Paul's background

Could the "persecution" that Paul received be similar to the "persecution" he dished out?

"Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews forty lashes less one."
-2 Cor 11.24

This has led some scholars to translate the key phrase in Gal. 1.13 as "to the utmost" (as in a maximum of 39 lashes) instead of "violently."
 
A piece of my intellect always cringes when a single verse is pulled out in isolation. Context is so important.

From the Peshitta:
"12But this that I do, I also shall do to cut off the accusations of those who seek a pretext, so in that by which they brag, they will be found like us. 13For these are false Apostles and treacherous workers and they liken themselves to the Apostles of The Messiah. 14And not to wonder at this, for if he who is Satan resembles an Angel of light, 15It is not a great matter if also his Ministers imitate Ministers of righteousness, those whose end will be like their works.

16But again, I say, no man should think of me as if I am a fool; otherwise, even as a fool receive me, so that I may brag a little. 17Everything that I speak, it is not by our Lord that I speak, but as in folly on this occasion of boasting. 18Because many boast in the flesh, I also shall brag. 19Are you of those who are listening to the stupid, while you are wise? 20And do you submit to the one who is subject to you and to him who embezzles you and to him who takes from you and to him who exalts himself over you and to him who strikes you on your face? 21I speak as one in dishonor, as if we are poor through stupidity. I say that in all things that a man presumes, I also presume. 22If they are Hebrews, I am also; if they are Israelites, I am also; if they are the seed of Abraham, I am also. 23If they are Ministers of The Messiah, in stupidity I say that I am greater than they, in more toil than they, with more wounds than they, in chains more than they, in death many times. 24And I have been whipped by the Judeans five times with 40 stripes minus one. 25Three times I have been scourged with rods, one time I was stoned, three times I have been shipwrecked, a day and a night I have been in the sea without a ship, 26On many journeys, in dangers of rivers, in dangers of robbers, in dangers from my kindred, in dangers from the Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the desert, in dangers in the sea, in dangers by false brethren, 27In toil and in fatigue, in many vigils, in hunger and in thirst, in many fasts, in cold and in nakedness, 28Aside from much more, the crowds who are with me everyday, and my care which I have in my person for all the churches. 29Who is suffering, and I do not suffer? Who has been subverted and I do not burn?"

I took the liberty of bolding the one verse you mention.

Frankly its been a while (some would say too long) and this passage escaped my memory. Seeing it again in context, I think there is a good bit more going on than a solid whipping (and if memory serves, I think 40 lashes was considered a death sentence, and why "minus one" {39} was just a good stout corporal punishment). Paul admits as much as "bragging" about all he has been through, which includes a good bit more than the one verse lets on. I get the sense, in context, that he is making the point to his audience that he's been through a lot to bring the Gospel (Good News) to them, and that if what he was up to were not "of G-d" he could have easily succumbed to any of these adversities.

Galatians, from the Peshitta:
"1Paulus an Apostle, not by the children of men, neither by a son of man, but by Yeshua The Messiah and God his Father, he who raised him from among the dead, 2And all the brethren who are with me, to the assembly that is in Galatia.

3Grace be with you and peace from God The Father and from our Lord Yeshua The Messiah, 4He who gave himself for the sake of our sins to set us free from this evil world, according to the will of God Our Father, 5To whom be glory to the eternity of eternities. Amen.

6I marvel how quickly you have been turned away from The Messiah, he who called you by his grace, unto another gospel 7Which does not exist, but there are some who trouble you and wish to change The Gospel of The Messiah. 8But even if we or an Angel from Heaven should evangelize you outside of that which we have evangelized you, we or he would be damned; 9Just as I said to you from the first and now again I say to you, that if anyone evangelizes you outside of what you have received, he shall be damned.

10Do I plead now before the children of men or before God, or do I seek to please the children of men? For if until now I have been pleasing men, I have not been a Servant of The Messiah.

11But I notify you my brethren, that The Gospel that was preached by me was not from a human; 12For I neither received nor learned it from a man, but by the revelation of Yeshua The Messiah.

13For you have heard of my way of life, which from the first was in Judaism, that I was greatly persecuting the Church of God and destroying it. 14And I was greatly surpassing many associates in Judaism who were of my people, and I was very zealous in the teaching of my ancestors; 15But when he who separated me from my mother's womb chose and called me by his grace 16To reveal his Son in me, that I would proclaim him among the Gentiles, immediately, I did not reveal it to flesh and blood, 17Neither did I go to Jerusalem to the Apostles who were before me, but I went to Arabia and returned again to Dramsuq.

18And after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Kaypha (Cephas -jt3), and I stayed with him 15 days. 19But I saw none of the other Apostles except Jacob, the brother of Our Lord. 20But these things that I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie. 21After these things I came to the regions of Syria and Qiliqia. 22And the churches in Judea, these who are in The Messiah, did not know me by face, 23But they had heard only this: “He who from the first persecuted us, now, behold, he preaches that faith which from earlier times he had overthrown.” 24And they were praising God for me."

Again the implied verse is bolded.

Seems to me here he is admonishing the Galatians from falling away from what they originally were given. In an effort to drill the point home, he says those who teach a different method or message are "damned." That he, in the beginning, hid out for 3 years in Arabia before meekly coming back to Jerusalem to meet privately with Cephas and James.

I'm not sure what "some scholars" are on about. I think a lot of them toy with semantics.
 
A piece of my intellect always cringes when a single verse is pulled out in isolation. Context is so important.

It doesn't bother my intellect at all as long as the writer is aware of the context. We have no other recourse than to read Paul intertextually to possibly understand him better since he doesn't describe what persecuting followers of Christ really encompasses in Galatians 1.13. "Persecuting" seems a bit more serious than "chase off" or "drive away," but not as serious as "death" in the Book of Acts. But I guess we are going to throw away Acts to see what image of Paul emerges here.

Frankly its been a while (some would say too long) and this passage escaped my memory. Seeing it again in context, I think there is a good bit more going on than a solid whipping (and if memory serves, I think 40 lashes was considered a death sentence, and why "minus one" {39} was just a good stout corporal punishment).

Yes, it isn't a death sentence. See Deuteronomy 25.1-3:

"If there is a dispute between men, they are to go to court to be judged, so that the innocent may be acquitted and the guilty condemned. If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall have him lie down and be flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime warrants. He may receive no more than forty lashes, lest your brother be beaten any more than that and be degraded in your sight."​

Benson Commentary:

"Deuteronomy 25:3. Forty stripes he may give him — The law of Moses very wisely limited the number of stripes, lest severe judges should order delinquents to be lashed to death, as was often done among the Romans, than which, perhaps, a more cruel kind of death can hardly be devised. And it seems not to have been superstition, but prudent caution, in the Jews, when they would not exceed thirty-nine stripes, lest, through mistake or forgetfulness, they should go beyond the bounds which they were commanded to keep. Thy brother should seem vile — Lest the judges, by exceeding the bounds of humanity, and that compassion which was due to a brother, a partaker of human nature in common with themselves, and one of the same nation and community, civil and religious, should be accustomed to think despicably of their poor brethren, and set their lives at naught. Or lest he should be made contemptible to his brethren, either by this cruel usage of him, as if he were a brute beast; or by some deformity or infirmity of body, which excessive beating might produce."​
 
Last edited:
It doesn't bother my intellect at all as long as the writer is aware of the context.
Agreed, but that is very often not the case.

We have no other recourse than to read Paul intertextually to possibly understand him better since he doesn't describe what persecuting followers of Christ really encompasses in Galatians 1.13. "Persecuting" seems a bit more serious than "chase off" or "drive away," but not as serious as "death" in the Book of Acts.
I believe your original question was "Could the "persecution" that Paul received be similar to the "persecution" he dished out?" Does the answer have to be yes or no? Is there a gradient? Are there exceptions? Are there out clauses?

If we are answering by the text, and the text is not conclusive, how can we provide a conclusive answer? The question then becomes more than a little rhetorical. Or if not rhetorical, left to the reader's devices to see what he or she wishes to see.

But I guess we are going to throw away Acts to see what image of Paul emerges here.
I trust you are not counting me among the "we."

Yes, it isn't a death sentence. See Deuteronomy 25.1-3:

"If there is a dispute between men, they are to go to court to be judged, so that the innocent may be acquitted and the guilty condemned. If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall have him lie down and be flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime warrants. He may receive no more than forty lashes, lest your brother be beaten any more than that and be degraded in your sight."​

Benson Commentary:

"Deuteronomy 25:3. Forty stripes he may give him — The law of Moses very wisely limited the number of stripes, lest severe judges should order delinquents to be lashed to death, as was often done among the Romans, than which, perhaps, a more cruel kind of death can hardly be devised. And it seems not to have been superstition, but prudent caution, in the Jews, when they would not exceed thirty-nine stripes, lest, through mistake or forgetfulness, they should go beyond the bounds which they were commanded to keep. Thy brother should seem vile — Lest the judges, by exceeding the bounds of humanity, and that compassion which was due to a brother, a partaker of human nature in common with themselves, and one of the same nation and community, civil and religious, should be accustomed to think despicably of their poor brethren, and set their lives at naught. Or lest he should be made contemptible to his brethren, either by this cruel usage of him, as if he were a brute beast; or by some deformity or infirmity of body, which excessive beating might produce."​
Thank you for the validation. I still find it more than a little intriguing that the anonymous, nameless "some scholars" turn a deliberately blind eye to "Three times I have been scourged with rods, one time I was stoned, three times I have been shipwrecked, a day and a night I have been in the sea without a ship, On many journeys, in dangers of rivers, in dangers of robbers, in dangers from my kindred, in dangers from the Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the desert, in dangers in the sea, in dangers by false brethren, (etc)" and focus instead on a single word.

I chose the Peshitta for a reason. It returns to about as close in English as we are going to find to the original context. And in that context it appears the word in dispute is translated as "greatly" in Galatians, and has no overt expression of violence, though it does not negate implied violence. Without express instances spelled out and going only by the very limited textual selection and translation of it, any supposition is conjectural.

So the answer to your original question is a definitive "maybe, maybe not." I trust that answer is sufficient for the nameless "some scholars?"

:)
 
So the answer to your original question is a definitive "maybe, maybe not." I trust that answer is sufficient for the nameless "some scholars?"

:)

Of course. It's speculation.

I still find it more than a little intriguing that the anonymous, nameless "some scholars" turn a deliberately blind eye to "Three times I have been scourged with rods, one time I was stoned, three times I have been shipwrecked, a day and a night I have been in the sea without a ship, On many journeys, in dangers of rivers, in dangers of robbers, in dangers from my kindred, in dangers from the Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the desert, in dangers in the sea, in dangers by false brethren, (etc)" and focus instead on a single word.

Not sure why you're hung up on the rest of this passage here. I am focused on lashing because it explicitly states this persecution occurred "at the hands of the Jews." It's what Jews did to discipline their own. We need not even look at Paul's experience of being "scourged with rods," for, from what I understand, that type of punishment came from Romans. Not sure who stoned him. A crowd of people? Don't know.
 
Fraternizing with the goy? tut tut ;)

Using Wil's old formula of putting love in there when you're not sure about a text, stripes are supposed to be a good thing? Stoning also? I don't know, but I do know love salty sometimes. :( It can hoit, cher.
 
Not sure why you're hung up on the rest of this passage here. I am focused on lashing because it explicitly states this persecution occurred "at the hands of the Jews." It's what Jews did to discipline their own. We need not even look at Paul's experience of being "scourged with rods," for, from what I understand, that type of punishment came from Romans. Not sure who stoned him. A crowd of people? Don't know.
I knew stoning was a custom of the Jews, so I did a quick look at Wiki, which points also to Islam, and only those two cultures regularly practiced stoning in that region, so I think it would be safe to say that Jews stoned Paul. Romans did not practice stoning.

That's why I asked all the qualifiers. Did Paul persecute *exactly* as he received? Quantity? Quality? Method?

KJV, Acts 8:1-3:
" 1And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

2And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

3As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."

Paul, at this time still known as Saul, was consenting to the stoning to death of Stephen, and he had a role in sending early believers to prison. ("Church" at this point was basically held in folks' houses, something like the Quaker Brethren still do today)

KJV, Acts 9:1-3:
" 1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:"

So as I've heard it described before, Saul was zealous for protecting and enforcing his Pharisaic faith, and being part of the "in crowd" and having social connections, he was able to get authoritative legitimacy for carrying out his persecution.

There may be a bit more elsewhere, none is coming to mind, point being what is written is pretty sparse. From what is written, it would appear Saul / Paul did not physically do any of the dirty work himself, he directed others to do it by his order. If, as I surmise, he was grooming for the priesthood, he would not have been allowed to "get his hands dirty." In the previous chapter (7), we know he stood by in approval watching the stoning of Stephen, and even held the garments of those who performed the deed. He was guilty by association, but not in fact. I have no reason to doubt that the other, frankly vague, accusations against him were of similar caliber. He ordered others to do the actual dirty deeds, though he did stand by in approval, as an authority figure of a sort having these "letters from the High Priest."

Was he stoned? Yes. Was he flogged? Yes. Was he imprisoned? Yes. Was he driven from his home? In a manner of speaking, yes.
 
Last edited:
So as I've heard it described before, Saul was zealous for protecting and enforcing his Pharisaic faith, and being part of the "in crowd" and having social connections, he was able to get authoritative legitimacy for carrying out his persecution.

This would conflict with the report in Acts that he was a student of Gamaliel, however, if he were going around encouraging the stoning of Christians (Acts 22.3). Stoning is a death sentence.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today."
Gamaliel did not persecute Christians (Acts 5.34-39).

"But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: 'Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.'"
If your picture of Paul is correct, then I guess your Paul also corrected his lax teacher or at some point butted heads with him? How? He equates such an education to being "educated strictly according to our ancestral law."
 
Which Gamaliel? I had this discussion before with Bananabrain.

Stoning is often a death sentence, but not unheard of for someone to survive a stoning. Mohammed survived a stoning.

The first verse quoted says *exactly* what I said, Saul was raised in privilege and zealous for his faith, and I surmise he was training for the priesthood (though I'm not sure if he would qualify as Kohen, being from the tribe of Benjamin if I recall) And he had the ear of the High Priest regardless, by the verse I quoted.
 
Last edited:
According to Bananabrain, the rabboni is not the only by that name.

But for a moment, let's suppose you are correct. That does not mean that, how many decades later? since Paul sat at his feet, Rabban Gamaliel might not still speak in wisdom, in the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law?

Therefore your presumption that Gamaliel was duplicitous or somehow mistaken, let alone that Paul should feel the need to correct his former schoolmaster, is (in my view erroneous) presumption. It is leaping to a conclusion that has insufficient evidence to support it. "But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." - as you quoted.

Of course, if one is of a mind to dismantle the Acts on account of Paul, then this quote is meaningless to begin with, :cool: considering it comes from the Book of Acts.
 
Last edited:
The first verse quoted says *exactly* what I said, Saul was raised in privilege and zealous for his faith, and I surmise he was training for the priesthood (though I'm not sure if he would qualify as Kohen, being from the tribe of Benjamin if I recall)………….
No, Saul would not have been qualified to serve as a kohen in the Temple.
 
According to Bananabrain……...
I don’t do a lot of hanging around in the Christianity subforum, but I have it on good authority that there are Jews still active on IF, including at least one rabbi, who might have useful insights.
 
I don’t do a lot of hanging around in the Christianity subforum, but I have it on good authority that there are Jews still active on IF, including at least one rabbi, who might have useful insights.
You are certainly welcome to join the discussion. BB and Dauer were the only learned Jewish persons around here that I interacted with on a quasi-regular basis while they were around, BB being Orthodox and Dauer being more liberal. I have no grievance with Judaism, so by all means please add your input, it would be most welcome.

So, if Saul were not able, by family line, to be a priest, would he have been able to serve in the Temple in some other capacity? If the text in Acts is anything close to accurate, he associated with the High Priest, so at the very least he was in with the "in-crowd."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top