Due to their profession of belief not only in a trinity, but also to a deity in human form, nearly every medieval rabbinic authority considered Christianity to be a form of idolatry. If the trinity belief weren't enough, certainly the belief in god-as-a-human removed Christianity from a Jewish monotheist sect and placed it solidly into the realm of idolatry. This made all Christian believers idolators from the Jewish perspective.
With the non-Jewish Roman and Greek cultures surrounding them along with the growing popularity of Christianity which professed belief in a god-as-a-human-being, the opening Mishnah regarding Avodah Zara and the prohibition against conducting business with an idolater three days before and after their festivals presented a major halachic headache to the Jewish rabbis of that time. In fact, as David E. Garland of George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University points out, if we consider that every Sunday was a festival day for Christians, it made following the simple understanding of the Mishnah impossible.
Basically, the Jews of that time were surrounded by what they considered pagans and what Deuteronomy considered idolatry. Therefore, while Deuteronomy states that all edifices and cultic objects devoted to idolatry (anything non-Jewish) must be destroyed, a task impossible to that time and socio-cultural setting, the Talmudic rabbis instead refocused the prohibition of idolatry onto the avoidance of benefit, that a Jew may not benefit from idolatrous worship in any way. We can see this tension fully played out in the Mishnah.
The rabbis forbade direct or indirect contact with pagan (non-Jewish) rites and rituals, but ruled that Jews could mingle with non-Jews unless they were engaged in some religious activity that was clearly not Jewish, and therefore, pagan.
Avodah zara is serious for Jews throughout history, and has presented many struggles, especially where it concerns our interactions with Christians. I have found it of personal interest to look closely at the early years of this new Christianity, since it took place during the same time that Judaism was transitioning into Rabbinic Judaism. To this end, a very helpful resource in fully understanding this issue of idol-consecrated meats sold at the public markets and how this impacted the Jews and the Corinthians at this time is detailed in an essay by David G. Horrell, "Idol-Food, Idolatry and Ethics in Paul," material which was later incorporated into his book, Solidarity and Difference: a Contemporary Reading of Paul's Ethics, published in 2005.
Horrell notes that the larger issue here is that of idol-consecrated meat and non-kosher meat available in the public markets. The public markets only sold idol-consecrated and non-kosher meat, so special provisions had to be made for Jews to obtain meats which were slaughtered according to kosher standards and not consecrated to idols. The Corinthian congregation would have also had to buy the meat separated for the Jews, as these were the requirements established by the Jerusalem Council (and listed in the Christian new testament in Acts 15), andexpected for all gentile christians to follow.
So Horrell's question about Paul's response to the Corinthians in our passage under consideration is the same one which occurred to me, which is, what if the Corinthian communities did not have access to this special meat? Could this be why Paul spends some much time on a detailed circuitous response to what looks like it could've been a simple, short, concise, and direct reply?
According to Horrell, Paul's prohibitive imperative is to "flee from idolatry." Worship of idols is clearly prohibited, but what is left unclear is when, if at all, eating per se constitutes idolatry. Had Paul meant to prohibit the eating of idol-food, he could have done so quite simply, making his instruction on the matter clear. A simple, short phrase such as that used in Didache 6.3 would have been clear, direct, and unambiguous: "keep strictly from that which is offered to idols." (The Didache is an important very early Christian document, and retains clear evidence of Jewish influence.)
Horrell ponders whether it is possible that the special provision for meat made for the Jews would have been revoked as the Romans were becoming agitated with them, and this seems to be the most reasonable approach to looking at this particular Pauline passage. After all, Claudius had deported all Jews from Rome and Gallio, and was more than hostile towards Jews. From 40CE onwards there were tensions building against the Jews, with frequent uprisings in Judea in 46-48CE. These factors could have pushed authorities to withdraw special provisions that had been provided to the Jews, such as separate, special meat in the markets.
It makes sense to consider that if the special meat provision had been revoked, that the Corinthian Christian communities would now need to question Paul whether it would be acceptable to eat from the meat market, since the meat could have been brought to the meat markets from the pagan temples, and we do, in fact, see such a case in 1Cor 10:28, where meat offered to idols was served at dinners.
All of this makes Paul's circuitous responses sensible and reasonable. From a contextual perspective, it is critical to view the historical background, because all of the historical context sheds light on the questions the Corinthians likely wrote to Paul. Paul, in return, responds from within this context.
Finally, Horrell notes that nowhere in this letter to the Corinthians does Paul revoke the written instructions of Leviticus 11. Rather, Paul simply said to eat the meats at the Corinth market, as there was no way to know whether a particular meat was offered to idols or not. If a believer came to know that a meat was specifically offered to an idol as a sacrifice, then they were not to partake of it, per the ruling of the Jerusalem council.
From this informed, contextual perspective, we can see that Paul's argument is based on the presumption that such matters of practical daily life can only be determined in relation to the context of the human relationships in which one is enmeshed, and the possible injury that one‘s actions may cause to others. Throughout the Talmud and Mishnah, the rabbis, too, hold out this context as the lens through which they view and comment on the Torah. In this way, both the rabbis and Paul came from a similar viewpoint. Paul was, after all, a Jew, so this was a normative way to consider the Corinthian situation.
Paul was clearly influenced by both Judaism and Hellenism, and was attempting to define the boundaries of acceptable interactions that a Christian could have with Hellenism without becoming assimilated into Hellenism to the point of completely compromising their religious distinctions.
Paul did not address the problem of idolatry apart from the instructions of his Jewish tradition.
In this way, Paul was thinking as a Jew through the lens of his Christian experience, and his argument does not make sense apart from understanding it within the context of Hellenistic Jewish attempts to interact with the Greco- Roman world. The rabbis were doing likewise, from within the tradition of Judaism.
No comments:
Post a Comment