So here are my thoughts on a book I read a couple of years ago...
What Paul Meant
Known by some as the “bad news man” and by Nietzsche as the anti-Christ, he was neither. In fact, his letters were written closer to the time of Christ than any of the Gospels, which were written three decades later. And on this basis, Willis criticizes The Acts written by St. Luke, at the expense of Paul’s older writings; in fact he spends much effort throughout the book in refuting Luke. Willis provides 11 chapters of commentary:
In Paul and the Risen Jesus, Willis reminds us that “Christ” is not a surname, but rather a Greek word for “Messiah” which explains the interchanging of the terms “Jesus Christ” and “Jesus Messiah” in his writings. Paul’s famous encounter with the risen Jesus was not a conversion, since there was no such thing as a “Christian” at that time; before and after the event, he was a Jew. And Paul’s description of his encounter with Christ is better described in his own words than in Luke’s - there are many versions, and Paul’s own must be the correct one. So no blinding light, and no Ananias...
In Paul and the Pre-Resurrection Jesus, Willis tells us that Paul’s nature before his encounter with Christ is also better described in his own words than in Luke’s. He explains that the differences between Paul’s version of events and Luke’s can be explained by how history was passed on in the occupied lands - mostly orally. He also stresses that Paul’s message might better reflect the message of Christ than any other account because his were written first. While there are key differences between what Paul says and what is attributed to Jesus, Paul completely nails the main message of “loving your neighbor” - the new law, if you will.
In Paul on the Road, Paul is described as a heroic traveler, and a tent maker - his method of supporting himself in some of his travels. Wills comments that Paul reaches all but the highest in society (for the most part they have no interest) and the lowest in society (which confuses me). Perhaps that means that the poorest lived hand-to-mouth, and didn’t have time to stop to worship, or spend time in synagogues talking? He also tells us of Paul’s scholarly and eloquent command of language, and how he wields it expertly - with a firm grasp of logical arguing styles...
In Paul and Peter, he explains that some of the relationship between Paul and Peter as described by Luke seems contrived. Luke downplays their quarrel in Antioch, and seems to need to link Paul’s missions to a central Jerusalem authority or focus.
In Paul and Women, Wills reminds us that Paul had many “sisters” that he relied on during his missions, and recognized some as prophets. Some cite Paul as being a misogynist, but it doesn’t ring true at all when taking into account all of his writings.
In Paul and the Troubled Gatherings, Wills shows us some of the problems he dealt with in starting and maintaining the gatherings of believers across the lands of the Mediterranean. In Corinth, there were wealthy and poor believers, and “brothers” (Jewish and Gentile ‘Christians’) who had serious disagreements about the Jewish laws being followed to a ‘T’. In Rome, he dealt with a pre-existing population of believers and their problems in dealing with the rest of the Jewish population there- resulting in the banishment of the Jews from the city. Paul tells the Roman Gentile brothers that they cannot sever their ties with the Jewish brothers.
In Paul and Jews, Wills reminds us that both Paul and Jesus were both Jews, and did not “convert” to anything else - they were Jews. There have been people who paint Paul as an anti-semite. Far from being anti-semitic, Paul was a Jew. Did Paul say that the Jews killed Jesus? Yes, but they also killed other prophets as well; nothing new there. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish scripture. He founded no new religion, and Paul preached no new religion. There was no New Testament - there was just the Jewish Bible.
In Paul and Jerusalem, he reminds us that the Gospels were written by Jews outside of Jerusalem; indeed, outside of Judea / Israel altogether. Luke’s writings in The Acts paints a picture of a central authority in Jerusalem, that didn’t actually exist. And again, he suggests that Paul’s writings should trump the other Gospels in areas where there is inconsistency.
In Paul and Rome, he reminds us of Paul’s apparent Roman citizenship - in fact, Paul doesn’t even mention it anywhere in his writings. Wills uses Paul's writings to show that he wasn’t a Roman citizen, but doesn’t account for the possibility that he just didn’t want to mention it, or that he could have been stripped of citizenship. The relevance is that he goes to great lengths to show that a Roman citizen could not be crucified by Roman law. He also shows us just how involved the Jewish and Gentile brothers in Rome and Corinth were involved in turning over their brothers to the authorities. It seems quite likely that both Paul and Peter were executed in this manner - being first betrayed by their own. He uses Tacitus and Clement to back up these ideas.
In Misreading Paul, Wills addresses several misreadings. First, the idea that Paul was a misogynist, using 1 Timothy 1.12 (I forbid a woman to teach); he counters with Titus 2.4 (Older women should teach the younger). Note that these are both pseudo-Pauline writings, i.e., the may or may not have actually been written by Paul; there is uncertainty. Also touches on some of the more confusing parts of Romans, where he seems to be talking about his own sins, but is actually a series of diatribe exchanges meant to resonate with both Jewish and Gentile brothers on how they have both failed God; that neither can reproach the other. He also points out that religion appropriated the legacy of both Jesus and Paul- because they both opposed it - they both were on the side of the poor, and saw through the rich.
Well researched and well thought-out. I give it a solid 8/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment