Still reading it. This person argues Paul never violently persecuted Christians, claims the NRSV's rendering of "violently persecuting" in Gal 1.13 is misleading, and says it should be translated as "chase off" or "drive away" instead.
Having read juantoo3's 'Good God, man, pull yourself together!' (#11 above) I am reviewing Phillip's theory that Paul was a convert
prior to his Damascus epiphany, and that his early Christianity was as a militant Jewish convert who sought to 'chase off' or 'drive away' Gentile converts.
There are three points —
The first point is Phillips bases his theory on an apparent contradiction in Paul. In 1 Corinthians Paul says: "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received" (15:3) but in Galatians (written earlier) he said: "For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:11-12)
Phillips resolves this 'contradiction' by positing that Paul was a convert, received the Gospel and followed 'Jewish Christianity' as something of a fundamentalist, but
subsequently had his Damascus road experience, at which point he realised God was for everyone, not just the Jews. It's a theory, but there's not much to support it.
The second point is, more recent understandings and insights into Judaism of the time, especially at the hands of Jewish scholars like Pamela Eisenbaum and Paula Fredriksen, demonstrates from a broad range of materials (Jewish and pagan) that there was a significant degree of interchange and fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in both religious and cultural practice. It was nothing strange nor uncommon. Gentiles were not Jews, but that did not exclude them from a significant degree of association.
On that basis, Gentiles among Jewish Christians would be no big deal, the Christian
ecclesia was simply reflecting larger Temple and synagogue norms.
Thirdly, the idea of 'conversion' has taken on quite a strict definition, driven by militant practices in later times – to Paul and his contemporaries, a Jew becoming a Christian does not mean forsaking Judaism; a pagan becoming a Jew or Christian might not necessarily forsake his or her gods. There is commentary right up to the 4th century, Jewish, Christian and pagan, in which the practice of 'keeping one's options open' as it were was decried by authorities of their respective religions.
It would seem that while Jewish Christians might hold themselves apart from Gentile Christians, they would not 'chase' or 'drive off', that goes against the idea and spirit of of Peter's Pentecost lectures. If Pauyl was doing that, he was very much a Jewish and Christian outsider. I don't think he'd have any authority to do so.
Whereas Jews – especially hard-line ('zealous') Jews – might well regard their Christian brothers and sisters as apostate. That is more credible, I think?
