In this chapter Ehrman gives, what I think is, a very good overall introduction to the man and mission of the Apostle Paul, according to the current standards of historical critical biblical scholarship. The Greek word that is translated disciple (mathetes, pronounced mah-thay-tays) means learner. The word Apostle is the Greek word meaning someone "who is sent out" (on a mission to deliver information). In the Gospels the followers of Jesus were learners (Greek has a different word for student so I won't use that word here). After the resurrection, many of the followers believed they had been "sent out" by the risen Jesus to spread the message of salvation through Jesus. Therefore, they are called Apostles. In the books of Acts, it seems that only the original "12" (with Matthias replacing Judas) could be counted as "Apostles" because they had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry (see Acts 1:21-22). But PAUL has a much different view of what constitutes an apostle.
Paul finds his validation for considering himself an apostle of Jesus in the fact that he had seen the risen Jesus, and he had received his mission directly from the risen Jesus. Especially to the point is 1 Corinthians 9:1 where Paul defends his status as an apostle with: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?" Then in Galatians Paul defends his version of the message of salvation in Jesus by indicating he received it directly from the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:16-17 & 2:2), and implies that he did not seek an endorsement from the apostles in Jerusalem for validation, but rather only wants their endorsement as confirmation of Christian unity. Paul's mission is to the non-Jews, to the "uncircumcised" as he puts it (see Gal. 2:7-8). But the novelty of Paul's mission is his insistence that converted pagans do not have to adopt a Jewish lifestyle in order to be Christian believers.
If the Cornelius story in Acts 10 is historically true, it was probably seen by the church leaders in Jerusalem as an exception to the rule. We find in Acts that Paul was charged (by detractors) with teaching that Christians born Jewish no longer have to keep the Jewish Law. It would seem that there is good reason to believe there is strong historical basis for this. Paul says: "I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22). In the passage this is taken from it is clear Paul set aside the kosher lifestyle while among pagans in order to convert them. In Galatians Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because while in Antioch he eats with converts from paganism until the arrival from Jerusalem of representatives of James. Then Peter and the others who were born Jewish reverted to their kosher exclusivism (see Galatians 2:11-14). (This James is not Zebedee but the James whom Paul refers to as "the Lord's brother" and who clearly preferred that all Christians follow the Jewish Law). There is no indication whether Peter accepted Paul rebuke at this time and upholds Paul's view. By inference Peter would have later fraternized with converts from paganism because he travels extensively in areas in which the majority of Christians were converts from paganism (see 1 Corinthians 1:12 & 9:5; the fact that Peter's name [Cephas] is mentioned in the same verse [Corinthians 1:12] as the other apostles who had influenced the Corinthian church seems to imply that Peter must have spent enough time in Corinth to garner a local following).
Paul seems to have had an easier time overcoming the exclusivistic tenets of his Jewish upbringing than did James (the Lord's brother). They were both Pharisees before becoming Christians. But James does not seem to have had any desire to break free from the Jewish lifestyle. Peter (it would appear) eventually does break free from the Jewish lifestyle).
What Ehrman says about the division of the letters attributed to Paul into the three groups (on page 182) is in line with modern scholarship. I personally believe such scholars tend to be unnecessarily skeptical about the letters placed in the category "Deutero-Pauline" meaning written by a disciple of Paul (see Box 12.1 on page 182). In my mind they could easily have been written by Paul. The letters written to Timothy and Titus are noticeably different from the other letters, and their authenticity has been questioned since the 1700's. However, many conservative scholars still consider them authentically Pauline, but no historical critical scholars believe Paul wrote them. As we will find out in subsequent weeks, some scholars even believe some of the undisputed letters may be composite letters, made up of pieces of various letters Paul wrote to a particular church.
On pages 184-186 Ehrman engages in an exercise popular among historical critical scholars which is demonstrating how the Paul in Acts teaches a Christianity very different from that in Paul's letters. I personally believe Ehrman over dramatizes the differences and discrepancies, but there is no doubt that the emphasis of Paul in Acts and Paul in his letters is quite different. What is really most noticeable to me is the lack of any reference in Acts to the major themes of Paul's letters, especially the doctrine of justification by faith, the expectation that Jesus may return in the near future, and also any discussion of the Jewish Law in light of the coming of Jesus.
The discussion of Paul's letters as "occasional" (see pages 186-188) is very instructive. Modern Christians often like to read the Bible to know what to believe and do not always take into account the circumstances in which a particular writing was originally composed. This makes a big difference in understanding the point of Paul's letters. With the possible exception of Romans, Paul's letters were written to address specific issues at specific churches. This is quite distinct from other New Testament letters like 1 Peter, James and 1 John, which are largely religious tracts, promoting certain teachings on various topics that apply equally well to all Christians. As we shall see, for the most part, Paul's letters are written to address specific problems that have arisen in a particular church.
Ehrman's discussion of Paul as a Pharisee (see pages 189-191) is very instructive on the Jewish background from which Paul emerges. Even though Paul says he counts it all rubbish (Philippians 3:8), the depth of his education in biblical studies and his ability to reason in a manner showing intellectual astuteness must certainly be a credit to his training as a Pharisee.
Paul's conversion has been a topic of intense debate in the last three decades of the 20th century. Ehrman points out that the once popular notion that Paul was a guilt ridden legalist before his conversion is clearly contradicted by what he says of his life as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:4-6 (see page 191). And even the common assumption, based on Acts 9, that this conversion was a single dramatic event taking place in a very short time span is questionable, because this interpretation may not be supported by the letters of Paul himself. In Galatians 1:17 we find there is a three year period after his conversion that Paul does not account for, but says he spent it in Arabia doing we know not what. This would seem to be prior to any effort on his part as an evangelist. This would also seem to contradict what we find in Acts 9:19-22, where Paul immediately becomes the evangelist. But Acts omits the three years before he goes to Jerusalem for the first time as a Christian (Acts 9:26). But it may also be that the author of Acts did not know of the three years between the time of his conversion and his next trip to Jerusalem.
The picture of Paul's conversion gets even more complicated when we consider how Paul worked out its implications for his own views on religion. It was not a case that he decided to become a Christian and some nice evangelist told him everything he needed to know about Christianity. Christian doctrine as we know it today had largely not yet been developed. Indeed, it is fair to say that Christian doctrine as we know it today is mightily dependent upon the writings of this Paul. So, Paul was working from his own religious experience and his understanding of Judaism, and in the process of trying to make sense of how this Jesus could be the Jewish messiah - Paul arrived at a means of interpreting the Jewish scriptures in light of the coming of Jesus and establishing the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. It might seem obvious to us how this works, we read it in the New Testament. But before Paul there is little evidence of any sustained thought by anyone on the implications of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Paul's letters may represent the first efforts of a Christian to try to think this through, and the only letter that can at all be said to represent a systematic consideration of this topic was one of his last letters, Romans. So, as Paul wrote his letters, Paul was theologizing as needed to address the questions and concerns that popped up along the way.
Ehrman's summary of the important points of Paul's re-evaluation of the Jewish faith based on the coming of Jesus as the Jewish messiah is very well written (see pages 193-196). What is provided in these pages is really good background information to have for reading Paul's letters, because without understanding Paul's post-conversion re-evaluation of Judaism, there is much in his letters that will be overlooked or seem puzzling. You may find it useful to return to these pages in the future when reading Paul's letters and the passages that touch on these topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment