Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's persecution of the Church

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul's persecution of the Church
  • Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 15:13:54 +0100


1. The Jerusalem Chruch did not require circumcision as a means of
> > conversion.
> ...if by this you mean no proselyte conversion for gentiles. Agree.
>
I think that what this correspondence has lacked is reference to the
'God-fearers',' or as the Talmud calls them, 'the children of Noah' (BENEI
NOAH). These were people who were semi-converts to Judaism and were
regarded as obligated to observe certain commandments (the 'Seven Laws')
which did not include circumcision. The New Testament contains several
references to the 'God-fearers' (e.g. Cornelius) - see especially the work
of Louis Feldman. In my opinion, the topic discussed at the Jerusalem
Conference was whether 'God-fearers' could be admitted into the Jesus
movement, or whether this movement should be confined to full Jews. For
full discussion see my THE MYTHMAKER (ch. 13). It was a real problem for
James and the Jerusalem Church whether 'God-fearers' could be admitted into
the Jesus movement, which centred on a Jewish messiah, i.e. the King of
the Jews, and therefore, from a purely national point of view, might be
thought to apply only to Jews. James' decision was that God-fearers could
become members, and he laid down rules for them which, I argue, are
identical with the Seven Laws incumbent on 'God-fearers'. The question of
circumcision was therefore bypassed, since God-fearers were not obligated to
be circumcised. Those who wanted to insist on circumcision were really
saying, 'Only Jews can belong to a Jewish national movement of liberation.
God-fearers, however admirable, are non-Jews and cannot become the subjects
of a Jewish king.' James, on the other hand, saw the Messiah as a leader
for the whole world, Jewish and non-Jewish, in accordance with certain
utterances of the Hebrew prophets. Paul, however, took this decision of the
Jerusalem Council in a sense never intended by James; namely that
circumcision had been down-graded even for Jewish adherents to the Jesus
movement. This is what led to the eventual split between Paul and the
Jerusalem Church. Paul and James came to apparent agreement (that non-Jews
entering the movement did not need circumcision) but as time went on, it
became apparent that their understanding of the agreement was widely
different, for to James circumcision was just as holy an obligation (for
Jewish members of the movement) as before. James' decision was a real one:
for to have a messianic movement consisting of both Jews and non-Jews was
something new in the history of Judaism, but for James the Jesus movement
would henceforth contain two grades of membership, while Paul wanted to
abolish all distinctions within the movement.

Hyam Maccoby
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________


Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:20 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Paul's persecution of the Church


> on 5/30/02 5:38 PM, Vince Endris at vince_endris AT hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks to all of you who responded to my query. It seems that my
confussion
> > was in linking purity laws and circumsion together. Let me see if I can
> > summerize what I recieved from the emails.
>
> Vince,
> There will be different views here, of course, but here are mine.
>
> > > > 2. However, they did require commitment to the purity laws of the
Torah (so
> > Peter was afraid to let James catch him eating with Gentiles - Gal.
> > 2:11-12.)
> Agree with first clause, disagree with implication drawn. I do not think
> Gal. 2:11-12 has anything to do with purity laws being violated, or fear
of
> James. Also, purity laws are different for Jewish (Torah) and non-Jewish
> (non-Torah) people. Peter is said by Paul to fear advocates of
circumcision
> (proselyte conversion); if your point 1 stands, then this group would not
be
> representatives of the Jerusalem churches, since they did not advocate
that.
> They must be some other group.
>
> > 3. Before Paul's conversion he may have persecuted the church because
of
> > their differing views of circumsision.
> OK, although I would clarify: different views of the standing of gentiles
in
> these groups apart from proselyte conversion.
>
> > 4. Paul's split with the Jerusalem church was because of their
insistance
> > on the purity laws.
> Disagree. 1) I see no split with the Jerusalem church for Paul; he writes
of
> their agreement, even if arrived at independent of each other. 2) To what
> insistence on purity laws do you refer? 3) I understand Paul to hold to
the
> same standards of purity as the Jerusalem churches, so I also disagree
with
> the assumption in the conclusion drawn.
>
> > I believe that this is what I am hearing. Tell me if I am wrong.
>
> It should at least be clear that your conclusion are not the only
responses
> that you are reading in this forum, even if they may represent the views
of
> some participants.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> 313 NE Landings Dr.
> Lee's Summit, MO 64064
> USA
> nanosmd AT comcast.net
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page