Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Why were Gentiles attracted to Christianity?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Why were Gentiles attracted to Christianity?
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:09:18 -0400


David,

Re. your "The only Gentiles I could imagine responding [to the appeal of
Paul's gospel of Christ] would be those receiving the least benefit from the
current [presumably meaning Roman] government":

Paul made repeatedly clear that the benefit or reward that (not just Jews,
but also) Gentiles would gain by accepting his gospel of salvation by faith
in Jesus as the Christ, was salvation itself; i.e., an after-death eternal
life in heaven with God, instead of in hell with Satan in punishment for the
sins that they are committing during life. Prior to Paul, a few Gentiles
converted to Judaism in order to be able to win heaven. But Gentile men had
to subject themselves to an excruciating and dangerous medical operation on
their penis, without anaesthesia or antibiotics, in order to win that
reward. Paul drastically lowered the price; an admission-ticket into heaven
could now be purchased by a mere dunking in water, a baptism, which was
safe, painless, and easy. Paul placed heaven on sale. That's the reason he
was able to win so many converts.

This had nothing to do with the rest of the Jewish myth, the political parts
of it, which you are trying to relate his success to. Those parts of that
mythology were relevant to the life and death of the historical Jesus, but
not to that of Paul and his followers, the Christians.

Paul depoliticized that myth very consciously, because he was a brilliant
person who therefore recognized that he absolutely had to do so, in order
for him to be able to succeed at his dream of building a religion whose
appeal would be able some day to reach right into the Roman leadership so
that a future Roman Emperor would find Paul's faith attractive and make it
the legal religion of the realm. Paul recognized that the Roman Emperor had
the power to impose his religion upon the entire Empire. Paul therefore
tried, as in Romans 13:1-7, to present the Emperor himself as being God's
very agent on earth, judging men during their mortal lives; God alone would
judge them after death, but the Emperor was by Paul God-ordained total sway
here below.

Paul also recognized that, in order to be able to win a future Roman
Emperor, it was essential to thoroughly depoliticize his Christ, and above
all, to present the Crucifixion as having not been due to Rome. Therefore,
Paul was the first person in history to say (in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, but
also in a more limited way in Galatians 6:12, that "the Jews" (1 Thes.), or
some Jews (Gal.), committed this Deicide. This was crucial, because no
Roman Emperor would ever worship a man who had been crucified by one of his
very own predecessors (Tiberius) for sedition against Roman authority.

Paul was so successful in his salvation/depoliticization appeal, that he
even managed to get some of his followers placed into the Emperor's palace
during Paul's own lifetime (Philippians 4:22); into the residence, that is
to say, of the successor of the very man in whose interests and on whose
behalf the historical Jesus had himself been executed.

So, in summary answer to your question as to what the appeal was of Paul's
message for Gentiles, I would say that it was, importantly, essentially
twofold:

For the masses, it was heaven on sale.

For the elite, it was God's authorization for everything they did.

Paul worked simultaneously at both the bottom and top, and thus ultimately,
in 312 CE with Constantine and thereafter, his brilliantly conceived dream,
which he was far too intelligent ever to state explicitly, was fulfilled.

Therefore, I think that, while you are correct to assume for Jews that the
appeal of Jesus was essentially political, the appeal of Christ for Gentiles
was anything but.

I am aware that this perspective is not generally supported by scholars, and
I have for a long time been trying to find evidence against it, but I have
not thus far encountered any at all, although I am still looking. I welcome
the feedback on it of anyone who is interested in these issues, pro and/or
con.

Best,
Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page