What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:10 pm Darrell Doughty's article "Citizens of Heaven: Philippians 3:2-21 as a Deutero-Pauline Passage" brings some much needed skepticism to the Pharisee claim:
The portrait of Paul in Philippians 3:4-9 is exceptional. Elsewhere Paul's previous persecution of the church of God testifies that his call to be an apostle was by the grace of God (1 Cor 15:9-10; Gal 1:13-15). In Phil 3, however, it serves as evidence for his righteousness under the law. Nowhere else in the Pauline writings is Paul identified as a Pharisee. And nowhere else in these writings is there an appeal to Paul's blamelessness with regard to righteousness under the law. Only in Acts, where Paul's strict observance of the law is a central concern, are both his identity as a Pharisee and his persecution of the church set forth as evidence of his blameless conduct as a Jew (Acts 22:3-5; 26:4-5, 11). Nowhere else does Paul refer to Christ as "my Lord" (v 8), although such language is implied by the accounts of Paul's Damascus experience in Acts (9:5; 22:8; 26:15). Nowhere else does Paul speak in such a way of "gaining Christ" (v 8) or being "found in Christ" (v 9); and the meaning of this language is obscure.
This wholly polemical passage (most of chapter 3 of Philippians!), in other words, has all the marks of being from a later time, and from the circle that composed Acts. It is highly polemical, and exaggerates all the themes of more genuine Pauline texts. The purpose is to define Christianity over against Judaism in the crudest way possible, to claim that Christians are the true Israel, that those who practice circumcision (i.e. Jews as such) are "dogs," and so forth.

See the whole article.
I did not find Doughty's argument compelling. In particular, his main contention that the opponents portrayed in Phil. 3.2-21 are Jews and Judaism in general rather than particular Judaizing missionaries who wish Paul's circumcise Paul's gentile converts is not a necessary reading of the text.

But possible interpretations
of this passage are related to assumptions concerning its
authorship. If this passage were written by Paul, it might be
reasonable to assume that Judaizing opponents of some kind are in
view. If the teachings in this passage are addressed to a deutero-
Pauline situation, however, other interpretations might be more
plausible. And, conversely, the plausibility of a different interpretation
of these teachings would support their deutero-Pauline
character. We will first argue that the image of the apostle in Phil
3.4-9 is deutero-Pauline, and then propose an interpretation of
this material that reflects a deutero-Pauline situation. But these
arguments are interdependent [Doughty, 106-107).

This is certainly true. If the teachings are addressed to a post-Pauline situation, we might read it in a different way. But I see no compelling reasons to assume it is. The opponents against whom Paul is polemicizing in Philippians 3 might well be Jewish-Christian missionaries who wish to circumcise Paul's gentile converts ('mutilate the flesh), just as the opponents in Galatians 5.12 are, about whom Paul says: 'I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!'. The boasting in this section is very similar in tone to that in 2 Cor 11.21-29:

Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. 27 I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28 Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

And then there's the passage from Gal. 1.13-14 that John 2 has already cited:

13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. 14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

In Galatians, Philippians, and 2 Corinthians, Paul is laying out his credentials against the those of opposing missionaries. In each case, there are elements he doesn't use in the other two, but there is a strong family resemblance among the three.

Nor do I find it particularly un-Pauline for the author to say that he was blameless as to righteousness under the law. In 1 Cor. 4.4 he says he is not aware of anything against himself. There are also some similarities between Philippians 3 and the other letters that would suggest, if the passage is indeed post-Pauline, the author studied Paul's letters and grasped Paul's thought better than the author of Acts did. These include Paul's urging the Philippians to 'imitate me' (as opposed to following other teachers) just as he had the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4.16, and the righteousness that comes from the "faith in/of Jesus Christ' in 3.9. I don't see what would compel us to reject Phil. 3.2-21 as non-Pauline if we are accepting Philippians as authentic in the first place (though I realize many on this forum would not).

Best,

Ken
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by StephenGoranson »

The (that is, some of the) rabbis (post-war) may have been more negative toward "kinds" of Jews than Pharisees had been, if they wished to represent a more broad and unified group, and may have had some ambivalence toward the name Pharisee, "separatists" being perhaps more bothersome than "specifiers.”

Albert I. Baumgarten in “The Name of the Pharisees“ JBL (1983) 411-28 wrote that the name can have those two above meanings, though I vaguely recall that he later remarked that he would, on reflection, rewrite parts of that article.

(Though it is not a translation, the English word “discriminating” may have somewhat analogous uses. One might say, e.g., that Eugene Ormandy’s Philadelphia Orchestra, especially the strings, had fine discriminating taste in the Brahms symphony. Another might say that person Y showed his bigoted intolerant discriminating attitudes.)

Maybe consider the ySanh 29c (retrospective?) claim that Israel did not go into exile until there were 24 "sects [kitot] of minim.” In a later interpretation, 24 represents 12 tribes divided.

And maybe Sota 22b [Wm. Davidson translation]
https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.22b.2?lang=bi [for Hebrew]
§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by StephenGoranson »

If the above-posted trajectory of the name is valid, then is it more plausible that Paul called himself a Pharisee before the war?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:10 pm I did not find Doughty's argument compelling.
I have to take issue with your claim about circularity, but appreciate hearing your thoughts. I am planning a specific thread on the character and probable origin of Philippians, where I will go into more detail.
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:00 pm ...basically I think [Doughty's article on Philippians 3:2-21] is largely circular. He proposes a post-Pauline context for interpreting the passage and then argues that the passage, when understood in that context, is non-Pauline.

But possible interpretations
of this passage are related to assumptions concerning its
authorship. If this passage were written by Paul, it might be
reasonable to assume that Judaizing opponents of some kind are in
view. If the teachings in this passage are addressed to a deutero-
Pauline situation, however, other interpretations might be more
plausible. And, conversely, the plausibility of a different interpretation
of these teachings would support their deutero-Pauline
character. We will first argue that the image of the apostle in Phil
3.4-9 is deutero-Pauline, and then propose an interpretation of
this material that reflects a deutero-Pauline situation. But these
arguments are interdependent [Doughty, 106-107).

This is certainly true. If the teachings are addressed to a post-Pauline situation, we might read it in a different way. But I see no compelling reasons to assume it is.
You say that the argument is circular. Certainly his argument is not found in that one paragraph, which is a bland tribute to the problem of the hermeneutic circle. But if this is one of your principal criticisms of Doughty, it doesn't work for the simple reason that none of his actual analysis of the features of the text, and none of his argument for a later (essentially 2nd century, although he doesn't specify dates) time of origin, are taken into consideration. Read charitably, it is not "basically a circular argument." If he had no arguments for lateness/pseudonymity, that would be one thing. But he does present arguments that should be considered.

You also say that the opponents sound just like the opponents described in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. But what is needed is a close analysis of what is actually said about these opponents in the text of Philippians (i.e. very little). That there is a similarity with 2 Cor and Gal does not count against the claim of pseudonymity/lateness, since the Baur/Doherty hypothesis is that this author imitated those very texts.

Also, the verse about Paul claiming to be blameless as to righteousness under the law certainly deserves more attention.
Last edited by Irish1975 on Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:16 am I am planning a specific thread on the character and probable origin of Philippians, where I will go into more detail.

But if this is one of your principal criticisms of Doherty, it doesn't work for the simple reason that none of his actual analysis of the features of the text, and none of his argument for a later (essentially 2nd century, although he doesn't specify dates) time of origin, are taken into consideration. Read charitably, it is not "basically a circular argument." If he had no arguments for lateness/pseudonymity, that would be one thing. But he does present arguments that should be considered.

But what is needed is a close analysis of what is actually said about these opponents in the text of Philippians (i.e. very little).

Also, the verse about Paul claiming to be blameless as to righteousness under the law certainly deserves more attention.
When you post your first post in the forthcoming thread, going into more detail, considering the arguments Doughty presents, performing the needed close analysis of what Paul actually said about the opponents, and giving the deserved attention to Paul's claim to be blameless, I will be happy to read it and respond to it.

I should be particularly grateful if you spell out how we can tell (as Doughty claims to be able to) that the opponents in Phillipians 3 are Jews and Judaism as such rather than Jewish/Judaizing missionaries such as we find in other Pauline letters.

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by Secret Alias »

It seems ludicrous to suggest that Paul was a Pharisee. IF it were a falsification by a Catholic editor of the Pauline canon (in the possession of Marcionites) the motivation is obvious - viz. to 're-contextualize' his claim the authority of the Law was over. The difficulty of course is that we don't know what the Marcionites meant by 'the Law is over.' But clearly it would be akin to saying that Epstein was a devout Catholic as a result of the photo which shows him with Pope Benedict.

Image

I'd argue the following way:

1. Christianity is a religion was assumes the end of the Law based on a messianic interpretation of the seventy weeks prophesy.
2. the historical 'Paul' (whoever that was) invented this religion and this understanding of Daniel
3. the Catholic editor of the canon (I'd assume Irenaeus) forged Acts and sprinkled bits into a falsified Pauline canon about him being a Pharisee
4. it was all part of an effort to react to arguments found in Celsus that Christianity was an anti-Jewish religion

Given that Pharisaism was considered to be acceptable at the time Irenaeus was writing (likely under the influence of Judah haNasi) the rehabilitation of Christianity as a 'rebellion' religion was epitomized by the invention of Paul the Pharisee.

It should be noted that even what was called 'Pharisaism' in the late second century might also have been a glossed over version of the original movement.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by Secret Alias »

It is worth noting that 'Paul the Pharisee' is only one of many 'Pauls.' Our culture has latched on to this nonsense but the other Paul's are worth noting:

1. Paul the Samaritan (i.e. a corollary of Paul = Simon in the Clementines)
2. Paul the Egyptian (the 'mistake' of Acts 21:28)
3. Paul the one whom Christ speaks through (2 Corinthians 13:3 etc) it is hard to believe that a Pharisee claimed that a resurrected messiah or an alien being called 'Christ' lived in side him and spoke through him. This is the Marcionite Paul (who might also be 1 and 2 above). The one thing that is certain is that Marcionites did not believe Paul was a Pharisee or a student of Gamaliel and the rest of this ahistorical garbage.

Let's face it. Academics are just good at mimicking the nonsense that has been 'settled' about Christian origins for the last thousand years. They're part of a movement that just 'updates' dogma to make it fit the contemporary age (and not seem archaic). You know, like those 'cool evangelists' or teen masses in the Catholic tradition. The bottom line is that we don't know who Paul was. That's the only truthful statement that can be made about the subject.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by schillingklaus »

There is no evidence whatsoever, only superstition and propaganda.

Paul exists only in the mind of apologists and sheeple scholars, who associate him with whatever they need to do in order to promote their superstition; so he was not even a human, let alone a pharisee and scribe.
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by lclapshaw »

schillingklaus wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:22 pm There is no evidence whatsoever, only superstition and propaganda.

Paul exists only in the mind of apologists and sheeple scholars, who associate him with whatever they need to do in order to promote their superstition; so he was not even a human, let alone a pharisee and scribe.
Wouldn't a 'sheeple scholar' be someone that would just accept your unsubstantiated claim here? :wtf:
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar

Post by Ken Olson »

lclapshaw wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:56 pm
schillingklaus wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 11:22 pm There is no evidence whatsoever, only superstition and propaganda.

Paul exists only in the mind of apologists and sheeple scholars, who associate him with whatever they need to do in order to promote their superstition; so he was not even a human, let alone a pharisee and scribe.
Wouldn't a 'sheeple scholar' be someone that would just accept your unsubstantiated claim here? :wtf:
I've never met a sheeple scholar or even a sheeple non-scholar. In my experience, the word sheeple is used as a short-cut by people who do not want to do the intellectual work of logically justifying their own positions (i.e., they make unsubstantiated claims, as you put it), but instead satisfy themselves with disparaging others who hold different positions.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply