Paul and Gamaliel -- By: Bruce D. Chilton

Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 14:1 (NA 2004)
Article: Paul and Gamaliel
Author: Bruce D. Chilton


Paul and Gamaliel

Bruce D. Chilton

And

Jacob Neusner

Bard College

Subjects and in even halakic principles important in formal constructions of the Mishnah plausibly identified with the patriarchate, in general, or with Gamaliel (or at least a Gamaliel), in particular, are compared with constructions that are also covered in Paul’s letters.

Key Words: Acts 22:3, Patriarchate, Gamaliel, Paul, Pharisees, Halakah, Mishnah

What Did Paul Learn From Gamaliel? The Problem

Acts 22:3 claims on Paul’s behalf that, as a Pharisee, he studied “at the feet of Gamaliel,” that is, with the patriarch of the Pharisaic party of the land of Israel in the succession from Hillel, thence, via the chain of tradition, from Sinai. What could he have learned from Gamaliel? Here we identify a program of topics that Paul can have taken up in his discipleship with Gamaliel, specifically, subjects and in some cases even halakic principles important in certain formal constructions of the Mishnah plausibly identified with the patriarchate in general, with (a) Gamaliel in particular.1 We propose to outline subjects

treated in such constructions that are also covered in Paul’s letters— a limited proposal indeed, but one that, in context, bears profound theological implications, as we shall make clear.

Formulating the problem in so minimalist a framework bears the judgment that we cannot open the Mishnah and reconstruct the teachings of its named authorities, including Gamaliel. Why not take whatever the rabbinic sources—early, late, and medieval—attribute to (a) Gamaliel at face value? The reason hardly requires elaborate statement but bears repeating. No critical scholar these days expects to open a rabbinic document, whether the Mishnah of ca. 200 c.e. or the Babylonian Talmud (b. Bavli) of ca. 600 c.e., and there to find what particular sages on a determinate occasion really said or did. Such an expectation rests on gullibility: believing everything without criticism.2 There is a second problem, separate from the critical one. Even if we were to accept at face value everything Gamaliel is supposed to have said and done, we should not have anything remotely yielding a coherent biography or even a cogent theology of more than a generic order. All we have are episodic and anecdotal data, bits and

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()