CJD

Amlodhi, thanks for taking the time to quote Josephus on this. He was precisely who I was thinking of when I wrote that "the proof for zealous Jews persecuting those who they deemed renegade (not following Torah properly) is anything but scant."

Toto

We have a later example of the Sadducees persecuting other Jews for being insufficiently observant, (but not an example from the first half of the first century). But we don't seem to have examples of Pharisees doing that, or Pharisees cooperating with Sadducees.

If you are going to speculate, you could also speculate that Paul's letters were written later in the first century or the second century.

Toto

Paul as Shammaite is discussed in this thread on Wright on Miracles.

SLD stated there:

I would note only that Paul does not label himself from Tarsus.

Identifying Paul as Shammaite is pure speculation. The opposite conclusion can be reached - see here:

Amlodhi

Hello again CJD,

As it happens, I am familiar with this Pharisaic division. But your point is correct and well taken, and it is good that you bring it up. As to Saul being identified as a Shammaite, I have some reservations.


But, to me, it would be a bit difficult to reconcile this statement with James' statement in Acts 21:20, ". . . Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe (i.e. the fledgling church) and they are all zealous of the law".

As I see it, this passage alone alerts us that there had to be some critical difference between the actions of the apostolic Jerusalem church and the actions of some other adherents. Perhaps it was only that these other adherents were no longer adhering to Mosaic law, but since they had taken their "heresy" to a completely different jurisdiction, it seems unlikely that this alone would warrant them being tracked down and arrested.


Perhaps it would not be extraordinary. But in Acts 22:3 Paul says, ". . . 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 as ye all are today."

If Paul was a former Shammaite, it seems a bit unlikely that he would here attribute his zealousness toward God as being a result of Gamaliel's teaching and further describe Gamaliel's teaching as "the perfect manner of the law of the fathers".


And I agree, this is the manner in which "Paul" and the scriptures tend to portray it. And yet it is difficult to reconcile this version with some of the mentioned issues, such as:

1. According to Acts 21:3, the adherents of the proto-church that remained in Jerusalem were "all zealous of the law".

2. The "heretics" had completely removed themselves out of Judea. Why then the need to track them down and arrest them? We never hear of any former efforts to find and arrest any lapsed Jews in Rome, or Egypt, or Babylon, etc.

3. Saul/Paul seems always to be proud of his Roman citizenship. This, coupled with his later writings advocating submission to Roman authority seems at odds with the idea that he ever thought of Rome as "evil Babylon" or that he ever advocated the Shammaitic precept of "being free from the yoke of Roman oppression".

4. Again, if Paul had broken radically with Gamaliel's teaching, it seems odd that he would later describe this teaching as being "the perfect manner of the law of the fathers".

5. The writings of Josephus alone informs us that there was predilection to incite resistance against Rome. The sheer manifestation of human nature alone would dictate that at least some of the adherents of the "Messiah sect" would advocate this course of action.

These are just a few of the points that make me doubt the "religiously correct" version of events as overtly portrayed by "Paul" and the scriptures. Yet, these points alone, coupled with the genuine reality of the political situation in Judea and the general predictability of basic human nature, lead me to think that the real story can be extracted.

Addendum:

My pleasure, but note Toto's comment.


Again CJD, though I must disagree, thanks for providing your insights and I look forward to any further perceptions you might have, whether supporting or opposing.


As ever, namaste'

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

I've already indicated that I tend to agree that Paul's letters require us to assume that persecution was a known phenomenon though he would appear to have been exaggerating with regard to the severity of his actions.

I was specifically asking about evidence for persecution by Pharisees. Given your recent post, I would change that inquiry to specify "Shammaites".

I would also be interested in any evidence that Sadducees employed Shammaites as their "enforcers".

If Paul truly studied under Gamaliel, wouldn't we expect him to mention this rather impressive credential as he depicts himself as a trained Pharisee?

Given that Shammaite belief required "that Israel be free from the yoke of her oppression", why would they waste time and energy persecuting a relatively insignificant sect outside Judea rather than focusing on the true enemy (ie Rome and/or the Sadducees)?

Also, if the Shammaites were known to oppose Roman rule, why would the Romans grant them the power to persecute anyone?

Toto

The idea that Paul ever traveled to Damascus to persecute Christians is highly unlikely in any case.

The search for the historical Paul: was he ever in Damascus?

I will probably have to revise my thinking on the details of this, since it seems that Qumram was not a holy center of Essene activity. However, it appears most likely that Paul referred to Damascus as a metaphor for some other area, but the author of Acts took this metaphor and turned it into a concrete story.

The Damascus Document

Casper

I've been kicking around an idea. I'd like to hear any criticism anyone may have.

There is, in my mind, no reason to insist that Paul's epistles were actually letters, to be delivered. It is just a literary style. A secular and much later example is Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. It is written as a series of letters from the Doctor to his wife.

So what if these epistles were more like an ancient blog? And "Paul" was a "screen name"?

Possibly later, Marcion had collected several produced in his area, and collected some from other synagogs, and presented them as more than a "blog", but an instruction set? Maybe by that time people (Including Marcion?) already assumed they were real, and their authority legitimate?

So the author(s) are actually the people mentioned in them, not "Paul".

JoyJuice

Interesting. Another question concerning the acts of the Apostles. Since the apostles were targeting their evangelical efforts towards Jews, can we gather how successful they were in seeing from what I gather, most and many of the early Church fathers were gentiles?

Point taken. The erroneus claim of Theudas placed in the mouth of Gamaliel for me increases the probablity of doubt as well.

Hey thanks for your response.

I don't know, the events and actions of Paul as told by Acts and he just fascinates me. Maybe perhaps because I get the feeling there a lot of BS being passed on. But that's just me.

alkech

Amaleq13

Yep, the Jews, at least those who were not "Hellenized", were clearly not buying the Messiah the Jerusalem group was selling. If the connection between the Ebionites and the Jerusalem group can be trusted, they would appear to represent the only Jews who bought into belief in Jesus.

It ain't just you, amigo. Most scholars recognize the serious "apparent" discrepancies (from the solidarity of Paul and the Jerusalem group to Paul's theology) between Paul's letters and the story in Acts. The rationalizations offered by apologetic scholars aren't, IMO, very credible and the infamous "we" passages, again IMO, just don't seem to be enough to carry the weight of the assumption that the author was a former companion of Paul.

What I do find credible is the theory that Luke used Josephus as a primary source and inspiration.

CJD

Which is an entirely respectable position. All the Shammaite identification is meant to do is provide a plausible framework for the pre-conversion Paul to fit in. Its actual validity is, in the end, quite beside the point. What we do have, however, is an account of some violent action by a young Pharisee. We need not dig too deep into Jewish history to find others like him (that they were experts in case law or not doesn't matter, does it?).

While this, of course, is true, proclaiming that the Servant of YHWH was some guy who was crucified was nothing short of blasphemy (which is exactly what Stephen was stoned for in Acts). This would render their strict observance of Torah moot.

As to why they would bother tracking them down, the only answer I can give is not that those who fled were not observing Torah, but that despite their observance, their proclamation that this Jesus was Messiah went too far beyond the bounds of a faithful Israel as measured by Torah regulations. We must not forget that Israelites were called by God to keep the land pure and undefiled (tracking down renegade Jews in Rome, etc., is not the same thing, since Damascus falls relatively within the sphere of the promised land). The old story of Adam in the garden exemplified this: he failed in guarding it, and the snake took advantage of it.

Presumably, Saul's garnering "letters" from the High Priest was just an official way for him to do his work. The priests did, however, have a "legitimate" interest in Saul's mission. The Damascus synagogues had devout Jews (probably Hellenists) in them who were being swayed by "the way," and thus they needed to be brought before the powers that be.

As to Paul's clearer association with Gamaliel after his conversion, we can only assume that his moves toward the latter's views were incidental, and that later on he may have thought that someone like Gamaliel was closer to the truth than he or she realized.

Sure, but always in contradistinction to what this "Messiah sect" was taught by its primary apostle.

I have none (but it makes for a good story, no?). At any rate, Saul's identification as a Shammaite only serves to give depth to a character. Starting from the story itself, not from "history," I have nothing much to say re: other examples of Pharisees working with Saducees and whether or not so-and-so really went to such-and-such. This is not to say, of course, that examples or rebuttals do not exist, it's just that … I … <yawn> … zzzzzZZzzzzzzzzZZZzzzzz

Regards,

CJD