Was Paul the First Christian Convert?
Of course, Paul converted, right? The chapter heading says so, and his name was changed to Saul, wasn't it?
Years ago, discussing Jesus and Paul with an Orthodox Jewish friend, he replied;
"... no one has a problem with Jesus, ... it is Paul who became a heretic."
His remark indicates that it is becoming widely accepted that Jesus was Jewish. In our time, more people are beginning to grapple with the implications of Jesus remaining a religious Jew throughout his life - but what about Paul?
Of course, Paul converted, right? The chapter heading says so, and his name was changed to Saul, wasn't it?
For those familiar with this site, we've frequently looked at the complexities of sectarian first-century Judaism. When we overlay this nuanced perspective, many popular assumptions encounter difficulties.
First Century Sectarianism
In the first century, Jewish expression in Israel was fragmented. Many scholars maintain that the early movements of Jesus' followers were still thoroughly enveloped within the broader spectrum of what we generally [now] call Judaism.
By the late first century, there was already a diversity of thought for the Jesus-oriented movements between the Jewish groups known as the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, for example.
Paul's writings reflect a new dimension entirely: how Gentiles figured into this tapestry. But this does not necessarily mean Paul ceased being Jewish or observant in his own life. In fact, scholars such as Mark Nanos and Paula Fredriksen maintain that Paul never left the boundaries of Judaism.
When asked about Paul's supposed conversion, Dr. Fredriksen answered:
We habitually think of him as “Paul the convert,” but Paul isn’t converting from Judaism to something else. He’s joining a Jewish group within Judaism. He’s a Pharisee, and then he becomes a member of this group around Jesus the Messiah. But he’s not exiting Judaism because of that. - Dr. Paula Fredriksen. Interview with Vision.org
This can be difficult for some to accept, likely because we're often given an overly simplified and anachronistic dichotomy, presuming that - 1) Judaism was at that time monolithic, and 2) Christianity formally existed in the first century. Neither of these are accurate.
Christianity, as we know it, would not formally exist for a few centuries. And, if one were to count the various streams of Judaism(s) mentioned in the Rabbinic literature, we'd find 24 discernible groups. While there may have been disagreements among these groups over practical observances, by and large, there remained unity in the fundamentals.
For example, hallmark observances, like Shabbat, were not disputed, but the technical details of how best to observe [it] churned some discussion. Believe it or not, healing on Shabbat was permissible in dire situations, but disagreements arose over what qualified as 'dire.'
In light of this, we should ask, "If Paul remained a Jew, what would have warranted the conflict captured throughout the book of Acts and Paul's Epistles if he had remained within Judaism?"
