Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2020

Book Review: Paul vs. James: The Battle that Shaped Christianity and Changed the World (an historical reconstruction) - by Barrie Wilson PhD




Bibliographical Information
Wilson, Barrie, PhD. Paul vs. James: The Battle that Shaped Christianity and Changed the World (an historical reconstruction). N.p.: CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2018. 191 pp.
-----

     Recently, I've been consumed by this book by York University (Toronto) Professor-Emeritus Barrie Wilson because it reads like a thrilling, page-turning detective novel but is filled with top-notch historical research, a fruit of Wilson's many years of New Testament scholarship.  I finished reading it promptly. This is a book I highly recommend not only to fellow academics interested in the New Testament, early Christianity, and, specifically, Pauline Studies, but also to everyone interested in a very possible (even probable) imaginative reconstruction of how the early Christians interacted with each other and zeroes in on a crucial conflict between the followers of James' ("the Lord's brother") and those of Paul and his"Christ-worshiping" followers.
     This present historical-fictional work has to be read in tandem with Wilson’s more academic work How Jesus Became Christian (Random House Canada, 2008) where he fleshes out more in detailed prose the fine points of the argument about the origins of Christianity which he presents here in a historical-fictionalized form.
     I've already known earlier, largely through my reading of British New Testament scholar Michael Goulder, that there were "two missions" in the early church (See his A Tale of Two Missions, SCM, 1994 – one of my all-time favourite books of New Testament history!). To put it simply: The dominant one tracing its lineage to the historical Jesus was led by apostolic giants such as James, the Lord’s brother and Jesus’s close companions—Peter and John. It was largely geared toward Jews. It saw itself as a form of Judaism in the style of Yeshua (Jesus) and continued to practice all the Jewish customs in the spirit of Yeshua. The other one was that headed by Paul which, of course, was directed primarily to the gentiles and stood on the revelations that Paul claimed to have had from the Christ himself and was viewed oftentimes as maverick or rogue by some disciples who knew Jesus in the flesh because of its spirit of downplaying Torah and Jewish practices and emphasizing faith in Christ. These two missions did not agree on many things—prominently, about what the continuing significance or irrelevance of “Israel” and Jewish matters were in the light of Jesus, the Christ.
     But this novelized biblical history by Wilson really puts the matter more starkly and more clearly in front of me: There was, he claims, an irreconcilable difference between the "Community of the Way" of James and his followers (among whom the protagonist "Mattai" was included) with the "Christ worshipers" of  Paul and his followers (the leaders of whom were Evodius and Ignatius -yes, THE famous apostolic father Ignatius of Antioch). 
     What Paul was trying to do was to claim that he and his movement were somehow a legitimate "development" of the religion of Israel which, after all, had a pedigree (already then) of at least over a thousand years. This was useful within the Roman Empire where "antiquity" was much respected. Besides, Paul drew converts largely from among the "God-fearers" who were associated with various Jewish synagogues in the Jewish Diaspora. 
     The book is noteworthy because it is an elaborate fleshing out of what the position of James and his followers could have been at the start of the Christian movement. According to Wilson, the followers of Yeshua in the tradition of James ("the Lord's brother") did not want to be associated with Paul's movement and that they sought to clarify at the famous "Council of Jerusalem" (circa 49 CE), that Paul's movement was an altogether different religion from the style of Judaism that Yeshua himself started and was continued by James and all the earliest disciples of Jesus who knew the "flesh and blood" rabbi from Nazareth. 
     In short, Paul was an interloper from the point of view of all the disciples who knew Yeshua because they could not see in Paul's "Christ-worshiping" movement any significant continuity with the style of Judaism advocated by Yeshua. Instead, they thought that Paul's insistence on worshiping Christ as a kind of deity who seeks to achieve an other-worldly kind of salvation through his death and resurrection while dispensing with Torah (the Law) and on everything being mediated directly through the mystical experiences of Paul/Saul himself, was NOT part of the Yeshua movement at all.
     Wow! I'm just being forced to seriously reconsider the earliest history of Christianity in a major way through this work! Kudos, Dr. Wilson for making New Testament studies this intriguing and interesting!

Thursday, October 10, 2013

The Christological Hymn of Philippians 2 should be Interpreted in light of Gen 1!


Today, while I was proctoring the midterm exam of the Paul course, I was reading Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s Paul: A Critical Life (1996). In his section on Paul and the Philippian community, he argues that the famous Christological hymn in Philippians 2 should be read through an Adamic typology lens, hence, vis-a-vis Genesis 1. At that moment, I experienced a kind of intellectual epiphany and realized that Jerome MOC’s explanation is actually the best one I’ve encountered so far.


The Christological hymn has always been used to claim an early notion of pre-existence in the New Testament and has been lined up with John’s Prologue on the Word in order to prove, among other things, the notion that even biblical writers had some idea of Christ’s divinity that early on in the tradition. Well, Philippians 2 is actually based on a re-reading of Genesis 1. Adam, made in God’s image (hence, the mention of Jesus as being in the “form” of God), fell from grace and did not fulfill his original destiny of being God’s glorious image but instead had to be subjected to the punishment of a life as a slave - toiling, experiencing hardship and eventually dying. Christ, on the other hand, was faithful all throughout to God’s will and did not deserve any punishment at all. However, he freely subjected himself to the lot of Adam and thus he can be humanity’s rightful saviour and was raised to the glory that Adam was supposed to have attained if he had not fell.


This Adamic typology of course makes so much sense because Paul elaborates on it in other parts of his corpus of works such as in the letter to the Romans 5.


Jerome MOC’s insight is of course not a new thing. As he states in his book (p. 227), he already wrote about it back in 1976 and James D.G. Dunn also wrote about it in 1980. It’s just a wonder why I never paid attention to this aspect of Philippians 2 up until today!

Thanks, Jerome Murphy-OC for this insight. Intellectual epiphanies are what make an academic dedicated to the pursuit of truth and learning so happy. I cherish and relish them!