Loading...I ended my last post with a question: Suppose Matthew really did think a person had to be a Jew in order to be a follower of Jesus. Would that indicate that he himself was born and raised a Jew? In this case I think there is a clear and certain answer. But it may not be the answer you’d expect. I think the answer is certainly No.
The reason is that we know of other Christians in the early church who insisted that to be a follower of Jesus, one had to adopt the ways of Judaism. And these other Christians were themselves born and raised pagan.
The clearest instance involves Paul’s opponents in Galatia. Paul’s letter to the Galatians is one of the most dense and difficult writings of the New Testament. There are verses and even passages that are, in my opinion, virtually impenetrable, statements that Paul makes that I still have difficulty figuring out after years of thinking and reading about it. But the basic situation that prompted the letter, in any event, is crystal clear – as seen from what Paul says in the letter itself. It is this:
FOR THE REST OF THE POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!!
Is there a religious reason or reasons why most westernized Christians still get circumcised today, even though Paul thinks it’s Hersey to do so? (if you aren’t Jewish)
No, I think it is for reasons of health (false reasons, as it turns out) and because of social pressure (high school gym classes, etc.)
Bart, why do scholars believe that these “Judaizers” were not themselves Jewish? I understand that some of them could have been ex-pagans, but what is the evidence that none of them were Jews from birth?
There’s not evidence that *none* of them was originally Jewish, but Paul’s comment about them makes sense only if they had not already been circumcised; so that’s the logic.
I have always thought that the lack of clarity, in books like Galatians, the major and minor prophets, and the Book of Revelation, suggests that these books were not that inspired. Why would God inspire unclear writing?
Because he wanted to support the need for biblical scholarship? (In many instances, of course, these writings are unclear simply because we’re trying ot figure them out 2000 years later….)
Hey, remember the weird claims that pop up once in a while? That either the entire Torah or the entire Old Testament – I forget which – is actually one word, and that word is the true name of God? Or the claims about secret prophecies (that have supposedly come true) being concealed in the Bible, accessible to those who’ve figured out the “code” or whatever? Of course, that’s all nonsense. But someone who believed it really could argue that divinely inspired writings are “unclear,” or downright misleading, for the sake of communicating those hidden ideas.
My reading of the gospel of Matthew and Galatians leads me to conclude that both are a radical departure a Judeo-centric idea of the supremacy of Jewish culture over other cultures, by the employment of a new hermeneutic. Matthew’s Jesus radically interprets the Law spiritually not culturally, therefore is able to indict the Jewish legalism as a false means of being right with God (i.e., Sermon on Mount, “you heard it said, but I say . . .). Paul in Galatians take this hermeneutic and applies it in a non-Jewish context (Gal. 2) when he challenges Peter and the coalition from James. Paul does not allow Jewish Law based on cultural supremacy to dictate who is in right standing before God or the church based on adherence to Jewish customs. In fact, I believe that even more radically, Paul’s Christ is not Jewish but an transpersonal revelation which can be adapted by any culture. Consequently, so called Pagans (non-Jews) need not go through Moses to come to God or be in right standing with the Apostolic church. God is the object of salvation, faith is the means of salvation. Paul’ s salvation is based on an individualist existential encounter with the Spirit within. I would also add that the word “PAGAN” is supremacist and borderline arrogant. All ethno-centric religions, including Judeo-Christianity cannot save. Paul’s and Mathtew’s Jesus argument is that true salvation is an revelatory encounter of spiritual awakening, an inside out experience.
Is there a chance that these other missionaries who were corrupting Paul’s teachings were sent by James and may have been Jewish? And that Paul, in his anger, was saying that when they were circumcised, he wish the whole thing would have been cut off (even if that would have been when they were eight days old)? The circumcision that Paul refers to had to have already occurred. It sounds like, in his anger that he’s trying to paint as bad a picture as he can of adult male circumcision.
There’s nothing to suggest that htey came from James; but they do appear to have been adults who were circumcised as adults.
Typical crystal clear exposition . Thanks Bart .
I know this is off-topic, but I have to mention it. I just listened to the first two “Controversies” lectures. And something puzzles me.
Does Catholic teaching vary, perhaps by region? I had twelve years of Catholic schooling (two of them college) in upstate New York, and I never heard the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception described as you describe it. Specifically, I’m sure I never heard the term “sin nature.” The only term I learned for the condition from which Mary was exempted is “original sin.”
But you indicate that “sin nature” is actually *sinful* nature – *a propensity to sin*. I don’t remember being taught anything like that. Rather, my understanding of the doctrine was that every human (except Mary and, it went without saying, Jesus) is said to be born with a *stain* on his or her soul. (Am I right in thinking *macula* is the Latin word for “stain”?) Not born with a propensity to do one thing or another, born *already guilty* (presumably, of Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience, despite our having had nothing to do with it).
My sense is that Catholic teaching varies depending which century you’re living in. I wasn’t trying (at least I don’t *think* I was) to describe modern Catholic dogma, but the early teachings of the immaculate conception. On the other hand, maybe I botched it! Stranger things have happened.
Do we have any idea as to how the practice of circumcision got started? Were the Jews the only culture to practice it? Why would they think that mutilating the perfect body of God’s creation would be pleasing to God?
Other ancient peoples practiced it. It appears to have originated as a puberty/manhood rite. I’m sure there’s good scholarship on it, but I’m not abreast of it….
Hi dr. Ehrman, I arrived late to this post – sorry! I always wondered if by chance Matthew could be a “judaizer” (a jewish judaizer, maybe) so that passages like “Don’t go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans” or “I’m here just for the lost sheeps of Israel”, that we don’t find in Mark, could be additions of Matthew the “judaizer” rather than historical (as many believe). I know this may sound very “conservative”, but on the other hand would also be… amazing!
The problem is that at the end, the disciples are told to go to “all the nations”