Metacrock

what? You think Koester thinks what? If he says Paul didn't study with Gamaliel I'm not aware of it. But he certainly does beileve the empty tomb was historical. He agrees with many assumptions of Christianity, and does defien himself as a believer. Its easy to see you haven't read him.





Another mysterious utterence from the sec Web, probably best left unearthed.

Dharma

You are under the assumption that only reasoned arguments lead to the truth,when perhaps a divergence from reason is perhaps something more closely associated with fundamentalists and something that a fundamentalist can understand...a mirror you might say. And caustic remarks, although should be within reason, sometimes bring about a realization better than a reasoned one...political correctness and niceness has never really ever lead to the truth and bears no reflection upon the arguer but those who fear their own reflection. Besides a good fight always makes a forum more fun, as long as it has some good arguments in between... :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Metacrock

Well none of the above is any kid of proof. The idea that Luke may have been trying to create a praelell between generations as propaganda may or may not make sense, but it's still just speculation. what if he just meant that Paul was the son of a Pharisee and then studied under a big name pharisee?

Moreover, the speeches in acts was a tangentent of the argument about Gamaliel.





None of which has a direct bearing on the topic.






Notice he thinks Paul was a pharisee







Paul studying with Gamaliel was an argument for his Pharisee nature. That's not the only argument.

Amaleq13

Then you haven't been paying attention to the thread in which you are allegedly participating because Vorkosigan quoted him in an earlier post.

I readily admit I have only read one of his books (Ancient Christian Gospels) but I seem to have a better grasp of his position in this matter than you do. He clearly disagrees with your assertion regarding Gamaliel as Paul's instructor and considers it a fabrication. In fact, he notes another error in the text when he observes that the author falsely claims Paul grew up in Jerusalem.

I will take your earlier advice and rely on a major scholar like Koester to change my position from simply doubting that Paul was ever trained by Gamaliel to denying the assertion.

Metacrock

"Allegedly"? so I'm not really participating? I'm just a shadow of my former self?








I'll put my knoweldge of that book against yours anyday. But I can't remeber everything I've read. It's been about 3 years since I read it, the last time I read it that is, I've read it several times. But I don't remember that point, but It is interesting. and yet he doesn't deny Paul's phariseeical affiliation or think he was a liar.

what do you supposse Koester thinks of Maccoby?





Well look, what if it's true that Paul didn't study with Gamaliel? That looks bad for Luke, I never pinned much of my belief system upon this so called "luke" the athor of Acts, anyway.

But there's a far cry from saying that Paul didn't study with Gamaliel, which I think is 50-50, to saying all things Maccoby says and all the things that John the Apostate says.


btw how old are you? I cant' wait you are over 40. when you get over 40 you start losing your memeory. It's the second thing to go.

Amaleq13

No, not if you aren't reading the posts but just responding haphazardly to bits and pieces.

You might very well know the book better than I do but that isn't actually relevant since the quote from Koester was from a different book and included in this thread.

Koester was referenced to deny your assertion that Acts could be trusted when it claims Paul was trained by Gamaliel.

I'm trying to imagine if there is any way I might care less....nope.

Then your assertion that he was is incorrect. That's how this subargument started, remember? You made the claim as definitive proof that Paul was a Pharisee. Now you can get back to providing more reliable evidence in making the original argument.

Sorry but you'll have to wait until next Veteran's Day. Actually, I won't be over 40 until the next day. So far, so good though it does seem to take a little longer for my eyes to refocus from a book to the clock across the room. I'm really not looking forward to that prostate exam we're supposed to get at the big four-oh, though.

Vorkosigan

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Vorkosigan

Akenson states clearly that he thinks this claim is anti-Pharisee propaganda. That's the very word he uses -- propaganda. As the quote makes clear.

Ummm.....no. Because the speeches in Acts are fabrications of the author of Acts, the historical information they contain, such as claims that Paul studied under Gamaliel, must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Is it corraborated anywhere? No. Does it contain other historical errors? Yes. Does it fit some program of its author? Yes -- many scholars have seen that speech as fitting perfectly with the author's narrative and theological goals. Hence, it is roundly rejected as historical by scholars such as Akenson, Koester, Fredriksen....the list is long.

I should add that in addition to the historical errors in the reconstructed text, Codex Bezae has Gamaliel saying that Theudas "destroyed himself" in direct contradiction to Josephus.

Metacrock, if a speech contains identifiable historical errors, that impairs its historicity. That's basic to scholarship. Furthermore, as Bart Ehrman put it (Intro,p244):

• "In virtually every instance in which the book of Acts can be compared with Paul's letters in terms of biographical detail, differences emerge."

The implications of this with respect to the historical claims of Acts are obvious. Ehrman also adds on Gamaliel:

• "[Paul] does not tell us when he was born, where he was raised, or how he was educated. The book of Acts, however, does provide some information along those lines. There Paul is said to have been from the Greek city of Tarsus (21:39)...and to have been educated in Jerusalem under the renowned rabbi Gamaliel (22:3). Since Paul himself makes neither claim, a historian might suspect Luke of attempting to provide superior credentials for his protagonist. Tarsus was the location of a famous school of Greek rhetoric, that is, a school of higher learning reserved for the social and intellectual elite, something like an Ivy League University. Jerusalem, of course, was the center of all Jewish life, and Gamaliel was one of its most revered teachers."

Yes, but we're not arguing about whether Paul was a pharisee. We're arguing about whether he studied under Gamaliel. Koester, among many, doubts this. Can you cite some mainstream scholars who believe Paul studied under Gamaliel, with quotes?

No, you've got it backward. Assuming Paul was a Pharisee, he might have studied under Gamaliel. But you have to compile positive evidence and argument in favor of the latter claim, which you have not. I hope your next post contains relevant citations from recognized scholars regarding the claim about Gamaliel and Paul.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

BTW, Bede has complained that we don't cite recognized scholars like Brown and Meier. Of course, that is nonsense, as Brown had already been cited against Bede's position in thread prior to Bede's post.

But I thought I would post on what Meier's opinion is.

From A Marginal Jew, Vol 3, p356n43

• "The search for the pre-70 Pharisees would be helped if one could be sure that Luke's claim -- witnessed nowhere else, including Paul's epistles -- that the Pharisee Paul had studied in Jerusalem under the Pharisee Gamaliel I (Acts 22:3) is historically true. Some scholars are willing to accept the claim: e.g. W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem (London: Epworth, 1962); Hengel, "Der vorchristliche Paulus," 177-293, esp 223. Other (e.g. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte, 2.42-43), however, are wary of this claim, found only in a speech obviously constructed by Luke as part of his portrait of Paul. The claim firts perfectly into Luke's apologetic picture of Paul as the true and faithful Jew (see Gunther Bornkamm, Paulus [Stuttgart: Kolhhammer, 1969]27). One has to wonder why being a student of Gamaliel -- a striking proff of his authentic Jewish credentials -- would be omitted by the historical Paul from all the lists of his Jewish traits that he draws up when arguing with his real or hypothetical opponents in Phil 3:5, 2 Cor 11:22, and Rom 11:1. That Paul did receive formal instruction in Jewish Scriptures and Pharisaic tradition while residing in Jerusalem is more than probable from the use of the OT (reflecting various text types) and the mode of theological argumentation found in his epistles. But the connection with Gamaliel must remain a question mark and therefore will not be appealed to in my arguments."

Hmm....no support from Meier either. Note that this occurs in connection with a discussion of whether there actually were Pharisees prior to 70 CE, a position that a minority of scholars deny, and also whether Gamaliel I was actually a Pharisee (some evidence, reviewed by Meier, suggests not).

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I agree with Toto here, Bede. He HAS been pointing this stuff out, fairly constantly, at least on pagan copycat threads started by newbies. It is unfair to accuse Toto of this.

Bede, I've been enjoying reading your excellently thought-out posts here and on your website, but as Vork said, your recent posts don't seem to be up to your usual high standard. I hope all is well with you.