Fully agree with the last part, Paul’s claim of having been a persecutor "is key to understanding the origins of the Pauline letters and worship of Jesus."
No need to get mucked-up with attested readings of the later Marcionites here, or to make stuff up. Paul is best understood on his own terms.
There is no “violently” in the extant text. Apparently in response to the legends in Acts, some bible translators insert that word, to the detriment of their credibility. Paul admits in his letters to the Corinthians as being somewhat of a milquetoast.
Even the Greek word typically translated here as “persecuting” does not always have a negative connotation. The verb is better understood in general terms as “pursue”, and one can pursue an enemy or one can pursue love ---
An entirely reasonable translation could be like this ---
If we take Paul at his word here, he could have been destroying the assemblies with persistent and impassioned rhetoric and counter-arguments. Curiously, and quite significant I think, Paul admitted that the assemblies that he supposedly pursued in Judea and was destroying wouldn’t even recognize him (Galatians 1:22-23).
Why Paul Had to Claim be a Persecutor
Paul’s enterprise consisted of recruiting Gentile patrons with the claim they could become sons of the God of the Jews and full-fledged participants of the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), without the need to follow the Mosaic rituals and without the benefit of circumcision. Only faith in his system was required.
But the Jewish scriptures are unequivocally clear in several passages, some in the direct words of the deity no less, that circumcision was an absolute, non-negotiable requirement, both for native-born Jews and for converts. (Genesis 17:9-14, Exodus 12:43-49, Joshua 5:2-5, etc.)
Paul had a very real problem to solve before embarking on his evangelical work.
How could Paul claim to have been advanced in Judaism, and then promote participation with the God of the Jews, yet deny one of the most basic and explicit requirements of that God? Paul needed a darn good explanation.
So Paul claimed that he himself had initially thought the idea of full-fledged participants with the God of the Jews without the requirement for circumcision was ludicrous, and he claimed that he relentlessly opposed the idea. (Yes, just like those Jews telling his Galatians it was ludicrous).
Paul claimed that he himself adamantly opposed the concept, that is, until God himself set him straight by revealing the Son, and appointing Paul to spread the good news among the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16).
But how could Paul make his redemption from the law work, and sound convincing? How could Paul countermand the very explicit scriptural requirements? The scriptures were the “hill” on which Paul’s claims would live or die, and he turned to the scriptures for a solution.
Paul used the concept of a heavenly Son of God, perhaps drawing on Philo for inspiration, but Paul brought his Son down in the form of a man. "Having come of woman, having come under the law, that He might redeem those under the law" (Galatians 4:4-5), thus giving his incarnated spirit adequate standing (in a legal and logical sense) so that the sacrifice would be relevant to men.
Drawing on the scriptures and conflating two verses from Deuteronomy in the LXX (27:26 and 21:23), Paul claimed that his JC figure suffered a redemptive death by being hung on a tree (Galatians 3:10 and 3:13-14), a death that apparently provided all believers redemption from both the Mosaic rituals and from the requirement of circumcision. And Paul played silly word games to establish his JC figure as the seed (singular) of Abraham, so that faith has superseded the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (Galatians 3:16, see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9411).
These were certainly bold claims, and stretched logic. Even the Galatians apparently became skeptical. But by many twists of fate, and although the faith system has undergone very significant “evolution”, Paul's claims continue to be accepted by millions to this very day. Christians still claim to be sons of Abraham and full participants with the God of the Jews without regard to circumcision.
Paul apparently told the same story of being a persecutor to all his congregations. He mentioned it only briefly without much elaboration to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:9) and to the Philippians (3:6). Elaboration wasn’t necessary because he had already told them the story.
There's way more to Paul's story ---rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 3:32 am
Using a slightly different translation here (NASB vs NRSV):
"But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, ...."
The "mother's womb" is important here. Here I take "mother's womb" to be a metaphor for the Judaism of his youth. This could be read as saying, "God had separated me from the Jewish nation and made a separate covenant with me.
With Paul, Look to the Scriptures First
It is beyond question that Paul drew heavily on his own very creative manipulation of the scriptures in developing his faith system. This from Hays as associate professor of New Testament, now the George Washington Ivey Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Duke Divinity School and an ordained minister ---
(Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 1989, Richard B. Hays, p. 2)
Some have wondered how Paul could claim to have been both an ektroma (abortive) and have been chosen by God from the womb. Paul’s use of Jeremiah and Numbers provides the solution. Just like Miriam in Numbers 12 who was reprimanded by the Lord for having spoken against Moses and became like an ektorma (Numbers 12:1-12, LXX), Paul claimed to be like the ektorma (1 Corinthians 15:8-9) because he had persecuted the assembly of God.
But Paul also claimed to have been chosen from the womb to work among the Gentiles like Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-5, LXX), but also just like Jeremiah (1:6-8, LXX), it was only later in life that Paul was appointed by God to begin his work among the Gentiles. And just like Miriam was eventually “cleansed” by a sojourn in the desert allowed by the grace of God (Numbers 12:13-15, LXX), Paul saw himself as “cleansed” when called by God with the revelation of the Son, followed by his sojourn in the desert of Arabia.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:51 am
It does make sense here to say that 1 Cor 15:8-9 is meant to recall the story and language of Numbers 12:1-12.
Paul likely also drew on Isaiah 49:5-6 for his concept of having been selected from the womb, and for his "assignment" to bring the good news to the Gentiles.
Assemblies of God?
Examples in Paul ---
And for his own congregations ---
Again, one may need only look to the scriptures. I think Psalms and Joel are likely sources for Paul to have chosen this phrase to describe the groups of patrons he recruited, and for groups he claimed to have existed in Judea.
And Joel chapter two is rife with Pauline concepts.
A nearly verbatim citation from chapter two in Joel was used in Romans ---
The phrase above in Joel is directly followed by a very Pauline concept ---
In Joel 2 there is also a trumpet announcing the coming of the day of the Lord (2:1), and coming wrath throughout the chapter.
And back to the question at hand ---
One last comment here. Trying to understand the earlier Paul by using what little we can accurately know about the later Marcion, or by using the way the Marcionites chose to selectively spin Paul’s letters to support their own predilections as found in the polemic writings of their doctrinal enemies, can lead to endless tail-chasing.
Paul is best understood on his own terms.
robert j