Who was Paul, Really?

[Dan Unterbrink]

In the Book of Acts, Paul is the great Apostle to the Gentiles. He is from Tarsus, and his views become Church teachings. Is this historically accurate or a clever smokescreen to hide uncomfortable truths? Check out the following details from Josephus:

1. Saul/Paul persecutes the church after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 9:1-2) (35 AD) while Josephus’ Saul persecutes the poor after the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus (Antiquities 20.200-214) (62 AD). Did this persecution occur before Saul joined the Jesus Movement or after his removal in 44 AD at Antioch (Galatians)?

2. Paul pleads his case before Agrippa II (Acts 25:23 – 26:32) (60 AD) while Saul leads the Peace Party in an effort to have Agrippa II’s army fight against the insurgents (War 2.418-419) (66 AD).

3. Paul is saved by the Romans (Acts 21:27 – 23:35) (60 AD) while Saul also flees to Roman protection (War 2.556-557) (66 AD).

4. Paul appeals to Caesar and then travels to Rome (Acts 26:32) (60 AD). Saul is sent to Nero in Achaia (modern-day Greece) by Cestius to plead his innocence and to lay blame for the Jewish war on Florus (War 2.558) (67 AD).

5. Since Paul/Saul never traveled to Rome, the shipwreck in Acts 27 must also be fiction. Note that Josephus is shipwrecked on his way to Rome (The Life of Flavius Josephus 14-15).

In short, was the Apostle Paul really Josephus’ Saul, a member of the Herodian royal family?

Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 4 by Goat]

Yes, well, the descendant of a convert. Herod inherited his citizenship from his father Antipater, who received it from Julius Caesar for his assistance to Pompey in the conquest of Judea. Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I , the short 2012 version of the 90's tome, explains how Paul fits into the family tree pretty well.

Or, considering he vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Would you please refer to the reference I've posted above. It's been suggested that you might have missed it. If it's easier let me put it here again, " Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I , the short 2012 version of the 90's tome.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 4 by Goat]

Yes, well, the descendant of a convert. Herod inherited his citizenship from his father Antipater, who received it from Julius Caesar for his assistance to Pompey in the conquest of Judea. Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I , the short 2012 version of the 90's tome, explains how Paul fits into the family tree pretty well.

Or, considering he vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Would you please refer to the reference I've posted above. It's been suggested that you might have missed it. If it's easier let me put it here again, " Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I , the short 2012 version of the 90's tome.

Shrug. Eissnman has a lot of unorthodox ideas that are rejected by the vast majoirty of mainstream biblical scholars, particularly in the books he shoves out to the popular press. I personally can't take it seriously.

It says in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research that "Eisenman's theories are highly speculative and has not gained any adherents'

[ThatGirlAgain]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

Or, considering the vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Paul’s claim that he was of the tribe of Benjamin is part of presenting his strongly Jewish background. He is arguing that Jewish Law is not the way of salvation. He needs to establish Jewish credentials to be taken seriously in making such an argument.

Philippians 3:5-6
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

In addition to supporting his claim to have been solidly Jewish by knowing the tribe he was descended from, Paul could very well have had another motive. The tribe of Benjamin supported David as the head of a newly formed united kingdom and remained loyal to the House of David when the kingdom split again a few generations later. The inference is that Paul is of uncompromisingly Jewish stock.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 4 by Goat]

Yes, well, the descendant of a convert. Herod inherited his citizenship from his father Antipater, who received it from Julius Caesar for his assistance to Pompey in the conquest of Judea. Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I , the short 2012 version of the 90's tome, explains how Paul fits into the family tree pretty well.

Or, considering he vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Would you please refer to the reference I've posted above. It's been suggested that you might have missed it. If it's easier let me put it here again, " Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I , the short 2012 version of the 90's tome.

Shrug. Eissnman has a lot of unorthodox ideas that are rejected by the vast majoirty of mainstream biblical scholars, particularly in the books he shoves out to the popular press. I personally can't take it seriously.

Biblical studies and archaeology are very conservative (and defensive) disciplines. Eisenman was almost single-handedly responsible (with some assistance from the Biblical Archaeology Review) for breaking the 40 year log on getting the Dead Sea Scrolls published. And that log jam came to be because the "scholars" charged with translating them didn't like what they saw. 40 years and they were still going nowhere.

It says in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research that "Eisenman's theories are highly speculative and has not gained any adherents'

They're saying the same thing about the Talpiot tombs finds and the James ossuary. 2000 years of entrenchment make for some pretty intransigent resistance--but reason is finally surfacing finally and bearing facts, making it a force to be reckoned with.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

Or, considering the vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Paul’s claim that he was of the tribe of Benjamin is part of presenting his strongly Jewish background. He is arguing that Jewish Law is not the way of salvation. He needs to establish Jewish credentials to be taken seriously in making such an argument.

Philippians 3:5-6
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

In addition to supporting his claim to have been solidly Jewish by knowing the tribe he was descended from, Paul could very well have had another motive. The tribe of Benjamin supported David as the head of a newly formed united kingdom and remained loyal to the House of David when the kingdom split again a few generations later. The inference is that Paul is of uncompromisingly Jewish stock.

Yes, he is. However, even back then, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe. IT would even be more unlikely from someone outside of Juddah (like Tarsus).

Let me repeat something originally written by cnorman

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.
--------------
One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.



(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination..

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

Or, considering the vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Paul’s claim that he was of the tribe of Benjamin is part of presenting his strongly Jewish background. He is arguing that Jewish Law is not the way of salvation. He needs to establish Jewish credentials to be taken seriously in making such an argument.

Philippians 3:5-6
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

In addition to supporting his claim to have been solidly Jewish by knowing the tribe he was descended from, Paul could very well have had another motive. The tribe of Benjamin supported David as the head of a newly formed united kingdom and remained loyal to the House of David when the kingdom split again a few generations later. The inference is that Paul is of uncompromisingly Jewish stock.

Yes, he is. However, even back then, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe. IT would even be more unlikely from someone outside of Juddah (like Tarsus).

Why do you say that the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe? Matthew and Luke both present genealogies for Jesus. Matthew goes to great lengths to emphasize descent via the House of David. Luke also explicitly mentions it. Luke, in his taxation story, has everyone know their House. The point is not that these stories are necessarily true but that the idea of people knowing their House was entirely believable. And why should it not be? A father would pass on the information to his male sons who would pass it on to their sons. This would not be surprising in a culture seeking to preserve its integrity in the face of frequent foreign incursions. Whether Jews really knew for sure what House they were descended from does not matter. It would not be unusual for them to think they did.

Let me repeat something originally written by cnorman

I feel a bit odd replying to Charles since he has left this community and cannot defend himself. However his arguments were lifted directly from The Mythmaker. I read that book a few years ago and was disappointed to find it more shrill than scholarly. Anyway, here goes.

The LXX, or Septuagint, was not highly regarded by the Jews of Jesus's day. Many, if not most, rabbis and sages of that time and later regarded it as an abomination. The only proper language for reading and studying Torah was, and is today, thought to be the Hebrew in which it was originally written. The only Jews who ever used it extensively were the Jews of the Greek Diaspora whose culture produced it.

One of the points which makes Paul's purported Jewishness suspect, is, as it happens, the fact that all of his quotations from the OT come from the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible. It is hard not to conclude that Paul was unable to read Hebrew. This in itself does not indicate that Paul could not have been Jewish, but it is a problem if one wishes to show that Paul's Judaism was typical or normative of the Jews of his day.

Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora. The LXX was written for Jews of the Diaspora. Is there a problem here? Quite the opposite of indicating that Paul was not Jewish, it indicates that he was Jewish. Who else would be reading LXX?

It is true that Paul rejects his Jewish heritage but I am not aware of anything that suggests his Judaism was different from ‘normative’ Judaism. And if it was, so what? It would be a result of living in the Diaspora and not participating in Temple life. Or were Jews of the Diaspora not ‘real’ Jews. I know some Orthodox Jews who consider other Jews to be not the real thing.

A far greater problem is Paul's general attitude toward the Law; he clearly regards it as a burden and a trial, whereas the attitude of Jews throughout the ages has been to see it as a delight, a lamp to one's feet, sweet as honey, and so on. Pick a Psalm. Paul's attitude is nothing if not atypical.

A No True Scotsman argument. Paul is arguing that adherence to the Law is no longer the way. Paul has given up Judaism and its rules. I know several Jews who have abandoned virtually all aspects of Judaism, including one I live with. Does this prove they were never Jewish?

It's clear that Paul was much more a product of the overwhelmingly Greek-dominated culture of Tarsus, a backwater of the Jewish world that was much more oriented toward Athens than toward Jerusalem, than of the Jewish culture he claims. It is even suspect that Paul claims to know he is of the tribe of Benjamin; even in Jesus's day, few Jews other than Levites still knew their tribal affiliation, though there were (and still are) exceptions. This would be particularly unlikely in Tarsus, which, as noted, was far from being a center of Jewish culture.

I have addressed the tribal affiliation issue above.

Why would Jews of the Diaspora who have enough interest in their heritage to want to have the Jewish scriptures in a form they were able to read be less likely to know (or think they know) their ancestry. And whether or not Paul is right, he apparently knows the meaning of claiming to be of the tribe of Benjamin when presenting his credentials.

Paul claims to have been a student of the great rabbi Gamaliel, but his writings and thought show no evidence of this influence whatever.

No, Paul never makes this claim in any of his letters, not even when he is presenting his credentials in Philippians. Luke makes the claim in Acts. Luke the Storyteller likes to elaborate. For example, Matthew covers the virgin birth in 7 rather matter of fact verses, making it mainly about Joseph’s reaction to the single verse conception. Luke expands this to over 30 colorful verses and does not mention Joseph at all.

And speaking of the virgin birth…

As for the virgin birth; if this was such an important and central doctrine of Christianity, it seems odd that Paul was apparently unaware of it, or alternatively, did not regard it as worth talking about. He mentions it nowhere.

So what? How does that relate to Paul’s Jewishness or lack thereof?

The virgin birth story would appear to originate with Matthew, probably written years after Paul was no longer around. It seems to be a collision of the Son of God tradition (which Paul references), Matthew’s penchant for over-literalizing prophesies so there is no mistaking the reference (remember the two animal entrance into Jerusalem?) and a shovelful of Philo (On the Cherubim).

The virgin birth story is often attributed to pagan influences (mistakenly I believe). Does Paul not knowing it suggest that he was not influenced by pagan thought?

(2) Paul of Tarsus clearly knew relatively little about Jewish teachings. He may not even have been Jewish.

On the contrary, Paul goes to great lengths to find Jewish imagery to establish the crucifixion of Jesus as an intentional sacrifice. True he mixes up blood sacrifices, atonement sacrifices, Passover rituals and First Fruits ideas. But he knows about them all. IMO this was for the purpose of explaining an otherwise inexplicable problem, that a person thought by many to be the Messiah got killed instead of ushering in the Messianic age.

Paul apparently could not read Hebrew. All his OT translations are from the LXX (the Septuagint, a Greek translation). This would be extremely unusual for a supposedly learned Jew of the time; the LXX was considered suspect by Hebrew-speaking Jews, and many rabbis of the time considered it an abomination.

Been there, done that. But we do not see the strong rejection of the Septuagint until the Council of Jamnia, a cover name for the efforts to formalize the TaNaKh in the late 1st century CE. This was part of the establishment of rabbinic Judaism to address the crisis of the loss of the Temple in 70 CE. Paul wrote well before this. What ill will existed before that time was due to the Jews of the Diaspora not being under the thumb of the authorities in Jerusalem, e.g., not making the several annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem and not being subject to the Temple Tax (both quite lucrative and ego-stroking affairs).

Paul claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin; while that is possible, it is very unlikely indeed. Even by the time of Jesus, most Jews had long since lost or forgotten their tribal affiliations. Then and now--though there are exceptions--virtually the only Jews who know from what tribe they are descended are Levites, or of the subgroup of Levi called the Cohens, the priestly tribe descended from Aaron, Moses's older brother (both Moses and Aaron were Levites).

Knowing one's tribal affiliation would be even more peculiar for a Jew from Tarsus, because that was not a Jewish city nor a center of Jewish culture; it was emphatically Greek. Finding a Jew in that backwater of the Jewish world who knew his tribe would be like finding a hillbilly in the Ozarks who could trace his ancestry back to 12th-century England.

Been there, done that. BTW Paul never tells us where he came from. It is Luke in Acts who mentions Tarsus.

My father once told me about when he was younger, his parents took the family to Ireland to visit where their ancestors came from. The last of them had emigrated in the late 19th century, almost a hundred years before. My grandfather had used information his grandfather had told him and also asked around the area. The result was that (he believed) he found the site where the family home had stood for centuries. It is not uncommon for cultures to try to preserve their heritage.

Most importantly of all, Paul's attitude toward the Law--that it is a burden and a torment--was and is practically unheard of among Jews. Pick a Psalm: the Law is invariably regarded as a a joy, a light, a precious gift, the greatest of all God's blessings. It is difficult to express how peculiar Paul's attitude here is. It's analogous to a Christian regarding the Gospel as the "Bad News."

Been there, done that. No True Jew argument.

However great a figure Paul may be among Christians, he was no authority on Judaism.

One again, been there done that. No supporting evidence provided.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 6 by Goat]

Or, considering the vast lack of knowledge, he might have adopted the 'tribe of Benjamin' nomenclature because of Herod. The herodian connection is an assumption based on a few words that have multiple possibility.

Paul’s claim that he was of the tribe of Benjamin is part of presenting his strongly Jewish background. He is arguing that Jewish Law is not the way of salvation. He needs to establish Jewish credentials to be taken seriously in making such an argument.

Philippians 3:5-6
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

In addition to supporting his claim to have been solidly Jewish by knowing the tribe he was descended from, Paul could very well have had another motive. The tribe of Benjamin supported David as the head of a newly formed united kingdom and remained loyal to the House of David when the kingdom split again a few generations later. The inference is that Paul is of uncompromisingly Jewish stock.

Yes, he is. However, even back then, the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe. IT would even be more unlikely from someone outside of Juddah (like Tarsus).

Why do you say that the vast majority of Jews did not know their tribe? Matthew and Luke both present genealogies for Jesus. Matthew goes to great lengths to emphasize descent via the House of David. Luke also explicitly mentions it. Luke, in his taxation story, has everyone know their House. The point is not that these stories are necessarily true but that the idea of people knowing their House was entirely believable. And why should it not be? A father would pass on the information to his male sons who would pass it on to their sons. This would not be surprising in a culture seeking to preserve its integrity in the face of frequent foreign incursions. Whether Jews really knew for sure what House they were descended from does not matter. It would not be unusual for them to think they did.

Yes, after the first Diaspora, most Jews lost their tribal knowledge. As for Mathew and Luke , why they both have this long genealogies, they are mismatched. The fact most Jews didn't have their lineages is just another reason to see both Matthew and Luke having fictional elements.. (aside from them contradicting each other on the genealogies).

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 16 by ThatGirlAgain]

It is true that Paul rejects his Jewish heritage but I am not aware of anything that suggests his Judaism was different from ‘normative’ Judaism. And if it was, so what? It would be a result of living in the Diaspora and not participating in Temple life. Or were Jews of the Diaspora not ‘real’ Jews. I know some Orthodox Jews who consider other Jews to be not the real thing.

The "so what" is that he was a Herodian "Jew", who sported Roman citizenship and were loyal to the Emperor above their fellow Jews. Herod "converted" to Judaism only as a matter of form when he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate. And he didn't make things better by his extreme brutality on his "fellow" Jews.

And btw, Paul's hometown, Tarsus, was the Roman center of Mithraism, the eastern mystery religion followed by many of the Roman upper class. It is what Paul melded together with the beliefs of the Jewish followers of Jesus to form what was to be come "Christianity", but should rightly be called Paulism.

Further, six hundred, threescore and six (not 666), the number of the beast, is Jewish Gematria (translation of words to numbers) for Tarsus.

BTW Paul never tells us where he came from. It is Luke in Acts who mentions Tarsus.

Yes, because coming from a Jewish backwater like Tarsus would hardly fit with him being a Pharisee (and neither did his thuggery on behalf of the Sanhedrin fit the profile of a Pharisee). Also, the revelation of being a native from Tarsus might lead to the discovery of his Roman citizenship inherited by him via his Herodian ancestry--something he kept secret until the Temple riot threatening his life.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Yes, after the first Diaspora, most Jews lost their tribal knowledge. As for Mathew and Luke , why they both have this long genealogies, they are mismatched. The fact most Jews didn't have their lineages is just another reason to see both Matthew and Luke having fictional elements.. (aside from them contradicting each other on the genealogies).

My point was that the idea of knowing one’s tribe was not unbelievable. As I said, Luke’s tax story has everyone knowing their tribe. Matthew and Luke present contradictory genealogies for their own separate purposes, which is why they differ. (*) But clearly the idea of knowing one’s genealogy is not unbelievable. If that were not the case, why should Matthew and Luke want to appear fictional?

Acts 2 (the subject of a recent thread BTW) has Peter addressing a large crowd of Jews in Jerusalem, many of them from outside Judea. Presumably this was a believable scenario, whether or not it really happened. We may note that there are many Jews in many parts of the world today and throughout history who retained much of their heritage.

And recall that Paul was looking to convince Jews of the Diaspora that gentiles could be admitted without circumcision and otherwise following Jewish Law. Clearly there were Jews who retained their heritage out there. They would have understood Paul’s claim to be of the tribe of Benjamin as impressive credentials both in knowing his tribe and in being of that particular tribe known for its loyalty to David and his kingdom. Do you have any other explanation as to why Paul would have made this claim?

(*) Someday, maybe after I finally graduate, I may get around to presenting my “Luke wrote in opposition to Matthew� mega-thesis.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[Replying to post 16 by ThatGirlAgain]

It is true that Paul rejects his Jewish heritage but I am not aware of anything that suggests his Judaism was different from ‘normative’ Judaism. And if it was, so what? It would be a result of living in the Diaspora and not participating in Temple life. Or were Jews of the Diaspora not ‘real’ Jews. I know some Orthodox Jews who consider other Jews to be not the real thing.

The "so what" is that he was a Herodian "Jew", who sported Roman citizenship and were loyal to the Emperor above their fellow Jews. Herod "converted" to Judaism only as a matter of form when he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate. And he didn't make things better by his extreme brutality on his "fellow" Jews.

Despite being a ‘convert’, Herod was fanatical about observing the precepts of Judaism, like any clever politician. After Herod killed his sons, the Emperor Augustus remarked that it was safer to be Herod’s pig than his son. Highly observant Herod would never make a meal of a pig.

And btw, Paul's hometown, Tarsus, was the Roman center of Mithraism, the eastern mystery religion followed by many of the Roman upper class. It is what Paul melded together with the beliefs of the Jewish followers of Jesus to form what was to be come "Christianity", but should rightly be called Paulism.

It was the Roman Army that was known for following Mithraism. The Roman upper class followed the traditional Roman mythology, this being emblematic of loyalty to Rome. Mithraism does not appear to have existed before the late 1st century, well after Paul wrote.
Ref: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... ?page=main

In my view, Paul was offering an explanation of why Jesus was executed instead of fulfilling the expected role of Messiah. Paul’s imagery is all very Jewish in origin especially the Passover Seder image in which Jesus himself becomes the korban pesach, the sacrificial lamb who is symbolically consumed. Of course Paul’s imagery is all mixed up, pulling ideas from here and there in Judaism. Can you identify any Mithraic elements in Paul’s imagery?

Further, six hundred, threescore and six (not 666), the number of the beast, is Jewish Gematria (translation of words to numbers) for Tarsus.

How do you come up with 666? I come up with 336.

Tarsus = טרסוס
Ref: http://en.glosbe.com/en/he/Tarsus

[row][color=red]ט [/color][col]Tet [col]9 [row][color=red]ר [/color][col]Reish[col]200 [row][color=red]ס [/color][col]Samech[col]60 [row][color=red]ז[/color][col]Zavin[col]7 [row][color=red]ס[/color][col]Samech[col]60

Ref: http://www.numberman.net/Hebrew_Gem_Calculator.html

9 + 200 +60 + 7 + 60 = 336

BTW Paul never tells us where he came from. It is Luke in Acts who mentions Tarsus.

Yes, because coming from a Jewish backwater like Tarsus would hardly fit with him being a Pharisee (and neither did his thuggery on behalf of the Sanhedrin fit the profile of a Pharisee). Also, the revelation of being a native from Tarsus might lead to the discovery of his Roman citizenship inherited by him via his Herodian ancestry--something he kept secret until the Temple riot threatening his life.

When Paul claims to be “in regard to the law, a Pharisee� he meant strict literal observance, that is, a “Hebrew of Hebrews�. And notice that he expected the Jews of ‘backwater’ Philippi in Macedonia to understand him immediately.

At the time of Paul, the dominant Pharisee sect was the House of Shammai. Shammai took over the Sanhedrin when Hillel died in 20 CE. He insisted on literal interpretation of the 617 mitzvot and strict obedience to them. This is the kind of Pharisee that objected to the people who were listening to Jesus not performing the washing ritual before eating in Mark 7. Jesus rebukes them strongly for this and more serious charges. Mark tells us that this is when they first started looking for a way to kill Jesus. Sounds like the kind of people who would be into ‘thuggery’ against these upstart Jesus followers.

We should note once again that it is Luke the Storyteller who mentions Tarsus. We already know that Luke loved to elaborate and also that he disagrees with Paul on a number of matters of fact. Inventing reasons for Paul ‘hiding’ his origin seems gratuitous and simply backing into a pre-established theory.