Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by rgprice »

There are two particular passages that I've been struggling with for a long time. Both of them have to do with Paul's supposed persecution of "the church". I've posted threads about them previously:

Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church"

Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

The "Assembly of God"

As I explain in the first of these threads, the Greek word that is being translated as "persecute" here, can also be translated as "devoutly follow" or "fervently pursue", etc.

I would like to suggest alternative readings for the two passages which are currently read as testaments to Paul's persecution of Christians.

Philippians 3:
1 Further, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church a devout follower of the assembly; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.


Galatians 1:
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church followed the assembly of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

Firstly, Philippians. As I argued in the thread Philippians 3: "persecutor of the church", I think that Paul was listing out the criteria for being a Jew in good standing in Phil 3:4-6. Persecuting "Christians" has nothing to do with this and doesn't fit the context. Paul was saying that he was circumcised, he studied the Law, he attended synagogue, and he followed the Law. His whole point was to demonstrate his Jewish credentials. Persecuting odd sects wasn't a Jewish credential. Thus, we can see, that "the assembly" Paul was talking about here was not "the Christian church" (which didn't even exist in Paul's time), but rather was Jewish synagogue (an activity, not a place or institution).

Now for Galatians. When we change "persecutor" to "devout follower" in Philippians, we may question whether we should do the same in Galatians as well. Let's again look at the context. Just as in Philippians, Paul is talking about his credentials as a devout Jew. He starts by talking about his "life in Judaism". Following verse 13 Paul goes on to talk about how well he was advancing in Judaism. What has any of this to do with persecuting Christians? Paul is trying to demonstrate that he himself was once a devout Jew who also accepted the Law and circumcision. He is going to go on in the letter to attempt to persuade the Galatian Jewish proselytes not to get circumcised. What has persecuting Christians to do with any of this? It is inconceivable that "persecuting believers in the Lord Jesus" would have been seen as a credential that showed one's devotion to Judaism. The way this is read it is as if Paul would have told people, "I can prove I was a devout Jew, because I tried to destroy worshipers of the Lord!" Of course that makes no sense.

Here is what Paul was really saying:

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how devoutly I attended the assembly of God. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from the teachings of my infancy and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being (the way I did when I attended the assembly).

You see. This connects the idea from 1:13 to 1:17. It explains why he mentioned 1:13. Why does Paul say that he didn't consult any human being? Because he first says that his knowledge of Judaism came from human beings! "Look, I studied the scriptures with the rabbis regularly in the assembly, BUT, then I received a revelation from God, and I did not discuss it in the assembly where I learned the simple teachings of my youth."

Everything that contradicts this reading, I propose, is anti-Marcionite interpolation.

This puts the two passages in the Pauline letters that refer to persecution in harmony with each other, and they both make more sense IMO. In both cases, the context of these passages is Paul presenting his credentials as a devout Jew. In both cases he is citing a period in his early life when he was fervently following the traditional teachings of Judaism. He is relating the aspects of his life that demonstrated his devotion. Attending synagogue fits this context far more than "persecuting the church".

What makes more sense: "I was such a devout Jew I fervently attended synagogue" or "I was such a devout Jew I persecuted Christians".

The reading of "persecutions" and the interpolations that surround it, I propose, were all created by the writer of Acts, who also doctored the Pauline letters.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by rgprice »

Another way of thinking about what is said in Philippians:

What Philippians says:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecutor of the assembly; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

Interpreted:

I was a model Jew.
- I was circumcised.
- I studied the law as a Pharisee.
- I persecuted followers of Jesus.
- I never broke the law.

This would be like me saying something like the following in order to prove my credentials as a red-blooded American:

I was a model American growing up.
- I was a Boy Scout.
- I said the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school.
- I harassed Muslims.
- I was on the Honor Roll.

While some people may imagine Americans might say this, I don't think any serious person would make such a statement. It would of course make far more sense for someone to say:

I was a model American growing up.
- I was a Boy Scout.
- I said the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school.
- I went to church every Sunday.
- I was on the Honor Roll.

Let's keep in mind that Paul was essentially bragging in Philippians 3:4-6, a sort of humble-brag. Does it make sense that he would brag to worshipers of Jesus that he used to persecute worshipers of Jesus? Would having persecuted worshipers of Jesus given him reason to "put confidence in the flesh"? I take "Putting confidence in the flesh" to mean being part of the covenant of Abraham according to the law. How would persecuting anyone do this? The passage clearly doesn't make sense as it is currently read.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by Charles Wilson »

rgprice wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:37 pmThis would be like me saying something like the following in order to prove my credentials as a red-blooded American:

I was a model American growing up.
- I was a Boy Scout.
- I said the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school.
- I harassed Muslims.
- I was on the Honor Roll.

While some people may imagine Americans might say this, I don't think any serious person would make such a statement.
RGP --

I appreciate your analysis here and I list the following as a possibility for understanding. It will likely gain no traction but for those who play "Match-'Em-Up", it shows that there was a time when such a model - a "Model Roman" - was rather explicitly made

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"When Vitellius was dead, the war had indeed come to an end, but peace had yet to begin. Sword in hand, throughout the capital, the conquerors hunted down the conquered with merciless hatred. The streets were choked with carnage, the squares and temples reeked with blood, for men were massacred everywhere as chance threw them in the way. Soon, as their license increased, they began to search for and drag forth hidden foes. Whenever they saw a man tall and young they cut him down, making no distinction between soldiers and civilians. But the ferocity, which in the first impulse of hatred could be gratified only by blood, soon passed into the greed of gain. They let nothing be kept secret, nothing be closed; Vitellianists, they pretended, might be thus concealed. Here was the first step to breaking open private houses; here, if resistance were made, a pretext for slaughter. The most needy of the populace and the most worthless of the slaves did not fail to come forward and betray their wealthy masters; others were denounced by friends...

"...The country, terror-stricken and ready to acquiesce in servitude, urgently demanded that Lucius Vitellius with his cohorts should be intercepted on his way from Tarracina, and that the last sparks of war should be trodden out. The cavalry were sent on to Aricia, the main body of the legions halted on this side of Bovillae. Without hesitation Vitellius surrendered himself and his cohorts to the discretion of the conqueror, and the soldiers threw down their ill-starred arms in rage quite as much as in alarm. The long train of prisoners, closely guarded by armed men, passed through the capital. . Not one of them wore the look of a suppliant; sullen and savage, they were unmoved by the shouts and jests of the insulting rabble. A few, who ventured to break away, were overpowered by the force that hemmed them in; the rest were thrown into prison..."

There are several Key-Words used that are found in the "Persecutions of Christians" Motif:

Acts 8: 3 (RSV):

[3] But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

There is a great deal of Data to be mined here. Vitellius as Simon, Nero, Chaos in the Capitol...
We get to a speech by Marcellus Eprius:

"There were some who thought him too eager for fame, and indeed the desire of glory is the last infirmity cast off even by the wise. The fall of his father-in-law drove him into exile, but he returned when Galba mounted the throne, and proceeded to impeach Marcellus Eprius, who had been the informer against Thrasea. This retribution, as great as it was just, had divided the Senate into two parties; for, if Marcellus fell, a whole army of fellow culprits was struck down...

"...'I do not forget the times in which I have been born, or the form of government which our fathers and grandfathers established. I may regard with admiration an earlier period, but I acquiesce in the present, and, while I pray for good Emperors, I can endure whomsoever we may have. It was not through my speech any more than it was through the judgment of the Senate that Thrasea fell. The savage temper of Nero amused itself under these forms, and I found the friendship of such a Prince as harassing as others found their exile. Finally, Helvidius may rival the Catos and the Bruti of old in constancy and courage; I am but one of the Senate which bows to the same yoke. Besides, I would advise Priscus not to climb higher than the throne, or to impose his counsels on Vespasian, an old man, who has won the honours of a triumph, and has two sons grown to manhood. For as the worst Emperors love an unlimited despotism, so the noblest like some check on liberty." These speeches, which were delivered with much vehemence on both sides, were heard with much diversity of feeling...' "

That is:

"
I was a model Roman growing up.
- I was a Senator.
- I pray every day for good Emperors
- I was OK with Nero (It's not my fault.)
- I'm still a good member of the Club "

I don't expect to convince you on these points. However, it appears that such a speech as you Posit has been made in the past.
To me, it appears that this provided the grounding for "Paul's" Biblical Speeches.
As always, YMMV.

Best,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by rgprice »

But there is a difference, even granting your example (and possibly my own as well).

What is said is: diōkōn tēn ekklēsian

This translates to "pursuing the congregation".

I'll just use the word congregation here. Most Bibles translate this as "church", but this is truly inaccurate. Church in English denotes a specifically Christian institution. tēn ekklēsian is not inherently Christian. The term "ekklēsia" was used to refer to Jewish assemblies. It was used to refer as well to the concept of a holy body of Israel. If a Jew simply said "tēn ekklēsian" to another Jew during Paul's time, they would surely think that the person was talking about a Jewish congregation or about the idea of Israel as a holy religious body.

So when Paul says simply, "as to zeal, diōkōn tēn ekklēsian," there is nothing that indicates "tēn ekklēsian" Paul is talking about is a "Christian" body. If Philippians 3:5-6 were read by a Jew in the first century, surely they would have assumed that "tēn ekklēsian" was referring to a Jewish religious body. The claim of persecuting a Jewish congregation as some kind of evidence of Jewish piety would seem very strange indeed. If Paul meant to indicate that he was persecuting "Christians" then why didn't he say he was persecuting followers of Jesus instead, which would have been quite clear?

So we are left with two possible lists:

I was a model Jew.
- I was circumcised.
- I studied the law.
- I followed the congregation (implying Jewish congregation).
- I never broke the law.

I was a model Jew.
- I was circumcised.
- I studied the law.
- I persecuted the congregation.
- I never broke the law.

Obviously the first list makes more sense and is more consistent.

Secondly we have to recognize that "the congregation" or "the assembly" would be a very strange way to refer to Jesus followers at this time. The translation "the church" implies an understood label for "Christians". But no such label actually existed at the time Paul wrote this letter. "The church" did not exist. "The congregation" could apply to Israel. But there was no "Christian" institution to which "the congregation" could apply.

When Paul uses tēn ekklēsian elsewhere, he specifies a specific body, such as in the Corinthian letters, "To the assembly of God which is in Corinth" / Tē ekklēsia tou Theou ē ousē en Korinthō.

So here it is clear. Paul is talking about a specific congregation that exists in Corinth. What would simply "the congregation" mean? What congregation? As far as Jews were concerned the only congregation that was "the congregation" was Israel.

Having said all that, Ben Smith tells me that the usage "followed the congregation" is unusual. I give many examples of the positive use of διώκων (the word being translated as persecute here) elsewhere in the scriptures, and note that the word is used two more times in Philippians 3 in a positive sense, meaning to follow, BUT, as Ben points out, in all of those cases what is being followed or sought after are "ideas". So it seems that in the examples we have, when you διώκων people you are persecuting them (chasing after them), but when you διώκων ideas you are seeking them in a positive sense, like pursuing peace. So διώκων essentially means pursue, but depending on the context you are either pursuing someone in a hostile manner or pursuing an idea in a positive manner.

So that's the big challenge here. Are there any known cases in the Greek language that resemble the reading I am proposing?

But, I think the problems I've outlined with these passages still exist. The context is quite bizarre.

And also, why does Paul call the congregation in Corinth Tē ekklēsia tou Theou? This is a term that Jews would believe applied to Israel. Jews would not perceive tē ekklēsia tou Theou as designating a foreign or alternative religious institution or body. A Jew reading about tē ekklēsia tou Theou, would assume a Jewish congregation meeting in Corinth. Does Paul not refer to the congregation in Corinth as tē ekklēsia tou Theou in order to be inclusive -- to indicate that they are a part of the holy congregation of Israel? If so, then how could he refer to tēn ekklēsian as something distinct and separate from Israel?

So again, simply "persecuting the assembly" is a very unclear statement that would sound extremely strange to a reader, who would assume that Paul was talking about persecuting a Jewish congregation or persecuting the holy body of Israel, which of course would make no sense. That's exactly why English Bibles use the word "church" to try and clarify the passage, because the fact is that the Greek is not at all clear.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by MrMacSon »

I think Pauline commentary is (often) baiting and switching ... and gaslighting ... and 'turning the tables' ...
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by Charles Wilson »

rgprice wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:32 pm So again, simply "persecuting the assembly" is a very unclear statement that would sound extremely strange to a reader, who would assume that Paul was talking about persecuting a Jewish congregation or persecuting the holy body of Israel, which of course would make no sense. That's exactly why English Bibles use the word "church" to try and clarify the passage, because the fact is that the Greek is not at all clear.
From my POV, this is answered at the end of the Interregnum:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"Amidst all this a mutiny in the army all but broke out. The troops who, having been disbanded by Vitellius, had flocked to support Vespasian, asked leave to serve again in the Praetorian Guard, and the soldiers who had been selected from the legions with the same prospect now clamoured for their promised pay. Even the Vitellianists could not be got rid of without much bloodshed. But the money required for retaining in the service so vast a body of men was immensely large. Mucianus entered the camp to examine more accurately the individual claims. The victorious army, wearing their proper decorations and arms, he drew up with moderate intervals of space between the divisions; then the Vitellianists, whose capitulation at Bovillae I have already related, and the other troops of the party, who had been collected from the capital and its neighbourhood, were brought forth almost naked. Mucianus ordered these men to be drawn up apart, making the British, the German, and any other troops that there were belonging to other armies, take up separate positions. The very first view of their situation paralyzed them. They saw opposed to them what seemed a hostile array, threatening them with javelin and sword. They saw themselves hemmed in, without arms, filthy and squalid. And when they began to be separated, some to be marched to one spot, and some to another, a thrill of terror ran through them all. Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."

"...They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods..."

Mark 15: 36 (RSV):

[36] And one ran and, filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Eli'jah will come to take him down."

The first part of this verse is vicious Satire at Vitellius' expense (See: Asiaticus and Posca).
Vitellius, however is dead:

"...till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."

The Congregation was persecuted.

There is a further Clue: In John, we have the "Seamless Garment":

John 19: 23 - 24 (RSV):

[23] When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom;
[24] so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfil the scripture, "They parted my garments among them,and for my clothing they cast lots."

There is a garment that is "without seam". It is called a cuirass and it was worn to prevent a sword from splitting the seams of a segmented armor or a sewn leather covering.

Galba wore one at his death:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"...he [Galba] decided to do no more than hold his present position and strengthen it by getting together a guard of the legionaries, who were encamped in many different quarters of the city. He did however put on a linen cuirass, though he openly declared that it would afford little protection against so many swords..."

Now, compare the "Count" of the Groups brought together in Tacitus as Mucianus steps in. In John the are four garments PLUS the seamless cuirass.

Q: HOW MANY GROUPS? WHO GETS THE CUIRASS?
A: THEY ALL DO!!

The use of "Seamless Garment" in John is genius.
The "Congregation" WAS persecuted and if the Civil War had continued, might have been wiped out..."until Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."
[Edit Note: I left out a sentence or two: Notice that the Cuirass covers "The Body". The Groups are now ALL one - The Legions protect each other.]

Very, very DEEP.

CW
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by gryan »

So much of language and life depends on context: pursuit of an enemy is war, pursuit of the beloved is courting. But when does courting become stalking? And when does the line between love and war become as blurry as this command of Jesus is blurry? According to gMatt, he said, "Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!"

I suppose the law observant (gMatt type) followers of Jesus in Damascus not only prayed for Paul as the account in Acts makes explicit after his conversion; but also that they started praying for him at first contact, even before he declared that he had become become one of them.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by rgprice »

Resurrecting this thread, with a new piece of evidence in support of the OP:

In On the Change of Names Philo writes:

(204) Very righteously, therefore, does the good man pray that this his only son, Ishmael, may be sound in mind and health, because of those persons who do not listen in a sincere spirit to the sacred admonitions, whom Moses has expressly forbidden to come into the assembly of the Ruler of the universe, (205) for those men are broken as to the generative parts of their minds, or are even rendered completely impotent in that respect, who magnify their own minds, and their external sense, as the only causes of all the events which take place among men; and there are others who are lovers of a system of polytheism, and who honour the company which is devoted to the service of many gods, being the sons of a harlot, having no knowledge of the one husband and father of the virtue-loving soul, namely, God; and are not all these men very properly driven away and banished from the assembly of God?

Here Philo uses the term "assembly of God" in a manner that I propose it was originally used in the Pauline letters. The "assembly of God" that "Paul" refers to was not anything inherently "Christian" it is something that any Jew would have assumed was a Jewish body, not something separate. The "assembly of God" that Paul refers to must be a Jewish body of worship.

More on Philo's description of sacred assemblies. Here Philo is talking about the exclusion of cross-dressers from the assembly:

LXIII. (344) The advocates of the mind and of the outward senses, having put these arguments together, make gods of both of them, the one deifying the first, and the other the last; both classes out of their self-will and self-conceit forgetting the truly living God. On which account the lawgiver very naturally excludes them all from the sacred assembly, calling those who would take away the ideas, broken in the stones, and those too who are utterly atheistical, to whom he has given the appropriate name of eunuchs; and those who are the teachers of an opposite system of theogony, whom he calls the sons of a harlot; and besides all these classes he excludes also the self-willed and self-conceited, some of whom have deified reason, and others have called each separate one of the outward senses gods.
-Delineation of the Mosaic Legislation for non-Jews


(29) They have also writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation, whom they take as a kind of model, and imitate the general fashion of their sect; so that they do not occupy themselves solely in contemplation, but they likewise compose psalms and hymns to God in every kind of metre and melody imaginable, which they of necessity arrange in more dignified rhythm. (30) Therefore, during six days, each of these individuals, retiring into solitude by himself, philosophies by himself in one of the places called monasteries, never going outside the threshold of the outer court, and indeed never even looking out. But on the seventh day they all come together as if to meet in a sacred assembly, and they sit down in order according to their ages with all becoming gravity, keeping their hands inside their garments, having their right hand between their chest and their dress, and the left hand down by their side, close to their flank; (31) and then the eldest of them who has the most profound learning in their doctrines, comes forward and speaks with steadfast look and with steadfast voice, with great powers of reasoning, and great prudence, not making an exhibition of his oratorical powers like the rhetoricians of old, or the sophists of the present day, but investigating with great pains, and explaining with minute accuracy the precise meaning of the laws, which sits, not indeed at the tips of their ears, but penetrates through their hearing into the soul, and remains there lastingly; and all the rest listen in silence to the praises which he bestows upon the law, showing their assent only by nods of the head, or the eager look of the eyes. (32) And this common holy place to which they all come together on the seventh day is a twofold circuit, being separated partly into the apartment of the men, and partly into a chamber for the women, for women also, in accordance with the usual fashion there, form a part of the audience, having the same feelings of admiration as the men, and having adopted the same sect with equal deliberation and decision; (33) and the wall which is between the houses rises from the ground three or four cubits upwards, like a battlement, and the upper portion rises upwards to the roof without any opening, on two accounts; first of all, in order that the modesty which is so becoming to the female sex may be preserved, and secondly, that the women may be easily able to comprehend what is said being seated within earshot, since there is then nothing which can possibly intercept the voice of him who is speaking.
- On the Contemplative Life

Here Philo is talking about the adoption of refugee converts:
XXI. (105) Moreover, extending and carrying further that humanity which is naturally so attractive, he also gives commandments respecting sojourners, thinking it fitting that those persons who, through any temporary distresses, have been driven from their homes should requite those who have received them with a certain degree of honour, with all imaginable respect, if they have done good to them and have treated them with friendliness and hospitality, and with a moderate degree of respect of they have done nothing more than merely receiving them into the land; for to be allowed to abide in a city with which one is wholly unconnected, or, I might even say, to be allowed only to tread on the soil which belongs to another, is in itself a bounty of sufficient magnitude for those persons who are unable to dwell in their own land. (106) But the lawgiver here, going beyond all the ordinary boundaries of humanity, thinks it fitting and ordains that such sojourners shall bear no ill-will even to those men who, after having received them in the land, may have ill-treated them, since, though their actions may not have been kind, their name at least resembles the characteristics of humanity. Therefore he says, in express terms, "Thou shalt not curse the Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in the land of Egypt." (107) And yet what evil did the Egyptians ever omit to inflict upon this nation, being continually adding new devices of cruelty to the old ones, and proceeding by all sorts of fresh contrivances to heap inhumanity on inhumanity? But, nevertheless, because originally they received them in the land, not shutting their cities against them, and not making their country inaccessible to them when they first came, the lawgiver says, "Let them, as a reward for their friendly reception of you, have a treaty of peace with you. (108) And if any of them should be willing to forsake their old ways and to come over to the customs and constitutions of the Jews, they are not to be rejected and treated with hostility as the children of enemies, but to be received in such a manner that in the third generation they may be admitted into the assembly, and may have a share of the divine words read to them, being instructed in the will of God equally with the natives of the land, the descendants of God's chosen people.
- On the Virtues

gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by gryan »

@rgprice

It seems to me, on initial inspection of the writings below, that you are making a pretty good case for what Tertullian thought Marcion thought.

Did Tertullian's Latin word for persecute (What was the Latin word?), below, mean pursue?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.1.6: [6] Nam et Saulis primo asperitas insectationis erga David, dehinc paenitentia et satisfactio, bona pro malis recipientis, non aliud portendebat quam Paulum in Saule secundum tribus et Iesum in David secundum virginis censum. Haec figurarum sacramenta si tibi displicent, certe Acta Apostolorum hunc mihi ordinem Pauli tradiderunt, a te quoque non negandum. Inde apostolum ostendo persecutorem, non ab hominibus neque per hominem; inde et ipsi credere inducor; inde te a defensione eius expello, nec timeo dicentem, Tu ergo negas apostolum Paulum? Non blasphemo quem tueor. Nego, ut te probare compellam. / [6] Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul----belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe----and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy. Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor [or pursuer?] he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man; " thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.2.4-7: [4] Igitur tota intentio epistulae istius nihil aliud docet quam legis discessionem venientem de creatoris dispositione, ut adhuc suggeremus. Si item nullius novi dei exserit mentionem, quod nusquam magis fecisset quam in ista materia, ut rationem scilicet ablegandae legis unica hac et sufficientissima definitione proponeret novae divinitatis, apparet quomodo scribat, Miror vos tam cito transferri ab eo qui vos vocavit in gratiam ad aliud evangelium, ex conversatione aliud, non ex religione, ex disciplina, non ex divinitate: quoniam quidem evangelium Christi a lege evocare deberet ad gratiam, non a creatore ad alium deum. [5] Nemo enim illos moverat a creatore, ut viderentur sic ad aliud evangelium transferri quasi dum ad creatorem transferuntur. Nam et adiciens quod aliud evangelium omnino non esset, creatoris confirmat id quod esse defendit. Si enim et creator evangelium repromittit, dicens per Esaiam, Ascende in montem excelsum, qui evangelizas Sioni, extolle vocem in valentia tua, qui evangelizas Hierusalem; item ad apostolorum personam, Quam tempestivi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona, utique et nationibus evangelizantium, quoniam et, In nomine eius, inquit, nationes sperabunt, Christi scilicet, cui ait, Posui te in lumen nationum; est autem evangelium etiam dei novi, quod vis tunc ab apostolo defensum; iam ergo duo sunt evangelia apud duos deos, et mentitus erit apostolus dicens quod aliud omnino non est, cum sit et aliud, cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret. Sed fortasse, ut fugias hinc, Et ideo, dices, subtexuit, Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit, quia et creatorem sciebat evangelizaturum. [6] Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris. Duo enim evangelia confirmare non est eius qui aliud iam negarit. Tamen lucet sensus eius qui suam praemisit personam: Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit. Verbi enim gratia dictum est.Ceterum si nec ipse aliter evangelizaturus, utique nec angelus. Ita angelum ad hoc nominavit, quo multo magis hominibus non esset credendum, quando nec angelo nec apostolo, non angelum ad evangelium referret creatoris. [7] Exinde decurrens ordinem conversionis suae de persecutore in apostolum scripturam Apostolicorum confirmat, apud quam ipsa etiam epistulae istius materia recognoscitur, intercessisse quosdam qui dicerent circumcidi oportere et observandam esse Moysi legem, tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos ex auctoritate spiritus renuntiasse non esse imponenda onera hominibus quae patres ipsi non potuissent sustinere. Quodsi et ex hoc congruunt Paulo Apostolorum Acta, cur ea respuatis iam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nec promissio spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita quam de instrumento Actorum. Quae utique verisimile non est ex parte quidem apostolo convenire, cum ordinem eius secundum ipsius testimonium ostendunt, ex parte vero dissidere, cum divinitatem in Christo creatoris annuntiant, ut praedicationem quidem apostolorum non sit secutus Paulus, qui formam ab eis dedocendae legis accepit. / [4] Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator----a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind. Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law----especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another gospel" ----He means) "another" as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. [5] For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator, that they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another," he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: "Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem." Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good" ----even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the Gentiles trust; " that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have given thee as a light of the Gentiles." However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel, since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! [6] But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel." It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said "angel" in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply an angel to the gospel of the Creator. [7] He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor [or pursuer?] to an apostle----confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear." Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ----as if Paul did not follow the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription of not teaching the Law.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Re-interpreting the "persecutions" of Paul

Post by Irish1975 »

There is also 1 Corinthians 15:9 to consider—
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Regardless of what original facts there might have been, that this apostle really was a persecutor of the “Church of God,” or rather a devout adherent, the canonical narrative is not easily dislodged. And I think what is most important to recognize, as in your analysis, is that Paul’s testimony against Judaism and the Law, and in favor of a faith in salvation through Christ, is powerfully enhanced by the claim that he used to be the quintessential zealous Jew. The analogy with contemporary American politics is spot on. Think of abortion. When one side wants to discredit the other, nothing is more valuable than the story and testimony of someone who had once been a zealot for the other side, but then defected. Like Frank Schaeffer, or Jane Roe herself.

Violence and intolerance had, after all, been a feature of a certain type of Judaism since the Maccabean Revolt. The Hasmoneans forced large populations (eg in Galilee) to have their males circumcized. But what matters is not so much the facts on the ground in the time of the writing of Galatians, or its later editing, but the big honking stereotype of the zealous Jew giving way to a faith in mercy and grace. The Lukan story of Paul as zealous persecutor of Christians serves this purpose.

The larger point and purpose of Galatians, Romans, Acts is the discrediting and the termination of the Law of Moses, in favor of something new. That’s what all these texts are really about. Catholics and Marcionites shared this common goal, and they both found it convenient to associate this revolution with the career of the apostle Paul.

However, I’m not so sure that our witnesses for Marcion’s Apostolikon support the narrative of Paul as persecutor. What did matter for Marcion, according to many scholars, is the idea that believers in Christ would have their faith tested by worldly persecutions. Marcion was a great believer in martyrdom. But I don’t know that he would have known Paul to be a persecutor of Christians. None of these texts seem to be in BeDuhn’s edition.
Post Reply