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

[robert j]

Setting aside just what exactly made one a “Pharisee” in Paul’s day, it’s important to read Paul’s claim in Philippians. He didn’t claim to be a Pharisee. He claimed that he was “according to law a Pharisee” (3:5). That description would even fit many Sadducees as well, according to Josephus ---

But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them … For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. (Josephus, Antiquities,18)

And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best … So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees … (Josephus, Life)

When Josephus claims to have returned to the city and engage in city affairs, it would be entirely logical for him to have adopted the precepts of the Pharisees as those were apparently the precepts under which the preponderance of Jewish civil and legal affairs were conducted at the time.

I am not aware of any compelling evidence in Paul’s letters to take Paul’s claim in Philippians any further than he had followed the precepts of the Pharisees when involved in Jewish civil affairs. Such was apparently the norm in his day in Judea, and likely also in Jewish enclaves in the larger Levant cities like Damascus.

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

There is no clear evidence in Paul’s letters for the existence of Jewish Christian missionaries working outside of Judea in Paul’s day. Not in Galatians, not in Philippians, and not even for the so-called ‘super-apostles’ in 2 Corinthians. In contrast, Jews were reasonably widely distributed in the areas of Paul’s work, including in Asia Minor.

It’s not hard to see how local Jews would object to Paul’s converts claiming to be full-participants with the Israel of God without the clearly required ritual of circumcision. Conjuring up Jewish Christian opponents hassling Paul’s converts does not find adequate support in the letters, and seems to be based on apologetic translations in the case of 2 Corinthians. The ‘super apostles’ could very reasonably have been professional Jewish missionaries working the Diaspora circuit. Dieter Georgi makes a compelling case for the activities of such Jewish missionaries in chapter 2 of his, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians.

Taking this even further, is there any evidence clearly independent of Paul for the existence of predecessors in the faith in the form of Judean assemblies in Christ, or the leadership triumvirate in Jerusalem? I would actually be thrilled to see it, but I’m not currently aware that any such clearly independent evidence exists.

Absent such independent evidence, I think the most likely solution is that Paul contrived those Judean predecessors to provide a sense of tradition, a spiritual movement in the far away Judean homelands to provide a foundation for his evangelizing work. And Paul trotted-out those figures in Galatians and 1 Corinthians to provide support for his positions and arguments.

The convention of a Judean origin for the Christian faith is so strongly established that I see little hope for any significant movement on that issue for a very long time --- despite the complete lack of any evidence clearly independent of the questionable claims of a single entrepreneurial Jewish specialist on the hunt for Gentile patrons far removed from the Jewish homelands.


ETA: Assumptions here (that I’ve accepted based on my own studies) --- Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians are authentic and adequately intact, and GMark is dependent on Paul's letters. If one doesn't accept those assumptions --- fine and dandy.

[John2]

Setting aside just what exactly made one a “Pharisee” in Paul’s day, it’s important to read Paul’s claim in Philippians. He didn’t claim to be a Pharisee. He claimed that he was “according to law a Pharisee” (3:5). That description would even fit many Sadducees as well, according to Josephus ---

But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them … For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. (Josephus, Antiquities,18)

But Josephus says that it was only "when they become magistrates" that Sadducees went along with "the notions of the Pharisees." Otherwise they did their own thing, as noted in Rabbinic writings and Josephus' statement (left out of your citation above) that "they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent."

I am not aware of any compelling evidence in Paul’s letters to take Paul’s claim in Philippians any further than he had followed the precepts of the Pharisees when involved in Jewish civil affairs.

What about resurrection of the dead? Maybe Paul didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead until he became a Christian, but he appears to have been well-versed in the idea afterwards (e.g., 1 Cor. 15) and it fits with what he says in Gal. 1:14, for what else do you suppose were "the traditions of my fathers" he says he had been "extremely zealous for" in his "former way of life in Judaism" if not the oral Torah of the Pharisees?

As Josephus says In Ant. 17.2.4, "there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers ... These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees."

And in Ant. 13.10.6, Josephus says that, "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."

[robert j]

I am not aware of any compelling evidence in Paul’s letters to take Paul’s claim in Philippians any further than he had followed the precepts of the Pharisees when involved in Jewish civil affairs.

What about resurrection of the dead?

Right. Poor wording on my part.

I have previously acknowledged that Paul apparently followed some similar doctrines of the Pharisees in relation to the concept of resurrection from the dead ---

Paul claimed to have once followed the precepts of the Pharisees “according to the law” (Philippians 3:5). I suspect Paul’s system carried along at least some basic assumptions from Pharisaic concepts of resurrection.

If one can rely on the report of Josephus --- the Pharisees believed in some sort of embodied resurrection of the righteous ---

They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, --- but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment … (Josephus, Wars 2.8.14)

This Pharisaic concept of being “removed into other bodies” is clearly reflected in Paul’s extended arguments about the nature of the resurrected body (1 Corinthians 15:35-56) ---

So also the resurrection from the dead: It is sown in decay; it is raised in immortality. … It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body … (1 Cor 15:42-44)

More from Josephus about the Pharisees ---

They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people … (Josephus, Ant. 18.1.3)

If we can rely on Josephus here, a great many of the people followed the doctrines of the Pharisees. Did that make all those people Pharisees? I don’t know. It comes down to just what exactly made one a “Pharisee” in Paul’s day. I tend to think some specialized education was necessary to have been officially recognized as a Pharisee, as opposed to the many that merely adhered to the teachings of the Pharisees.

Certainly Paul was well educated, but the clues I find in his letters lead me to think that his education was as a scribe, i.e., a lawyer that would have followed the legal precepts of the Pharisees by which Jewish legal affairs were typically conducted. And that fits quite well with Paul's carefully worded, characterized, and precise claim --- “according to law a Pharisee”.

Just spit-balling now, but I suspect Paul previously engaged in mundane work like writing contracts, wills, and such for a fee.

[John2]

If we can rely on Josephus here, a great many of the people followed the doctrines of the Pharisees. Did that make all those people Pharisees? I don’t know. It comes down to just what exactly made one a “Pharisee” in Paul’s day. I tend to think some specialized education was necessary to have been officially recognized as a Pharisee, as opposed to the many that merely adhered to the teachings of the Pharisees.

Think of it this way. Most Jews aren't rabbis, but most Jews toe the Rabbinic line to one degree or another, and that makes them Rabbinic Jews. Paul and Josephus may not have been "officially recognized" as rabbis (whatever that may have entailed back then), but if they "adhered to the teachings of the Pharisees" (to whatever extent) then they were Pharisaic Jews.

And in this sense, I think more or less all Jewish Christians (including Jesus) and other Fourth Philosophers were Pharisaic Jews (of a "radical" sort), whether they were "officially recognized" as such or not, because they believed in what Josephus calls "Pharisaic notions" (like the resurrection of the dead and tefillin).

[andrewcriddle]

Setting aside just what exactly made one a “Pharisee” in Paul’s day, it’s important to read Paul’s claim in Philippians. He didn’t claim to be a Pharisee. He claimed that he was “according to law a Pharisee” (3:5). That description would even fit many Sadducees as well, according to Josephus ---

But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them … For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. (Josephus, Antiquities,18)

And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best … So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees … (Josephus, Life)

When Josephus claims to have returned to the city and engage in city affairs, it would be entirely logical for him to have adopted the precepts of the Pharisees as those were apparently the precepts under which the preponderance of Jewish civil and legal affairs were conducted at the time.

Meier Marginal Jew volume 3 claims that this account by Josephus in the Life is a straightforward lie.

Andrew Criddle

[StephenGoranson]

Though I do not regard Meier's Marginal Jew books to be entirely reliable on subjects of Essenes and Pharisees, I would say that either Josephus lied in this case, or, possibly more accurately, tried a whopping exaggeration. Three years is too short to be fully inside all three groups, even if they would all welcome him, which, further, is iffy. His claim to settle as Pharisee seems opportunist, additionally so for one possibly born with an "in" with Sadducees, the smallest group of the three.

[lclapshaw]

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?

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

I agree with you generally, thought it can be done well by some viewtopic.php?p=144159#p144159 Federico Augustanus Research Team indeed

Lane

[robert j]

And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best … So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees … (Josephus, Life)

When Josephus claims to have returned to the city and engage in city affairs, it would be entirely logical for him to have adopted the precepts of the Pharisees as those were apparently the precepts under which the preponderance of Jewish civil and legal affairs were conducted at the time.

Meier Marginal Jew volume 3 claims that this account by Josephus in the Life is a straightforward lie.

Andrew Criddle

... I would say that either Josephus lied in this case, or, possibly more accurately, tried a whopping exaggeration. Three years is too short to be fully inside all three groups ...

Yes, I agree. My use of Josephus was in support of the concept that the preponderance of Jewish civil and legal affairs were apparently conducted according to the precepts of the Pharisees at the time.

I have similar concerns about the biographical claims of Josephus here ---

That said, Josephus’ own account is certainly fishy.

And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: - The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all; so I contented myself with hard fare, and underwent great difficulties, and went through them all. Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years. So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees … (Josephus, Life)

Josephus claims to have spent only three years to become acquainted with the sects of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes --- all the while during those same 3 years he claimed to have lived in the desert, used no other clothing than grew upon trees, had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day.