Here's how I ended up evaluating the different positions I outlined here and here. Since I'm short on time (preparing for my project defence on Wednesday), I'll just quote myself.
"If we begin with a Jerusalem-based hypothesis for the setting of the persecution, as I [have argued here, here, here, and here], we can rule out the socio-political explanation that assumes a Diaspora location and situation. But this explanation should not be forgotten too quickly: it seems to be a helpful description of what may underlie (certain of) the conflicts between Paul, the apostle, and Jewish communities of the Diaspora, especially as described in the book of Acts; additionally, its emphasis on Jewish attentiveness to the palatability of the gospel message from the perspective of the Romans can be transferred to a Palestinian setting. The first kind of socio-political explanation, that which assumes a Zealot-Palestinian viewpoint, places us in the right locale. It is uncertain, however, that Paul’s zeal for the law should be equated with Zealot anti-Roman sentiment. Neither is it clear that these socio-political factors are sufficient in themselves to explain the conflict between Paul and the early Christ-believers or why Paul pursued his victims even to Damascus. This hypothesis requires further testing.
The socio-theological explanation rests on a particular construal of what motivated zeal for the law, namely, that for the Jewish people the primary function of the law was sociological, not soteriological: they observed the law in order to remain a unique people. It is a valid and valuable insight that the law served an important sociological function. But how often do groups define the significance of their most cherished rituals and beliefs primarily in terms of their sociological effects? Texts which emphasize this aspect or effect of Torah-keeping (Lev 20.22-26; Let. Aris. 139, 142; Jub. 22.6; Philo Mos. 1.278) cannot overrule those (often programmatic) texts which emphasize Torah-keeping in the context of life and death (Lev 18.5; Deut 30.15-20, etc.). So while this explanation may emphasize an important aspect of the conditions that often accompany persecutions (i.e., that communal identity is threatened), it seems less helpful for understanding Paul’s explicit motivation for actions he took against Christ-believers.
Historically, religio-theological explanations perhaps have suffered from a lack of attention to the sorts of social conditions which usually attend persecutions. They have also been quick to assume a natural antagonism between Christ-belief (or “Christianity”) and “Judaism,” often understood in monolithic, essentialist terms. However, there is no reason to doubt that religious or theological factors had a part, and perhaps in the minds of those involved in the conflict, a very explicit part to play.
As Larry Hurtado has emphasized, following the crucifixion the environment in Jerusalem was naturally hostile towards any “positive thematizing” of Jesus. The Christ-believers’ stubborn and public proclamation of him as the risen Messiah who would return and judge the unrepentant irritated an already volatile situation. It is not hard to see how their activity in this context appeared to threaten the pre-eminent place of temple and Torah in Jewish life, both socio-politically and theologically. For all this, there is broad confirmation in the book of Acts.
There can be little doubt that socio-psychological issues also factored into Paul’s activity. But, for the most part, these explanations merit only our skepticism, not (necessarily) because the socio-psychological constitution of first-century Palestinians as a whole is entirely alien to our own but because the nature of the evidence simply does not allow precise answers to our question. Time and chance have combined to make this endeavour little more than speculation."
No comments:
Post a Comment