Paul, agent of Rome, puts an end to the long parade of Jewish Messiahs creating unrest for the Romans. He does one heck of a job and is pensioned off to Spain! Paul admits in scripture to lying to serve his own ends.
Through his efforts, the search for a political king with the power to subdue the Romans is subverted. As well, The confusing array of Pagan cults are merged into Judaism, and the course of history is changed forever.
askwhy.co.uk
BOLDING IS MINE:
Paul of Tarsus
Barabbas had no thoughts about founding a church. Paul, who never knew Barabbas in person, actually founded Christianity. He considered his visions of the resurrected Christ to be superior to direct experience of the living Barabbas.
The main sources of information about Paul are his epistles and the New Testament book, attributed to Luke, the Acts of the Apostles. The epistles naturally are partially autobiographical and liable to show him in the best light, and the author of the Acts of the Apostles, which was written later than the epistles, was partisan: he was a fervent supporter of Paul. In reading these sources we therefore have to guard against the bias for Paul there naturally is within them. The Acts of the Apostles has many faults. It is a sorry mixture of several sources, compiled selectively and heavily edited. The sequence of events in it is confused. It is not historical. It was written in Greek for a Greek audience offering the Pauline view of the origin of Christianity. The only independent source we have about Paul is an extract from the writings of the Ebionites which gives quite a different picture. No unexpurgated memoirs have survived of the men who actually knew Barabbas. The Christianity which came down to us is Paul's version - the version of a man who knew nothing about the life or work of Barabbas, had never met him and was not interested in him except as a divine sacrifice.
Acts indicates that Paul was a Jew of the dispersion born in Tarsus in Cilicia, Asia Minor (modern Turkey). He was originally called Saul, or more probably Solon because Tarsus was a Greek city, and was brought up in Jerusalem. Paul does not tell us his birthplace in his epistles but he does claim he was an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew and a Pharisee.
Acts says he left Tarsus to go to Israel to study with the leading Pharisee, Gamaliel. Paul however does not make this claim himself and it is likely to be false because the starting place for a student of Gamaliel was a profound knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and, though Paul is well versed in the Scriptures, most scholars cannot see sufficient depth in Paul's writings for him to have been taught in the best school. Acts claims that Paul was born a Roman citizen - his father must have been a Roman. Yet Acts also clearly implies that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10 "my vote was cast against them" suggesting that he had a vote in the Sanhedrin). Both statements could not be true. Acts and Paul's own letters show that he was willing to distort the truth ("be all things to all men"). A blunt person would say he was a liar - he would say whatever was expedient.
Paul seems desperate to be seen as an orthodox Jew of a respected party, for despite the impression given in the New Testament, the Pharisees were seen throughout the Roman and the Parthian Empires as a serious and respectable religious group. Yet material relating to Paul seems uniformly anti-Pharisee. Thus he says he was flogged five times by "the Jews", New Testament code for the Pharisees. Why then did he claim to be a Pharisee? Biblical scholar, Hans Maccoby, argues that by so doing he strengthened his argument that Pauline Christianity was the successor to the Jewish religion. Paul, the devout Jew, who persecuted the original followers of Barabbas, the Nazarenes, by the grace of God was converted and then saw in the new religion the successor to Judaism. There must be something in a religion that means more to a devoutly orthodox Jew than his own!
Saul's family had had to flee from Gischala in Galilee, a breeding ground for revolutionaries, during some messianic disturbances - quite probably those involving Barabbas. Thereafter he disliked messianic movements, whence his persecution of the Nazarenes. Saul was the "young man" in The Acts of the Apostles who looked after the coats of the persecutors of the Nazarenes who were stoning the martyr, Stephen.
Saul went to the High Priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus giving permission to extradite Nazarenes and bring them back to Jerusalem. In a vision on the way to Damascus Saul is confronted by Jesus who asks "why are you persecuting me?" and Paul becomes convinced that it is the heretics who preach Jesus's message, not the appointed Apostles. He becomes a convert to the Hellenist sect taking the name Paul and appoints himself as Apostle to the gentiles.
Such is the story, but could "a Pharisee of the Pharisees" work for the collaborating High Priest? It seems unlikely, even if the traditional enemies, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, were united in wanting to punish the Hellenistic branch of the Nazarenes opposing the Laws of Moses. Maccoby poses the following questions.
Is it not odd that Saul should go to Damascus when he evidently had plenty of work harrying the Nazarenes in Judaea?
Is it not also odd that an apparently private citizen should apply for permission to pursue the Nazarenes abroad - surely it was a job for the authorities if it had to be done at all?
What authority would the High Priest of Judaea have over people living in Damascus, a Syrian city?
What authority would the High Priest have over synagogues, teaching establishments run by rabbis and supported by local Jewish communities, wherever they were?
If Nazarenes had to be pursued, it is difficult to see why the High Priest would not have sent one of his own Temple Guard. Indeed all of this persecution by Paul would be better explained if he were a member of the Temple Guard, implying that Paul was a paid agent of the High Priest and therefore directly or indirectly an agent of the Romans. If Paul worked for the High Priest, it suggests that his claim to be a Pharisee is a lie.
These conclusions depend upon our understanding Damascus to be the famous Arab city in Syria. The reference in Acts to the street called Straight seems to confirm that it is. But if there were another Damascus in Judaea it could have fallen under the jurisdiction of the High Priest who could therefore have legally sent his policeman. If "Damascus" were a code word for the Essene community at Qumran then Paul would not have been going outside of Judaea to get to "Damascus". Acceptance of this idea would directly link Paul, the early Christians and the Qumran Community. Now in Galatians, Paul says after his conversion: "I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem". This confounded scholars until the Essene headquarters was recognised as Damascus but now it is clear. After becoming a follower of Jesus, Paul went to Qumran to be initiated as an Essene, a procedure which takes three years. This is further demonstrated in his writings which use more Essene words than any other books of the New Testament. The references to the street named Straight and to Arabia evidently are editors' additions inserted through ignorance or deceit. And in Acts Paul's sojourn in Damascus is turned in typical fashion into a dispute with Jews not the period of initiation it really was - the disputes came later.
Back in Jerusalem, according to Acts, Paul became allied with the Hellenists led originally by Stephen and Philip. He appeared to switch from being ultra-orthodox to being ultra-radical. Paul's idea now was to let all those who believed in Jesus to become full members of the Church and blow the Mosaic Law. The author of Acts makes it appear that Paul upheld Jesus's idea that there was now a superior Law while the Jerusalem Church of Barabbas's original followers were too stupid to understand this and upheld the old Law. In fact, of course, Barabbas was as orthodox as his brethren and he is depicted thus in the gospels. But Paul wanted to substitute the new Law of the redemption of mankind from original sin through the sacrifice of the quasi-divine being. To this the Law of Moses was a hindrance.
James the Just and the Palestinian followers of Barabbas would hear nothing of it!
Since the Nazarenes were still a part of Judaism, the original Apostles did not trust Paul and eventually he incensed orthodox Jews of the Diaspora so much that the they threatened to kill him and he had to be sent to Tarsus. Thankful to be rid of him the leaders of the Jerusalem Church allowed him to go on his self appointed mission to convert gentiles. The Nazarenes were still expecting Barabbas to return on a cloud and if Paul could be gotten rid of converting gentiles in foreign parts then fine. But he returned in 49 AD again to seek to persuade the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem to abrogate the Mosaic Law for gentiles.
According to Acts Paul succeeded but Paul's own letters make no reference to this victory even though it would plainly have been a triumph for him. In fact the opposite is true - James reasserted the status quo: "godfearers" could only be associates of the Church; circumcision was necessary for conversion. The Nazarene authorities, who had known Barabbas during his lifetime, were adamant that the Elect would consist of Jews or full converts to Judaism. Paul proves it himself, for off he went writing letters illustrating his contempt for the associates of Jesus. (Gal 2:6, Gal 2:16, Phil 3:9). He writes of "false Apostles" and "reputed" pillars sent to counter his teaching, confirming that the Apostles opposed him. He berates the Galatians for accepting this "different gospel"; he refers to "another Christ whom I have not preached" showing clearly that there were two quite different and antagonistic interpretations of Jesus's purpose. Paul acknowledged to the gentile proselytes that the Jesus of the Jerusalem Church was "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11: 3-4). Later, representatives from Jerusalem visit him in Antioch apparently to accuse Paul of backsliding in his adherence to the Law. Paul and Barnabas are ordered back to Jerusalem. The first schism in the Church had been recognised.
If the New Testament is to be believed in respect of Peter, he is unsure which of the two factions, Paul's or James's, to follow. Paul writes that he opposed Peter's orthodox view at Antioch but persuades Peter of the correctness of the liberal interpretation and Peter then eats with gentiles. Faced with members of the Jerusalem Church, Peter reverts to the orthodox view. The Recognitions of Clementine speaks of a tradition that Peter tells followers at Tripolis to believe only those who bring the testimonial of Jesus's brother, James, from Jerusalem. He warns of: "false prophets, and false Apostles and false teachers, who indeed speak in the name of Christ but do the work of the devil". Peter was therefore opposed to Paul and Paul's influence on him sounds like more Pauline fantasy aimed at boosting his prestige.
So in 58 AD Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by James and the Elders for propagating views contrary to the Church. Paul's friends asked him not to go but he determined to do so. James and the other "Zealots of the Law" accused Paul of abrogating the Law of Moses. No reply was recorded but Paul agreed to undergo a solemn purification proving that the Nazarene Church again imposed its will upon Paul and that it had not abrogated the Law. James might have arranged this knowing that Paul had been teaching false doctrine and that he could not refuse a request to undergo purification without damning himself.
Paul was known by some orthodox Jews of the diaspora and hated by them as an apostate. This is illustrated in Acts when a furious mob gave chase to Paul. They felt Paul had violated the Temple by undergoing ritual purification, as James had ordered, though he was a hypocrite who deliberately and habitually preached violation of the Law. Only the Roman soldiers saved him and escorted him to safety in the Antonia fortress. The Romans intended to give Paul a whipping, presumably for causing a public disturbance, but Paul pulled another rabbit out of the bag. He revealed that he was a Roman by birth and could not be punished without trial. Some forty Jews then plotted to kill him but the Roman commander found out, supposedly from Paul's young nephew, and Paul was taken to Caesarea protected by a substantial body of troops! From Caesarea he is, after some time, taken to Rome for trial (on what charges nobody knows) and there he disappears from history after apparently living under house arrest for two years. The narrative ends suddenly.
There is much in this that is odd. Paul:
turns out unexpectedly to be a Roman,
has apparent wealth,
began on good terms with the Temple officials,
finished on good terms with the Roman officials.
In his Epistle to the Romans (16:11) he has a companion called "Herodion" and in Acts (13:1) a member of the Antioch Church is the foster brother of Herod the Tetrarch. The Herods were the family of the puppet kings of Palestine and the Herodians were the party of supporters of the Herods. Paul seemed well in with the Romans and the Jewish collaborators. Was Paul a Roman spy or agent provocateur? Was his mission to infiltrate the messianic movement in Judaea to undermine and betray it? We do not know what became of Paul - as we noted, Acts ends suddenly - although tradition has it that he was martyred. What though of another tradition that he went to Spain? Was he pensioned off by the Emperor in a Spanish villa?
There is one independent source about Paul. The Ebionites or poor men, were suppressed by the Church as heretical but fragments of their beliefs remain in Heresies by Epiphanius. They say that Paul was not a Pharisee, his parents were gentile converts to Judaism, he went to Jerusalem as an adult, became a henchman of the High Priest and eventually sought fame by creating a new religion. Ebionites did not accept Paul's view that Jesus was a divine sacrifice but saw him as a human sent to begin the new era, as prophesied. They accepted the Torah, obeyed the Law of Moses and regarded themselves still as Jews. They were the remnants of the Jerusalem Church! J.L.Teicher of Cambridge University, who identified the Qumran Community with the Ebionites, goes further - he believes the Teacher of Righteousness was Jesus and the Liar of the Qumran Scrolls was Paul.
Paul's letters were written before about 60 AD, only 30 years after the crucifixion of Barabbas yet already they speak of serious disagreements between himself and the Apostles in Jerusalem. As the true successors to the Nazarenes it was the Ebionites not Paul who transmitted the pure teaching of Jesus, for their founders, Peter and James, had known Jesus in life. Also by 30 years after the crucifixion, the Pauline gentile churches of Italy, Greece and Asia Minor and the Gnostic churches of Libya and Egypt had split from the Nazarene church in Jerusalem. The latter led by James the Just remained under the authority of the Sanhedrin and followed Judaic conventions. |
