What if Paul wasn't a Jew

[Ghosty]

If Paul were lying that would be very problematic for Catholics, as we believe his writings to be the Inspired Word of God.

That being said, I don’t think it can be established that he was lying aside from conjecture, and the weight of history is much more heavily on the side of the idea that he was indeed what he claimed to be. His exhortations actually include some very distinctly Hebraic ideas and understandings, albeit in Greek manner of expression given that he preached mostly to Gentiles.

The reason I bring this up is not to debate, but to point out that any attempt to convince a studied Catholic that Paul wasn’t really a practicing Jew is not going to get one very far in undermining Catholic arguments. If it were true it would be devastating, but it’s a long shot to prove, or even demonstrate convincingly from his writings and history; it’s on par with “proving” that Jesus didn’t actually exist and was just made up by his “followers”.

New Question: What is there in scripture regarding Jesus’ brother, James. In the book I’m reading the author sets up a kind of rivalry between James and Paul, to the extent that James wanted to make the jewish mitzvot a requirement for all converts, including circumcision, and Paul did not. Is there something in Scriputure that addresses this?

Actually, the Scripture account seems to paint a very different picture. James actually supported Paul and Peter’s assertions that Gentile converts did not have to keep the mitzvot (the issue of Jewish Christians keeping them came up later when it became a divisive matter, and as some confused their cultural and social value in Christianity with a religious value). This particular debate is dealt with in Acts 15, and you’ll see that James was actually decisively on the side of Peter and Paul in this particular matter.

If I had to guess, I’d say that the author you are reading is basing this off the fact that Paul says “we are saved by faith”, and James (in his writings that are included in the New Testament) says that “faith without works is dead”. Many Protestants take a view called “Sola Fide”, or “Faith Alone”, which is contrary to Apostolic Tradition, and they accuse Catholics of preaching “salvation by works” which is condemned by Paul. They also tend to connect Catholic (and Orthodox) belief on the matter with the Judaizers, mistakenly assuming that the “works” we believe in (and which James asserted) are the mitzvot (or rather, like them), when in fact what is being refered to is the works of the Spirit, works enhanced by Grace that flow forth from those who are truly “alive” in Christ. Even Paul speaks of these things.

The early Reformers even tried to have the writings of James removed from the Bible because they tripped up their argument for “Sola Fide”, and I’d give 10-1 odds that this author is simply “reading back” onto the Apostles a Protestant/Catholic debate that wasn’t even a glimmer in their ancient eyes.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Valke2]

If Paul were lying that would be very problematic for Catholics, as we believe his writings to be the Inspired Word of God.

Keep in mind I’m not suggesting he lied about the theology of Jesus, but about his background.

That being said, I don’t think it can be established that he was lying aside from conjecture, and the weight of history is much more heavily on the side of the idea that he was indeed what he claimed to be.

.

I don’t know about the weight of history, but I agree it remains conjecutre.

The reason I bring this up is not to debate, but to point out that any attempt to convince a studied Catholic that Paul wasn’t really a practicing Jew is not going to get one very far in undermining Catholic arguments.

Good. I can’t handle that kind of pressure. I was really just interested to know the extent on which the Church relies on the words of Paul.

Thanks for the info on James.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

He goes on to delcare that he is a Pharisee 23:6;

Took me a second but I got it!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

In his letters, Paul depicts himself as a Jew of the most solid family lineage, religious principles, and educational background that one could imagine. At one point he tells a group of Jews “I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up on this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as you all are this day.” Acts 22:3.

Right off the bat, my jew radar is blinking “danger.”

He goes on to delcare that he is a Pharisee 23:6;

In his letters, he writes “I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age …so zealous was I for the tradtiions of my fathers” (or words to that effect). Gal. 1:14

He goes on to talk about his circumcision (???) and says he’s from the tribe of Benjamin. By this time, the jew radar alert is going into hyperdrive.

What exactly is this “danger” you sensing?

Regarding his claim to be the son of Pharisees. Scholars have a hard time believing there were many Parisees in Galilee at the time. ANd the presence of such jews further North in Tarsus was even more unlikely. It would be like a Jew today saying he is descended from a long line of orthodox jews in Arkansas. Possible but not likely.

What? How can such a claim be made? There were no pharisees in their own homeland?

Then there is his claim that his family came from the tribe of Benjamin. Such tribal distinctions were lost around 536 BCE. A jewish family from Tarsus in 1st Century CE claiming to trace its roots back to the tribe of Benjamin? Not likely. Keep in mind that the Talmud expressly states that we do not know if we are descended from Leah or Rachel. A religously knowledgeable Jew would have known this. Only a gentile or uneducated Jew could make such a claim and hope to be believed.

Here is something interesting I have wondered in the past, given the fact the Jews dont really know which line they descend from how is it possible to ever return to the glory days? For example without the Levitical priesthood the following of God’s commands as given to Moses is impossible. This factor is so huge I dont know how else to compare it, it would be like a Catholic saying Apostolic Succession isnt continuous

Then there is his assertion that he knew Hebrew. Something most jews in 1st century CE did not know. But it seems clear Paul could not read Hebrew. WHenever he cites from the Bible, he is clearly doing so from the Septuagint. The Septuagint does not always adhere to the original Hebrew meaning. The result is the misunderstanding of important passages in Torah, that Paul ushers into Christanity. (See Macoby, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p. 70). ALso, see Sanders, “Paul and Palestine Judaism,” p.137, for an example of Paul’s reliance on a mistranslation. All of which indicates that he did not read Hebrew.

How could the Jew’s not know Hebrew? Again its like the above situation witht the tribes, no hebrew means no truly following God’s commands because they cant be read “properly”.

And then there is his reaction to being rejected by Jews. He takes his show on the road, as it were, and changes his message for the gentiles. All of a sudden, there is no need for circumcision or for the convert to obey the commandments of the Torah.

I believe this is where the real issue is, I agree its scandelous to certain ears.

 

[Valke2]

Most Jews did no speak Hebrew at the time. I suppose they left it to the rabbis.

 

[Valke2]

As for how we will know who is who, opinions differ. the traditional view being tHE Messiah will figue it all out.

 

[Della]

Valke2:

I was really just interested to know the extent on which the Church relies on the words of Paul.

Just to help your researches and understanding, the Church doesn’t rely on the written words of Paul nor on the written words of any of the NT. It doesn’t even rely on the words of the OT. The Bible, as we Catholics see it, is a witness not a prooftext of the word of God handed on to man. The NT contains part of the Sacred Tradition of Jesus handed on to the Apostles but not the whole. The Church was up and running while Paul wrote and the Gospels were being written, so the Church has never relied on the NT in the way Protestant churches do (which came much later), if you see what I mean.

 

[Valke2]

Looking at my original post, I see that it came off sounding more antagonistic than I intended. My apologies if I offended anyone.

 

[Valke2]

Just to help your researches and understanding, the Church doesn’t rely on the written words of Paul nor on the written words of any of the NT. It doesn’t even rely on the words of the OT. The Bible, as we Catholics see it, is a witness not a prooftext of the word of God handed on to man. The NT contains part of the Sacred Tradition of Jesus handed on to the Apostles but not the whole. The Church was up and running while Paul wrote and the Gospels were being written, so the Church has never relied on the NT in the way Protestant churches do (which came much later), if you see what I mean.

Thanks. That is actually quite interesting and something I never really knew.

 

[Contarini]

Just to help your researches and understanding, the Church doesn’t rely on the written words of Paul nor on the written words of any of the NT. It doesn’t even rely on the words of the OT. The Bible, as we Catholics see it, is a witness not a prooftext of the word of God handed on to man. The NT contains part of the Sacred Tradition of Jesus handed on to the Apostles but not the whole. The Church was up and running while Paul wrote and the Gospels were being written, so the Church has never relied on the NT in the way Protestant churches do (which came much later), if you see what I mean.

I think and devoutly hope that you’re completely wrong here. This is, of course, exactly what Protestants have said Catholics taught. It certainly isn’t what the Fathers taught. They clearly relied on Scripture.

If the Catholic Church does not rely on Scripture, then the Catholic Church has radically deviated from the faith of the Fathers, and has no valid claim to authority.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Looking at my original post, I see that it came off sounding more antagonistic than I intended. My apologies if I offended anyone.

I can’t speak for the Catholics, but you didn’t offend me. I thought you raised some excellent issues. I’ve looked at Klinghoffer’s book briefly in Barnes & Noble, but haven’t read it all the way through. I found what I read very interesting, but I didn’t get into all the stuff about Paul. I was mostly interested in his ideas about how Jews should view Christianity.

Have you seen Richard John Neuhaus’s review of the book in *First Things? *Neuhaus makes some interesting points.

Also, you might find Paula Fredriksen’s work interesting. She’s a Jewish scholar of the NT and early Christianity. I first encountered her work in the form of an essay comparing Paul’s and Augustine’s conversion accounts–she was quite skeptical about both.

Edwin

 

[Della]

I think and devoutly hope that you’re completely wrong here. This is, of course, exactly what Protestants have said Catholics taught. It certainly isn’t what the Fathers taught. They clearly relied on Scripture.

If the Catholic Church does not rely on Scripture, then the Catholic Church has radically deviated from the faith of the Fathers, and has no valid claim to authority.

Edwin

There is a difference between citing Scripture and relying on it in the sense that if it isn’t written in the Bible it can’t be true, variety of relying, if you see what I mean. A good many Protestants of the Evangelical kind rely so much on the Bible that they will not accept anything they don’t find specifically worded there, although they don’t actually practice that idea except when it comes to Catholic teaching they will not accept.

The Scriptures are a part of Sacred Tradition–it goes hand in glove with Sacred Tradition, it doesn’t solely support it only because Sacred Tradition came before the NT, but nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts Scripture. I hope I am explaining this properly.

 

[Valke2]

I can’t speak for the Catholics, but you didn’t offend me. I thought you raised some excellent issues. I’ve looked at Klinghoffer’s book briefly in Barnes & Noble, but haven’t read it all the way through. I found what I read very interesting, but I didn’t get into all the stuff about Paul. I was mostly interested in his ideas about how Jews should view Christianity.

Have you seen Richard John Neuhaus’s review of the book in *First Things? *Neuhaus makes some interesting points.

Also, you might find Paula Fredriksen’s work interesting. She’s a Jewish scholar of the NT and early Christianity. I first encountered her work in the form of an essay comparing Paul’s and Augustine’s conversion accounts–she was quite skeptical about both.

Edwin

I haven’t read either Neuhaus’ review or Fredriksen’s work. I’ll keep my eyes open. Thanks.

 

[davidv]

I think and devoutly hope that you’re completely wrong here. This is, of course, exactly what Protestants have said Catholics taught. It certainly isn’t what the Fathers taught. They clearly relied on Scripture.

If the Catholic Church does not rely on Scripture, then the Catholic Church has radically deviated from the faith of the Fathers, and has no valid claim to authority.

Edwin

How is this so, unless by “scripture” you mean the OT? The Church was founded by Jesus. The NT did not exist at that time, so it wasn’t available to be relied upon.

 

[Contarini]

How is this so, unless by “scripture” you mean the OT? The Church was founded by Jesus. The NT did not exist at that time, so it wasn’t available to be relied upon.

Obviously the NT Church did rely on the OT, and as early as 2 Peter we find parts of the NT being treated in the same way. However, note that I was talking about the Fathers. By their time the entire canon *was *formulated and was there to be relied on–as it is to this day!

Edwin

 

[blackrobe]

Probably not on point, but it occurs to me that Jesus said plenty that would have been scandalous and outrageous for a Jew. Then again, I suppose there are those who doubt him as well.

But for Saul/Paul, it seems a lot more than lying would have been necessary. Given all that is recorded of his life, it would have been a masterful imposture. I think it would have required a conspiracy. Yeah, that’s it, a conspiracy . . .

JSA

 

[Mystophilus]

Well, if Paul was a shameless liar then orthodox Christianity as a whole would collapse. So I think your question is moot, really.

I have to ask whether Christianity depends upon Paul or upon Christ. If the latter, why would it collapse over the loss of Paul? Could it not simply reorient?

 

[inJESUS]

strange…some Jews say Paul was no Jew and others say he was more Jewish than Jews!

 

[Mystophilus]

Regarding his claim to be the son of Pharisees. Scholars have a hard time believing there were many Parisees in Galilee at the time. ANd the presence of such jews further North in Tarsus was even more unlikely. It would be like a Jew today saying he is descended from a long line of orthodox jews in Arkansas. Possible but not likely.

This issue, unfortunately, collapses into the yawning pit of many historical problems: we cannot know whether or not it is true. In the absence of some really good ethnic census data, we cannot even calculate probabilities. I am not sure, but I do not think that Roman censors bothered with ethnicities other than ‘Roman citizen’ and ‘not’.

Then there is his claim that his family came from the tribe of Benjamin. Such tribal distinctions were lost around 536 BCE. A jewish family from Tarsus in 1st Century CE claiming to trace its roots back to the tribe of Benjamin? Not likely. Keep in mind that the Talmud expressly states that we do not know if we are descended from Leah or Rachel. A religously knowledgeable Jew would have known this. Only a gentile or uneducated Jew could make such a claim and hope to be believed.

This is interesting. I know of a few cultures in which it is shameful to be unable to quote at least twenty generations of ancestors from memory. I had thought that, seeing the genealogies in the OT, and in Matthew and Luke, Jews had a similar perspective.

Nevertheless, even if we establish that the average C1st Jew could not trace descent from a particular tribe, most modern Westerners have only the vaguest ideas of their own ethnic origins, but there are some who can show you their descent from William the Conqueror.

Then there is his assertion that he knew Hebrew. Something most jews in 1st century CE did not know. But it seems clear Paul could not read Hebrew. Whenever he cites from the Bible, he is clearly doing so from the Septuagint. The Septuagint does not always adhere to the original Hebrew meaning. The result is the misunderstanding of important passages in Torah, that Paul ushers into Christanity. (See Macoby, "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, p. 70). ALso, see Sanders, “Paul and Palestine Judaism,” p.137, for an example of Paul’s reliance on a mistranslation. All of which indicates that he did not read Hebrew.

Paul converts to Christianity. Paul thinks that Christianity is true. Paul looks for OT support for the ideas which he has decided are true, and finds it in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew. Which one will he quote?

 

[Mystophilus]

Frankly, I just want to say that I have no vested interest in defending Paul. I disagree with quite a lot of what he said, and do not base my beliefs upon his writings any more than I base them upon those of a number of non-Christians.

However, I would much rather consider everyone innocent until proven guilty, especially the dead, who are not around to defend themselves. Thus, I am going to lean towards trusting his word when he describes something which is merely atypical.