Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: Hyam Maccoby's:

> the genuine
> Passover meal took place only in Jerusalem,

> Similarly, even on the unlikely hypothesis that
> the meal at Antioch was not an ordinary meal but a simulated Passover meal
> involving no actual sacrifice of a lamb (as it would have to be, since
> sacrifices were not allowed outside Jerusalem) it could have been shared
by
> circumcised and uncircumcised without breaking any Jewish law.

Thanks, Hyam, for this information. Would you be kind enough to document it,
especially, if possible, in relation to people such as Jesus-followers
outside of Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the Temple?

Exodus 12:48, as I said before, does seem to me to express, allegedly from
God Himself, an opposition, in principle, against his people sharing at
least *significant* meals with non-members. Your note did not address my
question of whether you feel that this meal that Peter was sharing in
Antioch might possibly have been viewed, by its participants, as being
significant in that way.

As I said before, I am not assuming that this meal occurred at Passover, but
you seem to be assuming that Exodus 12:48 had no bearing for First Century
Jews regarding ceremonial or otherwise significant dining-together with
non-Jews,  and, since you repeat this in your new post, I would greatly
appreciate knowing of some specific references that clearly indicate this.

Barring such unambiguous reference sources indicating to the contrary, I am
inclined to think that you are wrong in your opinion that First Century Jews
would have felt that Exodus 12:48 had no bearing upon Peter's joining at
meal with Paul's uncircumcised men, and especially because the occasion of
this particular meal was a challenge, by Peter representing James, a
challenge specifically saying that Paul's uncircumcised men were, indeed,
*not members of the Jesus sect of Jews.*

It just seems so unbefitting that, on a mission to Antioch to tell Paul that
these men were not members and had to become circumcised in order to become
Jews so that they could be members, Peter would have dined together with
these men, in light of the principle expressed clearly against doing so in
Exodus 12:48.

I also question whether First Century Jews took more seriously than you
evidently do the importance of Genesis 17:13-14, the first-given of all the
commandments, and the one by means of which the covenant was signed by the
Jewish people. I look at that passage and cannot imagine how Jews could have
taken circumcision so lightly as you (and perhaps modern Jews generally)
might take it in our modern more secular culture. How could anything have
been morally more significant for these people than circumcision? Of course,
modern Jews don't consider circumcision to be morally important, but just a
ritual--but our times are extremely different than the First Century.

Furthermore, it seems to me that you are assuming that circumcision of an
adult male, as a voluntary act by that male, in the First Century, when
neither anaesthesia nor antibiotics existed, was comparable to involuntary
circumcision of a Jewish 8-day-old baby, or else to circumcision of an adult
man today when anaesthesia and antibiotics are easily available.

It seems to me that you might be looking at the First Century through
glasses heavily colored by your Twenty-First-Century experiences, and that,
consequently, things that were important to the people of that era are
virtually invisible to you in this era.

Perhaps there are primary pre-70-CE sources that exist that I don't know
about that support your casual view of how Jews of that era viewed their
circumcisions and the obligatoriness of being circumcised in order to become
a Jew, but you have not provided even a single such reference, and, until
you cite at least one, I am, to put it mildly, skeptical about what you are
saying.

Specifically with reference however, to the Christian situation of that
time, I should note that 1 Corinthians 5:7 does indicate that Paul's
congregations celebrated Passover. These people were not in Jerusalem. The
sacrifice at those meals was symbolic, and not necessarily of a live animal
who was killed for anything more than its common meat as a dish to be
consumed. Consequently, your saying here that "the genuine Passover meal
took place only in Jerusalem, where the paschal sacrifices took place at the
Temple," seems falsely to suggest to the contrary. Again, I would like to
know upon what evidence you are making your assertion.

Best,
Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net