EAUK.org
Share
Did St Paul Get Jesus Right?
You don't need me to tell you that it is a very widespread idea that Paul messed up the religion of Jesus. It's an old idea among liberal theologians - that the good human Jesus was transformed into a divine Saviour figure by people like Paul. But it is an idea that has gained currency in recent days in other circles, with non-Christians using it as a stick to beat Christians with: Philip Pullman in describing the thinking behind his new book The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ made it clear that the scoundrel for him was Paul. Modern Muslim apologists have argued the same case: they are happy with the prophet Jesus, but not with the Christian Son of God. It is an idea that has made headway not only outside the church, but also inside it: committed church goers (and clergy!) feel uncomfortable with Paul and with aspects of his teaching. Jesus is OK, Paul is dodgy.
At least I say 'Jesus is OK', but the Jesus who is OK is not the Jesus of the gospels, who is rather Pauline (e.g in seeing himself as Son of God who must die for the sins of the world), but a revised version of Jesus that sees him as a good but harmless human prophet. The gospels represent a corrupted view of Jesus, with Paul being one of the key corruptors.
Such a view represents a subtle - sometimes not very subtle - attack on the heart of the Christian faith. It is the sort of idea that appeals greatly in a time when sinister religious conspiracies are very much 'in'. The New Testament as we have it is, on this view, the product of religious fraud or religious delusion to a considerable extent, so is the Christian faith as we have received it. Biblefresh is a lost cause, if this view is correct; Biblerotten might be nearer the mark.
It was in response to this view - in particular provoked by Pullman - that I decided to try and write a book that puts the record straight on Paul and Jesus. I have written extensively on the subject already at an academic level, but my new book attempts to be accessible to intelligent non-Christians as well as to intelligent non-theologically-informed Christians. It could be seen as semi-popular Christian apologetic.
I argue that there is no way that Saul the convert could or would have changed the religion of Jesus: he was persecuting it, and then was converted to it, but remained outside the leadership of the church for a long time. I argue that, despite impressions, there is plenty of reason for believing that Jesus' life and teaching were very important for Paul; he did not just preach 'I have had a mystical experience, and you can have one too'. The idea of Jesus as Son of God did not originate with Paul, but with Jesus - hence the Aramaic word 'Abba'; the idea of Jesus' atoning death did not originate with Paul, but is there in the Last Supper with its Passover and covenantal associations.
I look at the differences between Jesus' teaching and Paul's, and argue that the differences have to do with different contexts (preaching in rural Jewish Palestine, writing trouble-shooting letters to Gentile churches) not different content.
I conclude that Paul does not undermine or corrupt the gospel of Jesus, but that he is an amazingly important witness to Jesus - intelligent, writing near the time of Jesus, knowing all the weaknesses in the Christian case, etc.
My book ranges far and wide, and doesn't go into issues in the depth that some would want. But still I hope that it will do something to encourage people to read Paul afresh and to recognize how important and wonderful and faithful an interpreter of the Lord he was, and still is.
David Wenham is a New Testament scholar at Trinity College Bristol.
Purchase Did St Paul Get Jesus Right? at Lion Hudson
