Paul as persecutor

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:51 pmAnd prior to that they have Paul to to James and be subordinated to James, where he professes that he supports circumcision. This is all because Paul actually opposed circumcision, which was the law of the land in Judea and among other Jewish communities that followed Torah law. That was the motivation behind whatever persecution took place.
I don't think Paul ever opposed circumcision. Paul talked about "circumcision of the heart" and "circumcision of the spirit rather than the flesh". Paul seemed to have come to regard circumcision in the flesh as less important than circumcision "of the spirit", but IFAICS Paul didn't oppose people getting circumcised. He just didn't consider it necessary in order to be Jewish.

Examples of Paul's attitudes about circumcision/uncircumcision: Judaism is something that is on the inside, not the outside:

Rom 2:
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Paul suggests that Jesus was circumcised and/or supported circumcision:

Rom 15:
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a servant of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Paul discounts both fleshly circumcision and fleshly uncircumcision:

1Co 7:
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Not that any of that really is opposed to your points. They may be interpolations. But Paul constantly stresses the dynamic of "according to the spirit" vs "according to the flesh", not just in circumcision but in eating and other things. He seems to have seen his "new age" brand of Judaism as being all about the spirit, and this was opposed by the more traditional minded Jewish authorities. The Jewish Christians of James and Peter were somewhere in the middle. For the later Ebionite Christians, it seems Paul was thought to be an apostate of Jewish law. They didn't seem to think much about "circumcision of the spirit".

Marcion seems to have picked up Paul's theme about the spirit and run with it, to the point that Marcion thought that Jesus himself wasn't flesh.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by rgprice »

"He" was definitely opposed to circumcision for those who were not already circumcised. Or I should say that the Pauline letters express opposition to circumcision for those not already circumcised.
Galatians 5:
1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
1 Cor 7:
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this way let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each person is to remain in that state in which he was called.
This was in direct contradiction of Jewish law, which held that anyone who converted had to be circumcised. But according to Paul you could covert without being circumcised.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2879
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by maryhelena »

rgprice wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:50 am "He" was definitely opposed to circumcision for those who were not already circumcised. Or I should say that the Pauline letters express opposition to circumcision for those not already circumcised.
Galatians 5:
1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
1 Cor 7:
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this way let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each person is to remain in that state in which he was called.
This was in direct contradiction of Jewish law, which held that anyone who converted had to be circumcised. But according to Paul you could covert without being circumcised.
But the issue was not converting to Judaism but the Gentiles turning to God - hence no circumcision required, as stated in Acts.

Perhaps Paul had been reading Josephus....those living among Jews did not need to be circumcised. Which probably was the case once Gentiles began to mix with Jews who upheld the idea of a Jesus christ figure. - Jewish Christians.

Josephus: Life

23. At this time it was that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of the king [Agrippa] came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses and their arms, and carrying with them their money also; and when the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them, I would not permit them to have any force put upon them, but said to them, "Every one ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither." And when I had pacified the multitude, I provided for the men that were come to us whatsoever it was they wanted, according to their usual way of living, and that in great plenty also.

Change the 'two great men' to Gentiles and Pauline theology/philosophy is flying the same flag as Josephus...
(depending of course on when one dates Paul - or goes the route of ahistoricity.)

In other words; the Law had to allow some space for Freedom. Intellectual freedom cannot be constrained by Law.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by GakuseiDon »

Not related to the topic probably, but the kind of trivia I love discovering about ancient cultures. I found the highlighted below interesting so I looked into it:
1 Cor 7:
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this way let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each person is to remain in that state in which he was called.
I understood how someone can be circumcised, but how can someone become uncircumcised? I had assumed Paul was talking about a 'spiritual' uncircumcision, but in fact foreskin 'restoration' really was a thing back in Roman times.

Some Jews, wanting to advance in Roman society, would hang weights at the end of the remaining foreskin in order to stretch it out to hide their circumcision. This would help them get a head. :cheers: It worked because circumcision often involved taking off just the tip of the foreskin, leaving bits of foreskin behind that could be stretched out.

I can't find the link again which went into details, but I found some information here: https://www.getroman.com/health-guide/f ... storation/
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by rgprice »

@maryhelena
hence no circumcision required, as stated in Acts.
Acts is a second century anti-Marcionite work that directly turns the figure of Paul upside down. Acts attributes a number of contradictory positions to Paul and is by no means reliable in any way shape or form. In fact, it paints an almost mirror opposite image of Paul.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2879
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by maryhelena »

rgprice wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:12 am @maryhelena
hence no circumcision required, as stated in Acts.
Acts is a second century anti-Marcionite work that directly turns the figure of Paul upside down. Acts attributes a number of contradictory positions to Paul and is by no means reliable in any way shape or form. In fact, it paints an almost mirror opposite image of Paul.
This is what I wrote:

But the issue was not converting to Judaism but the Gentiles turning to God - hence no circumcision required, as stated in Acts.

I'm fully aware that Acts is not a historical document. That I referenced Acts in the above quote by no means suggests otherwise. My statement was in response to your quotes from Paul. Pauline quotes that rule out circumcision for those turning to the Jewish god - as in Paul - as stated in Acts. All the story in Acts is doing is supporting Paul's already stated position on circumcision.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul as persecutor

Post by Giuseppe »

This case against the authenticity of Paul persecutor seems to be really powerful:
rgprice wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:51 pm So to me, any real persecution that did happen would have taken place by Jewish enforcers of the laws of circumcision against people who claimed to have converted without being circumcised. There is extensive evidence for this.

The only reason really, that Paul as a Pharisee would have persecuted any given "church" would have been that they were violating the laws regarding circumcision.

Now, all of this is doubly confused by the fact that whoever wrote Acts of the Apostles, and potentially also revised the orthodox Pauline letters, was intentionally re-writing this aspect of Paul's ministry, to turn Paul into someone who supported circumcision and was thus not at odds with Jewish law. This is because the Marcionites claimed that the "law and prophets" were the work of the evil Jewish Creator God, not the new Unknown God of Jesus. Marcion claimed that Paul was a prophet of the Unknown God.

The writer of Acts was intent on showing that Paul was a prophet of the Jewish Creator God who was the same God as the Father of Jesus. Thus, the writer of Acts put Paul in-line with the "Law and Prophets" with his endorsement of circumcision.
That Paul was identified with Saul, is clearly a catholic midrash against Marcion.

What has to be seen is now the historicity of Paul himself.
Post Reply