Corpus-Paul

["Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>]

Eric Zuesse:


1.  Modern Orthodox rabbis base their practice on traditional legal
decisions going back to ancient times.  If there was anything in the Mishnah
or Talmud interpreting Exodus 12:48 in the way you suggest, they would not
attend non-Jewish banquets.

2.   Acts 11:3 refers to a time before the Jerusalem Council took place.  At
that time, uncircumcised people were not admitted into the Jesus movement.
Eating with uncircumcised people would have been frowned on at that time,
not because they were uncircumcised but because, not being bound by the
later provisions of the Jerusalem Council, they would not have been trusted
to give a Jewish participant food of the necessary kosher quality and would
have had on the table 'meat sacrificed to idols'.  Actually, the
uncircumcised person with whom Peter ate before the Jerusalem Council was
Cornelius (Acts 10), who was a 'God-fearer' and therefore could be trusted
in this matter;  but the opponents of Peter at this point did not know this
and thought that Peter had shared a meal with an idolater.

3.  I agree that the Eucharist probably did not exist at this time (see
my THE MYTHMAKER).  I included reference to this possibility because other
correspondents had suggested that Peter might have been a keen supporter of
the Eucharist, regarding it as a Paschal meal which he should not share with
the uncircumcised on the basis of Exodus 12:48.  I argued instead that
Peter, if he discovered the meal to be Eucharistic, would have had reason to
leave the table for precisely the opposite reason -  that as a practising
Jew he would have disapproved of the Eucharist.  Again, Exodus 12:48 does
not enter the picture at all.

4.  I am not projecting backwards a later understanding of Exodus 12:48.
The main evidence for my view is the text itself, which states as plainly as
possible that the prohibition against participation by the uncircumcised
applies only to one meal, the eating of the Passover sacrifice.  No-one
could ever have understood this verse to apply to all meals
indiscriminately, whether 'ceremonial' or not.  The evidence from the Book
of Daniel is that at the time of the composition of this book (probably
about 165 BCE, see Nickelsburg) the verse was not understood as applying to
all meals (very strangely, you thought that I was pitting the authority of
Daniel against that of the Torah, whereas what I was doing was using the
book of Daniel as EVIDENCE of Jewish opinion in the 2nd century BCE - I note
that you do not refer to this matter again, in which you are so clearly
wrong).  I think it hardly likely that a view that was totally accepted by
Torah-observant Jews in the 2nd century BCE would have changed drastically
in the 1st century BCE.
    I have replied above to your second post, which was a great deal more
sensible than your first post - to which I would not have replied at all if
you had left the matter there.  It is absurd to suggest that I am
underplaying the importance of circumcision to Torah-observant Jews by not
agreeing to your idiosyncratic interpretation of Exodus 12:48.  Moreover, it
is ridiculous to suggest that because some non-Jews might have regarded
certain of their meals as Paschal, this would have had the slightest
influence over Torah-observant Jews, who would have regarded as Paschal only
meals defined as such in the Torah.  It seems, however, that you yourself
realised that your first post was over the top, or you would not have sent
the more sensible second post.
    In general, I am concerned that you are bringing into disrepute certain
views (some of which you derived from me) by your intemperate manner of
arguing and by your claim to be the sole possessor of a scientific approach
to New Testament studies, which can only be regarded as megalomaniac.  This
makes you a very unrewarding partner in conversations such as those
conducted in this list between people who are patiently trying to unravel
the complexities of difficult and debateable texts on the basis of goodwill
and mutual respect.

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: "Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Jerusalem conference


> Re: Hyam Maccoby's:
>
> > I regard your misunderstanding of
> > Exodus 12:48 as an elementary error, which you should certainly
eliminate
> > from your projected book.  This verse prohibits sharing with the
> > uncircumcised in a meal that took place once a year in Temple times:
the
> > eating of the Passover sacrifice. After the destruction of the Temple in
> 70
> > CE even this meal ceased to be eaten except in symbolic form. I would
also
> > point out that the late Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom took part
> > regularly in State banquets where he was provided with kosher food.  The
> > same practice is followed by his successor Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks,
and
> > if you enquire you will find that Orthodox rabbis in the USA also attend
> > State banquets if provided with kosher food.  There is nothing in Exodus
> > that prohibits this.
> >     As for Peter's withdrawal from the meal at Antioch, this may
possibly
> > have been because he discovered that the meal was Eucharistic in
> character.
>
> Thank you Hyam, for your observations, which are very informative about
> post-70-CE Jewish practises-and-interpretations concerning Exodus 12:48.
>
> However, I have some questions:
>
> 1) Why are you referring to what current rabbis do, when the issue here
> concerns pre-70-CE Jewish practises and the ways in which the Jews of that
> time interpreted Exodus 12:48?
>
> 2) How does Acts 11:3 fit in with your reading of Exodus 12:48? (This is
the
> most important question of all.)
>
> 3) Why are you referring to the Eucharist, since there is no evidence that
> such a ceremony actually was practised anywhere in that early time?
>
> 4) Are you, in other words, projecting backwards, to that earlier era,
> "facts" about that era that are actually *only* facts about the *later*
eras
> that you really do have evidence about?
>
> Above all, please be so kind as to respond fully to #2. If it weren't for
> Acts 11:3, I would take your comments quite seriously. I still think that
> your comments might be relevant, but I would need to see a good answer to
#2
> in order to believe that to be the case.
>
> Best,
> Eric Zuesse
> cettel AT shoreham.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')
>