Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia
The relationship between Paul the Apostle and Second Temple Judaism continues to be the See also Antithesis in the Bible and Christianity in the 1st century. In A Radical Jew, Boyarin argues that Paul the Apostle combined the life of Jesus .. Gentiles who wished to join Jewish Christian sects, such as the Ebionites or. The proliferation of these and many other Jewish sects began a few hundred years When the Jews returned to Palestine in the latter part of the sixth century B.C., there . Paul taught that the Mosaic Law was not binding upon gentiles or Jews, Victor L. Ludlow, assistant professor of ancient scriptures at Brigham Young. The Fiscus Judaicus: Its Social and Legal Impact and a Possible Relation Yetser Ha-Ra and Daimones: A Shared Ancient Jewish and Christian . to Jews voluntarily in gentile places.4 These places are at once cultural' (thus, . Christian rhetoric contra Iudaeos, specifically against the Temple cult – see e.g. Justin, 2 Apol.
In particular, leaders valued the services of Jews as administrators of mints, as proto-bankers, as administrators of the tax system, and as long-distance traders. In all the countries of the area, Jews were guaranteed the right to trade and practice their religion.
Both these charters were confirmed by subsequent monarchs. These charters generally laid down the economic rights of Jews and authorized them to have their own court system. Although Jews were subordinated to royal courts and were exempt from the jurisdiction of municipal authorities, their security and religious rights were guaranteed.
In addition, Jews enjoyed wide internal autonomy. This autonomy had two sources—the inability of the modern state to administer all aspects of society and the long-established desire of Jews to control the organization of their communities.
Dependence on the monarch was not always to the benefit of the Jewish community. Kings were often impelled to follow the dictates of the church and also of their subjects who pressed for anti-Jewish actions. Jews were also expelled from a number of other Bohemian towns. When they were allowed to return, the number of towns in which they could settle was significantly reduced. Jews were also briefly expelled from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in In the eighteenth century, the Habsburgs, who now ruled both Hungary and the Czech lands, began to implement the principles of physiocratic economics, which stressed the primacy of agriculture and the harmful effects of trade.
As a consequence, the Familiants Laws limited the number of marriages in each Jewish community and imposed new restrictions on trade. Left to right representative of the non-Jewish craftsmen; representative of middle-class householders; the mayor from the Labor Party ; representative of the National Democrats; and Leybush Feferman, representative of the town's Jews.
The states of the eastern parts of Central Europe, at least down to the early sixteenth century, were all characterized by a weakening monarchy, a large and politically and economically dominant nobility that was represented in a well-developed parliament, a weak burgher class, and a dependent peasantry reduced to serfdom in the late Middle Ages.
Split of Christianity and Judaism
In addition, to use in some ways anachronistic terms, these states were all multiethnic and multireligious: Jews were not the only religious or social outgroup. All of these countries, at least until the triumph of the Counter-Reformation, were committed to the principle of religious toleration. From the middle of the sixteenth century, approximately half of Bohemian Jewry lived in the countryside under the protection of the local nobility.
Here Jews constituted the principal intermediary class, selling the agricultural produce of the estates and provisioning their households. In Hungary, too, Jews developed a symbiotic relationship with some sections of the nobility.
Thus in the eighteenth century when Jews were expelled from BratislavaTrnava, and Sopron, they were able to settle on the estates of a number of western Hungarian nobles. Moravian Jews seeking to avoid the rigors of the Familiants Laws were also encouraged by large landowners to settle on their domains. By the middle of the eighteenth century, most Hungarian Jews lived in villages or in small noble-controlled towns.
The relationship between Jews and the Polish nobility szlachta went even further. One of the main features of Polish social history was the way in which the nobility gained a monopoly of political and economic power. Inlegislation was passed in the Sejm, giving owners of private towns which constituted the majority the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over their Jewish communities. Much more hostile to Jews was the burgher class, predominantly German in origin, whether in the Czech lands, Hungary, or Poland—Lithuania.
A wide gulf separated the Jews from the largely enserfed peasantry. A degree of hostile coexistence prevailed between these two groups, mitigated by mutual dependence but also sometimes degenerating into anti-Jewish violence. Given their links above all with the monarchy and the nobility, Jews of the area had a strong sense of rootedness in spite of the contempt with which they were regarded and the persistent anti-Jewish violence. In Bohemia, Jews prospered in the late sixteenth century when Mordecai Maiselthe leading Jewish merchant in Prague, was also one of the principal bankers of the imperial house, and when the town became the largest Jewish settlement north of the Alps; the Jewish population increased from about in to more than 6, at the beginning of the seventeenth century.
Similarly, Jews constantly negotiated to secure their rights in Hungary, often successfully. The Jewish sense of security was perhaps strongest in Poland. As in the medieval West, the Jewish elite took the view that the toleration of the Jewish community was granted in exchange for the economic services it performed. When the Sejm or Sejmiki met in Poland, Jews said special penitential prayers beseeching God for mercy and in the hope that nothing harmful to the well-being of the Jewish people would result from the meeting.
Yet Jews were conscious of the difference between their situation in Poland and that of elsewhere in Europe. The way they saw their position is best summed up in another legend: The Jews came to Poland and began to build fires on an inviting broad plain.
The plain turned out to be the back of a great beast, which, angered by the pain of the fires, began to move and threw them off. Integration and Assimilation, — The middle of the eighteenth century saw the beginning of a new era in Jewish history.
The political transformation was accomplished in two stages. This was a process that was to be slow and that was to encounter numerous obstacles and setbacks. The call was also made for the reform of the Jewish educational system, so that Jews would learn the language of the country in which they lived.
While some wanted Jews to be granted access to all types of schools, others felt that Jews should be kept for a transitional period in schools of their own.
Jewish responses to this new situation varied in different parts of Europe. The achievement of Jewish legal equality was also slower here, and was completed in the Habsburg Empire in and in the newly unified German Empire in Joseph II, emperor of Austria from tointroduced a series of laws establishing a new legal position for Jews in different parts of his domains.
It was followed in February by a similar edict for Jews of Bohemia and Moravia. In accordance with Enlightenment principles, this other edict suspended Jewish judicial autonomy, made the use of German compulsory for business records, and opened secondary schools and universities to Jewish students. Subsequently, only Jews who had completed a German primary school could obtain a marriage license or be allowed to enter a yeshiva.
Jews were also now compelled to perform military service. These changes deeply divided Czech Jewry, with supporters of the new order being strongly opposed by the more traditional element. Formal legal equality, as elsewhere in the Habsburg monarchy, came in Although culturally the community was now clearly German, the Czech national revival and the bitterness of the national conflict in the Czech lands led an increasing number of Jews, particularly those outside Prague, to see their future as Czechs.
By55 percent of Czech Jews declared their mother tongue to be Czech clearly a political statement while only 45 percent claimed to be German-speaking. In the historic territories of medieval Hungary, the process of integration was similar. Here by an edict of March some restrictions on Jewish settlement were abolished; legal and commercial documents were to be drafted only in Latin, Hungarian, or German; and a network of Jewish schools that were to follow the national curriculum was created.
Jews could also enter secondary schools and universities. A conflict—analogous to that in the Czech lands—as to whether Jewish integrationists should follow a German or a Hungarian cultural orientation developed but took a very different course. Since the main opponents of legal equality for Jews were the largely German burghers, and since the Hungarian noble leadership sought Jewish support in their struggle for national rights, Jews came to identify strongly with the Hungarian national cause, most notably in the revolution offor which they were subsequently penalized after the victory of the counterrevolution.
By the time Hungary received its autonomy within the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish elite was enthusiastically Magyarizing itself and saw the granting of full legal equality in December by the Hungarian parliament as the natural outcome of this process. In areas where ethnic Magyars were a minority of the population, such as Slovakia and southern Transylvania, this put the Jews at odds with the majority population. In Poland—Lithuania, the process of integration took a different course. Attempts to transform the position of the Jews were undertaken during the last years of the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, but were halted by its partition at the end of the eighteenth century.
It was most successful in Prussian Poland, where most anti-Jewish restrictions were done away with in and where Jews identified strongly with German culture.
Printed by Szymanowicza, Vilna, In Galiciawhich was incorporated into the Habsburg monarchy inJoseph II introduced legislation on the Jews similar to that in the rest of his empire. Here, however, the integrationists, who were divided between those who favored a German cultural orientation and those who wished to be part of the Polish nation, were much weaker than elsewhere in the Habsburg lands and were strongly and effectively resisted by the traditional, often Hasidic, majority.
It was only in that the Polish noble stratum, to which the Habsburgs had conceded control of the province, accepted under pressure from Vienna the granting of full legal equality for Jews. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, an alliance developed between this stratum and the Jewish leadership that worked very successfully for quite a long time. By this stage, the Polish cultural orientation was dominant within an important section of the Jewish elite, but came under attack as the Polish—Ukrainian conflict came to dominate the politics of the area, particularly since the bulk of Jews lived in areas in the east of the province where Ukrainians were in the majority.
In the Kingdom of Poland, the politics of integration seemed to achieve significant successes in the years between and In the first half of the nineteenth century, Polish nobility took the view that Jewish emancipation was conditional on the Jews abandoning their religious and social separateness, a development that was regarded as rather improbable, or, at best, likely to take a very long time.
The run-up to the insurrection of changed this situation, as competition developed between the viceroy of the kingdom, the Pole Aleksander Wielopolski, who was trying to introduce a measure of self-rule that would also be acceptable to the tsarist authorities, and the growing Polish national movement.
In emancipating Jews, Wielopolski had hoped that they could form a significant element in an emerging Polish middle class, which could carry out the capitalist transformation of the Kingdom of Poland and give it a much more balanced and Western social structure. This was also the hope of Polish liberals, who called themselves Positivists because of their admiration for the secular and pro-industrial ideas of Auguste Comte.
It was also supported by the Jewish commercial and financial elite that was benefiting from the economic boom in the Congress kingdom that followed the opening of the Russian market in and the abolition of unfree cultivation in These were self-administered; the problem for the tsarist administrators was where to fit the Jews. In addition, the tsarist empire was not a national state, but a multinational empire extending over much of Eurasia. In the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, it was not yet government policy to Russify the population.
One of the first acts of the tsarist government was to establish the Pale of Settlement to which Jews were confined. These areas were almost entirely agricultural with very little industrial development. There was very little in the way of a Christian bourgeoisie or proto-bourgeoisie in the areas into which Jews could integrate. Tsarist policies were based on two assumptions. In the first place, Jews were seen as a harmful element—they disrupted relations between landlords and peasants in the sensitive western provinces of the empire.
At the same time, it was thought that Jews could be reformed, so that they could become useful subjects. It was under Nicholas I r. He also established a Jewish Russian-language school system, and rabbinical seminaries in Vilna and Zhitomir intended to create a new and more enlightened Jewish elite.
The effect of these changes was to create a deep division within the Jewish community. A small minority of reformers and merchants strongly supported the government, but the bulk of the community was deeply alienated, seeing the policies as a new form of forced conversion.
The Russian Jewish school system was abolished in ; a new draft system that was established the following year encouraged Jews to enter Russian schools and universities. Some of the restrictions on Jewish residence were abolished and merchants of the first guild and artisans were free to settle anywhere in the empire.
However, the high hopes that Alexander aroused both among general population and among the Jewish elite proved to be somewhat misplaced. Alexander did not establish a constitution and thus did not create the conditions necessary for general Jewish emancipation. In addition, the Russian reforming bureaucrats expected the Jewish elite to carry out a fundamental reform of Jewish life that was probably beyond its capacity. In the Danubian principalities, which were effectively controlled by Russia fromthere was little desire in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to integrate Jews.
Legislation prevented Jews from settling in the countryside, leasing land, or establishing factories. However, in the short-lived revolutionary wave of the revolutionaries did call for equal rights for local Jews.
The first ruler of the united principalities, Alexandru Cuza r. When Jewish backing was not forthcoming, he inserted in his draft constitution a clause excluding from suffrage all those who did not profess Christianity Article 7.
Expulsions and restrictions continued in full force. The Challenge to Integration, — The last decades of the nineteenth century saw advocates of Jewish integration and the transformation of Jews into citizens come under serious attack, an attack that was part of a wider challenge to the principles of liberalism. As a consequence, the principal target was Jewish emancipation and the main hostility was to assimilated and acculturated Jews. Antisemitism was thus a form of political paranoia, a monocausal explanation of what was wrong with the modern world.
The integrationist project also came under attack from two other sources. To increasing numbers of Jews, the divergence between what they had had to give up to achieve citizenship and the degree of their integration in civil society was increasingly evident. There was a widespread call for a return to a more authentic Jewish form of existence that often took the form of arguing that Jews were not a religious group but a proto-nation.
Moreover, the triumph of the national idea among other ethnic groups led to hostility toward Jews among emergent national groups, including Czechs, Poles in Prussian Poland, Ukrainians in East Galicia, and Slovaks, Romanians, and Serbs in the borderlands of the Hungarian kingdom, who bitterly resented the links between Jews and the dominant national group in these areas, whether it was German, Polish, or Hungarian.
This was most apparent in the tsarist empire. In Mayupdated regulations forbade new Jewish settlement outside towns and townlets, the purchase of property in the countryside, and Jewish trade on Sundays or Christian holidays. The government also acted to restrict Jewish access to secondary and university education and generally to restrict the presence of Jews outside the Pale of Settlement.
The result was a serious deterioration of the situation of the Jewish community, one aspect of which was the acceleration of mass emigration. Many members of the educated Jewish elite now rejected the principle that Jews needed to reform themselves in order to be acceptable to the larger society. As a result, the late nineteenth century saw the emergence of ethnic concepts of Jewish self-identification, in particular Zionism and Jewish autonomist socialism Bundism. Modernized versions of traditional Orthodoxy also developed a significant following, both Misnagdic and Hasidic.
A minority within the Jewish community was attracted to revolutionary socialism with its vision of a new world where the old divisions of Jew and gentile would be subsumed by the creation of a new socialist humanity.
These new ideologies went along with the emergence of Yiddish as a literary language and the development of modern Hebrew. This process, however, was neither as rapid nor as complete as has sometimes been argued. Jews were an important element in the now-influential Constitutional Democratic Party Kadety. The motive and method of the volume are in fact apologetic throughout; the author, like so many of his predecessors, sets himself to prove the superiority of Christianity to Judaism.
Fortress Press,64— No one even thought of extracting a theology from the utterances of the Rabbis in Midrash and Haggada, to say nothing of organizing the theology in a system. No one can rise from the reading of Dr.
Paul the Apostle and Judaism
It shines with sunlight clearness, that the whole difference between the Christian and Jewish Soteriology is that between Grace and Law. Christianity had [now] acquired a perfectly dark background against which it could shine all the more brilliantly.
The Age of the Tannaim 3 volumes, — Davies28 and Krister Stendahl. Whatever the 26 Claude Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: SPCK, third edition Yale University Press, Yale University Press, esp. Rather, it was in the context of his soteriological concern for the relation of Gentiles and Jews that he deployed justification by faith as one of his arguments. Those are simply the practices required by the divinely-instituted Torah.
The stakes for Reformed theology are therefore high, since as Donald McLeod has observed: If the New Testament is not after all the story of Christianity versus Judaism — church versus synagogue, battling for the hearts and minds of the people — then what was happening? The Myth of a Common Tradition Eugene: Wipf and Stock,3. Constructing Early Christianity London: Each was experiencing and understanding events within the same symbolic framework, while ascribing different weight and interpretive meaning to each of its modes.
University of Illinois Press, ; and W. Each focused on a particular aspect of national existence: For the scribe, or sage, the life of society required wise guidance in how to live by the revealed laws of Torah, as interpreted by the scribes. This symbolic system of Temple cult, Torah and Messiah demanded choices.
The particular way in which symbols were arranged, rearranged and bonded — the relative importance of each and their proper interpretation and application — became definitive to a Judaism to what really mattered within what a particular group considered to be authentic Judaism. That is why we can move from the particular to the general in our description of the common faith in first- century Israel.
YIVO | Relations between Jews and Non-Jews: Historical Overview
See, Neusner, Jews and Christians, 8; 10; Each believed itself to be living out the authentic Israelite religion. Their place became subsumed by a focus on the inner person through prayer and the study of Torah.
Rifkin sees Christianity as emerging from Pharisaism. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age, Neusner, Jews and Christians, If Judaism were something distinct and separate, why would it trouble him? Eerdmans,; Howard Marshall, Acts Leicester: Eerdmans,fourth English edition; first published in German as Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten Hamburg: Liturgical Press,— In fact, Johnson argues, its slander against fellow Jews is actually remarkably mild; the polemic signifies simply that these are opponents and such things should be said about them.
Geoffrey Chapman,lxxi. The term occurs seventy times in John as compared with five or six occurrences in each of the Synoptics.
It was conducted within and about Judaism, rather than speaking from outside, into and against it. Firstly, if the traditional Reformed reading of Paul is flawed, we shall need to revise our view and our rhetoric concerning the presumed Pauline contrast between salvation by grace through faith versus Jewish works-righteousness and ritualistic externalism.