What if Paul wasn't a Jew

[Valke2]

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.

 

[NPS]

“Without getting into a debate on that topic?!?” (haha!)
Background, please. Why do you believe Paul was lying? What would be his motivation for lying? Did Paul fool all the christians or were they in on the deception? Did you come up with this on your own? If he wasn’t a jew, what was he?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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 dont know how important since as a supposed Jew he tortured Christians, after his conversion he knew the Jew-Christians wouldnt trust him so God sent him to be the primary Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[Valke2]

“Without getting into a debate on that topic?!?” (haha!)
Background, please. Why do you believe Paul was lying? What would be his motivation for lying? Did Paul fool all the christians or were they in on the deception? Did you come up with this on your own? If he wasn’t a jew, what was he?

No, I did not come up with this on my own. His motivation for lying would have been to add credence to his preaching when he was talking about Jesus to other Jews.

Scholars believe that Paul did not understand Hebrew, that he did not study with the rabbi he claimed to have studied under, and that there are things that he said that would seem highly unusual, if they were said by an educated 1st century jews.

i’m not questioning his passion or his beliefs about Jesus.

I am at my office now. I’ll try to post specific sources this evening.

 

[Valke2]

I dont know how important since as a supposed Jew he tortured Christians, after his conversion he knew the Jew-Christians wouldnt trust him so God sent him to be the primary Apostle to the Gentiles.

thanks.

 

[Sam88]

I’ve never heard anyone allege that Paul was not basically truthful in his self-description. Certainly he was not perfect or without sin, and I could imagine that his credentials were presented in the best light possible, but such a fundamental misrepresentation seems to me to be absurd – and I think that most Christians, Catholic or otherwise would find it to be so. However, I am not a expert on Judaism nor on Paul. And I have not heard any authoratative statement on this, perhaps because I never heard the issue questioned. If you have any evidence to offer I’m listening but skeptical.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I’ve never heard anyone allege that Paul was not basically truthful in his self-description. Certainly he was not perfect or without sin, and I could imagine that his credentials were presented in the best light possible, but such a fundamental misrepresentation seems to me to be absurd – and I think that most Christians, Catholic or otherwise would find it to be so. However, I am not a expert on Judaism nor on Paul. And I have not heard any authoratative statement on this, perhaps because I never heard the issue questioned. If you have any evidence to offer I’m listening but skeptical.

To the ears of Jews and Muslims Paul said some scandelous stuff I have heard both of them say Paul wasnt a Jew while the Muslims maintain the original 12 Apostles at least had some good qualities they say it was Paul who really distorted the message of Jesus.

 

[Valke2]

I’ve never heard anyone allege that Paul was not basically truthful in his self-description. Certainly he was not perfect or without sin, and I could imagine that his credentials were presented in the best light possible, but such a fundamental misrepresentation seems to me to be absurd – and I think that most Christians, Catholic or otherwise would find it to be so. However, I am not a expert on Judaism nor on Paul. And I have not heard any authoratative statement on this, perhaps because I never heard the issue questioned. If you have any evidence to offer I’m listening but skeptical.

That’s fine. Most of the information I have on this was from a book by David Klingenhoffer called “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus”. I like the book. Not crazy about the title. Especially when I’m reading it on the commute home. I’ll look at the sources and quote from it later tonight. I doubt we’ll convince each other to change our views.

 

[Contarini]

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.

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

I also think you exaggerate how many scholars believe this. Certainly it’s common for non-Christian or liberal scholars to question some of Paul’s self-description. And as one would expect, Jewish scholars in particular have questioned things like the claim to have studied under Gamaliel. With respect to that, I’d like to point out that Paul’s letters don’t mention Gamaliel. Far more scholars (more that is than those who would say Paul was lying) would question the historical accuracy of Acts. And even more (including myself) would take for granted that the speeches in Acts were composed by Luke and are not verbatim transcriptions of what the people said. This was the common practice of ancient historians.

Still, most Christians would believe that Acts is accurate in essentials, so I’d require very strong evidence indeed before questioning the claim that Paul studied with Gamaliel.

Even if these details are inaccurate, that wouldn’t mean Paul wasn’t a Jew. That’s an extremely marginal opinion–I’m not sure that any credentialed scholars hold it. More common would be the claim that he was a very assimilated Hellenistic Jew. In other words, that he did not in fact know rabbinic tradition very well (this is where the Gamaliel business becomes important).

I don’t agree with this view either–I suspect that Jewish scholars (just like Christians) tend to exaggerate the extent to which their forebears in the faith uniformly taught the same things Jews today consider mainstream. (After all, it’s also common for scholars–including Jews like Jacob Neusner–to question whether the Talmud accurately reflects the views of ancient rabbis such as Gamaliel.)

Edwin

 

[deb1]

That’s fine. Most of the information I have on this was from a book by David Klingenhoffer called “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus”. I like the book. Not crazy about the title. Especially when I’m reading it on the commute home. I’ll look at the sources and quote from it later tonight. I doubt we’ll convince each other to change our views.

I believe that I have that book! My husband’s mother was Jewish so I wanted to know more about his religious background.

I thought the author was a little overly harsh toward Christians-not prejudice, though, just harsh.

I think that proof of Paul’s claims would be in the fear that the original Christians had of him. He persecuted them and they knew this.

 

[Valke2]

I also think you exaggerate how many scholars believe this.

That may be. Truthfully I never gave Paul much thought until recently. But I did preface this post with a statement saying I really didn’t want to argue the merits of the belief. Just what it would mean to the Church if it turned out Paul wasn’t originally a Jew or, alternatively, if he was not a Pharisee, as he claimed.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[havemercy]

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.

 

[Valke2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

(cont.)

 

[Valke2]

If Paul wasn’t able to read Hebrew fluently which, according to David Klinghoffer, Modern Historians agree was the case, then it is highly unlikely that he ever studied with Rabbi Gamaliel. This Rabbi was a big muckity muck and there’s no way his student’s didn’t study in Hebrew. anyone who studied “at his feet” would be the top Jewish scholars of their time. ANy such person would absoultely be able to understand the Torah in its original Hebrew.

But Paul’s letters give the impression of someone who is not familiar with the Hebrew Bible and is not familar with rabbinic tradition. See Acts 4:13.

Given all this (and more), it is not surprising that jews mistrusted him.

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.

Anyway, that’s my take on it after reading Klinghoffer’s book.

 

[Contarini]

You raise some interesting points. You do need to keep Acts and Galatians separate, since everyone agrees that Paul wrote Galatians and scholars are divided on the historicity of Acts. I myself accept them as authentic, but most non-Christian scholars don’t.

I’m not sure about Pharisees outside Judea. I should check this, since it’s a very reasonable point. (One of my colleagues is an expert on Paul with some rather wacky theories, so I should ask him.) However, I’m dubious that the matter is as clear as you say.
And as you admit, at most it’s merely unlikely.

Not that this has much force, but by way of analogy, my own background is very unlikely. I was born in England, my mother was born in Scotland of American parents, and my dad was born in Scotland and grew up in Australia. He’s also lived for a year in New Zealand, but for the most part we’ve all lived in the U.S. since 1981. Now if I were to become as famous as Paul (God forbid!) it would be easy for people to say hundreds of years later that (for instance) my claim to be English sounded very fishy. After all (hypothetically), they know that my grandparents were American, and they know that I lived in the U.S. most of my life. So wasn’t I just claiming English birth for some nefarious reason of my own? It would be a reasonable supposition–but false. (Please forgive the convoluted temporal grammar.)

As for the tribal identity business–Mordecai in the book of Esther is named as a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Whether or not Esther is historically accurate, it was certainly written after 536. Clearly it wasn’t simply assumed that everyone’s identity was mixed up at that point.

And of course, no matter how good a Jew he was, Paul wouldn’t know anything written in the Talmud, since the Talmud was written centuries after his time. I think one of the biggest fallacies Jews commit talking about the NT is assuming that Judaism of Jesus’ time was identical to Talmudic Judaism.

The knowledge of Hebrew business is a strong argument. I’ll look at Sanders (and other reliable sources) first chance I get. But one note–it’s no longer assumed by all scholars that where the LXX and the Masoretic Text differ the LXX is a “mistranslation.” It may be that the LXX was based on Hebrew manuscripts that differ from the MT–which was, after all, established centuries later.

Edwin

 

[Valke2]

I believe that I have that book! My husband’s mother was Jewish so I wanted to know more about his religious background.

I thought the author was a little overly harsh toward Christians-not prejudice, though, just harsh.

I think that proof of Paul’s claims would be in the fear that the original Christians had of him. He persecuted them and they knew this.

Haven’t finished the book yet. I can see how it would be viewed as harsh. I’m not sure I understand why Paul’s mistreatment of Christians originally, would be proof of his claims.

 

[Valke2]

And of course, no matter how good a Jew he was, Paul wouldn’t know anything written in the Talmud, since the Talmud was written centuries after his time. I think one of the biggest fallacies Jews commit talking about the NT is assuming that Judaism of Jesus’ time was identical to Talmudic Judaism.

Just to this point, while Talmlud was not written until after Paul, it was certainly known at his time. It was the Oral Torah, and it was passed on orally through repetition from teacher to student from the time of Sinai onward.

I’m looking into the Book of Esther. THat’s an interesting point.

 

[Valke2]

The time period that Esther is said to take place in is aroun 486 BCE, since most believe the king that is referred to in Chapter 1 is the Persian king Xerxes. So while it is a few generations after, it is not inconceivable that lineage would still be known at that time. After all, Mordechi would only have to go back two or three generations at that point. And indeed, the verse in the BOok of Esther goes back two generations to establish this.

2:5 “There was a Judean man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son
of Kish, a Benjamite”

Rashi explains that he is called a Judean man because he was exiled with the exile of Judah; all those who were exiled with the kings of Judah were called [Judeans, Jews] among the nations, even if they were from another tribe.

 

[Contarini]

Just to this point, while Talmlud was not written until after Paul, it was certainly known at his time. It was the Oral Torah, and it was passed on orally through repetition from teacher to student from the time of Sinai onward.

I know that’s the Orthodox belief, but I hope you will forgive Gentiles for being skeptical at this point, just as you are skeptical about those things that we hold by faith without clear historical evidence.

Jewish scholars such as Jacob Neusner have applied critical scholarly methods to the Talmud and are quite skeptical about these claims. Certainly some material goes back centuries, but it’s hard to say how much (speaking of the Gemara, not the Mishnah, of course). Again, I don’t expect you to accept this, but given that a Jewish scholar of the stature of Neusner takes this skeptical view, I think it’s fair for a Gentile like myself to treat it as reasonable.

I’m looking into the Book of Esther. THat’s an interesting point.

Regarding your point in the later post (to avoid two separate replies)–if the records were lost in the exile, then it wouldn’t matter if it was a few generations or many, would it? I mean, if Mordecai knew he was a Benjamite, he could have handed this knowledge down to his children (granted that it doesn’t appear that Mordecai had any children. . . .).

I’d like (if I had time) to look into the Talmudic passage to which you refer in greater detail (though I’m really not qualified to understand the Talmud). It seems possible to me that some Jewish families maintained some sort of tribal tradition (accurate or inaccurate), and that the Talmudic sages discouraged this because it led to rivalry and claims of superiority over the majority of Jews who no longer knew what tribe they belonged to. This is pure speculation, I admit.

More generally, I think it’s obvious that Paul was a “liminal” figure who asserted his Jewishness precisely because it was under some question. (Again, to indulge in an egotistical personal analogy–I make a point of emphasizing my origins in the “holiness” movement precisely because my affiliation with that movement is rather shaky.) I get the impression that he may have been much like those young Jews today who return to ultra-orthodox observance in reaction to their secular upbringing. He may well have made the most of a fairly tenuous connection with Gamaliel. But this is all speculative.

Edwin

 

[Valke2]

I know that’s the Orthodox belief, but I hope you will forgive Gentiles for being skeptical at this point, just as you are skeptical about those things that we hold by faith without clear historical evidence.

Sure. But even those who are skeptical about the ORal Torah being given to Moses generally agree that it was in existence at the time of Jesus. And the Gemara was definately after Jesus. No one disputes that. When I am speaking of Talmud during the time of Jesus, I of course mean the Mishna only.

Regarding your point in the later post (to avoid two separate replies)–if the records were lost in the exile, then it wouldn’t matter if it was a few generations or many, would it?

I think it would matter. Because a grand son or great grand son could know his family’s history. But claming to know your family’s history going back more than 500 years is another matter. I’ll see if I can get some more info. on the Talmudic passage. It is possible, as you suggest, that some jews made calims regarding their tribal history that they could not back up.

More generally, I think it’s obvious that Paul was a “liminal” figure who asserted his Jewishness precisely because it was under some question. (Again, to indulge in an egotistical personal analogy–I make a point of emphasizing my origins in the “holiness” movement precisely because my affiliation with that movement is rather shaky.) I get the impression that he may have been much like those young Jews today who return to ultra-orthodox observance in reaction to their secular upbringing. He may well have made the most of a fairly tenuous connection with Gamaliel. But this is all speculative.

To quote the famouse Tootsie pop commercail, “the world may never know”.

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?

Edwin