Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by rgprice »

I see what you are saying Neil, but nevertheless, I still think that this list:

1) circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews;
2) as to the Law, a Pharisee;
3) as to zeal, a devout follower of the assembly;
4) as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

is a more coherent collection of statements than this list:

1) circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews;
2) as to the Law, a Pharisee;
3) as to zeal, a persecutor of the church;
4) as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

I don't see how "persecutor" fits into the motif that is being established, of things that seems like the qualities of a devout Jew, but that are now considered unimportant in the light of faith in Christ.

Edit:
Think of it like this: If someone was asked, "Were you a good Christian?" Which of these makes more sense as a response?

I was a good Christian:
1) I was baptized.
2) I was Episcopalian.
3) I hated Mosques.
4) I prayed regularly.

or

I was a good Christian:
1) I was baptized.
2) I was Episcopalian.
3) I loved going to church.
4) I prayed regularly.

The second is a far more reasonable response. Now its not inconceivable that someone might say the first thing, but the second really is more sensible.

I think there are defiantly multiple layers in the Pauline letters, regardless of when the first layer may have been written. And the first layer contains no indication of a Paul figure who was ever an opponent of believers in Christ Jesus. The are no apologies, there is no indication of a reversal of positions, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:12 pm 3) as to zeal, a devout follower of the assembly;
I don't think I really understand what this means. I think you discussed this more fully earlier, but for now what's on my mind is the question of what it means to "follow" or "pursue" the "assembly" -- that's not really the same thing as attending and participating in synagogue services, is it?

We know the other points Paul lists are widely understood characteristics of "devout Jews". But I don't recall where "devout following of the assembly" or even regular attendance is thought by anyone to be one of the "typical" characterstics. Yes, observance of the sabbath, and prayers perhaps, but where else do we find following the assembly is understood as a mark of "high Jewishness", and what does the term actually mean?
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by rgprice »

A good question. I'll just cite some stuff from "The Origin and Meaning of Ekklēsia in the Early Jesus Movement" by Korner.
In total, ekklēsia occurs 103 times in the LXX68 and synagōgē, 221 times.
There are at least four ways in which the word ekklēsia is differentiated from
synagōgē in the LXX. While synagōgē translates qāhāl throughout Genesis–
Numbers, ekklēsia does not do so until LXX Deut 4:10.79 Second, while both
words can be used of a collective identity, ekklēsia far outnumbers synagōgē
when referring to gatherings of people. Third, when referring to a “gathering,”
ekklēsia does so only of people, not of animals or items. Fourth, ekklēsia occurs
with a greater number of locutions tied to God or to God’s people. This semantic
flexibility in the word ekklēsia suggests its functionality as a name for
a gathering of, or as a group designation for the collective whole of, God’s people,
the Jews.
Apocryphal writings, Philo, and Josephus each use ekklēsia
for public gatherings of Jews, while Philo alone suggests that a semi-public association
of Alexandrian Jews self-designated collectively as an ekklēsia.
Now, what I have a problem with is the idea that the Pauline letters would use a term like ekklēsia in such a confusing way, if indeed Jews identified themselves as members of an ekklēsia. So in other words, anyone reading the Pauline letters by themselves, as they were presumably originally intended to be read, would have been very confused if ekklēsia was intended to mean some sub-group that was in fact in conflict with and distinct from mainstream Judaism.

Thus, as Korner also concludes, the use of ekklēsia and the designation of Christ worshiping groups as ekklēsia must have been intended as unifying. By referring to Christ worshiping groups as ekklēsia, the writer of the Pauline letters was pulling them into the larger Jewish tent. It wasn't a term that would have indicated a separation between Christ groups and Jews, rather it was a term that indicated these Christ groups were Jews.

If that's the case, how can Paul say that he "persecuted the ekklēsia"? Essentially, Paul is trying to broaden the definition of ekklēsia. He certainly never claimed that Jews were excluded from the ekklēsia. Jews understood the term ekklēsia to refer to themselves. So how could Paul say that his zeal for Judaism was shown by persecuting' the ekklēsia, which anyone reading such a statement in its original context would take to mean that Paul persecuted the Jewish people?

Its like saying, "As evidence of my Christian credentials, I despised the church." That makes no sense. It would make more sense to say, "As evidence of my Christian credentials, I loved the church."
In sum, the fact that the ekklēsias tēs hieras in Deus 111 involves itself in issues
of religious jurisprudence (e.g., eunuchs, “talk and study”) is consistent
with Philo’s non-civic ekklēsia in Virt. 108, within which the instruction and/or
initiation of Egyptian epēlutai (“incomers”/proselytes) takes place. The combined
witness of these two passages suggests that Philo conceived of a contemporaneous,
semi-public synagogue association named ekklēsia located within
Alexandria whose membership focused upon Torah instruction both for Jews
and proselytes.
The word ekklēsia appears to be used by non-civic Jewish groups within Egypt
(Philo) and possibly even in Judea (Paul). Of the 23 ekklēsia occurrences in
Philo, scholars most commonly forward the one in Virt. 108 as referring to a
non-civic institution of Alexandria Jews during Philo’s day. This ekklēsia is a
forum for ethno-religious activity, specifically for the initiation of Egyptian
proselytes. It is more than simply an association synagogue since it holds
some sort of official status on behalf of the politeia of Alexandrian Jews. This
sub-group either self-designates as an ekklēsia or designates its meeting as an
ekklēsia, a meeting that is either publicly accessible or for “members only.”
Jewish association synagogues, contemporaneous with Philo and Paul,
also appear to use ekklēsia terminology. In Spec. 1.324–325, Philo mentions a
voluntary association, known as hieros syllogos, that held meetings (en tais
ekklēsiais) which were publicly accessible to Jews, irrespective of their state of
socio-religious worthiness. Philo seems to indicate that an Alexandrian association
synagogue even went so far as to self-identify collectively as an ekklēsia
hiera. This sacred ekklēsia involved itself in issues of religious jurisprudence
(e.g., “talk and study” of Torah).
some sort of official status on behalf of the politeia of Alexandrian Jews. This
sub-group either self-designates as an ekklēsia or designates its meeting as an
ekklēsia, a meeting that is either publicly accessible or for “members only.”
Jewish association synagogues, contemporaneous with Philo and Paul,
also appear to use ekklēsia terminology. In Spec. 1.324–325, Philo mentions a
voluntary association, known as hieros syllogos, that held meetings (en tais
ekklēsiais) which were publicly accessible to Jews, irrespective of their state of
socio-religious worthiness. Philo seems to indicate that an Alexandrian association
synagogue even went so far as to self-identify collectively as an ekklēsia
hiera. This sacred ekklēsia involved itself in issues of religious jurisprudence
(e.g., “talk and study” of Torah).
Although others have suggested that ekklēsia is a synagogue term (Runesson,
Binder, and Olsson), my research has attempted to demonstrate the plausibility
of that suggestion. If I have succeeded, then it would seem that if a 1st century
CE voluntary association with a corpus mixtum of Jews and gentiles, or
even one with an exclusively gentile composition, adopted an ekklēsia identity,
its members could have been viewed as being in continuity with a Jewish,
and not simply with a Greco-Roman, heritage. This fact has implications for
Christ-followers whom Paul collectively designated as ekklēsiai. Their subgroup
identity, then, not only facilitated their permanent identification with
a Jewish heritage,
but, as was argued in Chapter 2, also gave their communities
socio-cultural relevance within the political culture of the Greek East during
the Imperial period.
I will concede that I can't point to another example of someone identifying themselves as a "devout follower" of an ekklēsia. But, that's also why I'm posing this question here. I'm not 100% confident in this reading. I'd like to hear from other with a better understanding of Greek to see if the reading I suggest is possible, someone like Ben, etc.

It seems very odd that Paul would use such an ambiguous and potentially confusing term if he intended to make a distinction between Christ-followers and Jews. Rather, by using ekklēsia Paul seems to be counting Christ followers as Jews or as co-participants in the covenant with Jews. As such, talking about persecuting a group that would seem to include Jews makes no sense as a demonstration of one's Jewish credentials. And it seems to me, given how the term ekklēsia was used by others, that being a "follower of the ekklēsia" or one that "strives for" the ekklēsia or "seeks" the ekklēsia or "yearns for" the ekklēsia, could all make sense. And, as I understand it, these are all possible way to interpret Phil 3:6. But, as I say, I'd love to hear from others that have a better knowledge of Greek. It also seems possible that ekklēsia in this instance could mean either a specific body of worshipers, or the Jewish community as a whole.

Furthermore, the fact that ekklēsia is now widely translated as "church" essentially acknowledges the problem crated by ekklēsia. It is a confusing term when read in the context of the New Testament, and thus translators have addressed the confusing by creating a distinction that doesn't actually exist in the original material. In the original material one would read about Jewish assemblies in the OT and see the groups referred to in the Pauline letters using the same terminology, indicating continuity. But, in English translations that continuity is masked by using the distinct term "church". That's done for a reason, because the original material is so confusing and ambiguous.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by davidmartin »

It's pretty obvious
There is a layer or pre-Paul Christians who Paul opposes and ostensibly persecutes
He later tries to say he represents the original Christians and tries to promote himself into that position of authority by his force of will
All the clues are there, it's perfectly obvious. Am I saying he is a scammer? You choose what you want to believe, it's nothing to do with me, i don't care what you think but i don't trust the guy from Tarsus
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:51 am I will concede that I can't point to another example of someone identifying themselves as a "devout follower" of an ekklēsia. But, that's also why I'm posing this question here.
Thank you for your lengthy and detailed response on the meaning and use of "ekklesia". After reading the information you set out, and I hate sounding perverse, especially since these are the sorts of discussions I normally try to avoid and only watch from the sidelines, the more I found myself thinking that the phrase (persued the assembly/church) does not fit with the mid first century Jewish context at all.

The difficulty you identify arises from its presumed mid first century Jewish context, is that correct?

The phrase or sentence does very neatly fit a later Christian context that had a negative view of Jews or Judaism. It fits the hostile portrayal of "Judaism" of later Christianity: it flows well from the pen of Christian author who imagines and misrepresents Jews or Judaism as being extreme sticklers for the law and haters of Christianity.

I have a few more sources on the word translated 'persecute' that I'll post separately.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by neilgodfrey »

You may already have consulted these but fwiw ....

There's Moulton and Millgan's Vocab illustrated from the Papyri et al...

https://archive.org/details/vocabularyo ... 6/mode/2up -- p. 166




Also from my Liddell-Scott:
Screen Shot 2021-07-23 at 10.49.38 am.png
Screen Shot 2021-07-23 at 10.49.38 am.png (339.55 KiB) Viewed 1584 times



And from Louw and Nida:
Screen Shot 2021-07-23 at 10.59.42 am.png
Screen Shot 2021-07-23 at 10.59.42 am.png (96.97 KiB) Viewed 1584 times



and maybe something here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201127001 ... pians.html
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by rgprice »

Thanks Neil. I've discussed this with Ben C. Smith. He says that the reading that I've proposed is "not impossible", but would be atypical. However, he agrees that the phrase does stand out from the others and is odd. He says he would be open to the possibility that it was "not penned by Paul". The other three points are standard statements of Jewish piety, whereas this one is not.

So, you may be onto something regarding a later context.

But I must clarify that my focus on "Paul's" use of ekklēsia is that the use of the term is contradictory throughout the letters, which implies that there is an earlier original layer in which ekklēsia was used as an inclusive term, with a later layer in which ekklēsia was used to refer explicitly Christ followers in opposition to mainstream Jews.

Initially my thought was that this element was part of the original layer, but was misinterpreted, I do now wonder if this element is part of a later revision of the text.

If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the assembly; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

When read carefully, the third item seems to interrupt the flow of what is being laid out. Let's remove it.

If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Let's understand the relationship of these criteria. They all have to do with the law. In particular, the second statement flows into the last. "As to the Law" -- "As to the righteousness which is in the Law".

But even the first element deals with the law, because circumcision was the law. Paul was circumcised according to the law. What's this "as to zeal" which interrupts Paul's discussion of the law? What follows clarifies this:

7 But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have counted as loss because of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them mere rubbish, so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

So, his first statements of piety were all about the law. He was describing how he would be considered a "good Jew" according to the law, but how he no longer believes that is important.

This statement about persecution has nothing to do with any of this. In what way would persecuting anyone be "gain to me"? This is why I keyed in on this statement and tried to find a different reading of it. It clearly doesn't make sense. However it could be, as you say, that the translation/interpretation is correct, but it's an interpolation.

You may be implying that the entire letter was penned much later, not just this single phrase, but what I'm saying is that this phrase does not fit the context of the surrounding material, which necessarily requires that it is either misinterpreted or that it is a later interpolation.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:51 amIts like saying, "As evidence of my Christian credentials, I despised the church." That makes no sense.
But, doesn't it make perfect sense? For example, "As evidence of my Catholic Church credentials, I despise the Catholic Church." Someone who thinks that the main church is corrupt or wrong might well consider opposition to that corrupt church as evidence of "real" Catholicism. Think Vatican 2 for example. The expression is something that could be used by anyone who thinks that the mainstream orthodox version of some religious, political or social group has lost its way.

For Paul, the ekklēsia are a group that has come to a "real" understanding of Judaism that mainstream Judaism never reached. Paul's new Judaism includes a worship of Christ that is relevant to Jews and Gentiles. That new Judaism, finally understood by Paul and his colleagues, was the one set up by God from the beginning and was a mystery only now revealed to him. It's the orthodox Jews that have gone wrong. "Real" Judaism -- as represented by Paul -- is a stumbling block to the orthodox Jews.
rgprice wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:51 amThus, as Korner also concludes, the use of ekklēsia and the designation of Christ worshiping groups as ekklēsia must have been intended as unifying. By referring to Christ worshiping groups as ekklēsia, the writer of the Pauline letters was pulling them into the larger Jewish tent. It wasn't a term that would have indicated a separation between Christ groups and Jews, rather it was a term that indicated these Christ groups were Jews.
Yes! And even more than that: for Paul, those Christ groups -- incorporating Jews and gentiles -- were the true Jews, the inheritors of God's promise through the adoption of Christ as Son. Those Jews holding on stubbornly to the traditions of their fathers without understanding were the ones who were wrong.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:46 am
. . . a Hebrew of Hebrews. . .

What does "a Hebrew of Hebrews" mean, exactly?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:46 am
. . . . as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the assembly; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Another very basic question -- Were Pharisees in the mid first century particularly renowned for their superior application to the Law? Above other groups in this regard? I had some idea that they are thought of as the "moderates", willing to slacken the law according to circumstances.

The image of the Pharisees as rigid and meticulous fanatics, I thought, was a misrepresentation of the gospels.

If Paul is here boasting of his claim to be one of the superior observers of the law and cult of "Judaism" of the day, is he not in fact mentioning two points (not just one) that we have come to associate with later gospel-acts misrepresentation: Pharisaic rigidity and Pharisaic persecution of the Jesus of whom they were jealous and of the church deemed to be blasphemous in its attachment to Jesus.

If so, then "persecuting the assembly/church" is not the only evidence of a late Christian antisemitic or anti-Pharisaic mindset.
Post Reply