Talk:Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity

King James Version

Perspectives
Why is there a section called "new perspectives" when we are not told what the "old perspectives" were? Also, his name was Saul - in the NT, does Saul ever refer to himself in any epistle by any name other than Saul? Finally, with the exception of the section on new perspectives, this all seems to violate NPOV and NOR. It is never clear whose view we are being given, or what other views there are. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding New Perspectives, it is mainly a theological current within Protestantism which tries to re-interpret what Martin Luther and John Calvin taught about Paul. This line of thought is much closer to what Catholic doctrine teaches on the subject, therefore it can be argued that the New Perspectives are actually more traditional than the old ones. Since the Septuagint was written in the original Greek, Saint Paul is mostly mentioned as Paul, although some references would be welcomed about the use of the name Saul in some scholarly material. The current sources are mostly taken from New Testament narratives as well as additional information from historical Jesus authors. ADM (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Pauline epistles always use the name "Paul" (for example, ). It's only Acts of the Apostles that mentions an earlier name: Saul, and Acts is accused of presenting Early Christianity in a more Jewish light than was actually the case. Acts claims "Saul of Tarsus" and "Paul of Tarsus" are one and the same, scholars debate whether or not this was true, see also Acts_of_the_Apostles. 75.15.205.64 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The academic debate used to be over where Jesus stood in the Hellenic-Hebraic spectrum. That debate is largely over, most scholars consider the Historical Jesus to have been thoroughly Jewish and to have primarily spoken Aramaic. The debate has now shifted to Paul, about whom much less is known. Some scholars see Paul as also thoroughly Jewish, others see Paul as thoroughly Hellenic (similar to Philo of Alexandria), still others are somewhere inbetween. But that debate is still ongoing. The New Perspective on Paul argues that he was much more Hebraic and closer to Jesus than the viewpoint of Martin Luther (the "old perspective"). As an historical curiosity, it was Marcion of Sinope who first argued that Paul was thoroughly Hellenic, so the "old viewpoint" has its roots. 64.149.82.148 (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the topic, I am surprised that there is not an extensive account of Daniel Boyarin's recent book on the Jewish Paul. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Saint Paul's affinity to Judaism (Request for Comment)
On the article page there should be a section on this, particularly taking into account Romans 10: 14 - 11: 36. Also his sentaments on anguish of heart for his race, saying he would "willingly be cut off..." Romans 9: 1-

1. 11: 1 "..is it possible that God has rejected his people...(Lv 18: 5).

2. 11: 11 "...have the Jews fallen for ever,..?"

3. 11: 24 "...it will be much easier for them, the natural branches, to be grafted back..."

4. 11: 30 "...Just as you changed from being disobedient to God,..."

Saint Paul continually shows his great regard / affinity with the Jewish people and on the article page despite his admonishes, there should be a section to show this. The points above are pointers that illustrate this, (from Chapter 11 of Romans).

See too, Chapter 9 of Romans, particularly 1 - 5.

I am not familiar with the recent book cited, Daniel Boyarin on the Jewish Paul, is it relevant here, to this?

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to answer the question about specific verses in the NT without violating NOR. But to answer your other question - Daniel Boyarin's book A Radical Jew is to my knowledge the most recent, cutting-edge, respected work of scholarship by a Jewish scholar on Paul.  If this article is about the "Jewish" Paul, I actually think it has to rely very heavily on Boyarin's book (Boyarin of course refers to a good number of other scholars on Paul, and so his book can help us identify other books and articles that can be good sources for this article).  Actually, it seems to me that without providing a good acount of Boyarin, the debates he addresses, and the other scholars he engages, this article will remain quite inferior ... it would be like writing an article on physics without mentioning einstein and quantum mechanics.  Maybe some day someone will write a book that supercedes Boyarin, but for now, Boyarin really is the most recent, in-depth, exploration of the Jewish Jesus (this is not the same thing as saying Boyarin is "right" - but as i said, Boyarin mentions the scholars he disagrees with, and we can thus look up those scholars and add their views to this article to keep it balanced).


 * To respond to the question more specifically - no historian can interpret the maaning of specific verses of the NT, without first developing a general understanding of Paul. This of course is based on a reading of the NT, but one first need a "theory about Paul" before one can speculate as to what a Jewish paul might have meant by specific verses.  So I think major sources on paul come first Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An alternative would be to read the Anchor Bible commentary on Romans and other epistles. The Anchor Bible series is dated (for example, it came out before Boyarin and is thus ignorant of his analysis) but was based on the leading scholarship of the time.  Each volume of the Anchor Bible has a great introduction and then chapter and verse commentary and I would say would be the most reliable source for interpreting specific epistles, without violating NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jerome Biblical Commentary and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary on Saint Paul is for me a land-mark here. Also we have to be certain of the Pauline letters. Some scholars identify later additions to The Pauline letters. However all agree on Saint Paul to the Romans as genuinly Saint Paul, throughout.

The pointers from Saint Paul to the Romans were given purposely to show there is a lack of coverage in the article page. I don't think they require an answer, as they speak for themselves. (Relying on too many scholars or just some too heavely, can also be a draw-back).

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
<> It seems unclear to whom the last sentence refers to. Is "his reluctance" Paul's or Peter's reluctance? I'd guess Paul's, but for someone new to the subject who tries to read this article it's very hard to understand which position is whose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.53.90 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume that the Article writers are taking for granted that you have read The Acts of The Apostles and The Letters of Saint Paul.


 * The conflict was not just about food but the demands that should be made on the Gentile becoming Christian, as distinct from the Jew becoming Christian.


 * This was resolved with letters to the Churches, resolving the issue.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. 75.14.221.167 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Split with Judaism
I have a question about this sentence: "He successfully argued that Gentile converts did not need to become Jews," I thought Paul believed that those who had accepted Christ as their savior constituted th new Israel, the successors to Abraham's covenant with God. Well, that is what "Jews" are. So wasn't he really saying that Gentiles could become Jews through faith and did not need to circumcise themselves to become Jews? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any easy answers to this question, so I took the liberty of modifying the article a bit. 75.14.221.167 (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews Depicted as Killers of Jesus
I'm surprised that this Wikipedia article makes no mention of the well-known statement made by Paul in 1 Thessalonians. With all due respect to Paul the Apostle, I believe one cannot ignore this statement in a discussion of his attitude towards Jews. I have inserted what I believe is a balanced view of this matter with references to two secondary sources. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement Attributed to Paul
"He wrote that faith in Christ was alone decisive in salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike"

Is there a citation for this? Ephesians 2:8-9, which is commonly cited to support statements such as "faith alone saves" or "grace alone saves" doesn't actually contain the word "alone" (at least not in the KJV). There is a large plurality of Christians who don't necessarily subscribe to "sola gratia, sola fides." Salvation is a divine prerogative not a human one: it is GOD who saves, not us, and God can save who He wills in the way that He wishes; as His creation, how can we set limits on His absolute Divine freedom? Finally, Ephesians 2:10 states that, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works," and this seems consistent with the parable of the talents. Tpkatsa (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Who was Paul?
Many of the various Jewish sects not listed by Josephus, such as the Nabateans and the Nazoreans did not use the Torah as their source and used other traditions. This is the prime reason why there was so much controversy. The Essenes also did not use a strict codex, but rather a series of books and sages. Also, Paul is more likely to be a composite character as some of his writings are definitely not in the same spirit as Jesus said and he claims to be a 'second Christ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.33.229 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)