Resurrecting the thread "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity"

[xpastor]

Worth a read. Maccoby is a talmud scholar, and understands the rabbinic/Pharisaic method of argument. He shows that Paul flunks that test. Other examples include Paul's exclusive use of the Greek Septuagint, and that he did not appear to know biblical Hebrew, both of which would not have been hallmarks of a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel. Maccoby also points out that Pharisee Gamaliel defended the apostles in their trial, impossible if the Jesus followers and Pharisees were enemies.
Whole bunch of other stuff, not least of which is that per Maccoby the High Priests of the time were Sadducees, and were in opposition to Pharisees. Saul would not have worked as an enforcer for the Sadducean HP if he had been a Pharisee. Etc. Maccoby seems good in his wheelhouse, but perhaps not otherwise; and so are we all.

The story of Gamaliel speaking up for the Christians is in Acts, not written by Paul, and so is the claim that Paul was trained by Gamaliel. The author of Acts is far from accurate, and although Paul is the hero of his narrative, he says many things about Paul which are contrary to Paul's own assertions in the authentic letters. I think the author of Acts was much given to what I call "lying for Jesus."

As for Paul's claim to have been a Pharisee, possibly he too was lying for Jesus, or at least boasting for Jesus. Maybe it meant something like, "When I was a kid in Tarsus, I had a tutor who had some training as a Pharisee."