Gamera

This is a very good point that is often forgotten in biblical studies. Judaism was in a state of disarray during the 1st century, with lots of tension and dissention, all undergoing changes due to the stress of Roman hegemony. Ironically, one of the best sources of at least some of the strains in Judaism at that time is Paul and some of the other Christian scriptures, to the extent that one accepts they were written in a jewish milleu by former jews who still had a relationship with Judaism.

Indeed, I'm interested taking the Crossan/Miller thesis that Paul "invented" Christianity one step further: Paul may have "invented" modern Judaism, in the sense that Judaism since the 1st century has defined itself in large part in opposition to the form of Christianity Paul pronounced.

Not bad for a tent maker from Tarsus.

spin

Putting the weight on the Romans here is a misrepresentation of the situation. Judaism was heterodox and had been for some centuries, since the conflict opened with the Seleucids. This does not mean disarray. This claim is low christian propaganda. The major changes within Judaism had little to do with the Romans, who were responsible for the emergence of the Zealots and the Sicarii, who, though, laid claim to Judaism based on biblical messianism -- the Romans can be given credit for stimulating messianism and therefore probably christianity. The Sadducees, Pharisees and other Jewish positions were of long standing.

More misrepresentation in order to put tickets on christian literature.

Oh, swell. The Pharisees had nothing to do with picking up the pieces of Judaism after the Jewish War. You must be joking, Gamera. Why emit this biased stuff at every opportunity?

More to the point, not bad for a 21st century propagandist. Well, not so good really.


spin

No Robots

I don't think that there is any irony here. The fact is that Paul never saw himself as anything but a Jew, nor did he see his movement as anything but Judaism.

Jews would always say that they define themselves according to their own traditions and insights, and not merely in counterdistinction to Christianity.
I think it important to remember that Christianity is really authentic Judaism that has been embraced by non-Jews. That more first-century Jews did not become Christians is due to a number of unfortunate historical circumstances, the primary one being of course the extinction the nation and dispersal of the people. Subsequent Gentile jingoism and superstitious misinterpretation made the gap ever wider.

Well, he was also, "brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law."

Coleslaw

Well, there's this translation, with commentary by Rashi:

Doug Shaver

Even assuming that the gospels count as first-century sources, I don't think we have good reason to consider them Jewish sources.

Paul certainly qualifies, but the question is what, if any, views about the messiah were prevalent among Jews of that time. All we see in Paul is the opinion of one Jew, and he does not even claim to represent anything like a consensus among his co-religionists.

Even if he had made such claim, what we get from Paul's extant writings is what he believed as a result his conversion. I see no hint in the epistles of what were his messianic expectations prior to his conversion, or even whether he had any.

gstafleu

I remember reading somewhere (Robert Price?) that this bit of Isaiah is an (adapted) coronation psalm or song. If so the coronation hyperbole simply turned to messiah hyperbole, and doesn't indicate a non-human messiah.

Gerard Stafleu

Gamera

I agree that through the development of historical Christianity, Paul's "jewishness' was lost or at least downplayed. He clearly saw himself as a Jew who was engaged in a development of Judaism (what he would see is a fulfillment). Naturally, Jews who rejected Christianity saw it otherwise.

Those who attack the "accuracy" of Paul's view of Judaism and his role in it miss the point. Paul considered himself a Jew, and much of his writing is about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Even if he was deluded about that, it's a primary source of understanding what was going in Judaism at the time. It of course helps that Paul's texts are closer in time to the 1st century than most rabbinical texts, which are embodied in later mss.

Gamera

The point is, even if Paul's veiws are skewed and narrow band, they provide a glimpse into at least a strain of the development of Judaism at that chaotic time. No other source is as close in time and as verbous about it.

Gamera

So you don't like Paul, eh?

spin

I don't have problems with Paul per se, just the tendentious abuse of him.


spin.