Robert said

Firth’s knowledge of Greek is very poor. I don’t recall discussing Greek with you via PM; perhaps you’re thinking of someone else? I will, however, admit to being very proud of my sons each taking 5 years of Latin in public high school without any active encouragement from me whatsoever, and one of them even going on to major in Classics in college. That is perhaps what I am most proud of.

Whatever Paul’s persecution of early messianic Jews was, I doubt it entailed much in terms of Jewish authorities. Paul tends to exaggerate, as does Luke, his creative biographer. As for Paul himself being punished by some local synagogue authorities, we really don’t know what exactly he did to provoke such a reaction, and it is generally considered to be local synagogue authorities, not an official or centralized declaration of heresy that would occur later. And note that the later designation of messianic Jews as heretics did not expel, ‘excommunicate’, or otherwise strip them of their Jewish identity. They were remarkably tolerant of heretics, Jewish identity not being a matter of orthodox doctrine. They were slowly nudged out over time by discouragement of marriage. 

My own views on Paul were based initially on three excellent professors in graduate school (Lambrecht, Focant, Bieringer), and then my own reading over the years of all sorts of stuff, most recently Jewish exegetes. Perhaps the best popular introduction to the ‘Paul within Judaism’ school, is Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle by Paula Fredriksen. Less accessible for the general public, but still worth recommending, perhaps surprisingly, is Paul and the Faithfulness of God by NT Wright. If you think I’m arrogant, you haven’t seen anything yet!   

I think you are much the same as me.  We both studied history at the graduate level, we both didn’t go on to a career in that field, and how nice of Bart to provide us with a place to do a nice bit of intellectual wanking, and impress the occasional lurker who knows even less.  I judge not, lest I be judged.

You are again making definitive statements without any proof.  The same thing you accused me of.  And in fact, it would be difficult to prove any of this, with the available date, and I do understand that, because I did study history at the graduate level for three years, and you need to stop pulling your nonexistent rank.  You are about as much an historian as I am.  Amateurs, the both of us.   

My real problem here is that on the presumption that you were in some small way a professional in this field (I understood no major name in the field would be here at all), I allowed you to treat my suppositions as a thesis I had to defend from your one-man self-appointed doctoral committee.  (You will deny this, and I will roll my eyes.)

Let’s just tacitly agree–that’s over.  I will go on making my suppositions, you will go on making yours, Steefen (God help him) shall go on making his, and all shall be done in perfect equality, and nobody outside this forum will ever know or care what we say.  Fair?  

Paul may have been accepted as still a Jew, albeit a rogue and a traitor.  But his pagan converts who made no attempt to follow the Law and accepted a crucified criminal as Messiah (by which they and Paul meant something entirely different from what the great majorit of Jews did)–come on.  Pull the other one.  Find me one real historian, anywhere, who says that.  Provide the citation.  

Let’s.  Just.  STOP.

Btw, whatever happened to this historical Jesus guy Schweitzer was questing for?