andrewcriddle

However Paul a little later in Romans 10 does seem to be saying that the Jews have heard the message and culpably rejected it. In context Paul in the earlier part of the chapter seems to be trying to reconcile two ideas:
a/ That the Gospel is of God's grace not human activity (obeying the Law)
b/ That human activity such as Paul's preaching remains vitally necessary.
We know from Galatians that Paul's preaching was not among Jews in Judea, and the claim about the necessity for preachers like him is not primarily referring to Jews in Judea.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

So the Pauline writer IMPLIES that there were OTHERS before him who had ALREADY preached to the JEWS about Jesus.




Whose VOICES went out to the JEWS even to the ENDS of the world?

It was those VOICES BEFORE the Pauline writer. The Pauline was the LAST to SEE the resurrected Jesus.


This supposed Gospel, supposed "good news" would ONLY be relevant AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

It is just highly unlikely that a Pauline writer could have claimed to have "GOOD NEWS" for the Jews BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

There is simply NO evidence whatsoever from external sources that JEWS felt ISOLATED and ABANDONED from their God, or NEEDED "GOOD NEWS" about remission of SINS during the reign of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero while the Temple was STILL intact.


There was NO crisis among JEWS with regards to REMISSION of Sins BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

No first century Jewish writer, outside of apologetics, wrote about any CRISIS among JEWS regarding REMISSION of SINS.

The Pauline teachings would be regarded as BLASPHEMOUS before the Fall of the Temple and even using the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Josephus, it would appear that the Pauline writings are non-historical since it was HARDLY likely that such blasphemy would have BEEN preached ALL over Judea, even to the ENDS of the world, BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Toto

This would not be the first time that Paul contradicts Paul.

But what message did the Jews hear? Isaiah and Moses and Psalm 19, with an unspecified bow to "the word of Christ" thrown in. (Paul does not seem to distinguish between the Hebrew Scriptures and the word of Christ.)

I do not get the impression from this that the Jews knew anything about Jesus before some Christian preached about him.

stephan huller

As the resident Marcionophile it is worth noting that the Marcionites did seem to argue that the Pauline message was directed at Jewish proselytes (Against Marcion 3.4; cf. Against the Jews 4) which isn't 'Jews' exactly but is closer to the idea that the inherited (mid-second century) version of the so-called 'mission to the Gentiles.'

For what it's worth I find it impossible to believe that the Pauline message was preached to mostly ignorant Gentiles given its sophistication and its clear development from traditional Jewish (and especially Samaritan) messianic ideas. This would have been unnecessary and cumbersome if Paul really had been preaching to people who had no familiarity whatsoever with the Law and the prophets.

I think the traditional Catholic claims were developed to make Paul seem less heretical (i.e. a Jew promoting the idea that the Law was essentially useless with the advent to other Jews). Yet this very idea was promoted in more recent times by various Jewish messianic traditions. The Sabbatians for instance, Jacob Frank. As I mentioned before there are hints of this doctrine also in the Samaritan writings of Marqe, the Asatir etc. Even Jewish writings can be interpreted to infer that the Law given to the Israelites on Horeb was only so dispensed because they couldn't handle the 'better revelation' (i.e. that given before the Golden Calf incident).

Also the rabbinic report that the Sadducees and the community of the second commonwealth emphasized that only the ten utterances were 'God given.' The other 603 commands came from the authority of Moses alone. This idea is still present in the writings of Marqe and seems to be present in the earliest strata of the gospel (cf. the discussion of divorce 'this was given to you by Moses because of your hardness of heart' etc.). The Pauline rejection of circumcision finds support in king Agrippa's argument in the rabbinic literature that if circumcision was 'God-given' it would have been included in the ten commandments.

Paul's arguments and the Marcionite interpretation have been deliberately withheld from us because they were more sensible. They are also for the most part witnessed within Jewish halakhah.

GakuseiDon

For what's worth, the Second Century apologists writing to the pagans included many references to the Hebrew Scriptures and the prophets, suggesting an expectation that the Gentiles were familiar to some extent.

stephan huller

Yes GakuseiDon but that's a perfect analogy. Do you have any idea how much of New Testament scholarship is written by people who make reference to 'Jewish material' and they don't have a fucking clue what Judaism is, how it functions, how it 'thinks' - nothing. They quote scriptures, opinions but you can tell they have a clue about the ultimate context of what 'Judaism is.'

And these are educated people who can bullshit their way through graduate school

So no I am not surprised that pagans could make these references. The difference is that the Marcionites and the Pauline tradition knew what they were talking about. They are authoritative in this regard. It make sense.

DCHindley

Hello Stephen,

It is not entirely clear to me what your point is here. Why must we assume that the "proselytes" Paul addressed were ignorant of Jewish law because they live outside of Judea? By "proselytes" I presume you mean something like "god fearing gentiles" who have not taken the step of full conversion which would involve circumcision.

While gentiles in general had a somewhat anti Judean bias, probably on account of the fact the customs seemed barbaric to them when compared to Hellenized customs, others found it good to associate with Judeans of the Diaspora as either patrons of their synagogues or even as clients of Jewish patrons. Then there would be the gentile slaves of influential Jewish households, specifically Herodian ones. Each of these Herodian princes owned income producing properties and businesses or concessions throughout the eastern Mediterranean and into Armenia and Asia Minor, not to mention in their own principalities. Their royal households would have employed hundreds, even thousands, of gentile artisans, scribes, business managers and slaves serving in many capacities. Herodians, whatever we want to think of Herod the Great, were not all monsters, and in some cases, were seen as beneficiaries.

It would be natural for these slaves and retainers to attend synagogue or privately study Jewish scriptures as a token of respect for their masters and patrons. If any were hoping one day to obtain freedman status, full conversion may have been part of the deal. Who is to say that these acts of respect were all simply cynical attempts at culling favor, and not actually heartfelt admiration for the "just" nature of the god of the Jews?

Still, I have also noted your comment that folks, even educated ones, can pontificate on matters of which they are only imperfectly informed or do not understand in context.

Maybe Paul was making the argument that faithful gentiles didn't really need to circumcise to be considered part of the children of Abraham. It might fly in a Herodian household that was used to close associations with gentiles, but probably wouldn't be received well by most observant freeborn Jews of the Diaspora. If anybody can call themselves a Judean on the basis of faith alone, it dilutes the value of that identification, and thus endangers the rights and privileges that Jews had been granted by the emperors over the decades.

DCH

stephan huller

The impurity of the proselytes continued until the third generation. In traditional Jewish (and Samaritan) thinking the proselytes even after circumcision were a deficient class of people. There was even debate as to whether they would partake in the world to come. The Marcionite message was directed at these people - those who were considered impure for three generations.

stephan huller

Some precedents of the current Sephardic view of proselytes - the Temple Scroll took the view that converts to Judaism remained in the class of רג for three generations. Philo's discussion of Deut 23.8 - 9 that the Israelite may not spurn an Egyptian after three generations, but should invite him. Marqe maintains much the same restrictions on Edomites and Egyptians on everyone else which makes sense because the Torah has a very limited perspective. The three generation ban on proselytes was the original position. This became distorted in later Jewish literature.

McKnight (1991) also notes that the rabbinic statement that proselytes are equal to Jews cannot reflect actual conditions, since there are many laws,reviewed above,showing the second-class status of converts. Moreover, “the very existence of a separate halakot for proselytes is a revelation in itself, which demonstrates that they were not seen as Jews in every respect” (p. 45). “The facts betray that Jews did not immediately accept converts as equals; in fact,the notion of three generations is probably closer to reality” (p. 45). Indeed, Jeremias' (1969, 301; see below) comment that Israelites were admonished not to marry anyone at a lower level of racial purity than themselves suggests that proselytes would not be accepted as full members of the Jewish community until all recollection of their origins had disappeared.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFr...eir%22&f=false

aa5874

Why are spreading FALSE rumors? I have NEVER EVER stated that I am a Bible scholar.

Who are you?

What are you up to?

Please stop the LIES, now.

Please RETRACT you false information IMMEDIATELY.