Incident d'Antioquia

Incident d'Antioquia
	36° 12′ N, 36° 11′ E / 36.2°N,36.18°E
Tipus	història bíblica ; strife (en)
Tema	Controvèrsia de la circumcisió al cristianisme primitiu
Localització	Antioquia de l'Orontes (Turquia)

Crist entre Pere i Pau, segle iv, Catacumbes dels Sants Marcelí i Pere a la Via Labicana.

L'Incident d'Antioquia fou una disputa que tingué lloc durant el període apostòlic entre Pau de Tars i Pere, a la ciutat d'Antioquia a mitjans del segle I. La font primària per a l'incident és la Carta als Gàlates de Sant Pau (Gàl 2:11-14). Des de Ferdinand Christian Baur, els estudiosos han trobat evidència d'un conflicte entre els líders del cristianisme primitiu; per exemple James D.G. Dunn proposa que Pere era l'«home-pont» entre els punts de vista oposats de Pau i de Jaume.^[1] El resultat final de l'incident continua essent incert pel que fa a diversos punts de vista cristians de l'Antic Pacte en l'actualitat.

Els cristians gentils i la Torà

Com que els gentils van començar a convertir-se del paganisme al cristianisme, va sorgir una disputa entre els líders cristians sobre si els gentils havien d'observar tots els preceptes de la Llei de Moisès. En particular, va debatre's si els gentils conversos havien de circumcidar-se i observar les lleis dietètiques; especialment la circumcisió, que es considerava repulsiva a la cultura hel·lenística.^[2]

Probablement completament independent de Pau, però sobre el mateix període, el tema dels gentils i la Torà també va ser objecte de debat entre els rabins segons consta al Talmud. Això va donar lloc a la doctrina de les Set lleis dels fills de Noè, per ser seguides pels gentils, així com la determinació que «els gentils no poden ser ensenyats en la Torà». Al segle xviii, el rabí Jacob Emden era de l'opinió que l'objectiu original de Jesús, i sobretot de Pau, va només ser de convertir els gentils a les Set lleis de Noè, mentre que permetien els jueus seguir la llei completa de Moisès.^[3]

Pau era un ferm defensor de la posició que els gentils no necessitaven pas circumcidar-se ni observar les lleis dietètiques, una posició que alguns van prendre com antinomisme. D'altres, de vegades denominats judaïtzants, varen sentir que els cristians gentils necessitaven complir plenament la Llei de Moisès.

Concili de Jerusalem

Pau va deixar Antioquia i va viatjar a Jerusalem per parlar de la seva missió als gentils amb els «pilars de l'autoritat» del cristianisme.^[4] En descriure el resultat d'aquesta reunió, Pau diu «van reconèixer que se m'havia confiat la bona notícia per als no circumcidats». Els Fets dels Apòstols descriuen la controvèrsia resolta pel discurs de Pere i conclosa amb la decisió de Jaume el Just de no exigir la circumcisió dels gentils conversos. Fets cita Pere i Jaume dient:

Germans, vosaltres sabeu que des dels primers dies Déu em va escollir d'entre vosaltres perquè els pagans escoltessin dels meus llavis la paraula de l'evangeli i creguessin. Déu, que coneix el fons dels cors, ha testimoniat a favor d'ells donant-los l'Esperit Sant igual que a nosaltres, sense fer cap diferència entre nosaltres i ells, un cop ha purificat els seus cors per la fe. Ara, doncs, per què poseu a prova Déu, volent imposar als deixebles un jou que ni els nostres pares ni nosaltres no hem tingut la força de suportar? Ben al contrari, creiem que tant nosaltres com ells som salvats només per la gràcia de Jesús, el Senyor.
-Fets 15:13-30

Aquest Decret Apostòlic encara és observat per l'Església Ortodoxa.^[5]

Referències

↑ James D. G. Dunn en The Canon Debate, L.M. McDonald y J.A. Sanders ed., 2002, capítulo 32, p. 577: «For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective ‹brands› of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked». [Itàliques originals]
↑ Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: «Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18;, Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons»; Hodges, Frederick, M. «The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme». The Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 75, Fall 2001, 2001, pàg. 375–405. DOI: 10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID: 11568485.
↑ Jewish Encyclopedia: Gentiles: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah
↑ Gàlates 2:1-10 i Fets 15:1-19
↑ Karl Josef von Hefele. commentary on canon II of Gangra anota: «We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few».

[1] James D. G. Dunn en The Canon Debate, L.M. McDonald y J.A. Sanders ed., 2002, capítulo 32, p. 577: «For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective ‹brands› of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked». [Itàliques originals]

[2] Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: «Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18;, Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons»; Hodges, Frederick, M. «The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme». The Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 75, Fall 2001, 2001, pàg. 375–405. DOI: 10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID: 11568485.

[3] Jewish Encyclopedia: Gentiles: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah

[4] Gàlates 2:1-10 i Fets 15:1-19

[5] Karl Josef von Hefele. commentary on canon II of Gangra anota: «We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few».

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]