SLD

Theologian N.T. Wright argues that Paul was more than merely zealous for the law, but was in fact a political Zealot who was willing to use violence against all who opposed a fundamentalist view of Judaism. Witness the stoning of St. Stephen. For him it is the linchpin of his apologetics. Paul as a jewish zealot who is saved by Jesus. It wouldn't have happened if it weren't true. It disproves the notion of a Greek Paul who invented the Christian religion from Greek mystery cults.

I find such an argument extremely specious. Paul often does identify himself as extremely Jewish, but of course it's only after the fact and often it seems when he is addressing Jewish audiences. But Paul's origins are hardly Jewish. He does not come from a traditional Jewish family. He is from Tarsus, not Judea. He is a Roman Citizen. He comes from a family of tentmakers, people whose biggest customers would've been the Roman Army. At some point he ends up in Jerusalem. Apparently he was to study under Gamaliel, a famous Jewish scholar from the first century.

The Zealots though were those who violently opposed Roman rule in the early first century. They were religious no doubt but they are more political revolutionaries bent on the destruction of Roman rule in Judea and the reestablishment of a Jewish state. According to Hyamm Maccoby Jesus was a Zealot, one who thought God would perform a miracle for him in Jerusalem and drive the Romans out. It didn't work out that way. But regardless, the Bible describes the early Christian movement as antithetical to the Jewish allies of Roman rule. So how could Paul be both a zealot and a persecutor of early Chrisitians? It makes no sense. Why would someone who is not originally from Judea, aRoman citizen to boot, become involved in a movement bent on the violent destruction of Roman rule? The whole of his writings are pro Roman! He asks his followers to accept the rulers appointed over them. He is a Roman.

So was Paul a real Zealot? Was he even Jewish to begin with?

SLD

stephan huller

He was Jewish (or at least a Jewish proselyte). I mean, who else would care about this stuff? Seriously. You can't almost be pregnant. You can't almost get aroused. The existing material has been corrupted but from a Marcionite perspective at least - it is Jewish. I know some white people don't see the 'Jewishness' of Paul but so what? They don't understand what Judaism is.

outhouse

Paul's Judaism has always been debated. I view him more of a Proselyte who assumed a Jewish Born identity to give his persona credibility to be a real disciple.

Paul wanted desperately to be a real disciple.


As far as Zealots are concerned. There is very little information known about this group. Josephus provides us with his biased opinion, which doesn't make it so. I don't think you can say any of the normal hard working traditional born and raised Jews would not fight against Roman oppression if they didn't know it was suicide.

You also have accounts of some Pharisees matching the Zealots point of view. I think what your seeing Wright do, is taking Paul's passion for theology and using that as his best evidence for zeal of the law, when in fact Pau's use of the laws have always been quite perverted at best.


Another account places Zealots as people of Galilee. It was rural and under Herodian rule life for the common peasants would have been quite miserable if we follow the latest cultural anthropology and archeology by Jonathon Reed. Herod forced many off their land or rented the land which was very hard to hold.

The socioeconomic impact of the taxes in Jerusalem needed to pay for the temple was severe. One thing that kept the Romans from leveling the Temple sooner, you wont destroy your cash cow. In Galilee however this impact wasn't just PIlate raiding the government treasury when ever they wanted claiming payment for the aqueduct, and sever temple taxes and tithes Caiaphas implemented, that and the Sadducees had the livestock market cornered. In Galilee however the socioeconomic impact of oppression and the building of Sepphoris was more then unwanted politics, it came down to hunger and starvation and disease. This left the local inhabitants in a position of having nothing to lose going up against the Romans when ever they could or the corrupt temple priest as noted by Josephus description of the Sicarii which were a more violent sect of Zealots.

The Galileans had it bad due Herods and this left a rather large group by my opinion that chose suicide fighting Romans knowing full well they stood no chance of winning.

I don't think all Zealots were violent

This was the kind of political climate I personal place Jesus in, who I view as a Zealot who sacrificed himself for the common hard working man against the severe corruption in the temple. I think what makes him different is he knew full well if he started trouble, all the people would fall as Romans dispatched military power that leveled rebellious people without blinking a eye. He knew it was suicide. He would have also know starting demonstrations in the temple was suicide as well. Whether he was acting alone to use the whole Passover crowds to be used against the Romans if he get the crowd fired up, we don't know.


Its my opinion Paul perverting the Zealots position to that of theology and love of god instead of violence, not playing against the Roman.

This political overview was wide known, but when your creating a new religion that you don't want to be viewed as dangerous or rebellious, there is only so much you will or can write about.



Interesting topic that goes deep all the way to the foundation of the movement

outhouse

Agreed.

Why care?, because with the lack of real evidence, cultural anthropology is the only way to place this time period into context to understand why they were writing what they did, when they did it.


Understanding the multi cultural nature of Judaism is very hard to define, even though Spin has argued with me in the past about this. The Jewish encyclopedia mentions that some proselytes were viewed as Jewish simply by swearing off their pagan deities switching to monotheism.


Its my opinion there had been a long standing division between the traditional born and raised Jews who held their cultural identity, hating Roman oppression.

And those who wanted to remain rich and open their arms to their Hellenistic oppressors.

There was definitely a socioeconomic division between Hellenist and Jews.



Its my opinion it was this division within Hellenistic Jews and Traditional Jews that led to Christianity.

aa5874

The Pauline writers were NOT Jews.

The Pauline writings are blasphemy in the Jewish religion.

There were no known Jews and Pharisees in the Jesus cult for hundreds of years.

In fact, the Pauline writings are products of anti-Jewish propaganda.

There is no corroboration, even in the very NT Canon, that the Pauline writers were of the tribe of Benjamin, and were Pharisees .

Even in the very Canon, Acts of the Apostles, the source for Saul/Paul is acknowledged as a product of fiction.

Up to the mid to late 2nd century Justin Martyr in "Dialogue with Trypho" and Celsus in "True Discourse" wrote nothing of a Jew called Paul who should have evangelized the Roman Empire.

If a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee was actually the first to preach Jesus Crucified and resurrected then we would expect Justin Martyr to acknowledge Paul and that Celsus would vilify him.

Both said nothing of the supposed Hebrew of Hebrews and Pharisee called Paul.

The Pauline writers were Not Jews in the 1st century.

steve_bnk

Interesting view. JC as a latter day prophet, he may have been expecting divine intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayings...s_on_the_cross

'...Mark 15:34

'And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" ..'

Paul and Jesus if both actual historical figures may have been raving lunatics or just caught up in events.

It may be explainable from modern psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome

'...The Jerusalem syndrome is a group of mental phenomena involving the presence of either religiously themed obsessive ideas, delusions or other psychosis-like experiences that are triggered by a visit to the city of Jerusalem. It is not endemic to one single religion or denomination but has affected Jews, Christians and Muslims of many different backgrounds.

The best known, although not the most prevalent, manifestation of the Jerusalem syndrome is the phenomenon whereby a person who seems previously balanced and devoid of any signs of psychopathology becomes psychotic after arriving in Jerusalem. The psychosis is characterised by an intense religious theme and typically resolves to full recovery after a few weeks or after being removed from the area. The religious focus of the Jerusalem syndrome distinguishes it from other phenomena, such as the Stendhal syndrome, which is reported in Florence, Italy, or the Paris syndrome, which has been reported predominantly in Japanese individuals.

In a 2000 article in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Bar-El et al.[1] claim to have identified and described a specific syndrome which emerges in tourists with no previous psychiatric history. However, this claim has been disputed by M. Kalian and E. Witztum.[2][3] Kalian and Witzum stressed that nearly all of the tourists who demonstrated the described behaviours were mentally ill prior to their arrival in Jerusalem. They further noted that, of the small proportion of tourists alleged to have exhibited spontaneous psychosis after arrival in Jerusalem, Bar-El et al. had presented no evidence that the tourists had been well prior to their arrival in the city. Jerusalem Syndrome is not listed or referenced in the DSM IV, nor in the DSM 5...'

outhouse

Good point.


Taking into context Jews viewed the temple as gods house, and the ritual BBQ was a shared meal with god in his house. It leaves possibilities.

I don't know if these can be attributed to the character or not.

aa5874

The author of the Jesus story in gMark merely used the Septuagint--Psalms 22.1
Psalm 22:1 KJV The Pauline writers did the very same thing. They were NOT Jewish--- they merely manipulated the Greek version of Hebrew Scripture.

In the Epistle to the Romans alone there are about 60 references to the Septuagint from about 17 books including Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs, Psalms and Isaiah.

steve_bnk

When you think about the depictions of Paul and Jesus in the context o fthe OT, they were latter day prophets.

The problem for them was any miraculous events and defeats of invading armies would have showed up in history. Communications and recording of events were developed enough that such things could not be just fabricated.

Duvduv

It's interesting that you mentioned Romans, since that epistle can be seen as a composite of a pre-existing Jewish friendly letter with a smattering of references to Jesus to be part of the new canon instead of starting from scratch and reinventing the wheel.

In any case, I find the discussions about Paul rather amusing since people who assume his existence in the first place do so only because they uncritically accept the claims of the Church spokesmen, since there is NO EVIDENCE for the existence of this person named Paul at all; NO EVIDENCE that any of these epistles were written to the named communities; NO EVIDENCE that any of these alleged recipients ever received the epistles; and NO EVIDENCE that "Christian" communities of any size existed in those identified towns. NONE BEYOND CHURCH DOCTRINE.