Amaleq13

If it is accepted that at least some of the letters attributed to Paul were written by the same individual, "Paul" seems as good a name as any.

I recently read a theory that suggested Paul was actually Josephus. I don't recall if it was in this forum or elsewhere online or an actual book in the bookstore. There was a list comparing the two and I was surprised by the similarities. Not surprised enough to accept the argument, but surprised nonetheless.

I don't think I've ever read about any extra-biblical references to Paul.

Layman

Yeah, the Sadducees were well known for their belief in the resurrection.

Vinnie

and Paul only explicitly stated the idea of him being a Pharisee in the text. But what would he know about himself? Maccoby knows best.

I'll go with the primary--autobiographical detail on this one.

Vinnie

Layman

You mean you don't give absolute deference to Maccoby's reconstruction of what a Pharisee must have been based on the written-hundreds-of-years-after-Paul Talmud?

Next you'll tell me that the fact that Paul, though supposedly a Sadducee, knew well and considered the Prophets and other non-first-five-books-of-the-Old Testament writings to be scripture should support Paul's claim to be a Pharisee?

Vinnie

Toto, have you actually read Maccoby's work? Meier devotes a whole volume to Jesus' contempraries in his Marginal Jew series. Volume 3: Companions and Competitors. Have you ever read anything like this or a similar detailed treatment of Jesus neighbors which discuss the relevant groups and their beliefs?

Or do you have some other reason for posting a fringe idea whenever the oppurtunity arises? Trying to broaden our horizons?

So with all these questions being asked. You stated this: "but Hyam Maccoby has cast doubt on that".

Don't answer any of the previous questions. Just this one: How did Maccoby cast doubt on Paul being a Pharisee? Feel free to state//summarize the arguments. I would be interested in seeing them rather than "x casted doubt on this here".

Vinnie

rlogan

Gosh, Vinnie - there's so much garbage in the texts that when we find an item that is not flatly contradicted by another passage or is obviously wrong historically, it does not mean it is true. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

I still would like to see extra-Biblical sources for anything on Saul, Paul, or whoever he was.

Does Meier offer us something additional? I'm not familiar with that work. One of the questions I asked is why a tentmaker would know how to write. Well - whether he was a tent maker or not - does Paul/Saul have a reason for writing skills? In general it seems to me that ascribing authorship to both OT and NT books is tenuous business.

Thanks all...

Yuri Kuchinsky

_If_ they are not completely authentic???

Gee, Toto, do you think that there still may be a chance that they are all completely authentic, all 14 of them? Outside of complete fundies, I don't think that anyone believes that...

There are 14 overall, and 7 are widely believed to be total forgeries. So the only question is, Are there _any_ that are completely authentic?

Best,

Yuri.

Doctor X

If someone has credible evidence that Galatians is not authentic, I would like to see it. It would sink a significant piece of evidence that a Historical Junior existed--reference to his brother, James.

--J.D.

Toto

Of course I have read Maccoby. But it's been a while since I looked into this. When you try to search for the historical Paul, you run into a dead end very quickly. There is nothing outside the Bible, unless you want to engage in imaginative speculation that Paul was the hotheaded Saul mentioned briefly in Josephus, or maybe Paul was Simon Magus (or check here - although there is so little reliably known about Simon Magus that identifying Paul with him does not solve any problems.)

Maccoby (I think) makes the mistake of ascribing too much historical value to Acts. His case against Paul being a pharisee relies on the trip to Damascus; if Paul was really sent by the High Priest (a Sadducee and a Roman collaborator), he was a temple policeman, in a position that would not be filled by a Pharisee. To bolster this, Maccoby analyses Paul's reasoning as not showing the influence of Pharisaic training. You can quibble about what Pharisaism actually was at that point in history, but why would a Pharisee be persecuting Christians on behalf of the High Priest?

We have the discontinuity of Paul claiming to have studied the law under the famous and respected rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) - but he must have slept through some of the lessons or flunked out, since in Acts 5:34 -39 Gamaliel advises against persecuting the early Christians. So why was Paul persecuting the Christians? Where is script continuity?

It seems clear that the author of Acts and Paul or whoever wrote the letters ascribed to him are making references to the Pharisees in bolster Paul's standing. Paul boasts about his training (it sounds rather desperate in context, does it not?) In Acts: "Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today."

In Philippians 3: "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: [5]circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; [6]as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

In other words, I'm just as good as you are. Does this sound like credible testimony or polemic?

And then the author of Acts ups the ante on the epistle writer, and makes Paul not just a Pharisee, but a Roman citizen, in spite of the epistle writer's statement that Paul was beaten with rods (which may or may not be believable).

Toto

Check out The Spuriousness of So-called Pauline Epistles Exemplified by the Epistle to the Galatians.