What if Paul wasn't a Jew

[Valke2]

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

But there’s a difference between saying things that are contrary to Judaism and saying things about one’s self that are untrue. Actually, there is not really a whole lot that Jesus said, publicly at least, that would be considered contrary to Judaism.

 

[Ghosty]

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

.

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

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.

I wasn’t offended by your post, and I took it in what I think was the intended spirit, namely “what would the implications for Catholics be if Paul wasn’t what he claimed to be?”

One key thing to remember is that the issue for Catholics is not so much that Paul’s teachings would be illegitimate if he wasn’t Jewish, but that he wouldn’t be a trustworthy witness if he was blatantly lying about something so key to his presented idea. It’s similar to how the revelation to Moses would be the same even if Moses was not a Hebrew, but if historically he wasn’t then the whole means of our obtaining the story is called into question and begins to unravel. Moses could just as easily have been an Egyptian called by God to deliver a message to the Children of Abraham, but if that’s the case then why doesn’t Scripture tell us that, and if Scripture is lying about that, then what ELSE is it lying about?

That is what is sometimes called a “hermeneutic of suspicion”, and I think it’s thoroughly unhelpful in understanding texts; it can be warranted in cases of obvious error and misrepresentation, but approaching a text with the intent of deconstructing it will often lead to deconstruction regardless of whether or not such is well founded. For example, we can just as easily approach the dictionary with a hermeneutic of suspicion ("Who wrote this? Why? How can we be certain that it accurately reports the definitions of common words? What reasons would it have for passing itself off as a collection of proper definitions when in fact it isn’t? ect.), but if we do we’ll soon find that it falls apart just as quickly and easily as any historical text; the authors of the dictionary would have every reason to pass off their document as legitimate, and every reason to lie about the meanings of words, especially if they were part of an organization that was geared towards reshaping the language to their own purposes, ect. People aren’t likely to do that to the dictionary today (though some do, believe it or not), but that’s only because we’re steeped in a common context with the dictionary. Two thousand years from now we will be outside of the context, and the authors will not be able to testify on their own behalf. This, I believe, is why the hermeneutic of suspicion is only ever “successfully” applied to ancient documents; if we were to use the exact same methodology for current documents, we’d be laughed at as nutty conspiracy theorists, but in applying it in EXACTLY the same way to the dead, we can get money, praise, and tenure at a prestigious university. If you actually look at the methods of conspiracy theorists and “historical critical” scholars, I think you’ll see that they’re not very far off at all.

When I was an atheist I was big into the “hermeneutic of suspicion”, but in the end I realized that I was ultimately believing in things FAR more fantastic compared to common experience then the claims of such books as the Bible

Peace and God bless!

 

[Valke2]

One key thing to remember is that the issue for Catholics is not so much that Paul’s teachings would be illegitimate if he wasn’t Jewish, but that he wouldn’t be a trustworthy witness if he was blatantly lying about something so key to his presented idea.

Good point, as was the rest of your post.

Shalom.

 

[Contarini]

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?

It is largely from Paul that we know what the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus means. Of course we could have something called “Christianity” without Paul, but it would look radically different from what has historically gone by that name. Which is why I specifically said “orthodox” Christianity would collapse.

Edwin

 

[blackrobe]

But there’s a difference between saying things that are contrary to Judaism and saying things about one’s self that are untrue. Actually, there is not really a whole lot that Jesus said, publicly at least, that would be considered contrary to Judaism.

Right you are. While I feel completely unqualified to answer your question, I am now curious about it. I admit I’m most curious about the credibility of some of Paul’s claims from an historical/critical perspective.

Fortunately I have access to some highly qualified scholars. I will check back in if I can collect some relevant comments.

JSA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A lot of Jews,myself include, belive Paul was lying about his background. Without getting into a debate on that topic, how important is it to Catholic doctrine that Paul was an educated Jew? Would it change anything if it turned out not to be the case?

Thank you.

According to letters which are ascribed to him, he was a Jew.​

As they are in the Christian Bible, and as the Christian Bible include those letters as well as some other writings & the Tanakh, and as the Christian Bible is said to be inerrant - it would matter.

OTOH, it might be that if Christianity lasted 20,000 years or so, the blunder of believing Paul was of any importance, if it was a blunder, would look like a small blip in the very early infancy of Christianity. But so far, 2,000 years is longer than the Church has existed, and chucking him overboard would not look like a blip at all, but like a major howler.

BTW - do Jews belief in the inerrancy, total or otherwise, of the Tanakh or any parts of it ? This is a q. for another thread. ##

 

[Valke2]

According to letters which are ascribed to him, he was a Jew.​

As they are in the Christian Bible, and as the Christian Bible include those letters as well as some other writings & the Tanakh, and as the Christian Bible is said to be inerrant - it would matter.

BTW - do Jews belief in the inerrancy, total or otherwise, of the Tanakh or any parts of it ? This is a q. for another thread. ##

Orthodox Jews, yes.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

I think things are more complicated, in that Scripture is relative to Christ - if it were absolute, there would be no NT; and more importantly, no appeal from the Bible to Christ. The Bible would be a closed system, not an open system. Christians could still be making vows as St.Paul did, or going to synagogues.​

I think there is a creative dynamism in faith in Christ which led that faith to outgrow its Jewish “cocoon”, so that it ceased to be an apocalyptic Second Temple Jewish sect, & became a world faith in a far from Jewish mould. Maybe this dynamism can no more be controlled by Church authority, than Canute in the story could control the waves.

Is the Bible one manifestation of discerning between elements in this dynamism - or is it a privileged & permanent means of this discernment ? Is there any a priori reason why writings not so far canonised, cannot ever be ? The mere fact that papal documents are not Scripture, may be a reason for regarding them as in some sense less than the Bible - but is that any guarantee that they never will be regarded as Scripture ? I don’t think so. Even at present, they are functionally almost indistinguishable - the Fathers did not call episcopal letters “the Word of God”, but Catholics today do.

There is a further question - is difference in sources relied on evidence of formal wrongness ? I don’t know; one is asking, not implying any answer. The material fact that the Fathers relied on Scripture does not, purely in itself, guarantee that Scripture should be relied on - there is a difference between **deontic issues **-issues of what ought to be - and issues of what is in actuality the case. I don’t think this distinction is always borne in mind, but I think it is of great importance for discussing issues like Christian tradition.

What assures the continuity and health of Christianity ? IMHO, not the Bible, Papacy, dogma, or any such thing, but Christ alone. This POV has the difficulty that He is not an object of experience in the same way as visible entities within the world of men - but that may be why faith is faith, & not a philosophy or some other controllable system.

So I think the CC - like any created thing - does not depend on anything in this world, but solely on Divine Providence; & that it survives because He is the Living God - not because it’s orthodox, Biblical, infallible, or whatever. There are analogies for this - the holiness of the Church is from that of Christ, as F.J. Sheed noted; & the Mass is dependent on Calvary. For that matter, the Son is from the Father. If A is from B, it depends on B - & surely no one will say the Church is not dependent, & wholly so, on Christ ? Therefore, the Church can survive being wrong in what she relies on - for the Church (any Church)to be wrong, does not make Christ wrong.

So the CC can remain the Church, & remain authoritative. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Orthodox Jews, yes.

Thanks ​

It would be interesting to find out the history of all this - but, mustn’t hi-jack thread.

Normal Service Will Now Resume…

 

[Golf_Nut]

I believe an examination of Paul’s statements demonstrate that he was a Jew. In particular, his comments on the Law, circumcision or whether it is necessary and many other comments come from the Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, I do not have a Bible near by. Otherwise I would make reference to certain passages. But, as I mentioned before, the comments about the Law (ie Talmud) turns up a fair bit. I guess my point is that he speaks about Judaism from a perspective of someone intimately familiar with that faith.

 

[Valke2]

I believe an examination of Paul’s statements demonstrate that he was a Jew. In particular, his comments on the Law, circumcision or whether it is necessary and many other comments come from the Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, I do not have a Bible near by. Otherwise I would make reference to certain passages. But, as I mentioned before, the comments about the Law (ie Talmud) turns up a fair bit. I guess my point is that he speaks about Judaism from a perspective of someone intimately familiar with that faith.

I’m not certain which comments you are referring to. Which is no surprise given my lack of knowledge about Christian soucre texts. But I’d be interested in hearing which quotes you are referring to when you have more time (and a Bible).

 

[Golf_Nut]

I’m not certain which comments you are referring to. Which is no surprise given my lack of knowledge about Christian soucre texts. But I’d be interested in hearing which quotes you are referring to when you have more time (and a Bible).

Certainly. I have to go out of town for a week so my post will be somewhat delayed. Nevertheless, i do recall plenty of discussion about the Law and which one is the most important or what does Jesus state all of the Law applies to. There is also lengthy discussion about circumcision (the necessity of it), which I am sure you are well aware of the importance for the Jewish faith. Such comments taken together suggest to me that the person was Jewish. The preoccupation with the Law and its application/debate, of course, is, in my humble opinion, one hallmark of Judaism.

take care

 

[Golf_Nut]

A lot of Jews,myself include, belive Paul was lying about his background. Without getting into a debate on that topic, how important is it to Catholic doctrine that Paul was an educated Jew? Would it change anything if it turned out not to be the case?

Thank you.

I do not believe Paul was lying about him being a Jew. The Bible text would, in my opinion, support such a view. As you know, orthodox Jews today as well as the Pharisees of Biblical times place great emphasis on the Law of the Torah/Old Testament. In particular, adherence to the Law. This is a distinct tradition of Judaism. Gentiles of Biblical times and the present have no such preoccupation. In fact, gentiles today and from Biblical times to do not know the law other than the Ten Commandments. The number 613 (number of mitzvahs is not significant or known to them).

Now turning back to the matter at hand, Paul, based upon a review of his writings appears to have been trained at some point in Judaism. His preoccupation with the Law and demonstrations that faith in Jesus Christ is not contrary to the law is indicative of someone learned in Judaism. Okay, enough of my conclusions, lets examine the text I am relying upon.

If we turn to The Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Galatians we see his comments on the Law as the statements of someone acquainted with it. Consider the following:

Galatians 3:11 “But that no man is justified by the **law **in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.” (Bold Emphasis added)

Galatians 3:12 “And the **law **is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall in them.” (Bold emphasis added)

Galatians 4:21 "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not her the law.

Galatians 5:3 "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (Here Paul is saying that Jews must fulfill all the Law.)

Galatians 5:14 "*For all the **law *is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There are many other references to the law, but I will not type it out here.

In addition to the preoccupation with the Law, Paul seems to be trying to recognize the Covenant between God and the Jewish People and say that it has been expanded to include Gentiles with the advent of Christ.

Galatians 3:14 "That the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

And I do not think Paul is referring a law other than that of the Torah. Consider Corinthians 9:20 "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law."

I hope this is informative.

take care,

 

[Golf_Nut]

Seeing as it was Peter (who was very Jewish, believe you me) who sent Paul to the gentiles…Eh. What if Paul wasn’t a Jew? That’s none of my business. There’s no reason for his lying and there is nothing that suggests that he was.

There is no harm in posing the question and as it forces people to think. You may reinforce your beliefs by searching for authority.

 

[Valke2]

I do not believe Paul was lying about him being a Jew.

Just to be clear. My original post was addressing the possiblity of Paul misrepresenting his educational background in Judaism (i.e., who he studied with), his ability to read Hebrew, his allegation that he came from a long line of Pharisees… Not necessarily, lying about the fact that he was a Jew.

 

[Golf_Nut]

Just to be clear. My original post was addressing the possiblity of Paul misrepresenting his educational background in Judaism (i.e., who he studied with), his ability to read Hebrew, his allegation that he came from a long line of Pharisees… Not necessarily, lying about the fact that he was a Jew.

My mistake.

 

[Valke2]

I do not believe Paul was lying about him being a Jew. The Bible text would, in my opinion, support such a view. As you know, orthodox Jews today as well as the Pharisees of Biblical times place great emphasis on the Law of the Torah/Old Testament. In particular, adherence to the Law. This is a distinct tradition of Judaism. Gentiles of Biblical times and the present have no such preoccupation. In fact, gentiles today and from Biblical times to do not know the law other than the Ten Commandments. The number 613 (number of mitzvahs is not significant or known to them).

Now turning back to the matter at hand, Paul, based upon a review of his writings appears to have been trained at some point in Judaism. His preoccupation with the Law and demonstrations that faith in Jesus Christ is not contrary to the law is indicative of someone learned in Judaism. Okay, enough of my conclusions, lets examine the text I am relying upon.

If we turn to The Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Galatians we see his comments on the Law as the statements of someone acquainted with it. Consider the following:

Galatians 3:11 “*But that no man is justified by the **law ***in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.” (Bold Emphasis added)

Galatians 3:12 “*And the **law ***is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall in them.” (Bold emphasis added)

Galatians 4:21 "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not her the law.

Galatians 5:3 "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (Here Paul is saying that Jews must fulfill all the Law.)

Galatians 5:14 "*For all the **law ***is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There are many other references to the law, but I will not type it out here.

In addition to the preoccupation with the Law, Paul seems to be trying to recognize the Covenant between God and the Jewish People and say that it has been expanded to include Gentiles with the advent of Christ.

Galatians 3:14 "That the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

And I do not think Paul is referring a law other than that of the Torah. Consider Corinthians 9:20 "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law."

I hope this is informative.

take care,

See, what comes to my mind as a Jew when I read those quotes is “Methinks he doeth protest too much.” And look at your last quote from Corinthians. It sounds like he’s saying, I passed myself off as a Jew in order to convince the Jews of my argument." That he is refering to “the Jews” as if they are a people outside of him is suspect.

 

[Golf_Nut]

It sounds like he’s saying, I passed myself off as a Jew in order to convince the Jews of my argument."

I think what he is saying is that he was born a Jew (as per God’s will) so that he could do God’s will.

How convenient my explanation eh? Here is a case where a literal translation does not convey the literal meaning. Paul often writes in this style.

This is my chief frustration with any scripture interpretation is when does one apply the literal meaning? When I debate with my orthodox friends parts of the Tanach, this is a constant problem. The common response is that the Talmud is the clarification as the authors can direct when one interpretation is needed over another. Similarly, in Christianity, theologians supply direction.

I am convinced that a deep understanding of the Bible requires the ability to read the Bible in original language, namely, hebrew and armaic. Of course, this is a major undertaking for the individual not so trained. Hence, the reliance on scholars, but I always fear that the commentary may have an agenda in tune with their beliefs as opposed to what the text actually represents.

 

[Sam88]

I’ve been following this thread for almost two months, and as I said last month I am skeptical but listening. Since then, I have heard some interesting speculation, but no real evidence that would convince anyone unless they wanted to be convinced, i.e. the “evidence” supported their pet theory or prejudice. Now lack of evidence is certainly not proof that an assertion is false, but there just doesn’t seem to me to be any real evidence here.

It seems clear that Paul was a Jew, knowledgable about the Law, initally hostile to Christianity, and educated at least in the since of being literate, effective public speaker, and such. Regarding other details, there are certainly statements that cannot be independently confirmed, if we were to disregard as fabrication everything Paul himself wrote on the subject. But there is no real reason to do so. We might quibble about nuances, but the supposition that his self-descriptions were fraudulent seems to have no plausible basis.

To return to the original question, if someone were to present to me solidly convincing proof that Paul was acutally a Roman pretending to be a Jew (for example)–yes that would be profoundly disturbing to me, and I believe to many Catholics and other Christians. I’d have to rethink many other conclusions. But I’m not worried about that because it’s not going to happen.

 

[Valke2]

I’ve been following this thread for almost two months, and as I said last month I am skeptical but listening. Since then, I have heard some interesting speculation, but no real evidence that would convince anyone unless they wanted to be convinced, i.e. the “evidence” supported their pet theory or prejudice. Now lack of evidence is certainly not proof that an assertion is false, but there just doesn’t seem to me to be any real evidence here.

It seems clear that Paul was a Jew, knowledgable about the Law, initally hostile to Christianity, and educated at least in the since of being literate, effective public speaker, and such. Regarding other details, there are certainly statements that cannot be independently confirmed, if we were to disregard as fabrication everything Paul himself wrote on the subject. But there is no real reason to do so. We might quibble about nuances, but the supposition that his self-descriptions were fraudulent seems to have no plausible basis.

To return to the original question, if someone were to present to me solidly convincing proof that Paul was acutally a Roman pretending to be a Jew (for example)–yes that would be profoundly disturbing to me, and I believe to many Catholics and other Christians. I’d have to rethink many other conclusions. But I’m not worried about that because it’s not going to happen.

Not that he was a roman. But that he was not well versed in Torah. That he did not come from a line of Pharisees. And that he did not study under Gamiel (sp?).