Amaleq13

That is what I have found so compelling about Maccoby's book (The Mythmaker). I think he makes an excellent argument that we should not consider Paul as Jewish as he claims to have been. I'm becoming more convinced that Paul's theology was an independent, primarily Hellenistic belief system that was either grafted onto an historical figure or, from the mythical context, had a historical figure added to the mix to argue against certain "heretical" beliefs that were developing.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Paul was no more hellenistic that Philo of Alexandria, a well known Jew, philosopher, theologian and leader. He is well known to incorporate Platonic thoughts into Judaism.

Here is some quotes from him:

a) "Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made" (The special Laws I, ch. XVI)

b) "... the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being" (Questions and answers on Genesis, II, 62)

c) "For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest Son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XIV)

d) "And even if there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angel, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God's image ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)

e) "And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift ..." (Who is the heir of divine things, ch. XLII)

f) "the most ancient Word of the living God ... he will never take the mitre off from his head, he will never lay aside the kingly diadem, the symbol of an authority which is not absolute, but only that of a viceroy, but which is nevertheless an object of admiration." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

g) "the man [the high priest] who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete [intercessor], his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings..." (On the life of Moses II, ch. XXVI, 133-134).

But I think most of that Paul got it from Apollos, the "great teacher" from also Alexandria. Apollos was a competitor and also associate of Paul. They knew each other when both of them were in Ephesus. I am certain Apollos was the author of 'Hebrews'. In it, the author used more of Philo's stuff such as:

h) "Who then is the chief butler of God? The priest who offers libations to him, the truly great high priest, who, having received a draught of everlasting graces, offers himself in return, pouring in an entire libation full of unmixed wine" (On dreams II, ch. XXVII)

i) "For we say the high priest is not a man, but is the word of God ..." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

In in epistles, you would expect Paul to defend and pitch his (new) historical figure against the opposition. I do not see that. Just some matter of fact tidbits shown in passing. So I think your first option is the best.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

You don't consider Philo to have been an example of a kind of "Hellenistic Judaism"?

Rather than consider Paul more Hellenistic than Philo, I think he is less Jewish than Philo. Maccoby, IMO, makes a strong argument that Paul has a fairly poor grasp of Jewish thought (specifically Pharisaic thought) but is determined to incorporate Judaism into his beliefs.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Oh yes, I do, 100%. Philo is said to have brought a lot of Hellenism in Judaism. I agree.

I can agree with all of that, but not too sure about the "poor grasp of Jewish thought". When Paul got among Gentiles (and became successful), he may have abandoned some Jewish thought intentionally.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Maccoby shows that Paul's apparently Jewish arguments are entirely contrary to actual Pharisaic positions. For example, his "Christ crucified = Christ cursed" argument is completely contrary to how Pharisees actually interpreted the Law. The curse associated with crucifixion victims not taken down by nightfall fell upon those who failed to take the body down not the victim as Paul has it.

Maccoby discusses several of Paul's arguments in this context and concludes he definitely was not a Pharisee and may not have even been Jewish. At best, he suspects Paul's parents may have been "God fearers" and Paul may have aspired to full membership but his arguments suggest he was too poor a student.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
It is not so clear it is like that: Here is the reference from Deuteronomy 21:
22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou have hanged him on a tree,
23 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day (for he that is hanged is a curse of God); and thou shalt not defile thy land, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Darby

That does not look as your scholar wrote.
All the rest is speculations.
I did read long ago a book from Maccoby about Jesus being a Pharisee. I was far from impressed, more so after I checked his evidence.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

All the rest is speculations.

Do not take me wrong. Some of those speculations may be true. It's just you cannot tell for sure. Maccoby is a Jewish Scholar, an expert on the Torah, as I recall. So from that he is likely biased against Paul and his claimed credentials.
Furthermore, it is difficult to know what 'Pharisee' meant in these ancient days. Josephus said he joined the Pharisees as if it was a social club. For him, it it just a Jewish philosophical sect (you do not need to be a scholar to join a sect).
I think Maccoby see it as only attainable through long studies, on a very scholarly fashion. Maybe it was not so, not for all anyway.

My picture of Paul, through his own words and a bit of 'Acts', is not good at all:
He acknowledged he was timid in public and not a decent public speaker. He said he lacked talent. He was inflicted by pains and trouble about his eyes. When not receiving money from his converts, he had to work as a tent maker to sustain himself. He complained bitterly about the manual labour inflicted on him.
Only his letters were deemed impressive, not his presence in the flesh.
He fared badly against his competition, which became more and more numerous as the years went by. That made him longing to go & preach into new territories, away from the "superlative" preachers and others.
Paul certainly would not have made it in traditional Judaism. So a hot thing like Christianity, more so the brand tuned to please Gentiles, was the way to go, pure and simple.
Paul liked to be successful, even if that did not mean he was getting in the money, just for the ego. Very quickly, he got engaged into a way of no return, such as an unexperienced canoist on a river full of rapids, trying to survive the day, finding band aid to shore up the holes of his developing theology on the fly, trying to keep afloat, and shedding a lot of Judaism along the way. He did pay the price for that, from the Jews, and many times, according to himself, and finally he was in bounds for good as a troublemaker just by being here (Corinth, Ephesus and Jerusalem) and offending orthodox Jews.

Better stop my rambling now!

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Maccoby is talking about how Pharisees interpreted the passage and finds The New English Bible translation to be "in accordance" with that interpretation:

"When a man is convicted of a capital offence and is put to death, you shall hang him on a gibbet; but his body shall not remain on the gibbet overnight; you shall bury it on the same day, for a hanged man is offensive in the sight of God." (The Mythmaker, p68)

Paul's use of the passage is contrary to the way Maccoby claims Pharisees actually interpreted it.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Very odd translation, but I still do not see the ones who do not remove the body as being cursed by God. The one at fault is still the hanged man.
I check for the occurrences of the Hebrew root for "cursed" in Deu (there are 11 of these), and 'curse' as a translation makes a lot of sense in all cases: Here is an example:

Deu 28:45 Darby "And all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, until thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee."

Actually, for Deu 21:23, most translations used a word with 'curse' as a root, such as "cursed" or "accursed".

Can you tell me from where Maccoby knows how Pharisees then (1st/2nd century) interpreted the passage? What is his primary evidence?

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

No, the hanged man is offensive to the sight of God. Leaving the man hanging offends God and anyone who does so is at fault.

Lack of references is my biggest complaint against Maccoby. I'll have to check to see if he offered anything specific for this claim.