Was Paul a Pharisee?

[Gawen]

'If someone as learned as I can believe that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Torah, who is there fearless enough to disagree?' – Saul/Paul of Tarsus

Paul says he's a Pharisee. I beg to differ. Although Paul sounds somewhat Legalistic when pertaining to the Law, many of his sayings are simply rhetoric with no real legalistic precision as found in Pharisaic writings. Take Romans 7: 1-6 for example. I'm not going to post it here to save me time and space. At any rate, it is completely bewildering. Paul is trying to compare the cancelation of the Torah/Law and the advent of the new covenant with a second marriage contracted by a widow. But he can't clear up in his mind who it is that corresponds to the wife and who to the husband.  He cannot even make clear who died, the husband or the wife.

Apparently, it seems the wife is the Church, the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Christ. Since Paul tells us that a wife is released by the death of her husband and allowed to remarry, this should read that the Church was freed by the death of the Torah to marry Christ. Instead, it is the wife/Church that dies ('you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ').  And then we get to play with the idea that the new husband, Christ, has died. The only term not mentioned as having died is the Torah, yet this is the only thing that would make the analogy valid.

Paul tries to work out some sort of legal swagger analogy based on the Law of marriage and remarriage. But he ties himself in knots and therefore loses cogency just where a Pharisaic training (if he had ever had one) would have asserted itself. To read Paul is to see the rhetorical style of Hellenistic preachers of then popular Stoicism, not the terse logic of rabbis.

Moreover, there is also an entirely different idea in Romans 7:1-6: that a person becomes free of legal obligations after his or her own death and it seems to mean: 'that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer.' The theme of the widow being free to remarry after the death of her husband is totally incompatible with this. Paul confuses the reader so much so that at one point he seems to be talking about a widow and a husband who are free to marry each other and have acceptable children because both widow and new husband are dead. These are words of a Pharisee?

So, was Saul from Tarsus (Acts 9:11, and 21:39, and 22:3)?
Or was he 'I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee....' (Philippians 3:5)?

It seems Paul was not anxious to convey he came from Tarsus, an Asia Minor backwater. Jerusalem, the citadel of the Pharisees would seem so much more important, wouldn't it? In Tarsus, Pharisee teachers and training would have been hard to come by, if at all. Right from the get-go, Paul's big background question is: Is Paul really from a genuine Pharisaic family or was it something he said to increase his status? When reading Paul, the latter seems to make more sense because Paul did embellish quite a bit.

The Pharisees had a prestigious reputation, why some would even say "righteous" reputation. They were a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals and the application of the Law. The Pharisaic reputation for hypocrisy is undeserved and due to the Gospels in a campaign wrought by politico-religious problems of the time. Paul's desire to be thought of having Pharisee upbringing should thus be understood in the light of the actual reputation of the Pharisees in Paul's lifetime and not 40-70 years later, during the turmoil of the Temple. Paul was claiming a high honour which would enhance his status in the eyes of those who knew him or read his letters.

Anyway, Saul left Tarsus and came to Israel where he studied in the Pharisee academy of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). It is known that Gamaliel, was a highly respected figure in rabbinical writings (the Mishnah), and held the title 'Rabban', the Pharisee party leader. However, he does play a prominent role in one scene in Acts; a role that is hard to reconcile with the Pharisees of the Gospels.

It is also interesting that Paul never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee! Here again, the question, as modified: was Paul ever a pupil of Gamaliel and a Pharisee or was the claim made in Luke an embellishment? As one reads further of Paul, it would seem quite unlikely that Paul was ever a pupil of Gamaliel's or a Pharisee.

Saul was implicated in and approved of the death of Stephen (Acts 8:1). Is this truth or embellishment to emphasize the contrast between Paul before and after his conversion? The Stephen episode is itself full of problems and contradictions. Never mind whom killed Stephen and whatever his views for which he died. What matter in the telling is the implication of Saul in the matter; it heightens the impression that adherence to Pharisaism would mean violent hostility to the followers of Jesus.

As we read further in Acts 8:3, Saul was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison'. It was clearly not a vigilante type matter because sending people to prison could only be done by an official. Later incidents tell us Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest. But here is the kicker: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it, an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting in concert with the High Priest? The picture we are given in the days before Paul's conversion is contradictory and therefore suspect.

End part 1

[Gawen]

Acts 9 is a great dilemma which depicts Saul as 'still breathing murderous threats...went to the High Priest and applied for letters to the synagogues at Damascus authorizing him to arrest anyone he found, men or women, who followed the new way, and bring them to Jerusalem.' Good grief. If Saul had his itinerary full of 'harrying the church' in Jerusalem, where did he get the idea of going off to Damascus to harry the Church there? What was the urgency?

Further, what kind of jurisdiction did the High Priest in Jerusalem have over the non-Jewish city of Damascus? And how were either enabled to authorize arrests and extraditions in that city? As if this isn't puzzling enough, Saul's relation to the High Priest is described as if he is a private citizen who wishes to make citizen's arrests according to some plan of his own. It would seem more likely that the plan was of the High Priest's, and Saul was acting as an agent. The entire incident is silly.

Acts then continues with the account of Saul's conversion. The pre-conversion period does receive further mention later on in Acts, both in chapters 22 and 26. There, some interesting details are added, and more puzzles. Yeehaa!

In chapter 22, Saul has changed his name to Paul. He gives an account of his early life in a speech after talking with the prefect/commander:
I am a true-born Jew, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia. I was brought up in this city, and as a pupil of Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in every point of our ancestral law. I have always been ardent in God's service, as you all are today. And so I began to persecute this movement to the death, arresting its followers, men and women alike, and putting them in chains. For this I have as witnesses the High Priest and the whole Council of Elders. I was given letters from them to our fellow-Jews at Damascus, and had started out to bring the Christians there to Jerusalem as prisoners for punishment; and this is what happened...
Alas, here is another kicker: previously he had described himself to the commander as 'a Jew, a Tarsian from Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city'. So Paul is from Tarsus; a Hellenistic Diaspora Jew. Note that when he says he was 'brought up in this city', he means Jerusalem.

*Perhaps Atilla, with his command of languages, could find out if this means "brought to fruition" or brought there as a child (which would suggest that he spent his childhood in Jerusalem)?

Did his parents move with him? No clue. Was he, as a child sent there alone? Seems unlikely. And if he spent only a couple childhood years in Tarsus, would he have described himself proudly as 'a citizen of no mean city'? I mean, do people who spend the first 6 or so years in one city and then move away to spend the next 30 years of their life as a resident of another city and proudly claim to be a citizen of the previous city? It is more likely that Paul moved to Jerusalem when he was grown up, and he left his parents behind in Tarsus, which seems probable as they receive no mention in any of Paul's letters.

As for Paul's alleged period under Gamaliel, this would have had to be in adulthood. Gamaliel was not a teacher of children but of advanced studies. He would have only accepted someone grounded in Torah/Talmud/Misrash and suitable for the rabbinate. So the question now is: where and how did Paul receive this thorough grounding, if at all? There are strong reasons to think that Paul never was a pupil of Gamaliel.

Chapter 22 also brings up problems with Paul claiming a Pharisee schooling and his professed Roman citizenship.

Let's jump to Chapter 26 where Paul has an account with King Aggripa. Big problems here. This speech is total bull and cannot be regarded as authentic. The truth claim that Paul, as a Pharisee of high standing was known to 'all Jews' cannot be taken at face value. What is more interesting is that Paul is saying he 'cast his vote' against the believers of Jesus. This can only refer to the 'voting' of the Sanhedrin; the entity that tried capital cases. What Luke claims here is that Paul was at one time a member of the Sanhedrin. How is it that Paul, a person so full of himself could have omitted that nugget when claiming his credentials as a Pharisee?

There is also confusion in this account and in the accounts quoted above whether the Sanhedrin and the High Priest and/or the 'chief priests' were all involved in the persecutions. Sometimes the High Priest alone is mentioned; sometimes the Sanhedrin is paired with him and seem inseparable. But in two occasions in Acts, the High Priest was outvoted by the Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Both occasions show that the Pharisees were opposing an attempt to persecute the followers of the Jesus cult; so the representation of High Priest and Sanhedrin as having identical aims is one of the suspect.

As a Pharisee, Paul was strongly opposed to the Jesus cult. So opposed that he took violent action against them. Well, here is another kicker: how is it that Paul claims to have voted against Christians on trial before the Sanhedrin when in the graphic trial of Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5), the Pharisees, led by Gamaliel, voted for Peter's release?

If Paul was a Pharisee, what the hell kind of Pharisee was he? How could he take an attitude towards the Jesus cult which, on the evidence in the same book of Acts, was untypical of the Pharisees? And how is it that Acts is so inconsistent within itself that it describes Paul as violently opposed to the Jesus cult because of his deep attachment to Pharisaism, and yet describes the Pharisees as friendly to the early Jesus cult?

Some scholars maintain that Acts is favourable to the Pharisees; but improbable. Any evidence favourable to the Pharisees is outweighed by all the material relating to/of/from Paul. Paul is portrayed as being a virulent persecutor when he was a Pharisee, but ironially, Paul declares that he was punished by being flogged (II Corinthians 11:24) by the 'Jews' (the Pharisees). So no one really comes away from reading Acts with any good impression of the Pharisees, even if never having read the Gospel accounts.

Why is Paul so adamant to stress that he came from a Pharisee background? What could the motives be?
Puff up his stature?
That his Paulinian form of proto-Christianity was the true Judaism?
That all his professed study of scripture under Gamaliel actually leads to the acceptance of Jesus as prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (which it never was)?
Because of delaring his Pharisee past he equates it with proclaiming his sins and at the same time claiming credntials?
All of the above?
None of the above?

Paul was never a Pharisee. If anything, he was attached to the Sadducees as some sort of agent with some amount of authority and under the authority of the High Priest. His learning associated with the Pharisees was pitiful. He is deliberately misrepresented in his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of usurpation of the Jerusalem church.

'See how I have changed, from being a Pharisee persecutor to being a devoted follower of Jesus!' – Saul/Paul of Tarsus

Ende

[Too Few Lions]

Great read Gawen, thanks

One thing that I've often wondered, is there actually any real hard evidence of Jews having persecuted early Christians ? Or even for an early Church in Jerusalem / Palestine? From what I've read, it's all based on reading Acts or things Paul said as being historically accurate, and not just made up, which is what I suspect may be nearer the truth.

To my knowledge there's no archaeological evidence for Christianity in first century Palestine. Some of the places Christians visit on pilgrimage today believing Jesus once did this or that are fourth century creations of Constantine and his mother Helena.

I've been trying to find out more about it online, but if you google 'archaeology' and 'Christianity' together all you get are a bunch of bullcrap Christian sites, claiming that archaeology supports everything in the Bible from the Flood and the Exodus to the gospels. Of course, archaeology currently supports none of them, and totally destroys the first two.

The Christian sites really are pathetic, a good example of one below which claims that 'the life of Jesus and his disciples is filled with concrete facts that can be verified in history and archeology'. And this is proved by? The remains of a boat dating to the first century found in the Sea of Galilee, and the gospels do mention boats on the Sea of Galilee so they must be true. I mean really...they've found a boat...in the sea? Hallelujah, I'm converted!

The only other piece of evidence they can offer is some copper coins. Apparently they prove Jesus existed because Mark 12:42-44 mentions copper coins   I imagine copper coins were quite literally two a penny all over the Roman world!

http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/12/

I'd really like to know more about the field, but it appears it's generally Vatican archaeologists who get to work on the sites. According to wikipedia, it looks like the earliest known archaeological evidence for Christianity in Palestine dates to the 3rd century!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Palestinian_archaeology#Christian_sites

I do wonder if the lack of archaeological evidence for early Christianity (particularly in Palestine) will ever be looked at more closely and make people question the traditional history of the religion, which is currently based on its own scriptures.

[Gawen]

To my knowledge there's no archaeological evidence for Christianity in first century Palestine....I do wonder if the lack of archaeological evidence for early Christianity (particularly in Palestine) will ever be looked at more closely and make people question the traditional history of the religion, which is currently based on its own scriptures.

I don't suppose there would be. With a half dozen small and scattered groups, what would be lasting to dig up? And honestly, there could be goldmines of artifacts all around Jerusalem, but you'd have to dig up the entire city. Any Jewish or Roman documents pertaining to Jesus after his arrest would be enlightening. Seeing Paul's graduation certificate from the School of Gamaliel would be cool.

Some of the places Christians visit on pilgrimage today believing Jesus once did this or that are fourth century creations of Constantine and his mother Helena.

It basically boils down to tradition based on pious fraud and greed (consider the ossuaries of late)

The Christian sites really are pathetic...

Ain't that the truth.

[Too Few Lions]

To my knowledge there's no archaeological evidence for Christianity in first century Palestine....I do wonder if the lack of archaeological evidence for early Christianity (particularly in Palestine) will ever be looked at more closely and make people question the traditional history of the religion, which is currently based on its own scriptures.

I don't suppose there would be. With a half dozen small and scattered groups, what would be lasting to dig up? And honestly, there could be goldmines of artifacts all around Jerusalem, but you'd have to dig up the entire city. Any Jewish or Roman documents pertaining to Jesus after his arrest would be enlightening. Seeing Paul's graduation certificate from the School of Gamaliel would be cool.

I just question the whole thing about a historical Jesus and an original Jeruslaem Church. Christianity just seems like a Roman mystery religion based on Hellenised Judaism to me. Most of the basic theological ideas of Christianity seem more Greek than Jewish. Plus we have the problem of 100% of the earliest Christian writings being in Greek, not Aramaic.

If Christianity was originally a Greek-Jewish mystery religion, it's more likely to have been created in Alexandria, Antioch or even Rome itself than in Palestine. I like to compare Christianity to Mithraism, a similar orientalising mystery religion from the same period, that was based on the Persian god Mithra.

Originally the first academics to study Mithrasm assumed that the religion had to have been imported into the Roman Empire from the Persian Empire, as it was based on a Persian god after all. Much as most people assume Christianity must have started in Palestine. Nowadays, scholars are coming to the conclusion that Mithraism may well have begun in Rome itself, as a syncretising Roman religion based on a Persian god. I wonder if Christianity may be something similar. The Greeks and Romans were very good at syncretising religions and creating new gods and saviours in the process.

[Gawen]

I just question the whole thing about a historical Jesus and an original Jeruslaem Church. Christianity just seems like a Roman mystery religion based on Hellenised Judaism to me.

Egyptian, Zoroastrianism...and other pagan stuff. Christianity has borrowed or assimilated very much.

Most of the basic theological ideas of Christianity seem more Greek than Jewish.

I think you would see a good portion of Hinduism in there as well.

Plus we have the problem of 100% of the earliest Christian writings being in Greek, not Aramaic.

This is shaky because Greek dominated the area at that time. One would think there would have been Latin or some other Semitic language. But the Greek is all that has surfaced except for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If Christianity was originally a Greek-Jewish mystery religion, it's more likely to have been created in Alexandria, Antioch or even Rome itself than in Palestine.

I can see proto-Christianity's roots somewhere in the middle east but Alexandria is pushing it. Jerusalem makes a great melting pot for the Messiah "watch". Paul, wherever he is or comes from, comes along and picks up on the potential lucrativity and begins to preach his own story by his own authority.

I like to compare Christianity to Mithraism, a similar orientalising mystery religion from the same period, that was based on the Persian god Mithra.

It is interesting that they both develop around the same time.

I wonder if Christianity may be something similar. The Greeks and Romans were very good at syncretising religions and creating new gods and saviours in the process.

Maybe the truth lies in the vaults at the Vatican...*chucklin*

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Here's the general problem with your analysis of Paul's claim to be a Pharisee.  He makes this claim in Philippians 3:5, when defending his own ministry against Judaizers who were trying to impose the circumcision rite upon this congregation.  He's essentially saying, "I'm more of a Jew than they are, and I say you don't have to do this."  If he makes this claim and it is false, he has just undermined his credibility with this church.  They could easily check up on this claim - either from going to Jerusalem themselves or by questioning someone from there (travel around the Mediterranean world was relatively easy in those days due to the Pax Romana).  Why would Paul lie about something that could be so easily falsified?

Both Pharisees and Sadducees were members of the Sanhedrin, although the High Priest, who was a Sadducee, was the leader.  So a Pharisee such as Paul who was going to Damascus to arrest Christians would still have to get authority to do so from the Sadduceean High Priest.  We only get bits and pieces of information about what Paul's life was like before he started writing his letters.  That is not enough information to overturn his own claim that he was a Pharisee.  There is no writing from the time that contests this, so the preponderance of the available evidence is that he was a Pharisee, and any claim to the contrary is based mainly upon supposition, speculation, and upon a process of piling inference upon inference.

[Too Few Lions]

I just question the whole thing about a historical Jesus and an original Jeruslaem Church. Christianity just seems like a Roman mystery religion based on Hellenised Judaism to me.

Egyptian, Zoroastrianism...and other pagan stuff. Christianity has borrowed or assimilated very much.

I do wonder if Christianity acquired these at a later date or if they were actually there from the beginning. All of the early Christian writings are in Greek, and pretty much all of the basic theological ideas of Christianity are also Greek. On top of that the gospels story of Jesus is based on earlier stories of suffering heroes and saviours from Greek mythology and philosophy. 

Most of the basic theological ideas of Christianity seem more Greek than Jewish.

I think you would see a good portion of Hinduism in there as well.

I would imagine there was probably quite a bit of interaction between Greek and Indian philosophy / religion, particularly after Alexander the Great's conquests. Personally, I suspect Buddhism may be the result of said interaction.

Plus we have the problem of 100% of the earliest Christian writings being in Greek, not Aramaic.

This is shaky because Greek dominated the area at that time. One would think there would have been Latin or some other Semitic language. But the Greek is all that has surfaced except for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

but they're Jewish and not Christian

If Christianity was originally a Greek-Jewish mystery religion, it's more likely to have been created in Alexandria, Antioch or even Rome itself than in Palestine.

I can see proto-Christianity's roots somewhere in the middle east but Alexandria is pushing it. Jerusalem makes a great melting pot for the Messiah "watch". Paul, wherever he is or comes from, comes along and picks up on the potential lucrativity and begins to preach his own story by his own authority.

I wouldn't rule Alexandria out 100%. It's where the greatest population of Greek speaking Jews lived in antiquity, and was home to Hellenised Jews like Philo, who like Christianity, syncretised Judaism and Greek philosophy. Plus the earliest possible archaeological evidence for Christianity comes from Egypt. Along with Antioch, I think it was the main centre for early Christianity. Rather suprisingly Jerusalem or Palestine weren't big centres for early Christianity.

If Jesus was a mythical figure, the gospel story would have to be set in Palestine / Jerusalem anyway, wherever it was first thought up. That was the spiritual centre of Judaism, and for Jews it was also the omphalos, the sacred centre of the Earth.

I like to compare Christianity to Mithraism, a similar orientalising mystery religion from the same period, that was based on the Persian god Mithra.

It is interesting that they both develop around the same time.

the similarities are striking. Both are new religions that appear about exactly the same time, revolving around a new saviour but claiming to have their roots in another older religion. Both promised an afterlife to believers, both practiced a eucharist with wine and bread believing they represented the blood and body of their saviour, and both practiced baptism. 

I have also often wondered if the creation of Christianity might in any way be related to the Roman-Jewish war of the first century. I like to consider all possibilities!

I wonder if Christianity may be something similar. The Greeks and Romans were very good at syncretising religions and creating new gods and saviours in the process.

Maybe the truth lies in the vaults at the Vatican...*chucklin*

Funnily enough, St Peter's is built over an old temple to Mithras!

[Gawen]

We only get bits and pieces of information about what Paul's life was like before he started writing his letters.  That is not enough information to overturn his own claim that he was a Pharisee.  There is no writing from the time that contests this, so the preponderance of the available evidence is that he was a Pharisee, and any claim to the contrary is based mainly upon supposition, speculation, and upon a process of piling inference upon inference.

Using Paul to justify Paul is a fallacy no different than using the Bible to justify the Bible. If Paul's letters had one or two minor discredits, then I would be much more forgiving. But that is not the case; Paul screws up continuously. Your perceived preponderance of evidence that Paul was a Pharisee proceeds from at least two false assumptions, those being - Paul said he was a Pharisee and others professing Paul's cause say he was a Pharisee - and a willingness to see what is not there due to bias based on faith.

I'm not saying you do not have evidence. What I'm saying is you have no good evidence and that evidence is based on faith.