so who believed in another. Probably sometimes joint meetings were called, perhaps in the town square or a larger home or public building. Acts may have a bias and be later than Paul, but much of the level of social life and communal interaction both within Jewish communities and in relationship to the larger civic life of a city of the Diaspora portrayed is believable historically.

Although way oversimplified, I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page