SESSION 2: THE PRE-CHRISTIAN PAUL
1. Paul's Appearance and Demeanour
Paul was not an imposing figure, it would seem; this was probably because his personal presence and appearance were unimpressive, and he lacked rhetorical skills (a valued commodity in the ancient world). One should probably assume that he was this way both before and after his conversion. Paul admits that he lacks personal presence and rhetorical skills in his Corinthian correspondence.
1 Cor 2:3-4: I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power.2 Cor 10:10: For some say, "His letters are weighty, but in person he is weak and his speaking amounts to nothing."
.
Paul admits his first appearance in Corinth was very forgettable (1 Cor 2:3-4). Because of Paul's lack of personal presence, it seems that the Corinthians came to affix to Paul the disapprobious label of “weak” (asthenê), in contrast to the “super-apostles” who had infiltrated the church. This encapsulated their overall appraisal of him, disqualifying him thereby from being considered an apostle. Paul appears to be quoting from the one who still heads up the opposition against him when he writes, “For he says, ‘His letters are weighty, but in person he is weak’” (10:10). Similarly, when he remarks sarcastically that he, unlike his opponents, was too “weak” to exploit the Corinthians, Paul seems to be turning an accusation leveled against him on its head (11:21). The same use of irony to refute the charge of being too “weak” occurs in 2 Cor 13:9: Paul says that he and his colleagues rejoice when they are “weak,” but the Corinthians are strong, because their prayer is for the perfection of the Corinthians. Finally, standing behind Paul’s paradoxical assertions that he boasts in his weakness is the negative assessment that he is too “weak” to be a bona fide apostle (11:30; 12:5). Clearly, for the Corinthian church and probably for other churches Paul was not an impressive figure.
There is a description of Paul found in the apocryphal work Acts of Paul and Thecla that is realistic and even unflattering; since it is not idealized, it is probable that the description of Paul in this work is accurate.The description is as follows: "And he saw Paul coming, a man little of stature, thin haired upon the head, crooked in the legs, with eyebrows joining, and nose somewhat hooked, full of grace: for sometimes he appeared like a man, and sometimes he had the face of an angel."
2. Paul as an “Israelite”
Paul says that he is an “Israelite” (Israêlitês) (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5; Rom 11:1). To be an Israelite is to be a Jew in a religious and social sense (see its use in 4 Macc 18:1; John 1:47; Rom 9:4; 11:1
Synonymous with being an Israelite is being from "the seed of Abraham" (2 Cor 11:22). Paul's use of the term "seed of Abraham" no doubt derives from his opponents at Corinth who are using the phrase to distinguish themselves from Paul and others. What they meant by it exactly is unclear. Probably, they asserted their racial Jewishness by the phrase perhaps in opposition to being a proselyte. (Based on Paul's use of the term elsewhere in his letters, however, unlike his Corinthian opponents, being from the seed of Abraham is defined by faith and not physical descent [Gal 3:16ff. 29; Rom 4:13-17; 9:6-13].) In Rom 11:1 and Phil 3:5, Paul further identifies himself as from the tribe of Benjamin one of the two tribes (the other tribe being Judah) occupying the southern kingdom of Judea at the time of the Babylonian captivity. (1 Chron 7:6-11; 8; 9:7-9 lists Benjaminite families.)
3. Paul as a “Hebrew”
In addition to being an Israelite, Paul says that he is a “Hebrew” (Hebraios) (2 Cor 11:22). To be an Israelite must not be identical with being a Hebrew, for otherwise Paul would not use these two terms of himself in setting forth his credentials against his Corinthian detractors. Probably, to be a Hebrew means that he was from Palestine or had close connections with Palestine as opposed to being a diasporan or Hellenist Jew. For this reason, to be a Hebrew means to be fluent in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew (see Acts 6:1
(Philo contrasts the language of the "Hebrews" with Greek [De mut. nom. 71; De confus. ling. 129].) Paul's use of the term “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Hebraois ex Hebraiôn) seems to be a more emphatic way of saying the same thing (Phil 3:5).) Jerome (342-420) gives expression to the tradition that Paul's family came from Gischala in Galilee and moved to Tarsus (Comm. ad Philem. 23; De vir. illus. 5); this would give Paul non-diasporan roots.This tradition may be true but there is no way of knowing for sure.Luke has Paul say that he was brought up (anatethrammenos) in Jerusalem, implying that he spent much of his youth in the city. Perhaps, this is why Paul called himself a "Hebraios." It should be noted, however, that “Hebrew” (Hebraios) can function as a synonym for a Jew among Greek-speaking genitles, as the synagogue inscription found in Corinth testifies: "Synagogue of the Hebrews."
4. Paul as Citizen of Tarsus
Paul, in addition to being a Jew, was also a native and citizen of Tarsus in the Roman province of Cilicia and Syria (Acts 21:39; 22:3); because this information comes to us only from the Book of Acts many scholars call it into question, especially since Paul in his letters claims to be "a Hebrews of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5). But what Luke describes is perfectly feasible; although Tarsus was a Greek polis, it was possible for a Jew to become a citizen of a Greek polis, since it was possible in some cases to buy citizenship outright Besides, Hengel also points out that Luke's term may not mean full citizenship.
Paul’s statement that Tarsus was no ordinary city (Acts 21:39) is borne out by sources roughly contemporary with Paul. Tarsus was a major Hellenistic city, founded by the Seleucids, and later favored by Augustus. According to Strabo, "There was much zeal for philosophy and all other aspects of education generally among the inhabitants that in this respect they surpassed even Alexandria, Athens and any other place" (Geog. 14.5.13). If he was in Tarsus for any length of time, Paul no doubt spoke fluent Greek; nevertheless, he was still able to speak Aramaic, which was probably the main language spoken by Jews in Palestine (see Acts 22:2) (The risen Christ also spoke to him in Aramaic [Acts 26:14].)
5. Paul as Roman Citizen
In the Book of Acts, Luke has Paul say on two occasions that he is a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-29). In fact, Paul says that he was born a Roman citizen, because his father was one (Acts 22:28). Roman citizenship was originally conferred on free-born natives of the city of Rome, but as Rome conquered Italy and regions beyond citizenship was conferred on others, but certainly not all occupants of the Roman empire. Citizenship brought with it certain legal rights, such as the right to a fair public trial, exemption from certain types of executions and punishments, and the right to have one's case heard before the emperor in Rome; the social and economic benefits were less tangible but just as real and even more important.
How Paul's father or perhaps grandfather, as Jews, acquired Roman citizenship is unknown; there were some obstacles to Paul's family becoming Roman citizens. Jews loyal to the Law, as Paul's father and grandfather seem to have been, were not normally interested in becoming Roman citizens, since to do so would involve participation to a degree in Roman religious practice, which for a Jew would be idolatry. Likewise, it was difficult in general for Jews to become Roman citizens since they tended to be isolated from mainstream Roman society. Nevertheless, for a Jew to be a Roman citizen was not an impossibility; there were several ways of obtaining it. Apart from being in the right place at the right time to benefit from its extension to segments of a whole population, one could purchase Roman citizenship with a large sum of money (see Acts 22:28) or perform some valuable service to a Roman general (Pompey or Antonius perhaps) or one of the Roman proconsuls of the province. In addition, it was the Roman practice to grant citizenship to all freed slaves of Roman citizens (manumission). In one of these ways Paul's family acquired citizenship. There is no reason to doubt Luke's assertion that Paul was a Roman citizen, as some scholars do.
6. Paul as a Pharisee
6.1. Introduction
Although he could speak and write Greek, there is little indication that Paul had a complete Hellenistic education (in a gymnêsion). First, he writes in koinê Greek, making no attempt to imitate the Attic Greek of classical literature, as someone with a Hellenistic education would have done. Second, he makes few allusions to Greek classical works (e.g., 1 Cor 15:33: the epigram from Menander, Thais, 218; Acts 17:28: Epimenides; Aratus; Titus 1:12: Epimenides
(These are probably the exceptions that proves the rule, since these were likely common epigrams known to educated and uneducated alike.
In fact, Paul claims to have been a Pharisee. He states explicitly that he was a Pharisee in Phil 3:5 (see Acts 26:5). Luke has Paul say that he is from a Pharisaic family (Acts 23:6: “son of Pharisees” [huios Pharisaiôn]).(How influential Pharisaism was outside of Palestine and therefore whether Paul was exposed to Pharisaism outside of a familial context while in Tarsus is unknown.) When he says "according to the Law, a Pharisee" (kata nomon Pharisaios), Paul means that he adhered to Pharisaic halakot and to Pharisaic theology in general. In Gal 1:14, Paul says that he advanced in Judaism much beyond his own contemporaries, by which he means that he advanced in Pharisaic Judaism. Luke records that Paul explains that he went to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel, a Pharisaic teacher (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin, and advised that leniency be shown towards the apostles (Acts 5:34-39). (Hillel and Shammai, although both Pharisees, disagreed on many issues; as a result, two schools of Pharisaism developed in the first century before the destruction of the Temple. Whether Paul was a follower of either one is unknown, but, since Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, Paul may have been a Hillelite.) This man is the teacher referred to occasionally in the Mishna as Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, (m. Sota 9.15; m. Git. 4.2-3; m. Abot 1.16). (At what age Paul took up residence in Jerusalem is unknown; whether his whole family moved there or just he is also unclear, although Paul does have a sister living in Jerusalem [Acts 23:16].) Being a Pharisee, however, was not an occupation; it seems that Paul was a tentmaker (skênopoios) by trade, and supported himself by this even after he had become an apostle (Acts 18:3).
Understanding what Paul was theologically before his conversion will illumine what he was after his conversion and the position of his opponents who seemed to be influenced by Pharisaism (see Acts 15:5). It is difficult to reconstruct Pharisaic Judaism because information from the most reliable sources (pre-70) is not in abundance; what is available as source material is Josephus’ writings, the New Testament and the Qumran sectarian writings. The result is that many historical questions are unanswerable or equally answerable by more than one hypothesis. Moreover, it is probable that the Psalms of Solomon are Pharisaic in origin, even though the term "Pharisee" (or Sadducee) does not occur in these texts. Rather, many of these compositions focus on “the devout” (hoi hosioi) also known as “the righteous” (hoi dikaioi) and several other synonymous terms. (Unfortunately, little is known about the activities of Pharisees outside of Palestine.)
There is no doubt that early rabbinic Judaism, which appeared after the destruction of the second Temple, was continuous with the Pharisaic Judaism of the second-Temple period. Two facts make this certain. First, there are clear resemblances between the rabbis and the Pharisees (which we derive from sources of this second-Temple period) with respect to beliefs and practices. Second, the later rabbis identify second Temple figures as authoritative teachers known to us as Pharisees from other sources (e.g., Gamaliel Acts 5:34; Simon b. Gamaliel Josephus, Life 191). But there is the danger of retrojecting later developments of rabbinic Judaism into the second-Temple period. There is also the possibility that what the later rabbinic sources claim about the Pharisees (or synonymous term) is historical fabrication. For this reason, it is better to draw certain conclusions, even if these are more fragmentary, by restricting oneself to the pre-70 sources.
6.2. The Origin and Meaning of the Name “Pharisee”
Most likely, the spiritual ancestry of the Pharisees can be traced back somehow to the “pious ones” (Hasidim) referred to in 1 and 2 Maccabees as the opponents of Antiochus’ program of Hellenization and the allies of Judas Maccabees. Exactly how the Pharisees are related to the Hasidim, however, is a matter of debate. (Surprisingly, even though he used 1 Maccabees as a source, Josephus omits all explicit reference to the Hasidm [see Ant. 12.278 / 1 Macc 2:42; Ant. 12.396 / 1 Macc 7:12-15].)
In rabbinic sources, reference is made to the "early Hasidim" (hasîdîm hr'šonîm) (m. Ber. 5:11; T. B. Qam. 2:6; B. Nid. 38ab; B. Ned. 10a; B. Menah. 40b-41a). Traditions about the pious behavior of these men are approvingly cited (Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism. A Study of 1 and 2 Maccabees (SCSS 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 187-207). Kampen argues that the "early Hasidim" are the Hasidim known from 1 and 2 Maccabees, which means that the Pharisees have a direct historical connection to the Hasidim.Generally, scholars agree that the name Pharisee derives from the Hebrew parash, meaning to separate; thus, the noun form perush means separatist.
The question arises whether the name Pharisee was the name originally chosen by the Pharisees themselves or whether it was a derisive term imposed upon them by their opponents. If the latter, eventually the term came to be used by the Pharisees as a self-designation, having lost its negative connotations. (When Josephus refers to them in his writings as "Pharisees" there is no sense that the term was ever derogatory.)
In the Mishna, the term perushim (“Pharisee”) referring to what Josephus and the New Testament know as Pharisaioi occurs only three times (m. Yad. 4:6-8; m. Hag. 2:7; m.Sota. 3.4); the term also occurs in the Tosepta (t. Yad. 2:20; t. Hag. 3:35) (see E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revoluton: The Pharisees' Search for the Kingdom Within [Nashville: Abingdon, 1978] 125-79). In these texts, the Pharisees are portrayed as having legal views that differ from those of the Sadducees/Boethusians. (There are other occurrences of the term perushim in early rabbinic writings with a different meaning [t. Sota 15:11-12; t. Ber 3:25; m. Sota 3:4].) It is possible that the rarity of the term Pharisees in early rabbinic writings is to be explained by the fact that the early rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, did not want to be identified by a term originally intended as derogatory. Indeed, another term for the Pharisees is "sages" (hakamim) (see m. Mak. 1:6; t. Sanh. 6:6; t. Roš. Haš. 1:15) (In t. Yoma 1:8, the term Pharisee is used synonymously with "sage") and "scribes" (sopherim) (t. Yad. 3:2). This would also explain why the term Pharisee does not occur in Psalms of Solomon. But this hypothesis does not explain why Josephus and the New Testament use the term Pharisee with no hint of opprobrium, nor does it explain why the Qumran community would not have used the term perushim to refer to the Pharisees.In addition, it is not clear from what the Pharisees were supposed to have separated themselves. It is most often argued that separation was from sources of ritual uncleanness, and in particular the "people of the land" (am ha-eretz), known from rabbinic sources. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the Pharisees are more or less equivalent to the haberim. But the Pharisees may have originally separated themselves from contact with Jews whom they considered to be apostate.
In early rabbinic literature there are references to haburot, associations of Jews whose aim was to ensure a supply of properly-tithed produce and to ensure that this supply was kept ritually pure. Since a purpose of the members of a habura was to eat their ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity, the food used in the preparation of meals must begin as ritually pure. Thus, to eat one’s ordinary meals in ritual purity was a commitment that required separation from non-haberim, usually identified as the ammei ha-eretz, in many aspects of life, especially in the areas of buying produce and eating. This is because non-haberim were suspected of not taking sufficient precaution against the ritual contamination of food and indeed of not accepting the halakot for the handling of food to be consumed by non-priests (m. Demai 2.3; t. Demai 2.2, 12). (According to t. Demai 2.10, some non-haberim were known to follow the rules of the haberim in private.) The relationship between the Pharisees and the haburot is a question that scholars have long debated. No doubt the institution of the habura evolved over the centuries, so a simple identification of the haberim in early rabbinic writings with second-Temple Pharisees is historically unwise. Nevertheless, there is evidence in early rabbinic writings that second-Temple Pharisees sought to eat ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity and formed themselves into haburot in order to ensure that this would happen (Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishhah [Philadelphia:Trinity Press International, 1990], 250). Inm. 'Ed. 1.14, in a debate between the houses of Shammai and Hillel, the am ha-eretz stands in contrast with these two houses with respect to the cleanness and uncleanness of vessels. In other contexts in the Mishna, it is the haberim who stand in opposition to the ammei ha-eretz in this respect, so that one could argue that in the second-Temple the Pharisees are to be identified with the haberim. In m. Demai 6.6, similarly, the houses of Shammai and Hillel debate whether one should sell his olives to anyone but a haber; the assumption is that, since olives, being wet, will be rendered ritually impure by being touched by anyone who has not washed his hands before handling the olives. A haber, by contrast, would cleanse his hands before touching the olives, thereby preserving them as ritual pure and therefore edible for a haber.The implication is that the Pharisees are haberim.Likewise, in m. Hag. 2:7 the ammei ha-eretz are contrasted with the Pharisees with respect to the ritual defilement of clothing (midras impurity), whereas in m. Dem. 2:3 the contrast is between the ammei ha-eretz and the haberim. This implies that haberim is synonymous with the term Pharisee (perushim). Finally, in t. Shab. 1.15, it is debated whether a perush (i.e., a Pharisee), when ritually impure because of a discharge (a zav), is allowed to eat with an am ha-eretz, who is assumed to be equally as ritually impure. The assumption is that it is the norm for Pharisees to eat their ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity. Now whether every "good" Pharisee in the second-Temple period was a haber is impossible to say; nevertheless, it is clear that the institution of the habura antedates the early rabbinic period, having its origins in the second-Temple period and that the Pharisees were haberim (see Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority [Lund: Gleerup, 1978] 62-67; Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 187).In general, one can say that to be a Pharisee is to be a haber, since this was the only reliable way ensuring that one’s ordinary meals were ritually pure (contrary to Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution, 173-75).6.3. The History of the Pharisees