Was Paul Jewish?

[Kooky]

If you think that Christians just made up all the text of the New Testament then you would think they would do a 'better' job.

Of course I don't think that the texts of the NT dropped fully formed from the sky, but that they were written by people, human beings, living in a specific time and place with specific beliefs, needs, wants, limited knowledge and particular hangups. If you reject that notion out of hand then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Kooky]

I don't really understand your distinction between 'different story' and 'truer story', but over the last 2-3 years or so I have come across quite a number of different theories that propose different characterizations of both Jesus and Paul. These theories are based both on a different reading and interpretation of the NT and comparison of specific details with other sources, such as: Josephus, various Greek and Roman historians, classic Jewish sources, the DSS and more. Of course in the end everything is authorial invention, much like every biblical (recall my definition for biblical) criticism theory that proposes to amend portions of the text or suggests that the bible evolved from prior sources or that parts of it was composed by this author or that group or that it was written down in such and such a time. These are merely suggestions, and we do not have in general any hard evidence at this time to support one over the other. That's why my OP ended with "Thoughts?"

I suppose you could regard this thread about examining the "soft evidence".

By "truer" I mean "closer to what probably happened", but since our only sources of what happened are Christian, there is no non-Christian version to events known so far, like the one you seem to seek.

I have no idea what "classic Jewish sources" you are relying on that would post-date the NT, would you mind at least naming them?

Josephus was not only a Christian, but also one who wrote significantly after the texts of the NT were written, and frequently reflects back on the events depicted in the NT in a less than critical way. Moreover, I can't think of anything he says that would contradict the NT portrayal of Saul/Paul of Tarsus. Can you?

 

[pearl]

Found this to be of interest concerning Saul/Paul

SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[paarsurrey]

It sounds you have made up yet another belief about Jesus and the Gospels that actually deny the Gospel message that the New Testament and Jesus teaches. It is amazing how many different things that people make up about the Gospels and New Testament so they can deny what is taught in the New Testament.

sorry, to me, it is clear injustice to innocent Jesus:

1. to ascribe something to Jesus he never wrote himself or never dictate to anybody himself .
2. to base belief on anonymous writers of Gospels
3. While none of them was even an eye-witness of Jesus dying on the Cross
4. Or Jesus' resurrection from the dead, that never happened
5. or on a self-assumed Apostel who never was educated or trained by Jesus but was an enemy of Jesus.

Right?
One is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.
My conscience does not allow me on all the above, sorry.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

My point is that about 2000 years ago when the gospels were written the friends of the person who wrote a gospel might know who wrote it and the churches to whom the gospel was sent would be told that and so on and so on. Then 2000 years later we cannot say we know who wrote the gospels because we are not the ones who were there when the gospels were written, all we have is hearsay.
All we can say is that the hearsay and other evidence points to the people that we say wrote the gospels.

It is a big "might", to me, it is impossible, please.
Right?

Regards

 

[ppp]

If you think that Christians just made up all the text of the New Testament then you would think they would do a 'better' job. By better I mean one that laid down something that could be agreed on by all and more simple to understand and without anything that could be construed as contradictions.

They did the same goodness of job as did every other people with a religious mythology.

 

[firedragon]

Did I say that? I don't remember saying that.
Post 78 may have led you to believe I said that but it would mean you had not been following along with other things I had been saying.
I just wonder if it is all sorted now.

No worries. So whats the vow in 21?

 

[Harel13]

I have no idea what "classic Jewish sources" you are relying on that would post-date the NT, would you mind at least naming them?

Tannaitic and Amoraic texts. But I'm not looking to post-date the NT. I was talking about discrepancies between the NT and other sources of the first centuries CE that raise question marks about various aspects of the NT.

Josephus was not only a Christian, but also one who wrote significantly after the texts of the NT were written, and frequently reflects back on the events depicted in the NT in a less than critical way.

In what world was Josephus a Christian?

Moreover, I can't think of anything he says that would contradict the NT portrayal of Saul/Paul of Tarsus. Can you?

I don't, but then again, I did not claim that I remember all of these theories by heart. Certainly not inside and out. And in any case, it was just an example of what I am trying to express via the OP.

 

[paarsurrey]

By "truer" I mean "closer to what probably happened", but since our only sources of what happened are Christian, there is no non-Christian version to events known so far, like the one you seem to seek.

I have no idea what "classic Jewish sources" you are relying on that would post-date the NT, would you mind at least naming them?

Josephus was not only a Christian, but also one who wrote significantly after the texts of the NT were written, and frequently reflects back on the events depicted in the NT in a less than critical way. Moreover, I can't think of anything he says that would contradict the NT portrayal of Saul/Paul of Tarsus. Can you?

" Josephus was not only a Christian "

He was not, I understand:
Flavius Josephus (/dʒoʊˈsiːfəs/;[3] Greek: Ἰώσηπος, Iṓsēpos; c. 37 – c. 100) was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian and military leader, best known for The Jewish War, who was born in Jerusalem—then part of Roman Judea—to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry.
Josephus - Wikipedia
Right?

Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless." Philippians 3:4-6

Hard to believe him when Paul admitted to being whatever would convince people.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

A couple of days ago I chanced upon a video of a lecture (in Hebrew) by an Israeli historian named Yigal Bin-Nun. The lecture was about the start of Christianity as an organized religion (post-Jesus). I didn't watch everything, but at some point he opined that Paul was not actually born Jewish. The story of his background in Acts was a later fabrication, he said, and - I do not know if this is true or not - Paul never explicitly states he is Jewish in his various epistles. Bin-Nun thought he was a very learned non-Jewish Greek man (perhaps he meant Hellenistic, not sure) with a philosophical background who turned to Christianity and at times seemed to present himself as Jewish to further his preaching agenda.

One thought that I had earlier was that this might explain why Paul spoke of the abolishment of the law in Ephesians 2.
But as I already mentioned above, I have not fully looked into this idea.

Thoughts?

Paul was a Pharisee who often entered the Temple - only Jews can be and do these things.

 

[Harel13]

Paul was a Pharisee who often entered the Temple - only Jews can be and do these things.

And we should believe him because..?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

And we should believe him because..?

Because the Jews allowed him into the Temple and he persecuted Christians under the authority of the Sanhedrin.

He was a Jew - no ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

[Harel13]

he persecuted Christians under the authority of the Sanhedrin.

I have already addressed this a number of times on RF, possibly on this thread as well. This claim absolutely defies logic. Christians in the time of Paul were such a tiny group with zero influence. Moreover, in what way did the High Priest in Jerusalem have the judicial jurisdiction to send over one of his men to Damascus, hundreds of miles from Judea to kill a group of nobodies? Not to mention that this was at least a decade after the Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment. And in any case, sending a mercenary was not the way to do it.

Because the Jews allowed him into the Temple

Since the claim of his persecuting Christians makes no sense, I don't see why he should be believed about his claim of entering the Temple.

no ifs, ands or buts about it.

I have a few. See above.

 

[Flankerl]

Prior to a recent Rabbi Tovia Singer video I was completely oblivious on what feeble legs the whole "he was a Jew and Pharisee" argument stood.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I have already addressed this a number of times on RF, possibly on this thread as well. This claim absolutely defies logic. Christians in the time of Paul were such a tiny group with zero influence. Moreover, in what way did the High Priest in Jerusalem have the judicial jurisdiction to send over one of his men to Damascus, hundreds of miles from Judea to kill a group of nobodies? Not to mention that this was at least a decade after the Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment. And in any case, sending a mercenary was not the way to do it.

Since the claim of his persecuting Christians makes no sense, I don't see why he should be believed about his claim of entering the Temple.

I have a few. See above.

Paul did not write the Book of Acts - so I don't understand why you believe that he had authority over what the book claims he was or did.

I have read your concerns - but I don't know how well founded they are.

For example - on what are you basing the claim that Christians at the time of Paul - or rather Saul - were only a "tiny group with zero influence"?

Do you have the data on that? You know how many professed Christians there were at the time and how "influential" they were?

I mean - the Sanhedrin supposedly killed the Lord Jesus Christ - and could it not be argued that there were less "Christians" wielding less "influence" at the time of His death then at the time of Saul?

Yet they felt compelled to do something about it then - why not afterward - as the numbers of Christians only continued to increase?

Now - the Book of Acts clearly states that Stephen - whose death was "consented" to by Saul - was stoned to death in Jerusalem - not Damascus.

He (Stephen) was one of seven men called to assist the Apostles and he preached in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5-9), he was brought before the council in Jerusalem (Acts 6:12) and he was stoned outside the city of Jerusalem where they laid his clothes at the feet of Saul (Acts 7:58-59).

All of this happened after Peter and John had been arrested multiple times for continuing to preach about the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 4:1-3; 5:18) and they had even escaped from prison to continue to preach (Acts 5:19-42) and they had great success in converting their captors (Acts 4:4).

These things obviously upset the Sanhedrin for the record then claims that Saul not only had Stephen killed - but he participated in the "great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem" which included entering people's homes and casting people into prison - and he "[breathed] out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1) which caused many Christians to become "scattered abroad" and they "went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1-4)

The record claims that a portion of this "scattering" and "preaching" included Samaria, an Ethiopian eunuch of "great authority" - under the queen of Ethiopia herself - and "all the cities" between Azotus and Caesaria (Acts 8:5,14, 27-39, 40).

This "scattering" caused the High Priest to order Saul to go to Damascus - and most likely other cities as well - to deliver letters of warning and extradition to the synagogues there - that "if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem." (Acts 9:2)

The High Priest was not only a political leader - but the main religious leader - and he used all of his authority to not only persecute Christians - but also to safeguard Judaism from what he believed was a perversion - which spread outside the boundaries of Jerusalem.

So - Saul was not sent to "kill a group of nobodies" - but to round up people they considered to be heretics. They may have planned to kill them after they stood before the council in Jerusalem - like they did Stephen - but Saul was met by the Lord Jesus Christ along the way so we do not know.

The Sanhedrin actually were not allowed to issue any capital punishment without Roman approval - yet Pilate allowed the Sanhedrin to kill the Lord Jesus Christ - who he recognized as being a man with no fault worthy of death - so why wouldn't the Romans allow other executions to please the masses?

Saul was no "mercenary" - he claimed to be a Pharisee (Philippians 3:3) who spoke fluent Hebrew and claimed that he was a "Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God" (Acts 22:2-3)

And him having authority to "consent' to the stoning of Stephen - and to lead persecutions against Christians which included raiding their homes, casting them into prison, threatening and slaughtering them - as well as him receiving direct orders from the High Priest to seek Christians abroad and extradite them back to Jerusalem to be tried - all add credence to his claims.

He was a Jew born in Cilicia who grew up a devout student of Hebrew and the Law who became a Pharisee in Jerusalem - and later a Christian.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Again, Paul would claim to be a turnip if it made people listen to him.

 

[Harel13]

Paul did not write the Book of Acts - so I don't understand why you believe that he had authority over what the book claims he was or did.

Where did I say he had such authority?

Do you have the data on that?

Off the top of my head, I have some, and when I have time, I'll bring more:
First of all, Josephus - even if we assume that the sections referring to Jesus and his students are legit - makes absolutely no mention of Christians as an influential group in the time period we are talking about here. Per your logic, this is strange.
Second of all, Chazalic sources make mention of Christians on occasion, but besides for some stories about Jesus and five disciples - absolutely no mention of a powerful mid-1st century CE sect.

I mean - the Sanhedrin supposedly killed the Lord Jesus Christ - and could it not be argued that there were less "Christians" wielding less "influence" at the time of His death then at the time of Saul?

First, strange claim about the Sanhedrin. At best maybe they sentenced him. They did not kill him, per your own scriptures. Second, big difference. The gospels describe someone causing political problems in the Judean capital. Acts speaks about a group of sectarians in a completely different Roman province.

Yet they felt compelled to do something about it then - why not afterward - as the numbers of Christians only continued to increase?

As I said, if we are to believe anything in the gospels, we see a charismatic man who was a big troublemaker. There might have been fear of him gaining more followers and causing more problems. Better to put an end to it all as early as possible.

So - Saul was not sent to "kill a group of nobodies" - but to round up people they considered to be heretics

And why do you think they had the judicial jurisdiction to do this? Do you even know anything, really, the slightest, about Roman Imperial Law?

Saul was no "mercenary" - he claimed to be a Pharisee (Philippians 3:3) who spoke fluent Hebrew and claimed that he was a "Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God" (Acts 22:2-3)

And him having authority to "consent' to the stoning of Stephen - and to lead persecutions against Christians which included raiding their homes, casting them into prison, threatening and slaughtering them - as well as him receiving direct orders from the High Priest to seek Christians abroad and extradite them back to Jerusalem to be tried - all add credence to his claims.

He was a Jew born in Cilicia who grew up a devout student of Hebrew and the Law who became a Pharisee in Jerusalem - and later a Christian.

I think that what I have said thus far raises a big red flag on all of this.