Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[Pragmatist]

As for the anti-semitic doctrines in Paul, I don't think that he hated Jews.

So you admit that Paul's letters contain anti-semitic doctrines. He may not have hated Jews, but he says some pretty anti-semitic things. Correct?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which ones did believe that the Jews killed all the prophets, as taught by Paul?

There's a good discussion on this in:


Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World
By David Edward Aune - pages 157-159 (Available in Google Books)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So you admit that Paul's letters contain anti-semitic doctrines. He may not have hated Jews, but he says some pretty anti-semitic things. Correct?

The thing is, the persecution of Jews throughout history and especially in the Holocaust colors the meaning of the term "anti-Semitic." Even this text, as you know, has inspired anti-Semitic actions and ideologies.

No, I don't think that Paul was anti-Semitic or has anti-Semitic doctrines. Paul existed in a pre-Christian world and to interpret him in terms defined by 2,000 years of oppression is more than just an anachronism: it is intellectually irresponsible.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think it likely that 'zeal' was more marketing than real.

Certainly it has that effect. Paul always had an agenda (who doesn't) and he himself declares to being a modern politician (i.e., gentile when being a gentile helped). However, I don't think that the author of Acts was aware of the Pauline corpus, yet he to speaks of Paul's persecution of the Jesus sect. It seems to me that Paul did indeed start out viewing the jesus sect as dangerous and taking action against them. Although we have a pretty limited knowledge of first century judaism, one thing that we can know with a fair degree of certainty was that 1) there were different "official" schools of thought (e.g., pharisees, essenes) and 2) that ideological differences didn't typically lead to the kind of actions attributed to Paul. Rather, his persecution seems a bit radical, and therefore seems to suggest an above average (whatever that means) "fundamentalist" view. On the other hand, the only picture we have of the earliest post-easter followers of Jesus is one of persecution from everybody (from Paul to Nero) and Paul himself speaks to rifts within the proto-christian community. So perhaps his attitude towards christians isn't radical at all, but was fairly typical.

For one thing, I've never quite been able to embrace the idea of a Pharisee trained at the feet of Gamaliel demonstrating such a reliance on the Septuagint.

Good point. The problem is our lack of sources. The Talmud, and even the Mishnah, were passed on orally for generations before being written down. Our sources for first century judaism are mainly limited to Philo, Josephus, and the NT. The Qumran texts are quite helpful in some respects, but again dating is a problem. The LXX had been around for quite some time before Paul, and received its name through a legend designed to give it an authority equivalent to that of the Hebraic equivalent. Perhaps Paul (who, as you say, is unsuprisingly fluent in aramaic, and therefore likely studied Hebrew as well) was simply more familiar with the LXX, and after "converting" had no problem using it.

This may well have been true for a lower class and less educated Jew in the diaspora, but I would be extremely surprised if that were true in Paul's case. In fact, the persistent complaint of the self-proclaimed devout was that far too many Jews were succumbing to the pressures of Hellenization, and if this was the complaint in Israel it seems unlikely that it would be less true elsewhere in the Roman Empire.

It's true that we see the complaint everywhere. For me, it's Paul's greek that seems to point strongly against this. First, it's likely that the texts we have are already corrected in terms of grammar at least (scribes tended to "fix" what they saw as errors in the texts they were copying), so Paul's Greek may have been worse than what we see. Second, the Greek we actually have is not that of a well-read hellenized individual. One need only read Philo and Josephus to see how a Jewish writer who has studied Greek (and possibly Latin) texts compares to Paul, whose Greek is that of one whose literary talents is mainly limited to a study of septuagint Greek. Granted, Philo and Josephus were not writing letters, but even in Paul's day letter writing was often a genre unto itself, and (for example) Cicero's letters were already being copied and distributed as valuable literary creations. His thought and writing just don't seem to me to reflect a knowledge of greco-roman traditions/philosophy/texts.

Or he was seeking to claim/demonstrate/emphasize his legitimacy as an authoritative representative of a Hebrew sect - an apostle every bit as worthy as the pillars of Jerusalem.

He certainly was. And he had every reason to emphasize/distort his legitimacy given his goals. However, the placement of these claims ("hebrew of hebrews" and "of the race of Israel") is juxtaposed with his persecution of the sect he his communicating with (Php. 3:5ff). It seems an odd place for a claim intended to serve as a measure of his worthiness. It can certainly be explained as only a rhetorical device, but I think the most likely explanation is that Paul was indeed what he said, and that this meant nothing compared to serving his risen messiah.

I very much appreciate your input. Thank you again.

Thank you. I always appreciate the chance to act like I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good point. The problem is our lack of sources. The Talmud, and even the Mishnah, were passed on orally for generations before being written down. Our sources for first century judaism are mainly limited to Philo, Josephus, and the NT. The Qumran texts are quite helpful in some respects, but again dating is a problem. The LXX had been around for quite some time before Paul, and received its name through a legend designed to give it an authority equivalent to that of the Hebraic equivalent. Perhaps Paul (who, as you say, is unsuprisingly fluent in aramaic, and therefore likely studied Hebrew as well) was simply more familiar with the LXX, and after "converting" had no problem using it.

I'm not at all sure what problem you see in the dating of the DSS or how it might be relevant. That aside, what we seem to know given the distribution of textual variants is that the pro to-Masoretic was well established and probably served as the standard in highly observant communities. I believe this to be Tov's view and I've read nothing whatsoever to challenge it. If Paul did anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel I would expect him to know this proto-Masoretic by heart.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not at all sure what problem you see in the dating of the DSS or how it might be relevant. That aside, what we seem to know given the distribution of textual variants is that the pro to-Masoretic was well established and probably served as the standard in highly observant communities. I believe this to be Tov's view and I've read nothing whatsoever to challenge it. If Paul did anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel I would expect him to know this proto-Masoretic by heart.

I'm not talking about whether the LXX or Masoretic text is more "authentic" or anything like that. Rather, the issue is what a first century pharisee who lived before before the destruction of the temple actually believed/acted like/did/studied/etc. Neusner in particular has argued how problematic using rabbinic texts to understand 1st century judaism is. When it comes to "what does "pharisee" mean and who were they" the answer is anything but clear. Sievers' paper (from Hillel and Jesus, pp. 137-155) notes how the tradition of "receiving" differs lexically in m. 'Abot when it comes to Gamaliel 1, questioning whether he was indeed a pharisee at all. My knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic isn't sufficient to judge the veracity of his argument (or those who use it), but I do know that our sources for what a pharisee was in Paul's day render problematic any coherent reconstruction which we can use to compare Paul to.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm not at all sure what problem you see in the dating of the DSS or how it might be relevant. That aside, what we seem to know given the distribution of textual variants is that the pro to-Masoretic was well established and probably served as the standard in highly observant communities. I believe this to be Tov's view and I've read nothing whatsoever to challenge it. If Paul did anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel I would expect him to know this proto-Masoretic by heart.

Paul probably didn't do anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel. Paul never mentions that himself, which is very curious considering that he does brag up his Jewish heritage quite a bit. Yet, his studies with Gamaliel are something he never mentions. It is most likely then that he didn't study with Gamaliel at all.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul probably didn't do anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel. Paul never mentions that himself, which is very curious considering that he does brag up his Jewish heritage quite a bit. Yet, his studies with Gamaliel are something he never mentions. It is most likely then that he didn't study with Gamaliel at all.

To quote another individual (who shall forever remain nameless) "that was a lot better then what I said."

 

[Pragmatist]

By the way, Paul scrupulously avoids the word, Jew, as a description of himself. True, he is an "Israelite" and a "Hebrew," but never a Jew. He reserves this term for his ideological opponents, especially those who "killed all the prophets."

The Gospel-writers, inspired by Paul's anti-semiticism, labeled the arch nemesis of Jesus with the name of Judas, which is pretty much the same as calling him "the Jew."

"His blood is on us and on our children!" That's about as anti-semitic as it gets. Who would say something like that? But Matthew, in the raptures of anti-semiticism, puts these words in the mouth of the crowd that seeks Jesus' death.

When I read the letters of Paul, the one thing that jumps out at me is his raging anti-semticism. I am expected to ignore this, because he lived in "a pre-Christian world" and it is unfair to criticize him because I am familiar with the "2,000 years of oppression" that Jews have suffered since then. I wonder how much they would have suffered if Paul had not promulgated his scurrilous doctrines, and given a justification to so much racist violence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When I read the letters of Paul, the one thing that jumps out at me is his raging anti-semticism. I am expected to ignore this, because he lived in "a pre-Christian world" and it is unfair to criticize him because I am familiar with the "2,000 years of oppression" that Jews have suffered since then. I wonder how much they would have suffered if Paul had not promulgated his scurrilous doctrines, and given a justification to so much racist violence?

No, don't ignore it, quote it. I have been known to be somewhat sensitive to antisemitism, but to speak of Paul's "raging anti-semitism" strikes me as ludicrous. You might well benefit from getting the Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler The Jewish Annotated New Testament and reviewing some of the essays in the back, not the least being

• Paul and Judaism by Mark D. Nanos, and
• Judaizers, Jewish Christians, and Others by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert.

To quote the former:

Paul did not leave Judaism, neither the Jewish way of life nor Jewish communities. He rejected, however, his former opposition to the assertion of the nascent Christian movement that non-Israelites became equal members of the family of Abraham without becoming members of the family of Israel. He now believed that what Judaism awaited, that day when nations would turn from idols to worship Israel's God, had begun in the end-of-the-ages resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the resurrection was a sign that the messianic age had been inaugurated.

Not a raging anti-Semite, but a raging pluralist in a fierce battle against and a deep contempt for the sectarian 'orthodoxy' of his competition.

 

[Pragmatist]

Paul deserves no apologetic sympathy. His anti-semitism is profoundly disgusting. Check out Galatians 4:21-31.

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

If this is not raging, I don't know what is. The children of the slave woman? Are you kidding me?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And how, precisely, is that antisemitism? The only thing profoundly disgusting is your warped and agenda-driven interpretation. Have fun with it ...

 

[Pragmatist]

And how, precisely, is that antisemitism? The only thing profoundly disgusting is your warped and agenda-driven interpretation. Have fun with it ...

You can't see it?

“Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”

In other words, Get rid of the Jews, for the Jews will never share in the inheritance with the gentile Christians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can't see it?

“Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”

In other words, Get rid of the Jews, for the Jews will never share in the inheritance with the gentile Christians.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Paul deserves no apologetic sympathy. His anti-semitism is profoundly disgusting. Check out Galatians 4:21-31.



If this is not raging, I don't know what is. The children of the slave woman? Are you kidding me?

You are reading it wrong. Paul is telling the gentiles that they don't have to follow Jewish Law and get their ding-dings cut because well...they are not Jews and they are under a different covenant. They are free from such stipulations

 

[Pragmatist]

Here's another one for you. 2 Corinthians 3:13-15.

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

What a novel interpretation of the Torah! Moses didn't wear the veil because his face was radiant with a holy light from Yahweh, no, he wore a veil to hide "the end of what was passing away." So, even at the very beginning, the Torah was a lie. And to this day, their minds (that is, the Jews) are made "dull," and "a veil covers their hearts."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not at all sure what problem you see in the dating of the DSS or how it might be relevant. That aside, what we seem to know given the distribution of textual variants is that the pro to-Masoretic was well established and probably served as the standard in highly observant communities. I believe this to be Tov's view and I've read nothing whatsoever to challenge it. If Paul did anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel I would expect him to know this proto-Masoretic by heart.

I'm not talking about whether the LXX or Masoretic text is more "authentic" or anything like that. Rather, the issue is what a first century pharisee who lived before before the destruction of the temple actually believed/acted like/did/studied/etc. Neusner in particular has argued how problematic using rabbinic texts to understand 1st century judaism is. When it comes to "what does "pharisee" mean and who were they" the answer is anything but clear. Sievers' paper (from Hillel and Jesus, pp. 137-155) notes how the tradition of "receiving" differs lexically in m. 'Abot when it comes to Gamaliel 1, questioning whether he was indeed a pharisee at all. My knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic isn't sufficient to judge the veracity of his argument (or those who use it), but I do know that our sources for what a pharisee was in Paul's day render problematic any coherent reconstruction which we can use to compare Paul to.

Tov writes:

The fact that all these divergent texts were found in the same Qumran caves probably reflects a certain textual reality in the period between the third century BCE and the first century CE. In our reconstruction of the history of the biblical text in that period in pp. 187-197 this situation is described as textual plurality and variety. At the same time, the great number of pro to-Masoretic texts probably reflects their authoritative status (cf. p. 191). [source]

I can understand ignorance, but I simply find it difficult to believe that a knowledgeable and zealous Jew would show a preference for the LXX.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul probably didn't do anything remotely like studying at the feet of Gamaliel. ... It is most likely then that he didn't study with Gamaliel at all.

That would not surprise me in the least. As I've intimated elsewhere, while I no big fan of Maccoby, I think Paul's Jewish credentials are far more interesting than are his Roman credentials.

 

[Pragmatist]

You are reading it wrong. Paul is telling the gentiles that they don't have to follow Jewish Law and get their ding-dings cut because well...they are not Jews and they are under a different covenant. They are free from such stipulations

I understand that Paul was preaching against circumcision and the "dead letter" of the law. This immediately brings to mind the question: what kind of Jew would promulgate such doctrines? Of course, Paul never refers to himself as a Jew. A Hebrew, yes. An Israelite, yes. But a Jew, never.

He claims to be observant, but he also cynically asserts that he can be "all things to all people." Maybe he wasn't a Jew at all.

 

[outhouse]

Your running way to loose with the term jew

A Hebrew, yes. An Israelite

is a ???