Teaching Team
The Apostle Paul in Rabbinic Literature?
It is 2:07 in the morning. I’m sitting in the passenger seat of the FFOZ Shalom Hauler (the RV) Toby is driving which means he gets to select the music. Can anyone guess what we are listening too?
We’re heading home. We should be in bed around 4:30.
Regarding Paul…
Sometimes believers are asked if any extra-biblical literature mentions the Master or any of His apostles. In fact one may find mention of the Master in both rabbinic literature and Roman histories. Some of the Master’s disciples are mentioned in rabbinic literature as well.
However, we often wonder why there is no mention of the Apostle Paul in extra-biblical literature. After all, as much of a stir as he caused among the various communities he visited in Israel and the Diaspora, there must be at least some mention in passing of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Such a mention may in fact exist. In Acts 21:28 it says: “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Torah and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
Based upon the text, it seems Paul was the center of attention in the Temple on that day. Such a stir should have brought some mention in the writings of the rabbis.
The Sifre, a halachic midrash on the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy, the following is found: “Rabbi Elazar of Modi’im says: ‘He who profanes the holy things, and despises the festivals, and breaks the covenant of our father Abraham, even if he possesses many good deeds is worthy to be thrust out of the world.”
Rabbi Elazar was a first century sage. He may have been present during this uproar in the Temple. It is possible (though not certain) that he was among those who opposed Paul’s activity among the Gentiles. In the context of Rabbi Elazar’s remarks, the phrase “holy things” (kodashim) refers to the Temple sanctuary and “covenant of our father Abraham” refers to circumcision.
Such offenses were brought against Paul. See for instance the above passage in Acts as well as Acts 21:21. Paul was constantly misunderstood by his contemporaries (as he still is to this day). Based on the obvious parallels, this may be an extra-biblical record regarding Paul’s visit to the Temple before his arrest.
(Credit FFOZ volunteer Brian R.)
Search in Blogs...
Browse through Blogs
Feeds
Use this RSS feed to track our blogs in your favorite reader.
The FFOZ Blogs RSS Feed
Blogs by Category
- Back Office
- Events and Administration
- Founder’s Blog
- Guest Authors
- Lessons from the Land
- Levertoff Documentary
- Mishlei Musings
- Publications
- Road Trip 09
- Shalom Tour
- Teaching Team
- The Siddur Project
- Torah Club
- Video Blogs
- Site Info Blog
Blogs by Author
- Aaron Eby
- Boaz Michael
- D. Thomas Lancaster
- FFOZ Staff
- Guest Authors
- Media Staff
- Hope Egan
- Seth Dralle
- Toby Janicki
More Recent Posts
- Remembrance and Repentance
- Passover and the Death of James the Just
- Hosting Your First Passover Seder
- Devil's Children
- Vacation Time
- Visit Israel with FFOZ
- A KISS from me to you
- Eating biblically? Let's chew the fat.
- Kosher Sunday School
- Messer and the Messianic Mess
Visitor Feedback:
So you're saying Rabbi Elazar's remark is a specific reference to Paul? based on the similar wording? Pretty vague but good none the less - way to go Brian.
How plausible is it that passages about him were censored by the church?
Yermiyahu | July 31, 2007 10:27 AM
I am not saying that it is a specific reference to Paul but the parallels concerning the accusations are nonetheless very similar as well as from the same time period--1st century. The censored passages are found in a single volume work (usually published separately from the rest of the Talmud) and to my knowledge there are no known specific references to Paul outside of the Apostles.
Brian | July 31, 2007 9:52 PM
Actually, Judaism censored their own works to avoid pogroms from Gentile/Christian communities.
A question I have about Paul is how was he so quickly misunderstood even by his own contemporaries even when he was speaking in euphamisms familiar to his day (especially by the priestly and rabbinic communities)?
Jason Philo | July 31, 2007 9:53 PM
I might be able to shed some light on how Paul was misunderstood by giving examples from the history of the Chassidic movement. Chassidus explains what Orthodox Judaism considered to be kosher. However, Chassidus explained these concepts in such a way that they sounded foreign to Orthodoxy. The Alter Rebbe of Chabad said that if he could have just a brief moment in private with the Vilna Gaon, he could clear up all confusion (he was never give such an opportunity).
James understood Paul to be teaching kosher concepts yet at the same time Peter said that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand. My guess is that it is a preconveived notion with which some approach what Rabbi Nachman of Breslov called 'a new way that's really the old way.'
Brian | July 31, 2007 10:30 PM
Would you be able to provide a reference to the example of Chassidim you mention?
Thanks for the comparison. How is it then that we "find" answers to Paul's confusing statements in the writings and teachings of the rabbis?
Jason Philo | August 1, 2007 12:27 AM
I don't have a reference to the Chassidic facts I mentioned. I heard the statement about the Alter Rebbe in a lecture by an Orthodox rabbi (I am sure it can be found in any bio of the Alter Rebbe). The statement by Nachman was from a talk by a Breslover; it can likely be found among his teachings.
Many of the ideas Paul conveys have similar parallels within rabbinic literature. Many of these ideas are already found in Torah Club and Messiah Magazine (these materials quote rabbinic parallels to Paul's writings). There are books on the Jewish background of Paul but many of these are referenced in the aforementioned FFOZ materials.
Brian | August 1, 2007 9:50 AM
I understand that many parallels are found within rabbinic literature, which brings me back to the original question. How was Paul so quickly and easily misunderstood when there are so many examples of parallel teachings from the rabbis? It doesn't seem that these concepts were foreign when there are so many examples to explain Paul's teachings.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just doesn't seem to me the second question was answered. "How is it then that we 'find' answers to Paul's confusing statements in the writings and teachings of the rabbis?"
Jason Philo | August 1, 2007 4:26 PM
I am sorry if I misunderstand your question. I believe that Paul was misunderstood on the level of Gentile inclusion. The fact that Gentiles could become a part of the covenant without converting seems to be the point where people stopped listening to Paul and just came to the hasty conclusion that he was a heretic. Paul, Peter, and others in the community of believers seemed to be perplexed at first on this issue. Paul just seemed to be able to write it in a very confusing manner.
Brian | August 1, 2007 6:34 PM
To add onto what Brian said I would bet that the biggest area of confusion was that Paul was saying that the Gentiles were more than just Noachides. They we grafted into Israel and could call Abraham their Father. This would not go well anymore back then than it would today.
Toby | August 1, 2007 9:05 PM
Even writing about Paul is confusing! :)
The original focus of the post was not just about Paul including Gentiles, but him disregarding the Torah. I see your point on this issue, but the other half about his preaching against the Torah and Temple. How did these misunderstandings continue, even becoming the foundation of Christianity? Why, in all of his trials, wasn't he able to just speak clearly about the issue instead of remaining so elusive. Isn't it the speaker's responsibility to make sure his message is understood?
Putting someone like Paul in today's context and he would be kicked to the curb for being a poor communicator. How valid are teachings that have to take so much work to explain and justify?
Thanks for your time to answer questions. I'm enjoying the discussion.
Jason Philo | August 1, 2007 11:53 PM
Great discussion! Question: When were the Noachide laws codified? It seems that the 1st Jerusalem Council framed their letter within these principles.
Art
Art Lee | August 9, 2007 9:55 AM