Kaus Haacker, in an essay on the New Perspective on Paul, wrote the following about why Paul, prior to his conversion, may have opposed the fledgeling Christian movement:
Unfortunately,
we cannot be sure about the reasons why young Paul regarded the Jesus
movement as a danger to Israel’s purity. In my opinion, a man offence (as
reflected in Acts 45) was that the apostles practiced healing miracles in the
name of a dead person named Jesus. Apart from belief in Jesus’ resurrection
that could be labelled as black magic, and pagan magic was among the was among
the primary targets of Zealotism. (Kaus Haacker, “Merits and Limits of the ‘New
Perspective on the Apostle Paul,’” in Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, ed., History and
Exegesis: New Testament Essays in Honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for His 80th
Birthday [New York: T&T Clark, 2006], 275-89, here, p. 283)
The footnote for the above paragraph reads:
See Sanh.
9:6 on zealots in general and Sanh. 6:4 on Shimeon ben Shetah. (Ibid.,
283 n. 31)
These texts read thusly:
San
9:6 MISHNA VI.: If one committed a crime which deserves two kinds of death
(e.g., one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law who is married, commits
two crimes--with a married woman, to which choking applies, and with his
mother-in-law, to which burning applies), he must be tried for the more
rigorous one. R. Jose, however, maintains: According to that act, he began
first. (Illustrations in the Gemara.)
GEMARA:
Is this not self-evident? Should one who has committed another crime which
brings an easier punishment be benefited by it? Said Rahba: It speaks of where
he was tried for a case which deserved a lenient death, and was sentenced, and
then committed a crime to which a more rigorous death applies. Lest one say that
this man is to be considered as already killed and not to be tried again, it
comes to teach us that he must be tried and punished with the more rigorous
death.
The
brother of R. Jose b. Hanna questioned Rabba b. Nathan: Whence is this law
deduced? (And the answer was:) from Ezek. 18.10-13; " . . . Upon the
mountains he eateth . . . and his eyes he lifteth up to the idols of the house
of Israel . . . and the wife of his neighbor he defileth . . . " To
bloodshed the sword applies, to adultery with a married woman choking
applies,
and to idolatry stoning applies, and it ends with "his blood shall be upon
him," which means stoning. Hence he is to be executed with the more
rigorous one. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak opposed: Perhaps all the crimes mentioned
in this passage come under the category of stoning, namely, a "dissolute
son," means a stubborn and rebellious son, to whom stoning applies;
"he defileth the wife of his neighbor" means a betrothed damsel, to
whom also the same applies; "to the idols he lifteth up," which is
idolatry, to which stoning applies? If it were so, then what came Ezekiel to
teach? And lest one say that he was only repeating what is in the Scripture,
then he ought to have done as did Moses our master, who said [Deut, 17.18]:
"He shall write the repetition of the law."
R.
Abhah b. Hanina lectured about the passage [ibid. 6]: Upon the mountains he
eateth not," which ends with [ibid. 9]: "He is righteous, he shall
surely live." Is it possible that, because he has not committed such
crimes, he should be called righteous? Therefore these verses must not be taken
literally, but "upon the mountains he eateth not" means that he does
not live upon the reward of the meritorious acts done by his parents; "his
eyes he lifteth not up to the idols" means that he never walked
overbearingly; "and the wife of his neighbor he defileth not," means
that he never tried to compete in the special trade of his neighbor; "unto
a woman on her separation he cometh not near" means that he never tried to
derive any benefit from the treasure of charity--and to this it reads: "He
is righteous, he shall surely live."
Rabban
Gamaliel, when he came to this passage, used to weep, saying: It seems as if he
who has done all of them is righteous, but not he who has done only one. Said
R. Aqiba to him: According to your theory, the verse [Lev. 18.24]: "Do not
defile yourself with all of these things," also means with all of them,
but one of them is allowed? Hence it means to say with "any" of them.
The same is to be said here: If one does one of the things mentioned above, he
is righteous.
"A
crime which deserves two kinds," etc. There is a Boraitha: How is R.
Jose's decision in our Mishna to be illustrated?--e.g., if the crime which he
committed with this woman was that she became first his mother-in-law and then
married. Hence the prohibition of having intercourse with her applied, even
before she married again. Then he must be tried under the crime "with a
mother-in-law." But if she became his mother-in-law after her marriage,
then he must be tried under the crime "with a married woman," as the
prohibition against intercourse with her existed already before she became his
mother-in-law.
Said
R. Adda b. Ahabah to Rabha: In the first case, in which she married after she
became his mother-in-law, why should he not also be tried for the crime with a
married woman? Did not R. Abuhu say that R. Jose agrees in case a prohibition
were added. (E.g., when she was his mother-in-law but unmarried, she was
prohibited to him only, but allowed to the whole world, and when married she
became prohibited to the whole world. Hence one prohibition was added. And in
such a case R. Jose agrees that the second crime must also be taken into
consideration.) And Rabha answered: Adda, my son, do you want us to execute him
twice? (R. Jose considers the added prohibition to be only concerning
sin-offerings, when incurred through error.)
San
6:4 MISHNA IV.: The stoning-place was two heights of a man. One of the
witnesses pushed him on his thighs (that he should fall with the back to the
surface), but if he fell face down, he had to be turned over. If he died from
the effects of the first fall, nothing more was to be done. If not, the second
witness took a stone and thrust it against his heart. If he died, nothing more
was to be done; but if not, all who were standing by had to throw stones on
him. Thus [Deut. 17.7]: "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon
him, to put him to death, and the hand of all the people at the last."
GEMARA:
There is a Boraitha: With his own height he was thrown down from the height of
three men. Was such a height necessary? Does not a Mishna in First Gate state
that as a pit which causes death is of ten spans, so all other heights which
may cause death must be no less than ten spans. Hence the height of ten spans
is sufficient? Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abuhu: From the
above-cited verse [Lev. 19.], it is inferred that a decent death must be
selected for him. If so, why not from a still higher place? Because his body
would be mangled.
"One
of the witnesses pushed him," etc. The rabbis taught: Whence do we know
that he must be pushed? From [Ex. 19.13]: "But he shall surely be stoned,
or shot through." From the term "yorauh yeyoreh," which means
pushing. And whence do we know that he must be stoned? From the term
"soqueul." And whence do we know with both stoning and pushing?
Therefore it reads "soquoul yisoquel auyorauh yeyoreh." And whence do
we know that when he died from pushing nothing more was to be done? From
"au," which means "or." And because the term is future, we
infer that the same shall be in later generations.
"Took
a stone," etc. Took! Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon b.
Elazar said: There was a heavy stone, which two men had to carry, and this he
took and thrust against his heart, and if he died he fulfilled his duty. (Hence
if two men had to carry it, it could not be taken by one.) He lifted it up with
the support of his comrade, and then he alone threw it, that the blow should be
stronger.
"To
throw stones," etc. Is there not a Boraitha: It never happened that he did
not die from the hand of the witnesses, so that one should need to throw
another stone? Does, then, the Mishna state that it was so done? It states,
"should it be necessary."
The
master said: "There was a stone," etc. But does not a Boraitha state
that the stone with which he was stoned, as well as the tree upon which he was
hanged, or the sword with which he was killed, or the muffler with which he was
choked, must be buried with him? It means that before it was buried they
prepared another like it, which remained. But is there not another Boraitha
which states that the above things were not buried with the one executed? Said
R. Papa: It does not mean that it was buried just with him, but near him, at a
distance of four ells.
Samuel
said: If before the execution the hands of the witnesses were cut off, he
becomes free from death, because the commandment, "the hand of the
witnesses should be on him first," cannot be fulfilled. But if so, should
witnesses who have no hands be disqualified? There it is different, as the verse
reads, "the hand of the witnesses," which means that when they
testified they had hands. An objection was raised from the following: Every
one, of whom two witnesses testify that he was sentenced at such and such a
court, and A and B were his witnesses, he is to be put to death. Hence we see
that in any case he is executed? Samuel may explain the Boraitha that it means
that the witnesses themselves testified that they were witnesses in the former
court. But is it indeed needed that it should be done as the verse dictates? Is
there not a Boraitha: It reads [Num. 35.21]: "He that smote him shall
surely be put to death; (for) he is a murderer." We know that one is to be
put to death by that which applies to him; but whence do we know that if it is
impossible that he should be killed by that which applies to him, he is
nevertheless to be executed by any death which is possible? From the verse
cited, "he shall surely die," which means in any case? That case is
different, as it reads, "he shall surely die." But let all other
cases be inferred from it? Because the verse cited, which speaks of a murder,
and the verse which speaks of the avenger of the one murdered, are two verses
which dictate one and the same thing (death), and there is a rule that from two
such verses nothing is to be inferred. What verse of the avenger is meant?
[Ibid., ibid., 19]: "The avenger of the blood himself shall slay."
Infer from this that it is a meritorious aft for the avenger to do so himself.
And whence do we know that if the murdered one had none such, that the court is
obliged to appoint one? From the end of the verse, "when he meeteth him,
shall he slay him?" Said Mar the elder b. R. Hisda to R. Ashi: How can one
say that it is not needed as the verse dictates? Does not Mishna 5 in Chapter
8.of this tract state that it must be done just as the verse dictates, and it
is deduced from the Scripture. With the verse cited in the Mishna in question
it is different, as that verse is altogether superfluous, and is written only
so that it should be done just as it dictates. But does not a Boraitha say in
the eleventh chapter, concerning a misled town, that if there was not a main
street in this city, according to R. Ismael such is not to be recognized as a
misled town, as the verse dictates, "You shall gather all its goods in the
main street," and according to R. Aqiba a main street should be made? We
see, then, that they differ only if such should be made or not, but both agree
that it must be done just as the verse dictates? In this case Tanaim differ, as
a Mishna in Tract Negaim (xiv. 9) states. If he (referring to Lev. 14.25)
lacked the thumbs of his right hand and foot, or the right ear, he can never be
purified. R. Eliezer, however, said: It may be done at the place they are
lacking. And R. Simeon said: It shall be placed on the left one.
