Re: What evidence from Pauline Letters (aside from Paul's claims) do we have that he was a pharisee and a Jewish scholar
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:10 pm
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.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:
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.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.
See the whole article.
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).
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