In keeping with talmudic tradition, this article presents a rabbinical thought
experiment that questions the authenticity—indeed the very historicity—of the Apostle
Paul’s Pharisaic Jewish background. By examining current interpretations of Saul’s
Damascus road conversion, as well as Lukan and Pauline accounts in the New Testament, it
becomes evident that there exists a striking disparity between Paul and other first
century Pharisees, particularly since he took far too many liberties with his beliefs
and behaviors (pre- and post-conversion) that would have set him apart from his
Pharisaic contemporaries. Moreover, Luke (a non-Jew writing in a post-Sadducean world)
was both an unreliable biographer and yet the primary source for claiming Paul was a
Pharisee. Thus, from a Jewish perspective, it is thought-provoking to ask whether the
idea of Paul as originally a Sadducee best explains these disparities. Ultimately, the
thesis of this article is that interpreters should not view Paul as having followed the
standard path to becoming an authentic Pharisee. In fact, Paul’s radical revision of
prevailing Pharisaic exegesis suggests he was likely never a Pharisee or, at the very
least, not a consistent Pharisee in the tradition of Gamaliel. The purpose of this
article is to trace just how modern scholarship would change if Pauline scholars
presumed that Paul was, in fact, a Sadducee instead of a Pharisee. Undoubtedly, the
consequence would suggest that both Paul and Luke were world-class (albeit
opportunistic) rhetoricians who used Pharisaic imagery solely to add credibility to
Paul’s image and his emerging influence on the primitive church.
The Wrong Practice Of Anointing Oil In The Church According To James 5:14 A Theological study
