My first draft was almost as long-winded as the text – Chapter One – under review, so I thought I'd trim it back to the bare essentials. Do shout if anything needs expanding.
So the text is here: The Pauline Conspiracy Text quotes in blue.
+++
Before we begin to evaluate Paul’s character as it is brought to us by Luke’s, The Acts Of The Apostles, and his own New Testament letters, we should understand his origination and his basic genealogy. Parentage is extremely important to us, for Paul held Roman Citizenship as well as being a Jew by birth, and a Hellenist by theological determination.
OK, so here we have three statements regarding Paul. The first two, his Roman citizenship and his Jewish birthright are not disputed. The third: 'a Hellenist by theological determination' is really somewhat vague, and needs to be explained, and then the evidence presented to support the claim. I'm assuming that this is the core of the thesis.
Paul was a dispersion Jew, not a Palestinian Jew as were Jesus and the disciples. It is important that we understand this, for Paul’s loyalties and practices as a Jew, were far different than the Christ and his Apostles.
Well that definitely needs explaining.
Paul was a Hellenist or Diaspora Jew...
OK. This 'Hellenist' thing needs to be dealt with. Under Alexander the Great, the whole Middle East was Hellenised. Then the Romans took over, and it was Romanised. When a Greek gymnasium was introduced into Jerusalem, it was installed by a Jewish High Priest. And other priests soon engaged in wrestling matches in the palaestra. The Septuagint is a product of Hellenism. Hellenism simply means the Jews adopted elements of Greek culture. It does not mean Jews of the Diaspora were any less orthodox or observant of the requirements of their religion. To infer a Diaspora Jew is different to a Palestinian Judaism is a suspicious claim, especially when the Hellenist influence within Jerusalem and Judea is indisputable.
It is in this city (Jerusalem) that we first meet the chief character, and subject, of this thesis (Paul). It is a time of radical movements within the infant church, sparked by revolutionary figures of which Stephen seems to have been the most outspoken.
What about Peter? James? How is Stephen 'revolutionary'? Doesn't say ...
He (Stephen) was a Hellenist, and obviously held to a philosophy that caused great concern to the Synagogue and the leaders of the new Christian religion.
And yet it seems that Stephen outraged the Hellenists! "Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen." (Acts 6:9). It was they, the Hellenists, who submitted a false testimony to the Sanhedrin regarding Stephens 'blasphemy' that led to his martyrdom. (cf Acts 6:9–14).
Quite what the philosophy was that so troubled 'the leaders of the new Christian religion', I have no idea, and the author does not say.
The Greek mind, that same Greek mind which had dared to regard its philosophy in a state as high as that of God’s word as given in the Holy Scriptures, now decried the Jewish religion and the Temple.
This is it, his thesis baldly stated.
The rest of Chapter One is effectively a sideshow, as it does not address the central issues. It's largely hyperbole and histrionics to undermine the reputation of Paul.
So the text is here: The Pauline Conspiracy Text quotes in blue.
+++
Before we begin to evaluate Paul’s character as it is brought to us by Luke’s, The Acts Of The Apostles, and his own New Testament letters, we should understand his origination and his basic genealogy. Parentage is extremely important to us, for Paul held Roman Citizenship as well as being a Jew by birth, and a Hellenist by theological determination.
OK, so here we have three statements regarding Paul. The first two, his Roman citizenship and his Jewish birthright are not disputed. The third: 'a Hellenist by theological determination' is really somewhat vague, and needs to be explained, and then the evidence presented to support the claim. I'm assuming that this is the core of the thesis.
Paul was a dispersion Jew, not a Palestinian Jew as were Jesus and the disciples. It is important that we understand this, for Paul’s loyalties and practices as a Jew, were far different than the Christ and his Apostles.
Well that definitely needs explaining.
Paul was a Hellenist or Diaspora Jew...
OK. This 'Hellenist' thing needs to be dealt with. Under Alexander the Great, the whole Middle East was Hellenised. Then the Romans took over, and it was Romanised. When a Greek gymnasium was introduced into Jerusalem, it was installed by a Jewish High Priest. And other priests soon engaged in wrestling matches in the palaestra. The Septuagint is a product of Hellenism. Hellenism simply means the Jews adopted elements of Greek culture. It does not mean Jews of the Diaspora were any less orthodox or observant of the requirements of their religion. To infer a Diaspora Jew is different to a Palestinian Judaism is a suspicious claim, especially when the Hellenist influence within Jerusalem and Judea is indisputable.
It is in this city (Jerusalem) that we first meet the chief character, and subject, of this thesis (Paul). It is a time of radical movements within the infant church, sparked by revolutionary figures of which Stephen seems to have been the most outspoken.
What about Peter? James? How is Stephen 'revolutionary'? Doesn't say ...
He (Stephen) was a Hellenist, and obviously held to a philosophy that caused great concern to the Synagogue and the leaders of the new Christian religion.
And yet it seems that Stephen outraged the Hellenists! "Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen." (Acts 6:9). It was they, the Hellenists, who submitted a false testimony to the Sanhedrin regarding Stephens 'blasphemy' that led to his martyrdom. (cf Acts 6:9–14).
Quite what the philosophy was that so troubled 'the leaders of the new Christian religion', I have no idea, and the author does not say.
The Greek mind, that same Greek mind which had dared to regard its philosophy in a state as high as that of God’s word as given in the Holy Scriptures, now decried the Jewish religion and the Temple.
This is it, his thesis baldly stated.
The rest of Chapter One is effectively a sideshow, as it does not address the central issues. It's largely hyperbole and histrionics to undermine the reputation of Paul.
