-- Essays and Articles --

PART TWO: PAUL & THE EARLY CHURCH

11. Paul's Jewish Heritage

  In the variety of Judaisms that existed in the first half of the 1C, there were some common elements shared by all the competing groups. Dunn calls these 'The Four Pillars of Second Temple Judaism': Monotheism (God is One); Election (covenant people, promised land); Moses & Torah/Law (national and religious identity via circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws); and the Temple (political and religious centre of Israel/Judea). These four pillars were the basis of Israel's uniqueness as the priviledged and separate nation. "Moreover, since Israel was a religious state, its religious law was also its state and civil law" (Dunn 32) Finally, all this places greater emphasis on actions and behaviors, as against beliefs, such that there "is no orthodoxy in Judaism, only orthopraxy. The important thing is life according to the law" (Jerv 58).

  As to the Temple, it was Jerusalem's main source of revenue; chiefly because the "only reason for its continued existence, the only reason why people came to it was the Temple, directly or indirectly" (Dunn 32). The Temple was not only a place of prayer and sacrifice, but also a financial centre providing space for a market-place, and security for banking services. But besides all that, it was also a "theological symbol of tremendous emotive power" (Dunn 33). This is because, for all devout Jews, God's Glory dwells in the Temple, and so the Temple is the source of Israel's holiness. Hence Jerusalem was the centre of the world, and its Temple the centre of all Israel.

  Several important consequences follow from this idea of Israel's holiness: because only that land is holy and pure, all other lands and their occupants (Gentiles), are unclean; hence, "it was possible to observe the Torah in the strict sense only in the Holy Land", and therefore quite impossible to so observe it in any Gentile environment (Heng 32). Outside Judea, Israel was constantly faced with three threats to her purity: ritual impurity through contact with unclean things and people; the abominations of idolatry; and false teachings. It should also be noted that the "Pharisees and followers of Jesus especially clashed on the importance of purity laws, tithes and other 'boundary mechanisms' for maintaining the integrity of God's people" (Sal 136). Now the Pharisee movement within Judaism was, in Paul's day, powerful but rather ill-defined. For Paul, it meant the "Jewish way of life as an interpretation of the Torah" (Sal 135). One reason why PauI was so attracted to 'the Pharisaic way of life' was "because it fitted or could be adapted to fit their needs as Jews living in a largely Greco-Roman world" (Sal 139).

  Paul's Jewish heritage came to him primarily through his family, where youngsters were given their basic training in Judaism. He came from an urban "family of that 'petty bourgeois' middle class which was of decisive significance for the origin and expansion of Christianity" (Heng 17). Paul, as a travelling artisan, sought out urban areas where he could find work and also preach. "Paul's urban audience was mainly the lower classes who formed the major part of ancient society" (Sal 140). In any case, the bulk of Paul's Jewish heritage lies in four main areas: the LXX, his Pharisaic environment and education, the general eschatological apocalyptic atmosphere, and the churches of God in Jesus Christ (eg. the Aramaic and Hellenistic churches of Judea).

  In his rivalry with the Aramaic-Judean believers Paul stresses his equal status with a detailed outline of his heritage: a descendant of Abraham circumcised on the eighth day, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a "Hebrew born of Hebrews, as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law, blameless" (Phil 3:6). All of this indicates someone who had "extremely close connections with the mother country ..." (Heng 25). Now Hengel goes too far with his Lukan zeal in suggesting that Paul was well versed in Hebrew, but we agree that the idea that Paul was a Hellenistic Diaspora Jew 'unsullied' by the Palestinian tradition is not supported by Paul's zeal for Jewish traditions. Indeed, as a strict Jew the only 'proper place' to study the Torah was in Jerusalem under the leading Pharisaic teachers. As an outstanding student Paul would naturally be attracted to the best available Greek-speaking teachers; hence Luke's assertion that Paul studied in Jerusalem can be taken - with a grain of salt - as partially reliable, historically speaking.

12. I Have Become All Things

  The Dispersion in the West, after Alexander the Great, led to the growth of large Jewish communities in the Mediterranean Basin (from the second century BCE). Thus by the first century BCE the Pharisaic movement, which had deep roots in Jewish traditon, became a powerful force in Judaism; even in Palestine. The Greco-Jewish tradition of Scripture interpretation (eg. via allegory and typology) not only adapted Palestinian Judaism for the benefit of these Hellenistic Jews, but also came to place Greek philosophical ideas more directly into the sacred texts such that Scripture and Greek philosophy not only spoke the same language, but also in effect spoke about the same concerns and realities. By the 1C the convergence of cultures made it relatively easy for Philo and Paul, and many others, to embrace both.

  In calling himself a Hebrew, Paul did not deny that he was a Greek speaking Jew. Nor does this assertion mean that he was fluent in the Hebrew language, but, at best, only that he also knew some Aramaic. His letters support this interpretation, however, as they indicate a greater familiarity with the Greek versions of the Tanakh; and the "traces of Stoic rhetorical diatribe in [these] letters show that he had a Gk education" (Fitz 9). Nevertheless, Luke's mis-information about Paul helps us to understand this 'wanderer between two worlds'; eg. in Paul's day Tarsus was "a well-known center of culture, philosophy, and education" (Fitz 9). Thus his theology and anthropology both reveal his Jewish background, while his ethics and his cosmopolitan universalism display his Greco-Roman heritage.

  So Paul was both Greek and Jew, through and through; and this could only happen to a man if it happens in the right place (ie. a powerful urban center well-situated for travel and trade (eg. Damascus)), and at the right time (ie. the first ten years of life). Growing up in Damascus, Paul learned the leatherworking trade that would serve him so well on his travels around the Empire. There he learned to read and write his Greek mother tongue (Koine). He also learned the 'traditions of my fathers' (ie. Diaspora-Judaism), and spent many hours studying the Greek translations of Tanakh (eg. LXX). Beside all this more or less formal schooling, he was also a shrewd and careful observer of the world around him, and the human condition within it. Thus it is apparent that the first Christian theologian "must already have been a reflective theological thinker as a Pharisaic Jew before the change in his life" (Heng 18).

  So Paulos was a wanderer between two worlds: the turbulent and chaotic Jewish world of Palestine (and its diaspora satellites), and the larger cosmopolitan world of the Roman Empire in its glory days. Now we cannot say that Paul was more influenced by his Jewish heritage than by his Greco-Roman heritage (or the other way round). Indeed, it seems that Paul was as fully a 'citizen of the Empire' (in the widest sense of the word) as he was a man of Israel. To oversimplify, his mind was Greek, his heart was Jewish (ie. a zealous Pharisee), and his soul that of a poet touched by the Holy Spirit. This simply means that the tensions, conflicts, and contrasts of the great oecumenical civilization around the Mediterranean Basin were built into every fiber of the man Paul was.

  It is unfortunate that due to the scarcity of sources "we have nothing, but fragments of the life and thought of Paul" (Jerv 52). In the New Testament these fragments are presented in such a way that we end up with three 'editions' of Paul: (1) the Paul of the genuine letters: complex and contradictory. (2) the Paul of Acts: a powerful and charismatic prophet/apostle. (3) the Paul of the Pastoral letters: weak, suffering, and persecuted servant. These three versions of Paul result from the fact that we "have no biography, no 'apologia pro vita sua.' He has not rendered any account of his theology in any letter" (Jerv 52). In order to understand Paul's ideas in their totality, we must reach behind the fragments to the theologian and preacher who stands behind a whole "series of unpolemic references not occasioned by the situations at the writing down of the letters ..." (Jerv 54).

  These letters - except 1&2Thessalonians - conceal the uncontroversial Paul, especially those elements that he shared with other Christians (including those Paul calls 'the circumcision party'). "What we label as distinctively Pauline does not come out so strongly in his speeches as in his letters, especially the polemical ones" (Jerv 61). Clearly, the letters, Acts, and the deutero-Pauline literature all present various facets of the same man; but even when gathered together, the "greatest part of Paul's life and work belongs to the unknown Paul" (Jerv 52). In any case, the first step toward getting to know the concrete historical Paulos is through his own words in his own authentic letters, and while doing this, not to confuse him with the later 'new and improved' editions.

13. NEW DIRECTIONS: PARTING THE WAY

  When Peter and the Twelve moved from Galilee to Jerusalem (c.33CE) it was with the idea that any mission to Israel would be most effective if directed toward the very heart of the nation; namely, the Holy City itself. Moreover, the Lord's return could occur only in Jerusalem; hence there could be no better place for the 'time of waiting'. This move to the capital, while eminently reasonable, meant that these 'followers of Jesus' came under the influence of the Temple and the other competing Judaisms active in the city. For example, the converts gained there included not only the common people (natives and visitors), but also more than a few scribes and Pharisees, as well as the occasional priest. Now these Jewish leaders would naturally assume positions of authority within the early Church, as well as bringing their own opinions and understandings to bear on the Jesus 'tradition- in-the-making'. The final result of these early trends was a significant change in the general nature of the first church in Jerusalem. The change in leadership (from Peter to James) reflected a deeper and wider change among the Aramaic believers; the most visible result being the reversal of attitude towards Paul (ie. from initial acceptance to an ever-growing suspicion and hostility). All of this happened in the first two decades following the Lord's Ascension (c.33-53CE).

  Five years after the followers of Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, the Twelve had quit the scene, but leadership had solidified around the 'three pillars' Peter, John and James (the devout and conservative orthodox-Jew, whose authority derived solely from his being the brother of Joshua). The other apostles simply did not disappear into thin air (although it seems so to historians). Some may have gone back to Galilee, while others undertook small and independant missions to various points East, South, and West (ie. North Africa). Also at this time (ie. c33-39), the Jerusalem Church grew large enough to support two 'parishes', which is to say that two groups conducted worship services and general meetings in the two main languages of Palestine. The Greek-speaking group quickly organized a distinct leadership of their own in the so-called 'Seven'. These 'Hellenist' believers [ie. Greek-speaking Jewish 'paganizers'] were in the minority in the Jerusalem Church, and even included some proselytes, and a few Gentiles (eg. one of the seven was a Greek man, presumably from Macedonia). The leaders of the Hellenistic circle also included St Stephen, Philip (who evangelized Samaria), and Nicolaus (a native of Antioch).

  In c.37CE the Jerusalem establishment stoned the radical and charismatic prophet-leader of the small band of Jewish-Hellenist 'followers of Jesus'. This was the 'blasphemer' Stephen, who dared attack the very pillars of Judaism in a most uncompromising way. This radical, zealous, and too-vocal Greek-wing of the early Jerusalem Church was subsequently persecuted and eventually expelled from the Holy City. Now the most curious thing about the Church's first persecution is how selective it was. The Jewish establishment deliberately targeted the Hellenist believers as the source of the blasphemy (ie. the attack on Torah & Temple); but apparently even the conservative Sanhedrin were aware of the considerable differences, concerns, and even contradictions, between Stephen's Hellenist believers and the more traditional Aramaic Nazarenes.

  Thus for the next ten years or so, the Aramaic Church managed to maintain a precarious existence in the doomed city. Little was done in the way of theological and missionary activities; this 'time of waiting' was used to solidify the conservative leadership in the Jerusalem Church. Then they began to assert their power and authority over the other local churches within and without Palestine. This soon led to a crisis, and its 'resolution' at the so-called 'First Apostolic Council'.

  In the time between Paul's first visit with Cephas, and the 48CE Council, James (Joshua's brother) gradual edged out Peter for the position of 'prime pillar'. Peter had left Jerusalem for some months during this period (perhaps to escape Agrippa), and his absence may have provided James with the opportunity to assume the foremost position of leadership. It may have been only at this point that James began to offer more support to the anti-pauline circumcision group, which was doubtless composed mainly of converted orthodox scribes and Pharisees (ie. those most concerned with Jewish traditions and matters of purity). After the Apostolic Council, the Jerusalem Church became increasingly active in both theology and mission work. This growth in the importance and authority of the Jerusalem Church also meant an ever increasing opposition to Paul during the critical decade of the 50's.

14. Hellenist Tradition & Enthusiasm

  Already in the mid-30's, a small group of Greek-speaking believers "coexisted with the primitive nucleus of the Christian community without being really merged in it; and the relationship between the two rather lacked cordiality (Sim 5). Indeed, they found themselves in a position of inferiority due to their smaller numbers, and some unique religious and doctrinal features which the Twelve did not endorse. For example, the Church in Jerusalem, in participating in the Temple cult, kept alive their dependence on the Temple, and naturally assumed a nationalistic and religious character on a par with their more traditonal Jewish neighbors. This meant that any attack on Temple or Torah would be percieved as a serious threat by the Aramaic believers, and would, of course, be resisted.

  Now Stephen's negative assessment of the Temple cult was based on a careful reading and editing of the Torah, and 'the goodly fellowship of the prophets': Nathan (2Sam7), Amos 5:26, and Jer 7:21f. The significance of these texts allowed him to set Moses and David in opposition to Aaron and Solomon. Thus Stephen's radical interpretation of Scripture also offended the Jewish establishment, as well as the conservative Aramaic majority in the Church. In effect, he simply removed the authority of those parts of Scripture that supported idolatry, or made God seem to do likewise.

  The new Hellenist tradition of reform-Judaism is summarized and dramatized by Stephen's speech in Acts7. His prophetic enthusiasm is apparent thoughout his summary of Israelite history, and the concluding observation that Israel made a tradition of resisting the Holy Ghost. Stephen's position on mainstream Judaism is perhaps more revolutionary and radical even than the Lord's! As to the Temple, he believed that "the coming destruction of the sanctuary will be final" (Sim 23); and he was right. Moreover, the Law will be radically changed by Jesus when he returns.

  The importance of all this to our study of the Thessalonian letters ought to be apparent: Paul was profoundly affected by Stephen and his radical views. For Paul, Spirit and letter go together, hence it is the church (not the synagogue) that keeps the Law. And so, for Paul, fulfilling the Law, and worship in ecstasy, glossolalia and enthusiasm likewise go together (cf. Rom 8:3f, 15, 26f). The Spirit (and spiritual experiences) "indicate the borderline between the church and the synagogue or, if you like, between letter and Spirit (Gal 3:1f; Acts 2)" (Jerv 61). This line of tradition, which was common Christian belief at the time of the evangelists, goes back through Paul, Silvanus and Barnabas to Stephen to Peter and the original Jerusalem believers.

  Now enthusiasm was always important to Paul, as it was important to the churches of Judea; but in Jerusalem the minority Hellenist wing was expelled from the city (c.37CE) for having more enthusiasm than the orthodox Jews could stomach. These Jewish-Hellenists then went forth into Judea, and north to Samaria, Galilee and Syria, and south to Egypt, and everywhere they went they took their apocalyptic enthusiasm with them. When Paul later joined the Jewish-Hellenists of Antioch in their missionary efforts (having been a Christian for several years already), he found (perhaps to his surprise), that the Gentiles were even more fervent and enthusiastic than they perhaps ought to be.

  The apocalyptic perspective is a passionate but irrational response to what many Jews felt to be an unjust and irrational world (ie. any world where the Jews are not dominant, or at least the equal of the major powers-that-be). The main elements of Jewish apocalyptic that were taken up by Paulos can be summarized into four points: (1) the universal scope of God's reign. (2) the ultimate salvation of the faithful, and the ultimate punishment of the wicked. (3) the cosmic conflict between good and evil. (4) the End of the World is imminent (because the end-times have already begun in Christ). These were the basic traditions that Paulos and Silvanus shared, but their unique interpretations as to the specifics involved in all this did not always coincide; and this disagreement eventually led to their break-up in Corinth.

15. THE TURNING POINT

 Paul eventually became a part of the mission-minded group of Hellenistic- Jewish-Messianic reform-Judaism (ie. proto-Christianity) based in Antioch after their expulsion from Jerusalem during the persecution which claimed St Stephen's life. Now it was precisely at that point (according to Acts) that Paul enters Church history as her persecutor. "Paul's zeal for Jewish traditions would have led him to use persuasion as well as Jewish community legal procedures and sanctions to contain the influence of the new group of followers of Jesus" (Sal 142). These blasphemers were to be avoided and disciplined, they could suffer expulsion, and their teachings be rebutted; all of this constitutes the bulk of Paul's persecution of the Church. Murder was in no sense standard procedure; and the use of it against Stephen must have struck Paul as being contrary to true Judaism. As a Pharisee Paul sought to reform Judaism, and so influence all Israel, After his conversion Paul "understood the new way of life in Jesus to be an alternate mode of reforming Judaism and vigorously promoted it" (Sal 143).

  The fact that Paul nowhere mentions Stephen by name should not lead us to suppose that he makes no indirect reference to Stephen in his letters. If we are right that Stephen had a significant influence on Paul, then (given Paul's ever-ready reticence) we should not expect to find a reference in anything other than the usual indirect manner. Looking carefully at Paul's genuine letters, we can find just such a reference to what Paul calls 'the superlative apostle'. In 2Cor 12:2-4f Paul in referring to a time near his conversion (a significant clue!), describes both Stephen and his impact. In any case, it is unlikely that Paul approved of his termination. This question is not nearly as important as the impression that his brutal and illegal death must have made on Paul. It seems likely that despite himself he was attracted to the man and his radical and passionate preaching. Thus it is no mere coincidence that Paul's conversion follows hard on the heels of Stephen's martyrdom; both the time and the place of the meeting with Jesus (not necessarily near Damascus) are significant, if not altogether certain.

  Now Fitzmyer says that "the recall of Pontius Pilate to Rome in AD 36" may have been the "occasion for the lynching of Stephen (Acts 8:1)". He also adds that "Paul's conversion may be related to these events" (Fitz 8). Our view of Paul and 2Cor 12:1-4 suggests that the conversion was firmly based on both Stephen's impact on Paul, and on Paul's reaction to the persecution of the Jewish-Hellenist Christians in Jerusalem that followed the super-apostle's murder. In Gal 1:16 Paul speaks of his conversion, not as a vision, but rather as God having revealed his Son in him. "That is to say, Paul's first description of his experience was more in terms of a truth being uncovered than of a person being seen" (Dunn/J&S 99). This interpretation is hampered very slightly by Luke's description of Paul's conversion as an external vision. We may surmise that Luke was inspired to this by an over-literal reading of this Paul-bit: God "has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2Cor4:6/RSV).

  In another letter, Paul says: "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me" (1Cor15:8/RSV). The significant phrase here is the one in the middle, which hardly expresses the full meaning of the Greek word 'extroma' (meaning 'abortion'). In connection with Paul's 'unveiling', this word suggests a strong aspect of suddenness and violence; as with "Shakespeare's Macbeth, 'from his mother's womb untimely ripped'" (Dunn/J&S 101). Luke's so-called 'Damascus Road Experience' does not really fit well with this word; but in the context of Jerusalem in 37CE we can see that the word is more than a little appropriate...

  In any case, Paul's claim to be an apostle is linked directly to this encounter, and is so important to him because "it authorizes him to be an authentic, Christ-appointed interpreter of the gospel" (Beker 5). Paul's apocalypsis was not so much a conversion experience as the realization of the Lord's commission to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. In 'Galatians' Paul claims that he got his gospel from no man; but this overlooks the fact that he was learning the ways and thinking of the Hellenist 'followers of Jesus' for some years before his 'unveiling' in c.37. In any case, the prophetic call makes him the "direct mediator of the gospel and its authoritative interpreter" (Bek 6). The pre-Pauline strands of the early traditions were absorbed by Paul, preached by Paul, reflected upon and interpreted by Paul, and eventually modified and illuminated by his unique spiritual genius, and then set down (in part) in writing as the particular problems and situations demanded.

16. The Apostolic Council & After

  At the Apostolic Conference in Jerusalem (c.48CE) formal recognition was granted to the Gentile mission via the Formula of Concord (Gal 2:9) whereby 'the pillars' James, Peter and John "agreed that we [Paul and Barnabas] should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews". The clear and distinct division of labor in the formula suggests that a mission to both Jews and Gentiles would violate the terms of the agreement, in which case any Jews among the Gentile churches could be compelled to keep the Law, after the manner of the Jerusalem Church, and under her authority. (This understanding of the nature of Paul's mission might well explain her subsequent actions.)

  After this council, Barnabas was "more willing than Paul to accommodate the scruples of Jewish Christians." Paul says Barnabas "was carried away by their insincerity" (Gal 2:13). Moreover, the Apostolic Council's "principle of separation proved completely inadequate" because, outside of Palestine, Jewish and Gentile Christians were usually found mixed together (Schi 19). And for Paul, table-fellowship with Gentile believers was required by the 'ekklesia', which is one, not two. Paul may not have recognized the danger in the idea of separate spheres of effort; but he boldly opposed Peter 'to his face' when that pillar threatened the integrity of the Church in Antioch by refusing to eat with Gentile believers.
But Paul's

position on table-feIlowship apparently failed to convince the others. On the contrary, Barnabas and Peter seem to have maintained their own position - a fact which did not improve Paul's reputation among certain Jewish Christians. Indeed Paulinism remained anathema to Jewish Christians well into the second century (Schi 20).

  Now Paul was not happy with the crises in the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch over the application of the Law to the Gentiles; and his mission to Greece was highly attractive for one very important reason: it took him away from the growing influence of the domineering Jerusalem Church. By this time (ie. c.49CE) it was clear to Paul that the original Aramaic church did not entirely share his vision of what constituted 'true Judaism'. Moreover, Israel's obvious rejection of the Lord, and his messengers (including Paul's group) meant that the future of the Good News lay entirely with the Gentiles; and any Jewish attempt to interfere with the Lord's command was no small cause for anger.

  A Gentile mission (without Torah/Law and circumcision) from Antioch was accepted by the Jerusalem Church - as was Paul - before 48CE, but afterward Jewish-Christian theology and influence strengthened, even beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. 'Galatians' - as an expansion of Thessalonian themes - was "written as an answer to Paul's being challenged by a growing, extremely active, and strong Jewish Christianity" (Jerv 64). A few years later Paul wrote 'Romans' to make a belated peace with the Jerusalem Church. Why did he do this? Simon makes an interesting point about Stephen that applies as well to Paul: "Rather than revolutionary preachers of an entirely new message, Stephen himself, and Jesus as Stephen sees him, are, in the most precise meaning of the term, religious reformers" (Sim 46). Neither Jesus, nor Stephen, nor Paul intended to make such radical innovations that a parting of the ways should be inevitable. But for history, actions are always louder than intentions.

  The development of Christianity from a local Jewish sect to an oecumenical religion is encapsulated in the tradition line that runs from Jerusalem (Cephas and the '12' / Stephen and the '7') to Antioch (Barnabas, Mark, Silvanus) to Paulos the 'traveling man from Damascus'. This early formative period (ie. 30-50CE) was rife with tensions, reversals, and conflicts within the churches, and was lived under the awesome shadow of immanent cosmic destruction. It was also the formative period of Paul's life as apostle to the Gentiles. In the course of his investigation and persecution of the leaders of the Jewish-Hellenist Church in Jerusalem, this zealous Pharisee had occasion to talk to Stephen, and got to know this 'super-apostle' well enough to be more than a little affected by him.

  And after their expulsion from the Holy City, Philip and the Hellenists found "their best audience not in purely Greek circles and towns, but on the fringe of Palestinian Judaism" (Sim 38). It remained for Paul to take the decisive step towards the Gentile world; but even then the synagogues were the best place for gaining converts (especially from among the so-called 'God-fearers'). But Christianity, as a religion distinct from Judaism, did not emerge as such until the aftermath of the shocking events of the Jewish Wars. Up to that time 'Christianity' was still only a reform- minded sect within the varied and competing Judaisms of Palestine. The (Greek) Catholic Church which emerged towards the end of the second century, as F.C. Baur suggests, "developed dialectically from the synthesis of anti-Pauline Jewish Christianity and Pauline Gentile Christianity" (Lued 30 ) .

  So Paulos did not 'found' Christianity as such, rather the unique blend of universalism and particularism that he advocated was a Pauline neo-Judaism. Even as late as 'Romans' (c.60CE) he "does not discuss who is the true 'Christian', but still, who is the true Jew" (Sand 21). This is because Paul always remained a Jew and missionary to Israel; even as 'the apostle to the Gentiles' he has the salvation of Israel in mind (cf. 1Cor9:20; Rom11:14f). It is best, therefore, to think of Paul primarily as a transmitter and interpreter of Messianic- Judaism (anachronistically called primitive Christianity); ie. he was more of a reformer than a founder.

GOTO PART3: INTRO TO THESSALONIANS

textman
*