RandyHelzerman wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 4:00 pm
John2 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 2:35 pmThere was already a "balance" in Christianity before Acts was written. Paul says the pillars (James, Peter and John) approved of his Gentile mission in Gal. 2:7-9:
Acts was written by a later generation than Paul. There are echos of the fierce debates which Paul had with his opponents. But its obvious the issue just isn't as pressing as it was before. Probably because after 70ad and 130ad Jews had other things to worry about, and gentiles probably wanted to distance themselves from the rebels.
I actually think (as a non-believer) that Acts was written by one of Paul's follower's (since we're invited to speculate here). I can't prove it, but all things considered, that's my guess. And the person I have in mind would have written Acts by c. 95 CE (before Marcion was active). And I see more than an "echo" of the debate about Jewish Torah observance in Acts. It addresses it quite frankly in 21:
Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. 22What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. 24Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law.
I know we've gone over this before, but what more could you want here? This acknowledges what we know from Paul's letters, that Paul had a Torah-free dream for everyone, but James (like he does in his letter) keeps Paul in line.
The letter of James is diplomatic (and protective) by not naming Paul outright and hopes that he could be brought back in line on the issue of Jewish Torah observance, and the same thing happens in Acts 21, where James protects him from the mob and keeps him in line on Torah observance.
7... they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.
From the beginning of Galatians. Yeah, he says that, but you can hardly call the opening of Galatians an ecumenical tract
Case in point:
James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars [......I don't give a flying flip about that...]
There are still open wounds from the controversies. By time Acts was written, Paul and his generation were long dead.
Case in point:Plenty of people who were alive since the 30's CE were alive in the 90's CE (like Josephus and Flavius Clemens), and I think the person who wrote Acts was one of them.
So Paul wasn't big on ranking. But he at least had the approval of the pillars and he wanted people to know that. And he shows more deference to them in 1 Cor. 15:9 ("For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God"). He was a complicated guy. But at the end of the day, despite his Torah-free dream for everyone, he was willing to be Torah observant, and James made sure of that.
he was wiling to be Torah observant around Jews in 1 Cor. 9:20 ("To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- to win those under the law). And that's what we see Paul doing in Acts.
I like how Jason BeDuhn puts it. Paul wasn't advocating for a new religion--because he *couldnt*. The whole concept of a religion hadn't been invented yet. Everybody just as a matter of course followed their ethnic traditions, as part of belonging to that ethnic group, and a feature of those traditions was which gods you worshiped.
There's a very interesting lecture by him about this on youtube.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OP4F5aPn-g
Paul says in a full-throated voice that he is Jew, a Phrasee. He did not see himself as having *converted* from one religion to another--he literally could not have even framed that thought.
Paul wasn't the only Pharisee Christian (Acts 15:5; "some believers from the party of the Pharisees"). Most Jews followed Pharisaic practices then, so that was the largest pool to draw converts from. It was also an aspect of Fourth Philosophic Judaism, which I see Christianity as being a faction of. As Josephus puts it, in addition to their fervent messianism and alterations of the oral Torah, Fourth Philosophers "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions." And Paul emphasizes this commonality in Acts 23:
“Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. It is because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.”
7As soon as he had said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is neither a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
9A great clamor arose, and some scribes from the party of the Pharisees got up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong with this man."
And the Pharisee leader Gamaliel defends Christians in Acts 5:
But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a short time.
35“Men of Israel,” he said, “consider carefully what you are about to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men joined him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and drew away people after him. He too perished, and all his followers were scattered.
38So in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.”
40At this, they yielded to Gamaliel.
And Josephus is another Pharisee who went over to the Fourth Philosophy. He (and Christians and others who converted to the Fourth Philosophy) were still Jewish and practicing Judaism, but it was a new kind of Judaism, "which we were before unacquainted withal," as Josephus puts it (cf. Mk. 1:27: "The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, 'What is this? A new teaching—and with authority!'").
Yes, Jesus rejects a lot (but not all) of the oral Torah, just like other Fourth Philosophers ("the customs of our fathers were altered ... by this system of philosophy"/"So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?'"). But otherwise Jesus (and other Christians and Fourth Philosophers) agreed with "the Pharisaic notions," like resurrection of the dead, angelology and tefillin.
I'll need to address your other comments in another post.
