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
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 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 neilgodfrey »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:02 pm I'm going to skip the question about whether Paul was a Pharisee for the moment because it requires some discussion about exactly what a Pharisee is. . .
Hi Ken ... I presume there are published discussions on the nature of Pharisaism in the time of Jesus. Can you direct us to some, please?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 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 ABuddhist »

John2 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:41 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:36 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:25 pm Well, I don;t know how honest Paul was (generally speaking), but he does say in Gal. 1:13 that, "For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism," which could mean that his credentials were known.
From whom would Paul's audience have heard such things? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a distinct possibility that they may have heard such things from Paul himself or from Paul's followers repeating what Paul said - rather like Yogi Bhajan's followers learning about his allegedly vast stature within Sikhism from him and his followers.

The same way Christians in Judea heard that he had persecuted Christians in Gal. 1:22-23.

I was personally unknown, however, to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the account: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”
With all due respect, though, Paul does not explicitly say that the people discussing his credentials were basing their knowledge upon the same sources (viz., reports by Christians who had know Paul when he was a Jew).
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 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 John2 »

Paul says that he met Peter in person, and since I think 1 Peter is genuine, perhaps Galatians had heard about Paul from him or from others who knew or were in contact with Peter.

1 Peter 1:1: "To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia").
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 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 ABuddhist »

John2 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:50 pm Paul says that he met Peter in person, and since I think 1 Peter is genuine, perhaps Galatians had heard about Paul from him or from others who knew or were in contact with Peter.

1 Peter 1:1: "To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia").
1. But you are adding such a thing to the text.

2. The claim that 1 Peter is genuinely by Peter is rejected by mainstream biblical scholarship and even among mythicists and non-Christian alternative theorists seems to be rarely accepted (although I recall that 1 mythicist accepts it, whose name I forget). Maybe you should discuss your reasoning (or link me to it if you have written about it before).
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:02 pm I'm going to skip the question about whether Paul was a Pharisee for the moment because it requires some discussion about exactly what a Pharisee is. . .
Hi Ken ... I presume there are published discussions on the nature of Pharisaism in the time of Jesus. Can you direct us to some, please?
Neil,

Steve Mason has discussed Pharisees in Josephus a good bit. Several of the papers collected in Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (2009) discuss them. He's posted at least one of the papers on his Academia.edu site here:

https://www.academia.edu/11105193/Phari ... Philosophy

Mason's observation that Josephus's descriptions of the four philosophies is warped both by his attempt to describe them as parallels to Greek philosophical schools and his desire to push the blame for the war on to the fourth philosophy has been noted on the forum before.

Shaye Cohen discusses the Pharisees in From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (2e 2006). He's especially interested in the question of the relationship between Pharisaic Judaism and later Rabbinic Judaism. Some scholars use the terms Pharisees and Rabbis nearly interchangeably for the group that became dominant in the synagogues after the Jewish War. Cohen insists that they are not interchangeable, but that the Pharisees are in a sense the intellectual forebears of the Rabbis. One of the key pieces of evidence concerns the the family of Hillel, which produced Gamaliel (identified as a Pharisee in Acts), and Simon, son of Gamaliel (identified as a Pharisee in Josephus' Life), and Rabbi Judah the Prince (who compiled the Mishnah c.200 CE) seems to have been recognized as the leading Rabbinic family in the later Rabbinic literature (the Mishnah/Talmud) was also identified as the leading Pharisaic family earlier.

But Cohen also points out that the picture is complex, as the term Perushim ('separatists') from which the Greek word Pharisees derives, seems to have been used in various different ways in the Rabbinic literature. At times it seems to have a negative connotation, as in the text expelling the Separatists (Perushim) from the synagogues. This is a puzzle. Was there a sect of Pharisees (Perushim) in control of the synagogues expelling a different group of Perushim ('Separatists') from membership? That seems unlikely or at least really confusing. The word could also be used in a sense like Hasidim or 'Pious Ones' that separated themselves from other Jews in order to practice the Mosaic law more strictly. There are also passages in the Talmud that describe debates between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (and the later Rabbis generally side with the Pharisees' opinions). This is all, of course, an over-simplification as I am not a specialist in the area.

The reason I brought it up with regard to the question of whether Paul was a Pharisee is that the author of Acts seems to have understood Paul to be a Pharisee in the sense of a member of a Judean sect who had studied under Gamaliel himself. I wonder, though, if Phillipians 3.5 might not be better understood as Paul claiming he had belonged to a group of pious Jews who separated themselves from other Jews to obey the Mosaic Law in a stricter fashion.

Best,

Ken
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 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 John2 »

ABuddhist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:24 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:50 pm Paul says that he met Peter in person, and since I think 1 Peter is genuine, perhaps Galatians had heard about Paul from him or from others who knew or were in contact with Peter.

1 Peter 1:1: "To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia").
1. But you are adding such a thing to the text.

2. The claim that 1 Peter is genuinely by Peter is rejected by mainstream biblical scholarship and even among mythicists and non-Christian alternative theorists seems to be rarely accepted (although I recall that 1 mythicist accepts it, whose name I forget). Maybe you should discuss your reasoning (or link me to it if you have written about it before).

Well, we don't really need 1 Peter to know that Peter knew Paul and traveled (at least as far as Antioch) and preached to Jews, and any of those Jews who knew him could have told the Galatians about Paul.

But I think 1 Peter is genuine because It is addressed to Jews only (in keeping with Peter's mission according to Paul), is pro-Torah observance (like Paul's opponents in Galatians and Peter and all the Jews in the Antioch church), it claims to have been have been written by an elder (as Jewish Christian leaders are called in Acts) and to have known Jesus (5:1" "As a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings"), and it has a special regard for Mark, who is said by Papias (who I regard as a great source) to have been a follower of Peter (5:13: "my son Mark").

And it has ideas that were current in pre-70 CE Judaism, like being a spiritual Temple and priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices based on the precious cornerstone prophecy.

1 Peter 2:4-6:
... you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “See, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and precious cornerstone ..."
Cf. 1QS col. 8:
It shall be an everlasting plantation, a house of holiness for Israel, an assembly of supreme holiness for Aaron ... it shall be that tried wall, that precious cornerstone ... and shall offer up sweet fragrance ...
Last edited by John2 on Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:18 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 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 neilgodfrey »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:02 pm. . . the family of Hillel, which produced Gamaliel (identified as a Pharisee in Acts), and Simon, son of Gamaliel . . . .
Thanks. One more: can you tell us what are our earliest sources for Hillel and Shammai?

Thx again
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 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 neilgodfrey »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:02 pm I wonder, though, if Phillipians 3.5 might not be better understood as Paul claiming he had belonged to a group of pious Jews who separated themselves from other Jews to obey the Mosaic Law in a stricter fashion.
I am reminded of the later Christian caricature of Pharisees as legalists with scant soul.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:02 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:02 pm. . . the family of Hillel, which produced Gamaliel (identified as a Pharisee in Acts), and Simon, son of Gamaliel . . . .
Thanks. One more: can you tell us what are our earliest sources for Hillel and Shammai?

Thx again
Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus. I'm not aware of any mention of him or Shammai prior to the compilation of the Mishnah c. 200 CE. Scholars have, of course, proposed various methods for dating the material within the Mishnah, but I don't find any of them particularly compelling.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 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 andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:02 pm
Neil,

Steve Mason has discussed Pharisees in Josephus a good bit. Several of the papers collected in Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (2009) discuss them. He's posted at least one of the papers on his Academia.edu site here:

https://www.academia.edu/11105193/Phari ... Philosophy

Mason's observation that Josephus's descriptions of the four philosophies is warped both by his attempt to describe them as parallels to Greek philosophical schools and his desire to push the blame for the war on to the fourth philosophy has been noted on the forum before.

Shaye Cohen discusses the Pharisees in From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (2e 2006). He's especially interested in the question of the relationship between Pharisaic Judaism and later Rabbinic Judaism. Some scholars use the terms Pharisees and Rabbis nearly interchangeably for the group that became dominant in the synagogues after the Jewish War. Cohen insists that they are not interchangeable, but that the Pharisees are in a sense the intellectual forebears of the Rabbis. One of the key pieces of evidence concerns the the family of Hillel, which produced Gamaliel (identified as a Pharisee in Acts), and Simon, son of Gamaliel (identified as a Pharisee in Josephus' Life), and Rabbi Judah the Prince (who compiled the Mishnah c.200 CE) seems to have been recognized as the leading Rabbinic family in the later Rabbinic literature (the Mishnah/Talmud) was also identified as the leading Pharisaic family earlier.

But Cohen also points out that the picture is complex, as the term Perushim ('separatists') from which the Greek word Pharisees derives, seems to have been used in various different ways in the Rabbinic literature. At times it seems to have a negative connotation, as in the text expelling the Separatists (Perushim) from the synagogues. This is a puzzle. Was there a sect of Pharisees (Perushim) in control of the synagogues expelling a different group of Perushim ('Separatists') from membership? That seems unlikely or at least really confusing. The word could also be used in a sense like Hasidim or 'Pious Ones' that separated themselves from other Jews in order to practice the Mosaic law more strictly. There are also passages in the Talmud that describe debates between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (and the later Rabbis generally side with the Pharisees' opinions). This is all, of course, an over-simplification as I am not a specialist in the area.

The reason I brought it up with regard to the question of whether Paul was a Pharisee is that the author of Acts seems to have understood Paul to be a Pharisee in the sense of a member of a Judean sect who had studied under Gamaliel himself. I wonder, though, if Phillipians 3.5 might not be better understood as Paul claiming he had belonged to a group of pious Jews who separated themselves from other Jews to obey the Mosaic Law in a stricter fashion.

Best,

Ken
See Also In Quest of the Historical Pharisees by Neusner and Chilton.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply