Archive for the ‘Christian Origins’ Category

I have begun work on another book, a kind of sequel to The Jesus Dynasty. In chapter 16 of my book, titled, “The Challenge of Paul,” I only give a tiny glimpse of how Paul’s message began to rival that of John the Baptist, Jesus, and James and eventually achieved an influence that essentially equated it with “Christianity” itself. In terms of the history of ideas, I am convinced that Saul of Tarus, that is the Apostle Paul, is the most influential person in human history–yes, even above Jesus, Moses, Plato or Aristotle, Buddha, or Mohammed. I will argue in this new book that Paul is indeed, hands down, the Founder of the Christian Faith.

But if I am right, how did this happen? How was it that Paul was able to achieve this kind of dominance and success, even over the founders of the Jesus movement? Where did he get his ideas? What was his relationship to James and the rest of the core group of original Jesus followers?

I began my work on Paul many years ago, writing my dissertation at the University of Chicago on the “mysticism of Paul.” It was subsequently published (long ago out of print) under the title: Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise (University Press of America, 1986). There is a core excerpt of that book, but without notes, archived at my University Web site: The Message and Mission of Paul. As with Jesus I consider Albert Schweitzer my mentor and pioneer in the study of Paul. His amazing work, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1930), but still available in English reprints, remains in my view the most groundbreaking book on Paul in the history of modern scholarship.

Over the years I have refined and developed my own understanding of Paul and the field of “Pauline” studies has vastly developed since 1930 when Schweitzer wrote. I think we are finally in a position to full in the blanks in a way that can satisfactorily explain what really went on from 30 AD when Jesus died, to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed and James, Peter, as well as Paul were already dead. It is that crucial 40 years period that will be the focus of my book. There are probably about as many books published on Paul as on Jesus, so the field is vast and the discussion is complex. However, I do think that my 30 years of thinking about these issues has resulted in some worthwhile insights that can help considerably to fill out my lifelong interest–how did Christianity originate and develop during its first 40 years? Expect a riveting story and some fascinating surprises. The standard heroic Sunday school version, now enshrined in the book of Acts, is badly in need of revision. It is all about parties and politics and fights to the bitter end. The stakes were high and the influence upon subsequent history was profound. I know of nothing one could study with a more potentially influential outcome.
I never get accustomed to the incredible influence that Paul has in Christian circles today–especially among more orthodox or traditional evangelical Christians, including Roman Catholics. It seems that whatever Paul says or writes or teaches becomes the last and final word for millions, feared and revered over the voice of Jesus or even Moses. Paul’s claim to have received the “final mystery” of the revelation of God lies at the heart of the issue. If we believe him we are bound to shape our ideas and our lives by his teachings. But if his message was a departure from that of Jesus and his brother James–then the most devout and dedicated Christian surely needs to rethink things from the ground up.

I have not finalized publication plans as of yet and when I know the details I will announce them but my intention is to see this book published next year–in 2007.

Tonight marks the beginning of Shavuot or Pentecost on the traditional Jewish calendar. Among other things, Jews look back on Shavuot as a celebration of the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai/Horeb, both the Ten Words spoken by YHVH directly, and the rest of the “book of the Torah” revealed to Moses in the mountain (Exodus 20-24; Deut 5-27).

One thing historians of religions often emphasize is that no religious tradition is a static monolithic entity. Whether we are talking about Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam, the varieties and diversity within each tradition are rich and complex. Judaism is no exception. In the time of Jesus, which historians often refer to as the “late 2nd Temple period” we find within the varieties of emergent Judaism multiple interpretations of almost every subject imaginable–the nature of God, the coming of the Messiah, free will and determinism, and explanations for the causes of sin, suffering, and evil. At the center of it all was the practical matter of how one is to observe and follow the Torah, or what was believed to have been the revelation of God to the people of Israel through Moses at Mt. Sinai. One of the things we most emphasize in courses on the “Judaisms” of this period is this matter of diversity as we see it reflected in the so-called Pseudepigrapha literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, the Mishnah, and other rabbinic writings.

For a general overview of Judaism/s of this period I would recommend a few basic books:
Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah
James Vanderkam, An Introduction to Early Judaism
Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E.

In my book The Jesus Dynasty I maintain that Jesus was and remained a Jew and never entertained the establishment of a new religion. In contrast, it was Paul who might actually be called the “founder” of Christianity, with its distinctive theological doctrines. Even though Jews disagreed on how one might reflect and live out all the teachings and commandments of the Sinai revelation, especially regarding what came to be called halacha (literally “the way” or “the walk”), that is how to fulfill the various commandments, in general religious Jews, who took seriously the revelation of Torah, agreed on the obvious point that Israelites of all persuasions were obligated to live according to the commandments in order to be faithful to the Covenant.

Historians and scholars seem to be in almost universal agreement that what is called “the Jesus movement,” as represented by the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, was a movement within Judaism/s of its time and is most properly understood in this way, rather than as a “new” religion, separate from the mother faith. Likewise, I think there is general agreement, as far as I am aware, that James the brother of Jesus, leader of the Jesus movement after Jesus’ death, remained an observant Jew himself (Acts, letter of James, Josephus, Hegesippus, etc.).

To be “observant” in this broader context does not so much imply a uniform “orthodoxy” such as later developed within Rabbinic Judaism, but that whatever one’s halachic view, one remained “in the camp” in terms of covenental identity with the Jewish people and a concerted attempt to embody the teaching and commandments of the Sinai revelation. Judaism, as it developed, was understood as a religion, a people, and a culture, so matters of “definition” could be quite complex, i.e., you could have one who was born as a Jew, spurning the religion, or living immorally, or even turning to another faith, and yet, technically, remaining “Jewish.” In the same way non-Jews might take up Jewish customs and observances and still, nonetheless, not be considered “Jews” in a formal sense. E. P. Sanders, in his book Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, might be one of the best summaries of this entire matter. He exhaustively explores the various “Judaisms” of the period, showing ways in which they differed, but also what gave them their essential identity, something he terms “covenantal nomism.”

Non-Jews, in most of these forms of emerging Judaism, were not expected to “convert” to Judaism in order to have a spiritual relationship with God. They could function within the more universal “Noahite” covenant, and the notion and even social existence of the “righteous Gentile” or the “God-fearer” has been extensively documented, particularly during the late Roman empire. Here I recommend the monumental study of my teacher Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Roman World. One way of putting it was the adage “The righteous of all the nations will have a place in the world to come.” Jesus appears to share this openness to the non-Jew and the messianic vision of the Prophets was that all nations would learn to walk in the light of the Torah’s essential ethical teachings.

If Paul did indeed redefine the people of Israel (what he calls the “true Israel” ) as those who had faith in the heavenly Christ, thus excluding those he called “Israel after the flesh” from his new covenant, and if he also held the view that the Torah given to Moses was valid “until Christ came,” so that even Jews are no longer “under the Torah,” or obligated to follow the commandments or mitzvot as given to Moses but a new “Law of Christ,” then most historians have agreed that we are not merely dealing with a movement “within Judaism,” but the makings of a “new religion” that comes to be called Christianity. This is not to deny Paul’s “Jewishness,” in the cultural sense of that term. He surely believes in the God of Israel, Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, and the Torah and Prophets as Scripture. But in Paul’s thinking, instead of humanity divided as “Israel and the nations” which is the classic understanding of Judaism, we have “Israel, the Gentiles or “non-Jews,” and the new people called “the church of God.” This does not mean that Paul advocated immoral living, he surely did not. In all his letters he takes pains to enforce and reinforce the essential ethics revealed in the Torah as applicable to Gentiles upon his followers.

The rub comes for Jews–if it is now okay for a Jew who is “in Christ” and thus part of this new spiritual Israel, to fail to circumcise his or her children, to ignore observance of the Sabbath and the festivals, to eat anything set before them, and to generally “live as a Gentile” in terms of observing such marks of Torah observance then Paul’s position takes him outside of “Judaism” or observant Torah faith. Such a view implicitly leads to the abolition/replacement of the mother faith. It was upon that basis that the entire super-sessionist/replacement idea that became so current in Christianity developed. Paul takes the position in Romans 9 that any Jew who does not share his faith in Christ is “lost” and cut off from God, no matter what might be his or her spiritual devotion, Torah observance, or even reliance upon the grace of God. In recent times Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, and Krister Stendahl have argued that Paul’s “abolition of the Torah” was only directed to those in the Jesus movement who sought to force Gentiles to convert to Judaism. I am convinced that they are wrong. Alan Segal, in his important study, Paul the Covert: Apostle or Apostate, sucessfully demonstrates that Paul’s message does indeed represent a departure from standard from of Judaism.

Then there is also the matter of “justification by faith.” Judaism in all its forms has taught that all humans are sinners and can only be accepted in God’s eyes through repentance and faith. Psalm 51 would be the most classic expression of this, the Thanksgiving Hymns in the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the same for the Qumran community, as srict was they were in their legal interpretations, and Rabbinic literature reflects the same. As a Jew Jesus expressed these very ideas when he speaks of the two men praying in the Temple, one of them a “sinner” who smites his breast and turns to God, and is thereby “justified,” and the other self-righteousness, thinking he had no need of justification. E.P. Sanders is very good to make it clear that the notion that Christianity depends on “grace” and Judaism on “works” is a terribly unfortunate misunderstanding of Judaism. What divides Paul from Judaism is his insistence that this grace bringing justification is only extended to those who accept his Christ faith.

With these three elements based on Paul’s perceptions and heavenly visions: a new definition of Israel, the abrogation of the Sinai covenant, and the restriction of God’s grace to those who “accept Christ as savior,” we truly have a “new religion” and by no theological, cultural, or historical definition could it properly be called “Judaism.”