JoyJuice

How reasonable are Paul’s and the writer of Acts claims that there was deadly persecution upon the new followers of Jesus by the Jews?

Would the Romans provide the autonomy for the Jewish hierarchy to put to death Jews for that specific reason?

If the Sanhedrin had their own forces, how reasonable would it be to hire Paul to personally round them up?

Why would Paul in his zeal against the church, with the apostles themselves in Jerusalem, ask permission to go to Damascus, another jurisdiction, to round up followers?

~thanks

Amlodhi

Hi alkech,

IMO:

As to who might have been persecuted and why, we might need to be careful not to put everyone into the same slot. There was alot of Messianic fervor and resentment to Roman rule during this time. Likely there were several different opinions as to how that fervor and resentment should be acted out.


It's not indicated that it was the Sanhedrin, but rather, the Sadducean High Priesthood. The Sadducean temple priests were comprised of a wealthy class whose bread would continue to be buttered by not provoking the Romans into destroying the city and the temple. The popular Jewish concept of a returning Messiah included the idea that Judah's enemies would be destroyed; physically and militarily. Thus Paul, (actually "Saul" at this time), would have been hired to root out those that the Sadducean priesthood considered to be "subversives".


Those whom the Sadducean priesthood considered subversives would have been charged with treason against Rome.


Probably because the apostles themselves continued to practice temple ritual and were careful not to incite active resistance against Rome.


IMO,

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

The author of Acts doesn't strike me as particularly concerned about the historicity of his claims but Paul is allegedly writing about persecutions that had taken place within the very recent past. While he might get away with exaggerating the severity of the persecution, I think we have to at least assume his audience believed such activities had taken place.

Even the Gospel stories suggest that is unlikely. The Jewish leaders have to conspire to have the Romans kill him. Again, it still leaves the possibility of exaggeration on the part of Paul rather than outright fabrication.

I asked a similar question in a different thread. This question is especially problematic if we accept Paul's claim to be a Pharisee since the two groups (it is my understanding that the Sadducees controlled the Sanhedrin) normally opposed one another. I have asked if there is any known precedent for the Sadducees hiring a Pharisee as their "muscle" but nobody seems to know of any.

Absent any such evidence, a Pharisee being employeed by Sadducees as a persecutor of a "heretical" Jewish sect does not seem very credible to me.

JoyJuice

Hi Amlodhi, and I thank you for your opine.

Could I ask if there are any other scenarios of Messianic fervor, claims of Messiah-ship pre and post Jesus, where the Jews treated those followers in the same manner as indicated by Paul and Acts? I can appreciate the desire to fly under the Roman radar, but if this is standard fair, wouldn't someone like Josephus who touches on past messiahs mention the Jew on Jew persecution?

Yes, I understand. But I guess I'm a little stumped as to why Paul when they have their own forces? Why this tentmaker?

Ah, point taken.

Yes, but reading Acts if the hiearchy considered subversion as a afront against Rome, this seems to the contrary as it reads they shook the place upside down causing great concern to the hiearchy.

If Paul is full of zeal and has this relationship with the Sanhedrin, who know the apostles are in Jerusalem raising a ruckus, I find it odd that would Paul ask to go to Damascus if the major players are in Jerusalem?

I know we are strickly speaking opinions, but I appreciate the convo.

~take care

JoyJuice

Hi Amaleg13 and thanks for the response.


Makes sense.


I understand your view. Another question if I may. If there is some truth about the persecutions, and Paul is indeed a participant through the blessing of the hiearchy, is it reasonable to place Paul in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus temple ruckus, his ultimate crucifixion, the alleged darkness and quake, the Temple curtain tear, and the tomb opening raising of the saints?

thanks and take care

CJD

I agree. The more plausible answer is that Paul, being a zealous Pharisee (keep in mind the Pharisees were the "right-wingers" of their day), persecuted the early church because he believed they were heretics. All throughout the Tanak the promise is made by YHWH that if the people are faithful to the covenant they will prosper in the land. Thus, purging the land of known infidels was the thing to do so that the apocalyptic ball would get rolling, as it were.

Regards,

CJD

Amlodhi

Hi CJD,

I don't know. I am very interested in thoroughly exploring this topic (alkech continues to bring up some good questions) because it seems to me that there must be more to it than this.

For one thing, I think that the concept of the Pharisees as the "right wingers" of their day may be only describing a single aspect of Pharisaic thought. While it is true that they were, on the one hand, staunch advocates of Mosaic law and custom, they also tended to a mitigation oriented midrashic interpretation of that law and custom.

If, for instance, it is said that Paul (Saul) was persecuting the Jerusalem church strictly on the basis of perceived heresy, was it his (alleged) Pharisaic training that instilled his perspective?

Consider Paul's statement in Acts 22:3, "I am . . . a Jew . . . brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel . . ."

But yet, in Acts 5:34-39, while Paul was still a young man and before he began his campaign of persecution, we have Gamaliel, Paul's alleged Pharisaic mentor specifically warning the Sanhedrin against persecuting the apostles.

So why, if the charge was specifically heresy, would Paul be tracking down and persecuting some members of the "Messiah sect" while, as Gamaliel advised, exercising a "wait and see" approach concerning the apostles still in Jerusalem?

As I mentioned to alkech, my opinion is that it is because the apostles were also taking a "wait for it" approach concerning the return of Messiah, while other advocates were more actively inciting preparations for the impending destruction of Rome.


Again, I am very interested in picking everyone's brain and throroughly exploring this topic. I hope we can have a great deal of fun and increase our collective understanding at the same time.


Looking forward to hearing your perspective,

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

Given that the Jerusalem group survived so long in Jerusalem, I don't think it is safe to assume they were "raising a ruckus". Paul claims that he was only known by his (or Saul's?) reputation as a persecutor in churches in Judea (Gal 1:22-23). If we rely on the depiction of Gamaliel in Acts, the prototypical Pharisee response to ruckus raising was to wait and see if the ruckus raisers succeeded since that was apparently the only way to determine if God supported them. I think we can only be sure that the Sadducees would object to ruckus raising since any disruption to the status quo directly impacted their sweet deal with the Romans.

I don't see how assuming some form of persecution was occurring can allow us to make other assumptions about Paul's previous location. The author of Acts is the only one to claim that he studied under Gamaliel which, I think, would require Paul to have stayed in Jerusalem. I can't, however, imagine Paul failing to mention this excellent credential in his obvious desire to be accepted as a trained Pharisee so I tend to doubt that claim.

What evidence is there of Pharisaic persecution of "heretics"? Also, Paul claims that the churches in Judea only knew him by reputation which suggests he was not persecuting the "early church" in Jerusalem. Why would that be?

CJD

Greetings, Amlodhi. Long time no see (your ID).

You bring up some good points. What I wrote presupposed something that (I suppose) isn't all that well-known.

For starters, Gamaliel supposedly belonged to that group of "moderate" Pharisees called "Hillelites." They did, as you rightly noted,"tended to a mitigation oriented midrashic interpretation of that law and custom."

Now, a division in Pharisaism had taken place during the time of Herod the Great (36–4 BC), following two leaders: Hillel and Shammai. The Mishnah almost always describes the former as "lenient" and the latter as "strict," with the former winning the day. During the first century, however, the two were embroiled in deep controversy.

I am of the opinion that Saul identified with the Shammaites because of his self-styled "zeal" (Acts 22:2–4), but mainly because of his persecution of the fledgling church (whereas Gamaliel did not condone such action. Surely it is not extraordinary that an apprentice would break radically with his or her master).

The Hillelites, again, were moderates: Let Caesar rule, so long as we may live Torah in peace. The Shammaites, on the other hand, deemed living Torah as demanding that Israel be free from the yoke of her oppression. Being "zealous for God" and for "the law of our fathers" meant nothing less than being ruled by YHWH and no one else. Consider the Maccabean revolt: that was the kind of zealotry Shammaites condoned. Thus, in order for the people, the land, and the Temple to be realigned theologically and politically, purging must take place.

Add to this the probability that the Shammaites were in ascendency during the final decades before Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70, and the probability that Saul was a radical Shammaite increases (given his pre-conversion activities). In sum, it was to sheol with the Gentile dogs, and any renegade Jews that failed to step back in line. These actions, so they thought, would usher in the kingdom.

Saul, even though a student of Gamaliel, did what his teacher would have disapproved of, namely, stoning fellow countrymen, riding off to another city just to drag into prison those "christians." For guys like him, the "Babylon" of the ancient prophets could easily be substitued with "Rome." The return from exile had yet to happen, and people like Saul were going to die to make it so. Keeping Torah = YHWH's ascendency as King of the world.

So, finally, those Christians were deemed renegades precisely because they were not keeping Torah properly. What Israel needed was for those dead branches to be cut off. This was Saul's task (throwing off pagan bondage, keeping Torah wholeheartedly, and hastening the coming kingdom), and it was this task that the chief priests approved of. They, like him, wanted God to vindicate his chosen.

Food for thought?

Best,

CJD


[edited to add: Cross-posted with Amaleq13. See if this post gives a few answers to the points you raise. Moreover, there is no good reason to view his persecuting activity as a fabrication. I was using "heretics" anachronistically, of course. But the proof for zealous Jews persecuting those who they deemed renegade (not following Torah properly) is anything but scant.]

Amlodhi

These two brief excerpts from Josephus seem to describe the common pattern. So called "prophets" stirring up the common people and inciting active resistance to Rome. This was the reason for the attempted entrapment of Jesus with the question of whether or not the Jews should pay taxes to Caesar (followed by Jesus' stance, revealed in his answer).

Further, we see a pattern of the Sadducean high priesthood (which Josephus described as "rigid in judging offenders") in collusion with the Roman guard actively persecuting any such subversion; while the "more equitable" of the citizenry (as exampled in the attitude of Gamaliel), appeared to take exception to such activity.

And note, in the second quotation regarding Ananus' taking matters into his own hands, this was later, (in 62 - 63 A. D.), when the situation that would soon bring about the war and the destruction of Jerusalem was rapidly escalating, and the role of James would be viewed with increasing suspicion by the Sadducean high priesthood. Note also, that Ananus seized this opportunity to act directly (and under the pretext of Jewish law instead of Roman law) only because the Roman authority was temporarily absent.


Paul, as both a Jew and a Roman citizen, would have been ideally suited for the job of ferreting out Jewish insurgents against Rome.


I think Amaleq13 has already addressed your remaining points admirably.

Thanks for the continued discussion. I look forward to any other perspectives you may have.


Amlodhi