[XTalk] Re: HJ through Gentile eyes
- Steven Carr wrote:
>Better late than never, but now I have the time to respond to your post.
> In message <376C31EC.50BB@...>, Bernard Muller
> >So why did Paul persecute these Jews in 35?
> >b) The persecution started in earnest right after Stephen's stoning
> >(Ac8:1) by a mob. It was probably caused by some of the last words of
> >Stephen, at least that's what Acts is alluding to.
> >c) Any belief that the Kingdom (of God), with heavenly (right hand man)
> >Jesus as his King/Savior (Mt25:31-35), would come soon, not only would
> >attract Jewish converts by the thousands (and in Jerusalem, the capital
> >of the Kingdom to be), but also be considered too dangerous to be
> >unopposed. Even if Jesus was dead (really dead), these "sectarians"
> >could have produce someone who looked like HJ, and then ...
> >Better to have them flee Jerusalem, even Judea and as far as possible.
> But it is not even hinted at in Paul's letters that this was a point of
> contention or a cause of persecution.
Paul never hinted why he persecuted them because:
a) He did not have to say it, in the context of the letter.
b) Paul did not want to acknowledge that these Jews were persecuted for
things he was now preaching, which probably was way beyond these
proto-Christians believed at the time:
Jesus saved as the Son of Man (or Lord Ps110:1) at the right of God
Jesus had become the preexistent Son of God (Gal4:4), when Galatians was
And why would persecution ever
> stop in that case? Christians continued to believe that Jesus would comeIn my HJ pages, I gathered up evidence that the "Nazarenes" who took
> soon but managed to survive in Jerusalem for decades.
control of the Church in Jerusalem were not Christians at all, but
followers of Jesus (and Peter, and James). So that would explain they
manage to survive for so long, but not with some life taking
persecutions along the way (the two James, at least).
On the other hand,
> we know from Galatians 6:12 that there was a reason why persecutionThe Judaizers in Galatians were Jewish Christians probably acting on
> stopped - Christians compromised on the circumcision issue.
their own. I think the "pillars" never came back on their words with
Paul (Gal2:1-10). Even during the feud with Peter (Gal2:11-14), Paul
never said that he was a Judaizer, just that he was pushing Gentiles to
embrass Jewish customs (probably only when James' men were around).
Peter himself ("you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew" Gal2:14)and
Barnabas and other Jewish Christians appeared to have mingled with the
Gentiles, in their home: not the mark of Judaizers. And certainly Paul
was a Christian and never compromised on the circumcision issue.
> Stephen may well not have been killed for the exact reasons given inI already explained why.
> Acts - it ties in just too neatly with Lukan thought and there is no
> hint of this being an issue of contention in Paul's letters (as far as I
Now let's consider:
We are in 34-35 in Jerusalem. A particular sectarian group suddenly
multiplies and even makes converts among priests. Certainly a cause of
alarm. Then this group is opposed by other Diaspora Jews. Stephen,
acting as the spokeman of the group, says something like Jesus has
become the son of man seen at the right hand of God (or is he seated as
in Ps110:1?). We are talking about a risen Jesus, the ex-crucified
"disturber", the one that Caiphas, the high priest still then, had
pushed to the cross. But that's not even the main point. For the first
time in Judaism, we have a specific human, and not an unassigned
mysterious "son of man", and not a heavenly vague Messiah, and not
Moses, as the number 2 in heaven, maybe not as a God but as a Lord
(Ps110:1: "The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand ...""). That
was very new, unheard off and likely to be considered an encroachment of
monotheism. And of course, according to the third commandment "You shall
not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold
anyone guiltless who misuses his name.". Maybe I am speculating a
little, but not going too far from Ac7:52-56.
Yes these proto-Christians were certainly considered breaking the Law,
the same way the latter Christians who believed in the pre-existent Son
of God did and were booted out of the synagogues (GJohn). And that would
explain why young Paul, as "extremely zealous for the traditions of my
fathers" (Gal1:14) went after these "heretics". Please also note that
the "Nazarenes" were not persecuted in Jerusalem at that time, stayed
there and later took control of the Church (or what was left of it) as
in Eusebius' HC (2,23), quoting Hegesippus (2nd century) fifth book:
"Control of the Church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord's
brother James ..."
Anyway, considering the little evidence we have on the subject, that
what I would go by.
To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
To contact list managers, e-mail us at: firstname.lastname@example.org