Amaleq13

I would be interested in these "others like him". Where is this shallow hole?

Where might we find confirmation of this in Jewish texts?

Unfortunately, good stories can be entirely fictitious and what we are interested in is established whether the story or any specific portion of the story can be considered non-fiction.

That is precisely what would appear to be required to make the story credible in addition to being "good". I can't believe you passed up the chance to use one of the new smilies (ie :snooze: )

yalla

Whilst reading 2Cor 11 I could not help but be impressed by the ubiquitous sources of danger Paul claims to have faced.He claims to have faced danger from:the Jews, the Gentiles, false brethren, Aretas' governor, the sea, from the wilderness, rivers, in the city .....My point is that he seems to have a persecution complex,EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is out to cause him suffering.Should we really take this seriously or can we speculate that he is simply bragging and exaggerating ?If so, how genuine should we regard his claims that the Jews were persecuting the "Christians"?Could it not be that out of his tortured mind all was seen tobe persecution and that from this arose a motif of constant suffering that entered into early Xian legend regardless of reality?

Amlodhi

I'm not sure that this is altogether tenable. For one thing, regardless of what else the apostles might or might not have been saying, they were certainly claiming (crucified) Jesus as mashiach. If this had been considered blasphemous in itself, the people would not have suffered their "preaching in the temple daily".

Also, although it would definitely be a novel concept, (but, apparently one that Gamaliel was willing to consider), the only scriptural support that the crucifixion of h'mashiach would be considered blasphemous is the (later written) citation in Gal. 3:13, ". . . for it is written, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

However, IIRC, this is a reference to Deut. 21:22-23 and that isn't quite what the deuteronomist says.


In the literal Hebrew, the relevant passage from above reads: ". . . for (is) a reproach to God his hanging". Thus, this verse is not saying that the person hung is a reproach to God, but rather that his hanging on a tree is a reproach to God. IOW, if an innocent man were unjustly condemned and hung on a tree, he would surely not be a reproach to God. But his hanging there would be.

And lastly, as to Stephen, we are likely told the real reason for Stephen's death in Acts 6:13:



If I am reading this right, perhaps, though I can't offhand imagine what the specifics of that would be. Personally, an authoritative temple high-priesthood seeking to protect their own interests against anyone who might provoke the wrath of Rome seems more plausible.


I have no reason to disagree with this. Saul and the high-priesthood could have even had their own independent reasons. IMO, given the diversity of early Christian thought, we are most likely never dealing with one unified group or course of action. I strongly suspect that there were zealous Torah observing Christians in Jerusalem (likely the apostles, for example), more "hellenized" Christians who felt no need to observe the "old" Torah law, Messianic "revolutionaries", and any numbers of subsets.

Nevertheless, in the contemporary political climate surrounding Judea, anyone espousing any Messianic concept would be viewed (especially by Rome and the high priesthood) with suspicion at best.


Again, perhaps. But I also think it is quite possible that Hyam Maccoby might be right and Paul was never much of a Jew to begin with (perhaps even a proselyte?). This might not only explain his initial (beginner's?) zeal, but also his quick transition to his "new" doctrine which is otherwise explained as his miraculous "conversion".



Absolutely.


Always fun 'talking' with you CJD,

Amlodhi