April DeConick of The Forbidden Gospels Blog has been asking some important questions about the Hellenists, Antioch, and the value of Acts for a history of early Christianity. See here, here, and here.
Unlike many scholars, I personally am not convinced that authors such as Craig C. Hill, who is skeptical of there being any significant ideological difference between the Hellenist and Hebrew Christ-believers, have succeeded in accounting for all the evidence in Acts. Martin Hengel seems justified in suspecting that there was more going on between the two groups than a conflict over the distribution of food. (This would not be the only conflict that Acts underestimates, cf. 15.36-41.)
Why should Luke introduce such a disruptive episode into his ideal picture? Is it not clear that Stephen was far more than an administrator? And is it not significant that the charges which are raised against him are distinct from those earlier raised against the apostles (6.13-14)? Finally, Stephen's speech does have an anti-temple ring to it (7.48).
That said, I admit to being uneasy about following Hengel all the way, such that, for instance, the difficulty in Gal 1.22 can be explained by differentiating between Hebrew and Hellenist congregations. Moreover, I am skeptical that he is right to characterize the Hellenists as being closer to the message of Jesus than the twelve because of their greater receptivity to the (purported) Torah and temple critical aspects of his message.
There is much about the Hellenists that remains shrouded in mystery. If, however, they were Greek-speaking Jews from the Diaspora, living in Jerusalem, they may indeed have come to have a slightly different ideology than the twelve because of their different background, experience, and greater contact with non-Jews (with whom, because of their common language, they could communicate). Philip Esler is worth consulting here.
7 comments:
Thanks for the links to April DeConick's questions. I've finally subscribed to her blog.
Another book worth consulting on the question is
Penner, Todd. In praise of Christian origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan apologetic historiography. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. (I picked it up when it first came out, but haven't got around to reading it yet.)
thanks d.
I've read a little bit of Todd Penner's stuff, but not a lot. He's definitely an articulate voice, urging some strong cautions about using Acts as a historical source.
Nick,
I have a fairly exhaustive review of Penner's book over at "Bible and Critical Theory" if you want an overview of the book.
Thanks Michael:
I'll look into that review for sure. Unfortunately, right now, I'm having trouble accessing Bible and Critical Theory through our Library subsciption, but I will get to it.
I'm not convinced that Luke underestimates the conflict between Paul and Barnabas. He describes it as a sharp disagreement. The aspect of the disagreement that Luke mentions concerns Barnabas's sympathy for Mark's decision not to continue to (south) Galatia. Luke highlights that it was in Pamphilia that Mark abandoned the journey. The implication is that he did not want to continue to south Galatia where Jews were (IMHO) conservative and likely to persecute visiting Christian missionaries (as in fact they did). Thus Paul felt that Barnabas was much to tollerant of Mark's reluctance to face opposition to the law-free gospel. This is exactly the same quible that Paul had with Barnabas in Gal 2:11-14.
Richard. rfellows at shaw.ca
Richard:
Thanks for these good observations. When I said that Luke "understimates" the conflict, I meant something more like he understimates the cause of the conflict. You are right that the disagreement and its outcome are just as sharp. Your suggestion as to the cause of the conflict requires that the Jews of this region be well known for their "conservatism;" I don't know if that's the case. Barrett suggests as a possibility that he left because the mission was increasingly targeting Gentiles. Neither explanation is explicitly stated by Luke; but Luke seems to share Paul's negative judgment on John's actions (15.38). My original point, which I now see was not stated clearly, was more related to the fact that Paul describes an ideological rift in Antioch, in which Barnabas took the "wrong" side. Luke describes a different conflict, the underlying issues of which are not so clear. If what you (or Barrett) describe as the reason for John' dessertion is correct, then it would appear that he now, in Acts 15, has a change in heart! In Luke, Paul and Barnabas disagree over how someone's action in the past should should be judged in the present. I don't see any sense in which Barnabas actually shares in whatever was culpable about John's actions, especially since John seems to have "repented."
Nick,
thanks for the clarifications. If the Jews of south Galatia were indeed conservative, then I think Luke and his readers would have known it, and it would have been clear to the readers that Paul had suspected Mark of cowardice in the face of conservative Jewish opposition. Incidentally, we do not know that Barnabas stopped eating with gentiles. We know only that he was "led astray by their hypocracy".
Anyway, you are right to ask whether south Galatian Jews really were conservative. Here are some points of evidence.
Firstly, Acts records opposition to Paul and Barnabas in south Galatia, whereas no comparable incidents are recorded in Pamphylia or Cyprus.
Secondly, it is clear from Paul's letter that the Galatian Christians (presumably former God-fearers) were being influenced by a pro-circumcision view. It can be argued that the agitators in Galatia were local Jews. In any case the conservative nature of Galatia would explain why the pro-circumcision view gained traction there more than in the other cities of Paul.
Thirdly, Paul circumcised Timothy because of the south Galatian Jews. This implies that they were indeed strict.
Incidentally, we know from Josephus that Jews in Syrian Antioch allowed Gentiles to integrate into their community. It seems that attitudes in small-town south Galatia were very different from those in cosmopolitan Antioch.
Richard.
Post a Comment