For those interested in Pauline studies, the question of whether or not Paul was a Pharisee is a pertinent issue. And for those who, in my opinion, appropriately discount the historical validity of the Acts of the Apostles, it's to Paul's letters one must look for the primary evidence.
Paul said only, “... as to the law a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5). This is not a claim that he was a Pharisee, only that he had once preferred the Pharisaic interpretation of the Mosaic laws --- the oral Torah and on-going interpretations.
Josephus said much the same thing, “Being now in my nineteenth year I began to involve myself in city life, deferring to the philosophical school of the Pharisees … “ (Josephus, Life).
Was there a distinction between those like Paul and Josephus, that just chose to follow the precepts of the Pharisees, and those actually considered to be Pharisees. I think there was.
Here's Josephus again, “Now, for the Pharisees ... they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction … “ (Antiquities, 18.1.3). According to Josephus, a great many people followed the religious precepts of the Pharisees, but were not evidently considered to be “Pharisees”.
In First Century Judaism in Crisis (1975), a book about the famous first century Pharisaic sage Yohanan ben Zakkai, Jacob Neusner observed on page 36 that he thought Josephus exaggerated the extent of the power of the Pharisees, but acknowledged their influence before they finally came to power in 70. Neusner wrote about men strictly and meticulously observing Pharisaic practices (p.36)---
“Among the men sympathetic to the Pharisaic cause were some who entered into an urban religious communion, a mostly unorganized society known as the fellowship (havurah). The basis of this society was meticulous observance of the laws of tithing and other priestly offerings as well as the rules of ritual purity outside the temple where they were not mandatory … By keeping the rules of purity the fellow separated from the common man, but by remaining in the towns and cities of the land, he preserved the possibility of teaching others by example --- They were the few who kept to what they held to be the faith in the company of the many who did not.”
So it seems we find a very wide range of influence of Pharisaic practices in the first century Jewish homelands between the “body of people” of Josephus that tried to follow the lead of the Pharisees in their worship practices, and the “fellowship” described by Neusner that strictly and meticulously observed Pharisaic practices in "urban religious communion".
Neusner relates in some detail the extensive and specific education and apprenticeship that Pharisees endured, and how their commitment was a life-long endeavor.
As far as I have found, I believe that the evidence best portrays both the young Paul and Josephus as among the many who chose to follow the precepts of the Pharisees, but who would not have been considered among their own people to be called “Pharisees”.
robert j.
Was Paul a Pharisee?
Was Paul a Pharisee?
Last edited by robert j on Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Paul may only be a literary character
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Why discount ACTS?
If a frog had wings.....
Paul said he was taught by Gamaliel, who was a Temple leader and whose son became High Priest.
I believe all of the ruling High Priesthood were Sadducee. Certainly Ananus was. And the difference in beliefs was so pronounced it is unlikely that they would allow a Pharisee to gain such a powerful position.
In my opinion.
I don't think anything in Josephus suggests the contrary, which is the only source I would trust on this issue.
If a frog had wings.....
Paul said he was taught by Gamaliel, who was a Temple leader and whose son became High Priest.
I believe all of the ruling High Priesthood were Sadducee. Certainly Ananus was. And the difference in beliefs was so pronounced it is unlikely that they would allow a Pharisee to gain such a powerful position.
In my opinion.
I don't think anything in Josephus suggests the contrary, which is the only source I would trust on this issue.
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
It could be like modern associations with political parties... e.g. "Paul agrees with and typically votes for the Democrats, but is not a member of the Democratic Party". As always, it comes down to definition - does saying someone "is" a "Pharisee" mean they were a registered member? Or simply that they generally held to the Pharisaic ideals? What do we want it to mean? - what the ancients thought, or what definition helps us comminicate our understanding of their views? If Paul says he was “... as to the law a Pharisee”, that's good enough for me to give him that label, in the same way that somone who consistently voted Democrat we could safely label a Democrat.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity, ISBN 0-76070-787-1.
Maccoby deconstructs the "Paul" character completely. Paul is a fraud, a liar and a cheat, certainly NOT a Pharisee, in any conceivable universe.
One purpose of this little show is, once again, to show how "The Jews" are retrograde.
"But how can we even consider such a theory, when so many scholars have found incontrovertible evidence, as they think, of Paul's training as a Pharisee in his own writings? The style of argument and thought in the Epistles of Paul, we have been repeatedly been told, is Rabbinical; Paul, though putting forward views and arguments which 'go far beyond' rabbinical thinking, uses rabbinic logic and methods of biblical exegesis in such a way that his education as a Pharisee is manifest. Beloved as this view is of scholars, it is entirely wrong, being based on ignorance or misunderstanding of rabbinical exegesis and logic..." (Emphasis added)
CW
Maccoby deconstructs the "Paul" character completely. Paul is a fraud, a liar and a cheat, certainly NOT a Pharisee, in any conceivable universe.
One purpose of this little show is, once again, to show how "The Jews" are retrograde.
"But how can we even consider such a theory, when so many scholars have found incontrovertible evidence, as they think, of Paul's training as a Pharisee in his own writings? The style of argument and thought in the Epistles of Paul, we have been repeatedly been told, is Rabbinical; Paul, though putting forward views and arguments which 'go far beyond' rabbinical thinking, uses rabbinic logic and methods of biblical exegesis in such a way that his education as a Pharisee is manifest. Beloved as this view is of scholars, it is entirely wrong, being based on ignorance or misunderstanding of rabbinical exegesis and logic..." (Emphasis added)
CW
-
andrewcriddle
- Posts: 2851
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Maccoby assumes that rabbinic argument in the Mishnah and later texts is Pharisaic. This is not necessarily true.Charles Wilson wrote:Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity, ISBN 0-76070-787-1.
Maccoby deconstructs the "Paul" character completely. Paul is a fraud, a liar and a cheat, certainly NOT a Pharisee, in any conceivable universe.
One purpose of this little show is, once again, to show how "The Jews" are retrograde.
"But how can we even consider such a theory, when so many scholars have found incontrovertible evidence, as they think, of Paul's training as a Pharisee in his own writings? The style of argument and thought in the Epistles of Paul, we have been repeatedly been told, is Rabbinical; Paul, though putting forward views and arguments which 'go far beyond' rabbinical thinking, uses rabbinic logic and methods of biblical exegesis in such a way that his education as a Pharisee is manifest. Beloved as this view is of scholars, it is entirely wrong, being based on ignorance or misunderstanding of rabbinical exegesis and logic..." (Emphasis added)
CW
Andrew Criddle
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Robert J,
What difference would it make if Paul and Josephus were only nominally Pharisees?
What difference would it make if Paul and Josephus were only nominally Pharisees?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Q: "After a shipwreck, why do the sharks eat the lawyers last?"
A: "Professional Courtesy".
It makes no difference at all as to whether "Paul" or "Josephus" were nominally Pharisees. The Pharisees did their job perfectly: Stab everyone in the back, protect the bureaucracy, die. Perfect.
The Roman Game Plan worked without very much planning necessary. Aristobulus and Hyrcanus go to Pompey to have HIM decide who Mom Loved Best. Archelaus falls down at the feet of Caesar and Judea is compromised with the only bad possibility being that Caesar throws out his back picking up Party Boy Archelaus (See: "What must I do to have Eternal Life?" That's Archelaus. Right there.).
Pharisees? "Eff'em".
A: "Professional Courtesy".
It makes no difference at all as to whether "Paul" or "Josephus" were nominally Pharisees. The Pharisees did their job perfectly: Stab everyone in the back, protect the bureaucracy, die. Perfect.
The Roman Game Plan worked without very much planning necessary. Aristobulus and Hyrcanus go to Pompey to have HIM decide who Mom Loved Best. Archelaus falls down at the feet of Caesar and Judea is compromised with the only bad possibility being that Caesar throws out his back picking up Party Boy Archelaus (See: "What must I do to have Eternal Life?" That's Archelaus. Right there.).
Pharisees? "Eff'em".
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Hi John2,
Certainly it's not a perfect analogy --- one could point out numerous differences between my modern example here and the first-century --- but it's just offered as an example of the gap between groups.
I think the gap in the first-century between the many, like Paul and Josephus, who chose to follow the precepts of the Pharisees --- and the Pharisee themselves, the leaders that endured extensive and specific education, apprenticeship and initiation ---- Was as large as the gap we see today between the many that consider themselves Catholic --- and ordained Catholic priests.
In terms of understanding Paul (and Josephus), the distinction is important.
More evidence that Paul was not a Pharisee --- In chapters 1 and 2 of Galatians, Paul worked hard to establish his Jewish bona fides and authority. Yet, the obviously well-educated Paul only claimed that he was, “... advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, being extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (Gal 1:14).
For an obviously well-educated man like Paul, claiming that he was more advanced in Judaism than many his own age was no big deal in a society where most had only a very modest formal education or less. That he claimed to be extremely zealous for the traditions, was just attitude, not evidence of Pharisaic training.
On the other hand, such a claim of advancement would have been a gross understatement in the extreme for a Pharisee --- a Pharisee would have been extremely advanced in Judaism compared to the vast majority his own age. If Paul was a Pharisee, I think it unlikely that he would so grossly understate his Jewish bona fides in a letter in which he was trying so hard to establish such authority. Paul was not prone to understatement when his authority was in question.
robert j.
John2 asked,
What difference would it make if Paul and Josephus were only nominally Pharisees?
Certainly it's not a perfect analogy --- one could point out numerous differences between my modern example here and the first-century --- but it's just offered as an example of the gap between groups.
I think the gap in the first-century between the many, like Paul and Josephus, who chose to follow the precepts of the Pharisees --- and the Pharisee themselves, the leaders that endured extensive and specific education, apprenticeship and initiation ---- Was as large as the gap we see today between the many that consider themselves Catholic --- and ordained Catholic priests.
In terms of understanding Paul (and Josephus), the distinction is important.
More evidence that Paul was not a Pharisee --- In chapters 1 and 2 of Galatians, Paul worked hard to establish his Jewish bona fides and authority. Yet, the obviously well-educated Paul only claimed that he was, “... advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, being extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (Gal 1:14).
For an obviously well-educated man like Paul, claiming that he was more advanced in Judaism than many his own age was no big deal in a society where most had only a very modest formal education or less. That he claimed to be extremely zealous for the traditions, was just attitude, not evidence of Pharisaic training.
On the other hand, such a claim of advancement would have been a gross understatement in the extreme for a Pharisee --- a Pharisee would have been extremely advanced in Judaism compared to the vast majority his own age. If Paul was a Pharisee, I think it unlikely that he would so grossly understate his Jewish bona fides in a letter in which he was trying so hard to establish such authority. Paul was not prone to understatement when his authority was in question.
robert j.
Re: Was Paul a Pharisee?
Hi Charles,
I'm not sure the source of your anti-Pharisee opinions, but I wonder if you are painting with too-broad a brush. The discussion in this thread centers on the relationship of Paul and Josephus with the Pharisees. I have no particular reason to defend first century CE Pharisees, other than an interest in fairness and accuracy.
If you are down on the Pharisees based on Josephus' stories of first century BCE palace intrigues, then I would say times change. One should not characterize first-century CE Pharisees based on what may have happened decades earlier, anymore than one should attribute racial attitudes to modern-day Democrats based on the attitudes of many southern Democrats decades ago.
Some may see anti-Pharisee sentiments in the NT Gospels --- but Josephus characterized the first-century CE Pharisees as having garnered the respect and following of many of their countrymen.
robert j.
Charles Wilson wrote,
The Pharisees did their job perfectly: Stab everyone in the back, protect the bureaucracy, die. Perfect …
Pharisees? "Eff'em".
I'm not sure the source of your anti-Pharisee opinions, but I wonder if you are painting with too-broad a brush. The discussion in this thread centers on the relationship of Paul and Josephus with the Pharisees. I have no particular reason to defend first century CE Pharisees, other than an interest in fairness and accuracy.
If you are down on the Pharisees based on Josephus' stories of first century BCE palace intrigues, then I would say times change. One should not characterize first-century CE Pharisees based on what may have happened decades earlier, anymore than one should attribute racial attitudes to modern-day Democrats based on the attitudes of many southern Democrats decades ago.
Some may see anti-Pharisee sentiments in the NT Gospels --- but Josephus characterized the first-century CE Pharisees as having garnered the respect and following of many of their countrymen.
robert j.