“PharLap” <> wrote in message .

> In article <>, “Paul Weary”

> <> wrote:

> > In fact the direction of modern critical scholarship (most notably the

work > > of E P Sanders) is to emphasise both Jesus’ *and Paul’s* Jewishness.

>

> Far from it – can’t agree here. Increasingly Pauls “Roman-ness”

> especially in his character is being recognised.

No!!! The trend over the past 50 years has been increasingly to recognise Paul’s Jewishness and to try to allow him to speak for himself rather than through Lutheran spectacles. But don’t take my word for it – the following works are just a sample of what has been written in support of this POV.

Davies, W.D. ‘Paul and Rabbinic Judaism’ (4th ed. Philadelphia, 1980)

Sanders, E.P. ‘ Paul and Palestinian Judaism’ (London and Philadelphia, 1977)

Sanders, E.P. ‘Paul, the Law and the Jewish People’ (Philadelphia, 1983; London, 1985)

Stendahl, K. ‘Paul Among Jews and Gentiles’ (London, 1977)

Ziesler, John, ‘Pauline Christianity’ (Oxford, 1983)

Can you cite some works that support the opposite view, Paul’s alleged ‘Roman-ness’?

> Paul falsifies his probable “career” as a Jew with a dubious claim to

> having been a pharisee. In the ancient world it was unlikely he would have

> been picked up on this by Gentiles and antisemitism made it highly

> unlikely Christians would listen to Jews. Pauls antisemitism is a cover

> up for his own past. Paul is a Roman through and through. His

> “Christianity” even his “Christus” are Roman inventions rooted in

> paganism

Again you refer to Paul’s antisemitism, after I stated that “Paul evaluates his experience in Judaism very positively… he does not denigrate Judaism… Nor does he say that he regrets being a Jew”

So let’s have some examples, from Paul’s epistles, of his supposed antisemitism.

Paul’s Christianity is totally explicable in terms of its Jewish roots and there is no need to look to pagan influences – apart from those that had already entered Jewish thought, of course.

> > And contra to what you suggest elsewhere in your post, I see no evidence

> > that Paul had the aim ‘of breaking Christianity from Judaism’. Rather he

> > rejoiced in the fact that gentiles were now included in the people of

God > > and now *with Jews* heirs of the promise to Abraham. In terms of the

mission > > to the gentiles, Paul did not consider Judaism to be a problem – it was

> > simply irrelevant.

>

> Christianity has claimed this obvious falsehood for two thousand years.

Well, no. For most of its history Christianity has interpreted Paul as denegrating Judaism as a religion of works. I thin that my statement above reflects the recent reassessment of Paul – that Paul’s agenda was formed by the mission to the Gentiles and that he had very little to say to Jewish christian communities. Read for yourself what Paul writes!

> The facts speak otherwise. The most obvious fact is the clear discrepancy

> between the likely religion of Jesus and Paul’s ravings – the religion of

> Paul itself speaks for the fact that it was an intended breach with

> Judaism.

I don’t see Paul’s theology as a discrepancy or break with Jesus. It changed as it entered a new context – the gentile world. This raised a lot of issues that had not been addressed by Jesus – whose mission was almost certainly confined to Jews. One of the big questions being: do gentiles have to become Jews (i.e. be circumcised and keep the Torah) before becoming Christians?

This breach was set in scripture with the inclusion of > Antisemitic passages – deliberately inserted into what was to become the

> final versions of the Gospels. Pauls invention of the Eucharist

> DELIBERATELY breaks kosher laws.

What evidence do you have that Paul invented the eucharist?

> Here again I dispute an important point. There is far more evidence in

> favour of the DESTRUCTION of the Jerusalem Church than there is for its

> dispersal. Paulism was a heresy that was reinstated because of the loss of

> the clear authority of the Jerusalem Church. The religion of Jesus to all

> intents and purposes DIED in the sack of Jerusalem. We are left with a

> semi pagan heresy masquerading as the religion of its “founder” Jesus

> Christ.

AIUI the balance of evidence is that parts of the Jerusalem community had already begun emigrating into Transjordan before the Jewish War, particularly the city of Pella. There is also evidence that a small Jewish community remained or returned after the war against the Romans, until the final obliteration of Jerusalem in 135. (Hans Kung reviews the evidence in ‘Christianity’ p. 98 ff.) In any case the effect was the same – the shift of power within the early church.

I am sure that there were many who regarded Pauline Christianity as a heresy – both ‘conservatives’ within the church and from the mainstream Jewish community. This was sufficient reason for the persecution of Christian communities and the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues.

> After 70 AD there was also a change of power within the

> > Jewish community, with the disappearance of the Sadduccean party and the

> > rise of pharisaic Judaism, which became Jewish orthodoxy.

>

> And therefore Paul sought to defame the pharisees and the ridicule of the

> pharisees almost certainly became back-written into the Gospels so that

> they appeared to actually condemn Jesus.

I think you completely missed my point. Paul was dead by 70 AD. The Gospels reflect a situation where the relationships between Christian Jews and ‘orthodox’ Jews had reached outright conflict and even persecution.

> It is Paul who deliberately confuses Pharisees and Sadduccees.

Evidence?

> Had Paul had – and retained Sadduccee allegiance however a lot makes

sense.

Evidence?

> Supposing this to be true one has to look at who was the offensive party.

> If the Christians sought to follow the Johannine-Pauline line of blaming

> the Jews as Christs killers they would indeed have been as welcome as a

> pork chop in the synagogue

Excuse me shouting as you don’t seem to have quite grasped this. NOT ONCE DOES PAUL BLAME JEWS FOR KILLING CHRIST. Anti-Jewish statements in John’s Gospel are better explained in terms of the conflict that the Johannine community was facing, rather than as a supposed development of Paul’s supposed theology. As so often in conflicts between communities I am sure that there was mutual mudslinging and as the debate/conflict continued, both sides took increasingly entrenched positions. Johannine Christians wouldn’t need to accuse ‘orthodox’ Jews of killing Jesus to cause offence; their high Christology and willingness to share fellowship with Gentiles would have been quite sufficient.

Let’s be quite clear about this – whatever persecution Christians may have visited upon Jews in later centuries, particularly after Constantine – the power at this time was with the Pharisaic party – which later developed into rabbinic, orthodox Judaism. Christians were a tiny minority, and vulnerable. There were many martyrs in the early church – some killed by the Roman authorities, others stoned by Jews.

> I would have thrown them out myself in support and memory of the real

Jesus.

Who is the real Jesus? Why should your version be any more accurate than Paul, who was a contemporary of those who had known and loved Jesus when he was alive?

The irony is that it is the NT, which you find so problematic, that is the only source of any reconstruction of the ‘real Jesus’.

Shalom,

— Paul Weary Croydon, UK