Well, if YHWH was originally an “El”, then he wasn’t just for them. Rather the Jewish version of a regional deity. But then again, that would predate the old testament.
After the death of Jesus, “Christianity” began to schism, although generally non-violently at first. The “Incident at Antioch” is an example of the growing schism.
Paul of Tarsus was a Jew (ethnically) who had apparently become a Roman citizen. He decided to reform the religion to appeal to non-Jews. Among his converts he threw out much of the Old Covenant (so no circumcision, no refusal to eat pork, etc) which created conflict with James and Peter at the “Incident at Antioch”. Paul said they were “obviously” wrong to hold onto the Old Covenant but his own chief subordinate disagreed with him, and there was implied violence which prompted Paul to flee Antioch. The followers of James and Peter were known as “Jewish Christians” and still practiced the Old Covenant.
Paul “won” the conflict after his death, as the source of Gentiles is far larger. Even so, it took centuries before Christianity “took over” the Roman Empire. By that point Judaism was seen as a different religion. The last pagan emperor, Julian, promised to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem but died before that could happen.
Paul didn’t really eliminate the Old Testament, although some differences have crept in between the Jewish and Christian versions of said books. However, eliminating the Old Covenant eliminated a lot of old Jewish laws, so it’s a bit of “pick and choose”. The New Testament was written over a period of time, by many people, with many of the latter books being written (or shadow written) by Paul, with Paul’s books being aimed at Gentiles.
While the Old Testament followed the Jews as the “chosen people” (I really wonder how do openly anti-Semitic churches preach about this) part of the New Testament seemed to blame the crucifixion on Pharisees (a Jewish group) and not Romans. I guess Paul wrote that part? This seems to have resulted in a lot of religious anti-Semitism.
The issue, as I understand it, was whether you had to be Jewish in order to be Christian. So it was about who the “Old Testament was for,” not when.
Nobody expected non-Jews to follow the “Old Covenant.” All the earliest Christians were Jewish, and so they followed the Jewish Law. But when Gentiles started becoming Christians, there was disagreement over whether they also had to follow the Law (be circumcised, follow the dietary restrictions, etc.).
The “Incident at Antioch” is described by Luke (i.e. the author of Luke and Acts) in Acts 15 and by Paul himself in Galatians 2 (“Cephas” = Peter). Luke makes it sound like Paul and Peter were mostly on the same page, and blames the conflict on “some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees”; but Paul’s account shows more of a conflict between him and Peter.
(By the way, who’s the “his own chief subordinate” you’re referring to?)
Right. By that time Judaism and Christianity were separate religions, and you could be one or the other but not both. But it didn’t start out that way.
(Actually, the earliest-written books of the New Testament are Paul’s letters.)
Perhaps I’m a little confused here. Is the Old Covenant the same thing as Jewish/Mosaic Law?
Barnabas.
I knew the four gospels weren’t written until years or decades after the alleged incidents occurred, but I had always thought that was before Paul “converted”.
Here’s a timeline. (Some of the dates aren’t known for sure, but AFAIK all the dates shown there are fairly widely accepted by most scholars.)
Probable dates for Paul’s letters can be found here.
Here I’m using “Old Covenant,” “Old Testament,” and “Jewish/Mosaic Law” more-or-less interchangeably, though I suppose there are distinctions between them that are important in some contexts.
Re Genesis 1:27. There is a growing realisation that than man created god in his own image. It follows that a great deal can be learned about cultures (for want of a different word) from the attributes they assign to their deity. I’ll leave it there.
One thing that is contributing to my confusion is what is meant by “the chosen”. If a certain clan of people were “chosen” by God, how is that special if other people can convert? If a Viking converted, was he then considered chosen? Was Ruth one of the chosen after she converted? Is there anything special about the people of that original clan and their descendants? Does “chosen” mean people who follow the Jewish faith? Or does “chosen” mean people of a certain genetic makeup from that original clan that was picked by God?
“Chosen” means that you are required to perform more work and follow much stricter rules for exactly the same reward you would get if you weren’t “chosen”. It’s not a prize, it’s a responsibility.
Anyone who converts is “chosen” and is expected to follow all the same rules. Ethnicity doesn’t matter once you are officially Jewish.
Chosen does not mean “choice” as in superior - it is more along the lines of being chosen for a suicide mission.
I’ve heard the misconception of chosen as being better than anyone else be used as a justification for anti-Semitism.
Does the word used in the original text have a different meaning than what we might consider as “chosen”. To me, if I join your organization, your organization didn’t chose me. I chose your organization. So it seems odd to me that people who convert to Judaism would be considered as chosen. It seems like the converters would be called “joiners” or something like that. It seems saying the “chosen ones” might be closer to calling them the “faithful followers” or something like that.
As written, God chose the people. He began with Abraham, yet Abraham’s household was not limited to people related to Abraham at the time God called him. However, nothing prevents a person from joining that people. Don’t get hung up on a 21st century DNA-determined definition of “the people.” The people are those persons who have joined together to accept the Covenant established at Mount Sinai. Rules regarding matrilineal descent and similar actions are simply ways for the people to define themselves, generations after the original covenant. Arthur Koestler made a (brief) name for himself with his book The Thirteenth Tribe in which he (correctly) identified a Southwest Asian tribe, the Khazars, as having converted en masse to Judaism. He then went off the rails claiming that they were the actual forebears of the Ashkenazi Jews. (Subsequent DNA testing has shown that the Ashkenazi Jews generally descended from people who were the Jews of ancient times.) The Khazars were recognized by other Jews as being really Jewish because ancient peoples did not regard DNA in the definition.
God chose the Jewish people to follow a stricter set of laws and created a covenant with them. There’s no restriction on who can follow Judaism and be accepted as a Jew. You seem to be missing the fundamental meaning of the term “chosen” in this context.
They choose to become one of the chosen, to join the team, to become one of tribe. How is being a citizen of a particular nation “special” if other people can immigrate and become citizens?
Yes.
Yes.
G-d chose them.
Only if they are actual converts. You can certainly follow the customs and rituals without being Jewish in the ritual sense, but it’s conversion that makes a gentile into a Jew.
I think you’re looking for something that isn’t present, my friend. If a person converts to Judaism that person is a Jew. One of G-d’s Chosen People.
You’re trying to apply modern, scientific knowledge and definitions to something that was created during the Bronze Age.
There’s also the fact that a converted Jew is entirely Jewish. Is Arnold Schwarzenegger less of an American because he was born in Austria? I mean, good lord, he not only married a Kennedy he was governor of California. No, he’s not less of a citizen for being naturalized. Neither is a converted Jew less of a Jew than someone who was born Jewish.
It’s not the genetic make-up. For one thing, there have been enough converts over the millennia that you can find Jews of pretty much any ethnic background these days. Well, OK, probably not any among the Sentielese. But there are European, African, and Asian-descent Jews.
There are some things like the Cohens all supposedly being the patrilineal descendants of Aaron, Moses’ brother (and half of men with the surname Cohen or its relatives do share a particular Y chromosome) but you don’t have to be a Cohen (or Coen or Kahane, or any of the other variants) to be Jewish. Non-Cohen Jews are just as Jewish as Cohens. Having that Y chromosome doesn’t make you Jewish either - if your mom was a gentile you might be a descendant of Aaron but you’re not Jewish even if your dad was.
It’s not genetics. It’s not race. Think of it more as a nation where most citizens are born there but people can move in and get citizenship. After a few thousand years you’ll find a wide variety of humanity living there. They don’t just hand out citizenship, there’s a process to go through, but once you’re through it you’re a full citizen.
To stay with my analogy, the person who volunteers for the suicide mission is just as chosen as those assigned to it.
And what everyone else said also.
As I understand it, from the Christian perspective there is a divide between the saved and the unsaved, where being unsaved has consequences, which vary depending on the form of Christianity you pick. That doesn’t exist in Judaism. Not being “chosen” has no negative consequences in the afterlife. Or even this life, at least according to all the sermons I heard. If it did, ethical Jews would try to convert people. Which we don’t.