sex race [un]circumcision solutions & precedents?
*
Paul's
allegorization
of the TORAH:
'she who loves her neighbor
has fulfilled
the Law'
[ROM 13:8]
~*~
~*~
To the ears & eyes of a rabbinic Jew,
this statement sounds & 'looks' totally familiar
but also totally discordant.
It is of a piece with Galatians 5:14
discussed before and with such other Pauline statements as
'neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision is anything
but keeping the commandments of "G*D"'
[1 Corinthians 7:19] or,
even closer to home,
"For in Mashiach Yehoshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love"
[GAL 5:6].
ROM 8:4,
with its talk of the 'just requirement of the law,'
also fits into this category.
THIS is NOT an accident or a SPORT in Pauline discourse, therefore,
but a very central moment.
The 'just requirement of the Law'
is defined as one thing and one thing ONLY:
faith working through love.
Moreover,
here as elsewhere,
Paul refers to 'fulfilling the Law'
and NOT to 'doing'
IT.
We have already
observed this crucial distinction
more than ONCE?!
~*~
F.T.
has tried very hard
to bring this complex of Pauline texts
close to some form of Judaism contemporary
with Paul.
He considers
these passages as evidence
that Paul 'says straightforwardly that believers should keep the law,'
which from MY point of view is an astonishing remark
and one that simply swallows whole Paul's
revolutionary redefinition
of 'the Law';
FT, of course, attempts
to support this point of view by claiming:
"Paul has, of course, defined obedience to the law
in a way different from his Judaizing opponents.
THEY took a strict attitude toward observing such particularly Jewish commands as circumcision whereas Paul took
a more liberal attitude toward
these requirements
[1 COR 7:19,
GAL 6:15].
Nonetheless,
as we have seen before, the argument between Paul and his opponents
is NOT between a renegade Paul who has redefined the law at will and NORMATIVE Judaism, but, to a large measure, between two Jewish ways of looking at the law?"
THIS is simply NOT adequate for several reasons!
FIRST of all, such modern terms as 'strict' & 'liberal' are entirelyt anachronistic in THIS context.
IF the Torah
is the word of "G*D",
as all Jews, including Paul, held,
something MORE than ATTITUDES of liberality will be required in order to distinguish between parts of "G*D's word" which ARE or are NOT valid
or binding.
Secondly,
since Paul IS a Jew and since we no longer use such terminology
as 'normative Judaism' outside of theological discourse, the statement that
the argument between Paul and his opponents is one of two Jewish ways of looking at the Law is tautological and therefore
empty of content.
The question is rather
whether Paul's Jewish way of looking at the Law IS or is NOT part of larger movements of Jews of his time and how different Judaisms relate to each other typologically and
historically.
FT claims
to have presented evidence
that Paul's position was NOT substantially different from that of other Jewish groups of his time.
THIS evidence,
when examined, however simply does NOT hold up.
"THUS it is difficult," FT writes, "to see any great difference between what Paul says in 5:14 and what PHILO describes as the principle theme of sermons heard in the synagogues
of 'every city'":
'But among the vast number
of particular truths and principles there studied, there stand out practically high above the other TWO main heads:
one of duty to "G*D" as shewn by piety and holiness,
one of duty to men as shewn by humanity
and justice ...'
I submit
that Paul's doctrine
has very little to do with what Philo's text describes:
where Philo's preachers argue that these principles are the most important of the Torah, this does NOT in any sense constitute a claim
that one has FULFILLED the Torah by observing the principles while not,
for instance, circumcising male infants or observing the food laws and Sabbaths.
To be sure,
there apparently WERE Jews in Philo's world
who thought SO,
but in the passage I have discussed before,
Philo himself rails
AGAINST such
views:
'It is true that receiving circumcision
does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions,
and the putting away of the impious conceit,
under which the mind supposed that IT was capable
of begetting by its own power:
but let us not on THIS account repeal the law
laid down for circumcising.
WHY, we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple
and a thousand other things,
IF we are going to pay heed
to nothing except
what is shewn us by
the inner
meaning of things.'
TO BE SURE,
the point of the Law is
to teach these 'two main heads' of piety toward "G*D" AND
justice toward man,
but for Philo,
as far as we know,
THIS did NOT abrogate 'particular Jewish commands,'
and there were NOT,
except perhaps in VERY MINUTE groups,
"TWO Jewish attitudes toward
the Law."
NOR
are any of the other texts that FT cites
any more convincing.
Eleazar's
argument
in the Letter of Aristeas
taht the purpose of the particularly Jewish commandments is
to be 'symbolic reminders of the virtues
and the contemplation of "G*D"'
certainly does NOT bespeak the abrogation of those commandments,
and NEITHER the apologetics of a Pseudo-Phocylides
NOR the lack of mention of 'ceremonial' commandments
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs demonstrates
ANY SUCH notions of
Judaism.
Finally, for now,
what all these texts DO demonstrate
is something that I have been claiming from the very beginning:
PAUL was TROUBLED by something that troubled MANY Jews,
particularly Greek-speaking Jews of the FIRST CENTURY:
the 'special laws' of Judaism,
THOSE THAT MARKED OFF Jews
from the REST of
humanity.
EVEN stories about the "Pharisees" encode THIS issue!
Perhaps
the MOST famous
is the one of the gentile
who came to HILLEL
to be taught the Torah
while standing on
ONE foot.
HILLEL,
in accordance with his fashion, answered gently:
"Do NOT do unto others what you hate done to YOURSELF."
BUT THAN he added: "NOW go learn
the REST!"
IT IS
THAT ADDITION
which Hillel [according to the story] makes
and PAUL DOES NOT
which marks the Pauline OFF from virtually ANY OTHER Jewish
discourse.
~*~
~*~
THE OTHERS
wish gentiles to appreciate Judaism,
perhaps to join IT;
PAUL wishes ALL HUMANITY to become ONE UNIT in love
working through faith
'in Christ.'
The "PLIGHT"
was a COMMON one;
HIS SOLUTION, I maintain,
was an UNCOMMON one -
although perhaps not
unprecedented.
Paul's
allegorization
of the TORAH:
'she who loves her neighbor
has fulfilled
the Law'
[ROM 13:8]
~*~
~*~
To the ears & eyes of a rabbinic Jew,
this statement sounds & 'looks' totally familiar
but also totally discordant.
It is of a piece with Galatians 5:14
discussed before and with such other Pauline statements as
'neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision is anything
but keeping the commandments of "G*D"'
[1 Corinthians 7:19] or,
even closer to home,
"For in Mashiach Yehoshua neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love"
[GAL 5:6].
ROM 8:4,
with its talk of the 'just requirement of the law,'
also fits into this category.
THIS is NOT an accident or a SPORT in Pauline discourse, therefore,
but a very central moment.
The 'just requirement of the Law'
is defined as one thing and one thing ONLY:
faith working through love.
Moreover,
here as elsewhere,
Paul refers to 'fulfilling the Law'
and NOT to 'doing'
IT.
We have already
observed this crucial distinction
more than ONCE?!
~*~
F.T.
has tried very hard
to bring this complex of Pauline texts
close to some form of Judaism contemporary
with Paul.
He considers
these passages as evidence
that Paul 'says straightforwardly that believers should keep the law,'
which from MY point of view is an astonishing remark
and one that simply swallows whole Paul's
revolutionary redefinition
of 'the Law';
FT, of course, attempts
to support this point of view by claiming:
"Paul has, of course, defined obedience to the law
in a way different from his Judaizing opponents.
THEY took a strict attitude toward observing such particularly Jewish commands as circumcision whereas Paul took
a more liberal attitude toward
these requirements
[1 COR 7:19,
GAL 6:15].
Nonetheless,
as we have seen before, the argument between Paul and his opponents
is NOT between a renegade Paul who has redefined the law at will and NORMATIVE Judaism, but, to a large measure, between two Jewish ways of looking at the law?"
THIS is simply NOT adequate for several reasons!
FIRST of all, such modern terms as 'strict' & 'liberal' are entirelyt anachronistic in THIS context.
IF the Torah
is the word of "G*D",
as all Jews, including Paul, held,
something MORE than ATTITUDES of liberality will be required in order to distinguish between parts of "G*D's word" which ARE or are NOT valid
or binding.
Secondly,
since Paul IS a Jew and since we no longer use such terminology
as 'normative Judaism' outside of theological discourse, the statement that
the argument between Paul and his opponents is one of two Jewish ways of looking at the Law is tautological and therefore
empty of content.
The question is rather
whether Paul's Jewish way of looking at the Law IS or is NOT part of larger movements of Jews of his time and how different Judaisms relate to each other typologically and
historically.
FT claims
to have presented evidence
that Paul's position was NOT substantially different from that of other Jewish groups of his time.
THIS evidence,
when examined, however simply does NOT hold up.
"THUS it is difficult," FT writes, "to see any great difference between what Paul says in 5:14 and what PHILO describes as the principle theme of sermons heard in the synagogues
of 'every city'":
'But among the vast number
of particular truths and principles there studied, there stand out practically high above the other TWO main heads:
one of duty to "G*D" as shewn by piety and holiness,
one of duty to men as shewn by humanity
and justice ...'
I submit
that Paul's doctrine
has very little to do with what Philo's text describes:
where Philo's preachers argue that these principles are the most important of the Torah, this does NOT in any sense constitute a claim
that one has FULFILLED the Torah by observing the principles while not,
for instance, circumcising male infants or observing the food laws and Sabbaths.
To be sure,
there apparently WERE Jews in Philo's world
who thought SO,
but in the passage I have discussed before,
Philo himself rails
AGAINST such
views:
'It is true that receiving circumcision
does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions,
and the putting away of the impious conceit,
under which the mind supposed that IT was capable
of begetting by its own power:
but let us not on THIS account repeal the law
laid down for circumcising.
WHY, we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple
and a thousand other things,
IF we are going to pay heed
to nothing except
what is shewn us by
the inner
meaning of things.'
TO BE SURE,
the point of the Law is
to teach these 'two main heads' of piety toward "G*D" AND
justice toward man,
but for Philo,
as far as we know,
THIS did NOT abrogate 'particular Jewish commands,'
and there were NOT,
except perhaps in VERY MINUTE groups,
"TWO Jewish attitudes toward
the Law."
NOR
are any of the other texts that FT cites
any more convincing.
Eleazar's
argument
in the Letter of Aristeas
taht the purpose of the particularly Jewish commandments is
to be 'symbolic reminders of the virtues
and the contemplation of "G*D"'
certainly does NOT bespeak the abrogation of those commandments,
and NEITHER the apologetics of a Pseudo-Phocylides
NOR the lack of mention of 'ceremonial' commandments
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs demonstrates
ANY SUCH notions of
Judaism.
Finally, for now,
what all these texts DO demonstrate
is something that I have been claiming from the very beginning:
PAUL was TROUBLED by something that troubled MANY Jews,
particularly Greek-speaking Jews of the FIRST CENTURY:
the 'special laws' of Judaism,
THOSE THAT MARKED OFF Jews
from the REST of
humanity.
EVEN stories about the "Pharisees" encode THIS issue!
Perhaps
the MOST famous
is the one of the gentile
who came to HILLEL
to be taught the Torah
while standing on
ONE foot.
HILLEL,
in accordance with his fashion, answered gently:
"Do NOT do unto others what you hate done to YOURSELF."
BUT THAN he added: "NOW go learn
the REST!"
IT IS
THAT ADDITION
which Hillel [according to the story] makes
and PAUL DOES NOT
which marks the Pauline OFF from virtually ANY OTHER Jewish
discourse.
~*~
~*~
THE OTHERS
wish gentiles to appreciate Judaism,
perhaps to join IT;
PAUL wishes ALL HUMANITY to become ONE UNIT in love
working through faith
'in Christ.'
The "PLIGHT"
was a COMMON one;
HIS SOLUTION, I maintain,
was an UNCOMMON one -
although perhaps not
unprecedented.
06 jul 2005 - bewerkt op 07 mrt 2008
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 07 mei 2026 Handel & gilden: mèt de 12e eeuw begon ‘n tijdperk
- O 07 mei 2026 .1234: Maar voor de edelen gereed waren begon zich
- O 07 mei 2026 38 Drie wereldoorlogen, vele kruistochten & teveel
- O 06 mei 2026 37 Aarde bastaardsuiker chemie democratie ERMELOG?
- O 06 mei 2026 7/36 In de 10e eeuw {AD} begon ‘t aanzien van deze
- O 06 mei 2026 Algemene Vaderlandse Economische Historie: die ge-
- O 05 mei 2026 Rabbi MOSJEH Maimonides was één der allergrootste
- O 05 mei 2026 Terwijl de Moorse macht in Spanje steeds meer ver-
- O 04 mei 2026 In de 9de eeuw AD woonden verreweg Dé Mééste Jóden
- O 04 mei 2026 Hoe je ‘t ook bekijkt: alles draait om evolutie of
- O 03 mei 2026 De islamieten zouden veel presteren o/h gebied van
- O 03 mei 2026 34 In het begin van de 7de eeuw had deze Arabische
- O 03 mei 2026 In dit geval kijkt Mor Nilam Asih via decennia dus
- O 02 mei 2026 Niet geraakt door rampen die ‘t Romeins Keizerrijk
- O 02 mei 2026 33 Ten tijde van paus Gregorius