Jews in the 2nd Temple Era avoided eating at the same table as Gentiles because it was thought that the Gentiles were unclean because they ate unclean foods. As Peter stated in Acts 10:28, “You known how unLawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.” However, because of Peter’s vision of the 4 footed animals in Acts 10:10-16, Peter concluded that “God has shown me that I should not call any man defiled or unclean” (Acts 10:28) and that may have made him more amenable to eating with Paul’s Gentile converts. James, and representative sent in his name, however, still appear to follow Jewish norms and pressured Peter and Barnabas to stop eating with the Gentiles in Galatians.
This cultural norm is evidenced in the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees and in the Book of Judith in the Catholic Bible.
Jubilees 22:16: And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.
Judith 12:1-4: Then he commanded them to bring her in where his silver dinnerware was kept, and ordered them to set a table for her with some of his own delicacies, and with some of his own wine to drink.But Judith said, “I cannot partake of them, or it will be an offense; but I will have enough with the things I brought with me.” Holofernes said to her, “If your supply runs out, where can we get you more of the same? For none of your people are here with us.” Judith replied, “As surely as you live, my lord, your servant will not use up the supplies I have with me before the Lord carries out by my hand what he has determined.”
Paul appears to be condemning Peter for his hypocritical U-turn concerning sharing table fellowship with Gentile converts and reverting back to segregationist Jewish practices concerning co-mingling between Jews and Gentiles. Acts mentions that Peter maintained the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law. Long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter reported that he had not eaten any unkosher food: “I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean” (Acts 10:14).
It looks like Peter ate at the same table as Paul’s Gentile converts, but most likely brought his own kosher food, unless kosher food was provided at these get togethers.
Peter reported that he had not eaten any unkosher food: . . . (Acts 10:14). . . . It looks like Peter . . . most likely brought his own kosher food, unless kosher food was provided at these get togethers.
You seem to be putting a lot of trust in the historical reliability of Acts.
Here are James’ men who refuse to eat with impure gentiles are deceived by Cephas who ate with gentiles. Their grievances seem to be much more serious than Paul’s accusations of hypocrisy. Cephas puts their ritual purity at risk. He eats what he wants and then makes out with them.
In addition, it is no problem for James’ men to shake hands with the dirty lunatic Paul and his companion.
They shake hands after appointing Paul to serve impure gentiles with whom they want nothing to do. So, they’re also idiots.
They know that even in Jerusalem there are more gentiles than Jews.
And this is supposed to be a credible description of the first council .
Concerning Porphyry’s comment, no, I don’t trust the reliability of Acts. However, there is sporadic evidence of Hebrew terminology and grammar in the first half of the Acts of the Apostles, so I’m operating on the assumption that the author had writing(s) in his possession originating from the Jewish Christians, which the author of Acts then edited to depict greater unity between the Pauline and Jewish branches of Christianity. I’m assuming that whatever residual Jewishness that managed to survive his revisions is probably authentic to the original source.
Out of curiosity I checked my copy and discovered that there is a whole chapter (chapter 4) about the relationship between Paul and Peter which covers the different accounts of Acts and Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in detail, in Garry Wills book entitled “What Paul Meant” (C) 2006.
whatever residual Jewishness that managed to survive his revisions is probably authentic to the original source
Out of curiosity, what is the residual Jewishness you see in this passage that leads you to think the detail about Peter keeping kosher comes from a primitive, reliable source?
The terminology of Acts 10:14 “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean” is very reminiscent of Leviticus 11:43 “You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled by them.”
“The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written in Koine Greek that is elegant and polished in some places, but in other places awkward, the wording somewhat unnatural for Greek. This is because they reflect underlying Semitic idioms and sentence styles that have been very literally translated into Greek. This style is found throughout the Synoptic Gospels and in the first half of the book of Acts, but not in John or elsewhere.”
I didn’t go so far as to say it was a reliable source, only that it most likely originated from the Jewish Christians.
Bivin, David. New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context. En-Gei Resource Center. Holland, MI. 2007. pg. xxiv
I didn’t go so far as to say it was a reliable source, only that it most likely originated from the Jewish Christians.
Correct, you didn’t say it was reliable, only that it was older and Jewish.
(And, by the by, the fact that the language of a Christian writing mimics that of the Hebrew scriptures hardly establishes that the Christian writing drew on an earlier Jewish source, other than the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.)
But if you don’t think it is reliable then it is irrelevant and doesn’t support the point you cited it to support.
This line of discussion started with you saying that, because “Peter reported [in Acts 10] that he had not eaten any unkosher food,” he “most likely brought his own kosher food [to the meals mentioned by Paul], unless kosher food was provided at these get togethers.”
Now aside from the problem of lining up the chronology of Galatians and Acts (which is significant), it remains that the speculation that Peter was most likely keeping kosher when he was eating with gentiles is simply unsubstantiated unless the report of his words in Acts is historically reliable.
Even if you are right that the report of his words in a dream do originate in an older Jewish source, that is only germane if that source is not only older but reliable in reporting such details.
I’m not saying he was or wasn’t keeping kosher at that point, but it seems like baseless speculation to say he most likely was given the paucity of evidence.
As to chronology I have taken the liberty of copying a few pages from Garry Wills’ What Paul Meant, Penguin Group (2006). I hope I’m not violating a rule. As follows:
Paul puts the blowup in Antioch after is account of the conference in Jerusalem, and most people treat the two events in that order. But there is something suspect about this order. Why, if the handshake of peace had settled in principle the matter of enforcing the Law with Gentile Brothers was it so quickly reopened? And why, if Barnabas was on Paul’s side in Jerusalem, did he desert him on a similar issue in Antioch? And why does Paul later refer to Barnabas as if there had been no split between them (1 Cor 9.6)? Those who follow the account in Galatians seem to think that a parting of the ways took place between them after the Antioch dispute; but Luke says they argued over continuing to work with John Mark who had left them in Pamphylia (Ac 15.36-39). That still does not explain Paul’s later reference to Barnabas.
But there is reason to think Paul was not narrating chronologically in Galatians but arguing climatically – that he saved the conflict with Peter to show that he took a very firm stand on application of the Law, since that was the issue he was addressing among the Galatians. Since his argument there is over the kosher laws, it flows naturally out of the stand he took in Antioch. In fact, the argument comes so seamlessly out of the Antioch narrative that an editor of the letter says it is hard to say where the one ends and the other begins.
“Attempts to locate the end of the episode present a famous puzzle, sensed even by the earliest interpreters of the letter. In v. 14 Paul reports an incisive comment he made to Peter in front of the Antioch church, doing so with a clarity that enables one confidently to place the first of the quotations marks – “You, a Jew by birth, are living. . .” But he gives no clear indication as to where his remark to Peter ends, although by the time the reader comes to the final verses of chapter 2, he knows that is is no longer hearing the speech that Paul made to Peter in Antioch. Indeed, as regards literary form, the concluding verses of the chapter are unlike anything the reader of Galatians has encountered earlier. In fact, Paul’s failure formally to close the quotation begun in v. 14 is no accident. It reflects his determination to connect his account of the Antioch incident to the situation in Galatia.” [2]
In other words, the Antioch story ‘had’ to come after the Jerusalem one to make possible the meld with the following argument.
Gerd Ludemann argued for this order, noting that Paul does not introduce the Antioch event with his normal work for chronological sequence, (epeita) “then . . .” (with the same sense of “next”). Instead he says “but when . . .” (hote de)[3] If we follow this sequence, then the clash over the food laws in Antioch caused a division that Paul, acting on a “revelation,” took before the Brothers in Jerusalem. He and Barnabas go there, not as delegates from the Antioch gathering, as Luke would have it, but as people with a disagreement they meant to thrash out. It should be noted that Paul says he went there with Barnabas, but “’I’ explained to them that revelation ‘I’ reveal to the nations.” Paul and Barnabas are not speaking together, as in Luke’s picture of them as members of a delegation.
When the dispute is settled and the handshake of peace seals the agreement, then Paul’s relations with Barnabas can continue amicably – and, for that matter, with Peter. Paul brings up the prior conflict only because the Galatians are acting as if the matter of food laws were not settled. This order makes better sense, as well as uncovering the sequence which Luke has re-created in his eirenic fashion. He talks of a problem in Antioch that is followed by a submission of the matter to Jerusalem for adjudication. The Antioch clash is thus referred to in the proper sequence, but in a disguised and ameliorative way.
If this is the sequence, then Paul’s last reported dealings with Peter were not at the blowup in Antioch but after the handshake of peace in Jerusalem. This would accord with the [well-founded] tradition that Peter continued to be an emissary in the Diaspora and ended with Paul in Rome where they died together as victims of Nero’s mad reaction to the fire that destroyed the city. The treatment of them as ultimately partners, seen in the early letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, would this be justified. The two great leaders ended up on the same side.
[2] J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (Doubleday, 1998) pp. 229-30.
[3] Gerd Ludemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, translated by F. Stanley Jones (Fortress Press, 1984), pp. 75-77. With some hesitation, Rainer Riesner accepts Ludemann’s Antioch-Jerusalem sequence, in Paul’s Early Peiod: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology, translated by Doug Stott (Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 232. 322.
Dang those ancient writers not anticipating the questions of readers two thousand years later!
Useful to point out occasionally how much guesswork goes into Pauline chronology. Who would really be suprised if our earliest surviving letter was Romans and Thessalonians the latest?
The Clementine Homilies offers another possible interpretation of the withdrawal of table fellowship by Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews in Galatians after “certain men came from James” (Galatians 2:12). Within the Homilies, there are certain sections that somewhat echo the letter written to the Gentiles mentioned in Acts 15 concerning a decree issued to the “brethren who are of the Gentiles” (Acts 15:23) with instructions to “abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:29) – a letter which “the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to select men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22).
Some of the “necessary things” (Acts 15:28) requested by the Jerusalem Church harken back to the dietary requirements of the Torah:
Concerning things offered to idols:
“You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherah poles for you shall worship no other god, for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and invites you to eat of his sacrifice.” (Exodus 34:13-15)
Concerning the meat of strangled animals:
“Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.”(Leviticus 17:13-14)
Clementine Homilies Homily 7 Chapter IV:2
“And the things which are well-pleasing to God are these: to pray to Him, to ask from Him, recognizing that He is the giver of all things, and gives with discriminating Law; to abstain from the table of devils, not to taste dead flesh, not to touch blood; to be washed from all pollution…”.
Elsewhere within the same epistle, the author clarifies the meaning of the phraseology “to abstain from the table of devils, that is, from food offered to idols” (Homily 7 VIII:1) and argues that “when you partook of meat offered to idols, you became servants to the prince of evil” (Homily 7 III:4), “[t]herefore neither believe in idols, nor partake with them of the impure table” (Homily 8 XXIII:4). For Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews “refraining from the table of demons” (Homily 9 XXIII:2) may have also involved physically withdrawing from the dinner table of Gentile brethren that ate meat sacrificed to idols, much as other 2nd Temple era Jews declined table fellowship with Gentiles due to dietary concerns over unclean foods. We do see some textual evidence of the Jewish Christians withdrawing to eat separately from potential Gentile converts until they were fully initiated in the Clementine Homilies (and elsewhere in the Recognitions): “he himself having partaken of food in private….he went on to say: “May God grant you in all things to be made like unto me, and having been baptized, to partake of the same table with me.” (Homily 1, XXII:4).
Galatians mentions that Peter “withdrew and separated himself…and the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:12-13). Paul divulges that the bone of contention was because Peter tried to “compel Gentiles to live as Jews” (Galatians 2:14). “[C]ertain men came from James” (Galatians 2:12), probably sent as emissaries after the 1st Council of Jerusalem, appear to have attempted to impose at least some of the dietary commandments of the Mosaic Law on Paul’s Gentile converts as indicated on the letter to the Gentiles. Paul appears to have refused their demands arguing back that “for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified” (Galatians 2:16).
When converts in the Greek city of Corinth, probably after receiving a copy of the Jerusalem missive, asked Paul about eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul replied back saying, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.… [thus] we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:4-8). He grants members of his congregation strong in his faith the “liberty” (1 Corinthians 8:9) to “eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:25), presumably questions about whether or not the animal had been sacrificed at the altar of a pagan god as meat markets were often stocked with meat leftover from temple sacrifices to local deities. “If any of those who do not believe (presumably a pagan) invite you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’s sake.” (1 Corinthians 10:27) “For one who believes, he may eat all things (including meat sacrificed to idols that have not been openly verified as meat sacrificed to idols), but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats (meat sacrificed to idols) despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats.” (Romans 14:2-3). “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of food, you are no longer walking in love.” (Roman 14:14). Concerning the dietary schism wrought over diverging guidance concerning meat sacrificed to idols (and other dietary restrictions like strangled meat) within the early church, Paul urges “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” (Romans 14:20).
To be fair, Paul did try to take a nuanced approach to the Jerusalem Church’s Jewish sensitivities. He instructed his congregation that “if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’s sake…”Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other [the Jewish Christians]” (1 Corinthians 10:28-29). However, it appears that taking a ‘what I don’t known can’t hurt me’ approach to eating meat sacrificed to idols was not enough to mollify the Jewish Christians as Paul bemoans “For why is my liberty judged by another’s conscience?” (1 Corinthians 10:29) and “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” (Romans 14:4).
Clementine Homilies put Paul’s words in the mouth of Simon Magus – Clem Hom 17:19 vs Gal 2:11ff. They make Simon Magus an apostle of the gentiles Clem Hom 2:17:3, Clem Hom 11:35:4-6. In addition, who converted Gentiles before Peter (sic!). In Epistula Petri, a reference to the foolish and unlawful teaching of an hostile man. Paul is Simon Magus. And all this is described decades after Paul’s death and the emergence of the Pauline Corpus. Another Clement, in his Stromata 7:17, places Marcion in the times of Peter’s activity. As you can see, fighting Marcion generated ideas to get rid of Paul’s teaching as well.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)