What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul: A Critical Life
Traditionally the Acts of the Apostles has provided the framework for biographies of the Apostle Paul. In recent years, however, the historical value of the Acts has come into question. Many scholars argue that, despite the accuracy of many details, the text as a whole reflects the interests of Luke rather than objective reality.
This book presents a completely new, and much more vivid and dramatic, account of the life of Paul than any before. While continuing to give consideration to the Acts , Murphy-O'Connor reconstructs the apostle's life--from his childhood in Taursus and his years as a student in Jerusalem, to the successes and failures of his ministry--from his own writings. Reinforcing his critical analysis of Paul's letters with close attention to archaeology and contemporary texts, Murphy-O'Connor not only charts Paul's movements, but extracts a new understanding of his motives and the social and cultural aspects of his ministry. Most important of all, this biography transforms a fountain of theological ideas into a human being.
This book presents a completely new, and much more vivid and dramatic, account of the life of Paul than any before. While continuing to give consideration to the Acts , Murphy-O'Connor reconstructs the apostle's life--from his childhood in Taursus and his years as a student in Jerusalem, to the successes and failures of his ministry--from his own writings. Reinforcing his critical analysis of Paul's letters with close attention to archaeology and contemporary texts, Murphy-O'Connor not only charts Paul's movements, but extracts a new understanding of his motives and the social and cultural aspects of his ministry. Most important of all, this biography transforms a fountain of theological ideas into a human being.
Paperback
First published July 18, 1996
9 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 18, 2024
The Author, Without Good Warrant, Discards Acts as ‘Propaganda’ to Write His Own Propaganda”
I appreciated the author’s intent to engage with Paul’s writings independently, apart from Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, which serves as a companion volume to Luke’s gospel account. It is indeed useful to recognize that Paul’s letters are primary sources, while Luke’s Acts is written later based on the testimony of others.
However, the author goes beyond a balanced approach. He not only dismisses Acts but demands the reader almost view Acts in a purely as “propoganda” (the author’s word though he can’t seem to complete his own arguments without reference to Acts). The author scolds attempts to harmonize Paul’s writings with Acts some form of academic naïveté. This overall dismissal of Luke’s work while still cherry-picking selections borders on becoming its own form of propaganda.
Moreover, the author seems all too willing to grant credibility non-Christian writers and historians (ancient and contemporary) as if they are somehow immune to propaganda. At the same time, he elevates archaeological evidence and his own speculative interpretations over the biblical texts. This is particularly evident in his psychoanalyzing of Paul’s motives, as well as his dubious division of letters like 1 Thessalonians and Philippians into multiple, invented fragments to suit his thesis.
While it’s valuable to examine Paul’s writings on their own terms, the author’s presuppositions about Luke’s history lead to a highly skewed portrayal. Ultimately, he asks the reader to place more trust in his speculative reconstructions than in the historical integrity of Scripture. And this is without even engaging the Bible’s self-attestation as the God-breathed Word.
In short, what was in places an interesting and insightful scholarly exercise is marred by what seems to me to be the author’s own academic arrogance and unwarranted cynicism regarding Acts, making many of his assertions, framing, and conclusions deeply questionable.
I appreciated the author’s intent to engage with Paul’s writings independently, apart from Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, which serves as a companion volume to Luke’s gospel account. It is indeed useful to recognize that Paul’s letters are primary sources, while Luke’s Acts is written later based on the testimony of others.
However, the author goes beyond a balanced approach. He not only dismisses Acts but demands the reader almost view Acts in a purely as “propoganda” (the author’s word though he can’t seem to complete his own arguments without reference to Acts). The author scolds attempts to harmonize Paul’s writings with Acts some form of academic naïveté. This overall dismissal of Luke’s work while still cherry-picking selections borders on becoming its own form of propaganda.
Moreover, the author seems all too willing to grant credibility non-Christian writers and historians (ancient and contemporary) as if they are somehow immune to propaganda. At the same time, he elevates archaeological evidence and his own speculative interpretations over the biblical texts. This is particularly evident in his psychoanalyzing of Paul’s motives, as well as his dubious division of letters like 1 Thessalonians and Philippians into multiple, invented fragments to suit his thesis.
While it’s valuable to examine Paul’s writings on their own terms, the author’s presuppositions about Luke’s history lead to a highly skewed portrayal. Ultimately, he asks the reader to place more trust in his speculative reconstructions than in the historical integrity of Scripture. And this is without even engaging the Bible’s self-attestation as the God-breathed Word.
In short, what was in places an interesting and insightful scholarly exercise is marred by what seems to me to be the author’s own academic arrogance and unwarranted cynicism regarding Acts, making many of his assertions, framing, and conclusions deeply questionable.
November 11, 2022
A dense read. If you’re into raw, un-romanticized, granular historical lessons, this book is for you.
July 5, 2015
VERY good. I learned more about Paul in this book than I've ever known. Which, surprisingly, isn't saying that much. Paul has always frankly pissed me off. I have a more sympathetic feeling toward him now, although I still suspect that he would have annoyed the crap out of me in person. Picture one of those really committed people who has no time for anyone who disagrees with him (or her) and is smart enough to talk circles around you when you try to argue.
This is really a chronology of Paul's travels and letters. I have to say that I'm not 100% clear on it all; I'd need to reread this and take notes for an outline to really remember everything. However, the text was easy enough to follow, certainly not boring, just deeper than I'm used to reading regularly. I'm copying the bibliography.
His discussion of the Corinthian letters was really interesting. I really think churches should do a study on these letters about every 3 years. It might keep them (us!) from falling into the same pitfalls over and over. And, oh by the way, "Love is patient, love is kind..."---not about getting married. It's about dealing with people across the board. (Thanks, Les Avery, for bringing that to my attention 30 years ago)
The last bit was especially interesting in that he delves into the Pastoral Letters (the Thessalonians and Timothys, and Titus) as well as the personal letters. Most scholars accept that most of these were not written by Paul. They were probably written under Paul's authority, or by evangelists trying to place themselves as Paul's followers. However, Murphy-O'Connor argues that 2 Timothy really was written by Paul. This is not the one in which it is written that women should keep their heads covered and be quiet in church! He argues that the theology and the point of view on women--among other issues--is more in line with the rest of the accepted Pauline letters.
It amused me that he clearly expected the reader to be reading the epistles along with his book because he just expects you to know that v. 2 says. Or maybe we are supposed to have them memorized. Frequently he expects us to know the difference between this Greek word and that one... hah! It's nice not to be talked down to.
My only quibble with the book was the maps. They are abominable. Too few of them, and many areas, roads, etc., that he discusses aren't marked. Oh, well, a minor problem; I just got out my Bible and used the Maps section in it.
This is really a chronology of Paul's travels and letters. I have to say that I'm not 100% clear on it all; I'd need to reread this and take notes for an outline to really remember everything. However, the text was easy enough to follow, certainly not boring, just deeper than I'm used to reading regularly. I'm copying the bibliography.
His discussion of the Corinthian letters was really interesting. I really think churches should do a study on these letters about every 3 years. It might keep them (us!) from falling into the same pitfalls over and over. And, oh by the way, "Love is patient, love is kind..."---not about getting married. It's about dealing with people across the board. (Thanks, Les Avery, for bringing that to my attention 30 years ago)
The last bit was especially interesting in that he delves into the Pastoral Letters (the Thessalonians and Timothys, and Titus) as well as the personal letters. Most scholars accept that most of these were not written by Paul. They were probably written under Paul's authority, or by evangelists trying to place themselves as Paul's followers. However, Murphy-O'Connor argues that 2 Timothy really was written by Paul. This is not the one in which it is written that women should keep their heads covered and be quiet in church! He argues that the theology and the point of view on women--among other issues--is more in line with the rest of the accepted Pauline letters.
It amused me that he clearly expected the reader to be reading the epistles along with his book because he just expects you to know that v. 2 says. Or maybe we are supposed to have them memorized. Frequently he expects us to know the difference between this Greek word and that one... hah! It's nice not to be talked down to.
My only quibble with the book was the maps. They are abominable. Too few of them, and many areas, roads, etc., that he discusses aren't marked. Oh, well, a minor problem; I just got out my Bible and used the Maps section in it.
July 1, 2012
Unfortunately, I could not finish this book because of the treatment that the author made regarding Luke as a source of information for the life of Paul.
While Jerome Murphy-O'Connor does a great job pulling out details of Paul's life from Paul's own writings and the writings of other historians, he almost completely dismisses the historicity of Luke's writings in the book of Acts.
The author often treats Luke's knowledge of Paul's life and ministry as so limited that he accuses Luke of exaggerating many key events in Paul's life, such as Paul's persecution of Christians and Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. In fact, the author makes the decision not to use any of Luke's writings in the book of Acts to analyze Paul's conversion: "...elements from Acts are either consciously invoked to re-create Paul's conversion, or unconsciously permitted to influence our understanding of this episode. In an attempt to avoid this danger here no attempt will be made to account for the material provided by Luke."
While I generally try to overlook various biases of historians, I felt this was an extreme stance to take regarding a primary source of information that could provide greater insight into the life of Paul.
While Jerome Murphy-O'Connor does a great job pulling out details of Paul's life from Paul's own writings and the writings of other historians, he almost completely dismisses the historicity of Luke's writings in the book of Acts.
The author often treats Luke's knowledge of Paul's life and ministry as so limited that he accuses Luke of exaggerating many key events in Paul's life, such as Paul's persecution of Christians and Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. In fact, the author makes the decision not to use any of Luke's writings in the book of Acts to analyze Paul's conversion: "...elements from Acts are either consciously invoked to re-create Paul's conversion, or unconsciously permitted to influence our understanding of this episode. In an attempt to avoid this danger here no attempt will be made to account for the material provided by Luke."
While I generally try to overlook various biases of historians, I felt this was an extreme stance to take regarding a primary source of information that could provide greater insight into the life of Paul.
November 26, 2015
Interesting but far too dry for my taste. When I picked up this 200+ page book I wondered how the author could spend so much time on what I figured we actually have relatively little data on. The first chapter quickly answered that question--the author is very thorough in laying out his (admittedly tenuous) arguments about things and supplying lots of information from what concurrent sources exist. Oddly, the author's arguments often felt like they weren't quite fleshed out well enough, as there always seemed to be some key assumption that I felt like I missed. Perhaps this is because this isn't my field. Even so, he spelled so much else out, so why leave out what he did?
May 6, 2008
an empirical approach from Oxford.
Sharp, imaginative without being creative.
Throws out a lot of misconceptions because they're not historically sound or provable, but has a startling number of insights based on this very empirical method.
Sharp, imaginative without being creative.
Throws out a lot of misconceptions because they're not historically sound or provable, but has a startling number of insights based on this very empirical method.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews