Paul's Persecution: Thinking Through the Issues

Here's how I ended up evaluating the different positions I outlined here and here. Since I'm short on time (preparing for my project defence on Wednesday), I'll just quote myself.

"If we begin with a Jerusalem-based hypothesis for the setting of the persecution, as I [have argued here, here, here, and here], we can rule out the socio-political explanation that assumes a Diaspora location and situation. But this explanation should not be forgotten too quickly: it seems to be a helpful description of what may underlie (certain of) the conflicts between Paul, the apostle, and Jewish communities of the Diaspora, especially as described in the book of Acts; additionally, its emphasis on Jewish attentiveness to the palatability of the gospel message from the perspective of the Romans can be transferred to a Palestinian setting. The first kind of socio-political explanation, that which assumes a Zealot-Palestinian viewpoint, places us in the right locale. It is uncertain, however, that Paul’s zeal for the law should be equated with Zealot anti-Roman sentiment. Neither is it clear that these socio-political factors are sufficient in themselves to explain the conflict between Paul and the early Christ-believers or why Paul pursued his victims even to Damascus. This hypothesis requires further testing.

The socio-theological explanation rests on a particular construal of what motivated zeal for the law, namely, that for the Jewish people the primary function of the law was sociological, not soteriological: they observed the law in order to remain a unique people. It is a valid and valuable insight that the law served an important sociological function. But how often do groups define the significance of their most cherished rituals and beliefs primarily in terms of their sociological effects? Texts which emphasize this aspect or effect of Torah-keeping (Lev 20.22-26; Let. Aris. 139, 142; Jub. 22.6; Philo Mos. 1.278) cannot overrule those (often programmatic) texts which emphasize Torah-keeping in the context of life and death (Lev 18.5; Deut 30.15-20, etc.). So while this explanation may emphasize an important aspect of the conditions that often accompany persecutions (i.e., that communal identity is threatened), it seems less helpful for understanding Paul’s explicit motivation for actions he took against Christ-believers.

Historically, religio-theological explanations perhaps have suffered from a lack of attention to the sorts of social conditions which usually attend persecutions. They have also been quick to assume a natural antagonism between Christ-belief (or “Christianity”) and “Judaism,” often understood in monolithic, essentialist terms. However, there is no reason to doubt that religious or theological factors had a part, and perhaps in the minds of those involved in the conflict, a very explicit part to play.

As Larry Hurtado has emphasized, following the crucifixion the environment in Jerusalem was naturally hostile towards any “positive thematizing” of Jesus. The Christ-believers’ stubborn and public proclamation of him as the risen Messiah who would return and judge the unrepentant irritated an already volatile situation. It is not hard to see how their activity in this context appeared to threaten the pre-eminent place of temple and Torah in Jewish life, both socio-politically and theologically. For all this, there is broad confirmation in the book of Acts.

There can be little doubt that socio-psychological issues also factored into Paul’s activity. But, for the most part, these explanations merit only our skepticism, not (necessarily) because the socio-psychological constitution of first-century Palestinians as a whole is entirely alien to our own but because the nature of the evidence simply does not allow precise answers to our question. Time and chance have combined to make this endeavour little more than speculation."

Paul’s Persecution of the Church: An Observation on the Four Approaches

What struck me about these four types of answers is that as different approaches they are not necessarily antithetical to one another. And yet I sense that there has been a tendency by different advocates of one or another approach to dismiss the others.

It is true that in the details these approaches may conflict with one another (as some do below). They can be configured in such a way as to actually complement each other, however. Here’s what I mean. (Allow me to be a little facetious.)

One can argue that from the perspective of the Christ-believers, the central issues in the persecution were religio-theological; that is, if you could ask them, “Why is Paul persecuting you?” the answer might well be something like “Because we preach salvation in Jesus the Messiah.”

If Paul were asked, this might well be his answer, too. Or, perhaps he would have said, “They are threatening our people’s traditional way of life,” which would conform to socio-theological emphases. Alternatively, he may have said, “If they continue on with their street-corner preaching about a crucified political pretender, gaining more followers, they risk putting us in danger of the Romans,” echoing socio-political concerns. Indeed, Paul may well have answered all three at once, or one way after breakfast, another after lunch, etc.

On the other hand, it is not likely that Paul would have answered “Because my doctor keeps giving me bad news, and I’m mad at God,” and yet this, too, (in theory) could be an important factor behind his activities. It’s also entirely possible that Paul’s victims could have recognized this as a/the factor; they might have answered, “Because he’s nuts.”

It is also legitimate to disregard, for a moment, the explicit factors that individuals in the conflict would cite. Regardless of what they might answer, the sociologist might point out that the persecuted group posed a serious threat to the larger community’s self-definition and coherence and that this explains the conflict. The insight might be valid even if the actors in the conflict would not recognize it or formulate it as such.

I think this is an important point to keep in mind when weighing the different approaches: It’s not all or nothing. In fact, if you want a well-rounded understanding of what happened, then you should take account of these different facets of life, the social, political, psychological, and religious.

I may yet offer a more serious evaluation of the details of each approach as they are represented below.