What do you think?
Rate this book
Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography
A brilliant new biography of Saint Paul, whose interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus transformed a loosely organized, grassroots peasant movement into the structured religion we know today
Without Paul, there would be no Christianity. His letters to various churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire articulated, for the first time, the beliefs that make up the heart of Christian practice and faith. In this extraordinary biography, Bruce Chilton explains the changing images of Paul, from the early Church period when he was regarded as the premiere apostle who separated Christianity from Judaism to more recent liberal evaluations, which paint him as an antifeminist, homophobic figure more dedicated to doctrine than to spiritual freedom. By illuminating Paul’s thoughts and contributions within the context of his time, Chilton restores him to his place as the founding architect of the Church and one of the most important figures in Western history.
Rabbi Paul is at once a compelling, highly readable biography and a window on how Jesus’ message was transformed into a religion embraced by millions around the world. Drawing on Paul’s own writings as well as historical and scholarly documents about his life and times, Chilton portrays an all-too-human saint who helped to create both the most beautiful and the most troublesome aspects of the Church. He shows that Paul sought to specify the correct approach to such central concerns as sexuality, obedience, faith, conscience, and spirit, to define religion as an institution, and to clarify the nature of the religious personality—issues that Christians still struggle with today.
Without Paul, there would be no Christianity. His letters to various churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire articulated, for the first time, the beliefs that make up the heart of Christian practice and faith. In this extraordinary biography, Bruce Chilton explains the changing images of Paul, from the early Church period when he was regarded as the premiere apostle who separated Christianity from Judaism to more recent liberal evaluations, which paint him as an antifeminist, homophobic figure more dedicated to doctrine than to spiritual freedom. By illuminating Paul’s thoughts and contributions within the context of his time, Chilton restores him to his place as the founding architect of the Church and one of the most important figures in Western history.
Rabbi Paul is at once a compelling, highly readable biography and a window on how Jesus’ message was transformed into a religion embraced by millions around the world. Drawing on Paul’s own writings as well as historical and scholarly documents about his life and times, Chilton portrays an all-too-human saint who helped to create both the most beautiful and the most troublesome aspects of the Church. He shows that Paul sought to specify the correct approach to such central concerns as sexuality, obedience, faith, conscience, and spirit, to define religion as an institution, and to clarify the nature of the religious personality—issues that Christians still struggle with today.
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
19 people are currently reading
109 people want to read
About the author
Bruce Chilton
87 books17 followersBruce Chilton (sometimes Bruce D. Chilton) (born 1949) is an American scholar of early Christianity and Judaism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_C...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_C...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
July 16, 2016
During my complicated history with Christianity, I've had issues with Paul. Actually, to be honest, I did not like Paul of Tarsus at all, although it was only after years of studying and thinking about the subject that I realized why. To me, Paul was the usurper that co-opted the Jewish life and message of Jesus, and turned it into the Hellenized theology of Christianity. But the truth is that this was a knee-jerk reaction, as I knew little of the life of Paul beyond the major events of his life, let alone of the circumstances of his world that would lead him from aspiring Pharisee to Apostle to the Gentiles. That's why I picked up this book, and I'm glad I did.
Chilton's book is a great read, told in an approachable style that nevertheless conveys the scholarship behind the narrative. As I started, I was afraid that Chilton, being Christian, would be a biased narrator, but I was happy to find that he presents a complete view of Paul and his world, calling out the bad and ugly when it needs to be called out, presenting personal viewpoints alongside other available ones for the reader's consideration. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but applaud his work and presentation.
Chilton's presentation starts with bringing the reader into the world that is Tarsus at the start of the Common Era, a mishmash of east and west, of Greek heritage and Roman life, of commerce and religion, into which a young man by the name of Paul is born and raised. I love that Chilton included this information, as it is essential to understanding why Paul made certain choices, and how some ideas that eventually make it into his theology come to be. The narration then follows his travels to Jerusalem to become a Pharisee, as an outspoken opponent of the Jesus Movement, and his famous travel to Damascus, where he experiences a vision that would change world history, all the way to his rise as the Apostle to the Gentiles, the development of his theology for the Jesus Movement, the writing of this famous letters, and his death. It is a fascinating story from beginning to end, regardless of how one feels about Paul, and Chilton does a great job as biographer, pulling from a variety of sources, both religious and historical, to construct his tale.
After reading this biography, however, I still don't necessary like Paul. It is due to his work and influence that the Jesus Movement completely moved away from its Jewish roots as it transforms from a sect within the Judaism of the time into what will, within his lifetime, come to be known as Christianity. Through his letters to the congregations he founded across Asia Minor, Paul lays down a new theology that evolves the message left by Jesus of Nazareth into practices and ideas influenced by Stoicism, furiously reacts against pagan practices of the time, and is fueled by divine visions of the Christ that send him from proselytizing to his fellow Jews to bringing in the gentiles.
The image that emerges is of a man with a vision of his mission in this world that would bear no obstacle, and the truly legendary chutzpah to bring it to fruition. The same temperament that allowed him to forge ahead in pursuit of what he saw as a divine calling also got him in more than his fair share of problems with just about everyone he encountered, making him a polarizing figure from day one. Paul goes from persecutor of the Jesus Movement, to fervent convert bent on bringing the good news he had found to everyone he came in contact with; from ardent follower of the Torah, to creator of a brand new theology that fused Judaism and Hellenism, while being neither. By any account, and regardless of personal opinion, Paul is a man worthy of admiration, and Chilton does a great job of presenting his biography in a way that is accessible to anyone.
Chilton's book is a great read, told in an approachable style that nevertheless conveys the scholarship behind the narrative. As I started, I was afraid that Chilton, being Christian, would be a biased narrator, but I was happy to find that he presents a complete view of Paul and his world, calling out the bad and ugly when it needs to be called out, presenting personal viewpoints alongside other available ones for the reader's consideration. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but applaud his work and presentation.
Chilton's presentation starts with bringing the reader into the world that is Tarsus at the start of the Common Era, a mishmash of east and west, of Greek heritage and Roman life, of commerce and religion, into which a young man by the name of Paul is born and raised. I love that Chilton included this information, as it is essential to understanding why Paul made certain choices, and how some ideas that eventually make it into his theology come to be. The narration then follows his travels to Jerusalem to become a Pharisee, as an outspoken opponent of the Jesus Movement, and his famous travel to Damascus, where he experiences a vision that would change world history, all the way to his rise as the Apostle to the Gentiles, the development of his theology for the Jesus Movement, the writing of this famous letters, and his death. It is a fascinating story from beginning to end, regardless of how one feels about Paul, and Chilton does a great job as biographer, pulling from a variety of sources, both religious and historical, to construct his tale.
After reading this biography, however, I still don't necessary like Paul. It is due to his work and influence that the Jesus Movement completely moved away from its Jewish roots as it transforms from a sect within the Judaism of the time into what will, within his lifetime, come to be known as Christianity. Through his letters to the congregations he founded across Asia Minor, Paul lays down a new theology that evolves the message left by Jesus of Nazareth into practices and ideas influenced by Stoicism, furiously reacts against pagan practices of the time, and is fueled by divine visions of the Christ that send him from proselytizing to his fellow Jews to bringing in the gentiles.
The image that emerges is of a man with a vision of his mission in this world that would bear no obstacle, and the truly legendary chutzpah to bring it to fruition. The same temperament that allowed him to forge ahead in pursuit of what he saw as a divine calling also got him in more than his fair share of problems with just about everyone he encountered, making him a polarizing figure from day one. Paul goes from persecutor of the Jesus Movement, to fervent convert bent on bringing the good news he had found to everyone he came in contact with; from ardent follower of the Torah, to creator of a brand new theology that fused Judaism and Hellenism, while being neither. By any account, and regardless of personal opinion, Paul is a man worthy of admiration, and Chilton does a great job of presenting his biography in a way that is accessible to anyone.
January 4, 2022
Chilton writes as a Bible historian and pastor. He is a professor of religion at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson in Barrytown, New York.
This was delightful and insightful portrait of Paul told through the stories of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters, in light of the cultural, geographical and ethnic factors of the Roman Empire in his day. He deals admirably with the differences between Paul’s testimonies and itinerary and those found in Acts, and paints a scenario that accounts for gaps in the text and the unmentioned events or factors that are hinted at in the texts.
This book is very helpful to bring to life the streams of thought and conflicts that arose between the Hellenistic Jews and Palestinian Jews, and between the three different categories of people who followed Jesus the Christ, the Jews, the God-fearer Gentiles that arose in Antioch and were the subject of a vision of Peter, and the new pagan converts to Christ in Paul’s concerted missions as a result of his personal visions.
He analyzes the dynamics of the core theme of Paul’s ministry and theology present in his letters that the pagan converts to Christ come into fellowship with Christ on a equal footing with the Jews, and are part of the more broadly defined Israel in Christ.
The author draws a detailed and vivid picture of the dispute over the different views within the new movement over the relationship of the three groups within the Body of Christ. He develops nuances that provide a strong alternative to traditional unanimity among all the apostles with Paul's view. I was not always sure, though, exactly what sources he was drawing upon, and his portrayals seemed at times somewhat strained.
But he deals with questions not commonly dealt with in Paul's ongoing conflicts with the judaizers, among whom this author includes James, the brother of Jesus who was the leader of the Jerusalem messianic group. In this portrait, Paul is always on the outs to some degree.
He goes through each letter of Paul and correlates that with pertinent sections of the stories of Paul in Acts, and develops a meaningful congregational portrait of the church in each city and how they related to Paul over the course of his ministry.
He makes better sense of the offering Paul collected for the Jerusalem Christians than most commentators. He analyzes which congregations contributed and which ones did not, related to their shifting attitude towards Paul.
He does an admirable job of analyzing the controversy over spiritual gifts in Corinth and Paul’s conception of the gifts and their practical implementation. He also makes sense out of the confusion in the Corinthian letters resulting from the missing first letter and the fragmentary nature of what we have as the second letter, which contains fragments of several exchanges. A stimulating and rewarding study from an apt and practical scholar.
This was delightful and insightful portrait of Paul told through the stories of the book of Acts and Paul’s letters, in light of the cultural, geographical and ethnic factors of the Roman Empire in his day. He deals admirably with the differences between Paul’s testimonies and itinerary and those found in Acts, and paints a scenario that accounts for gaps in the text and the unmentioned events or factors that are hinted at in the texts.
This book is very helpful to bring to life the streams of thought and conflicts that arose between the Hellenistic Jews and Palestinian Jews, and between the three different categories of people who followed Jesus the Christ, the Jews, the God-fearer Gentiles that arose in Antioch and were the subject of a vision of Peter, and the new pagan converts to Christ in Paul’s concerted missions as a result of his personal visions.
He analyzes the dynamics of the core theme of Paul’s ministry and theology present in his letters that the pagan converts to Christ come into fellowship with Christ on a equal footing with the Jews, and are part of the more broadly defined Israel in Christ.
The author draws a detailed and vivid picture of the dispute over the different views within the new movement over the relationship of the three groups within the Body of Christ. He develops nuances that provide a strong alternative to traditional unanimity among all the apostles with Paul's view. I was not always sure, though, exactly what sources he was drawing upon, and his portrayals seemed at times somewhat strained.
But he deals with questions not commonly dealt with in Paul's ongoing conflicts with the judaizers, among whom this author includes James, the brother of Jesus who was the leader of the Jerusalem messianic group. In this portrait, Paul is always on the outs to some degree.
He goes through each letter of Paul and correlates that with pertinent sections of the stories of Paul in Acts, and develops a meaningful congregational portrait of the church in each city and how they related to Paul over the course of his ministry.
He makes better sense of the offering Paul collected for the Jerusalem Christians than most commentators. He analyzes which congregations contributed and which ones did not, related to their shifting attitude towards Paul.
He does an admirable job of analyzing the controversy over spiritual gifts in Corinth and Paul’s conception of the gifts and their practical implementation. He also makes sense out of the confusion in the Corinthian letters resulting from the missing first letter and the fragmentary nature of what we have as the second letter, which contains fragments of several exchanges. A stimulating and rewarding study from an apt and practical scholar.
September 19, 2007
sitting facing my boyfriend's bed in his born again christian parent's house (his father is trying to convince him of the historical, ahem, truth of jesus as the son of god) so i picked it up and did not get very far before i got pissed at the psuedo intellectual bullshit. sounds smart if you don't know any of the actual scholorship, which the author ignores as it suits his thesis. boo.
January 27, 2016
I was a bit disappointed in this one. Even given the moments of sheer brilliance of historical scholarship, one has to put up with the pages and pages of pure speculation that makes Paul out to be a liberal episcopalian searching for a bone to pick with Christian fundamentalists. Read the first couple chapters if you must, and then feel free to stop.
July 18, 2014
I think the first half of this book has some very valuable information if it is accurate and can be believed. The second half makes me question what is fact and what is opinion in the second half where so much that I think is speculation is stated as if it is a known fact.
April 9, 2012
Finding a good history pertaining to Paul has always been a challenge. This is a great book and offers a good introduction to Paul and his ministry.
June 22, 2010
Having been raised in the Church, I have been exposed to various bits and pieces of scripture, but have never been intimately familiar with any of it (I've been working on reading through the entire Bible, a project that is taking me several years, but which I am determined to finish eventually), and certainly not during a period of my life when I would have been able to really understand much of it or its implications, as I pretty much left the Church in my early teens. The image of Paul I had, though, was rather like what the blurb suggests: basically, that he is the source of just about everything that's wrong with the Church. However, shortly before I left the Church, I became good friends with the minister of the church I attended, and even maintained that friendship despite my moving toward atheism. We're more or less out of touch now, since he left the city, but I still very much respect his opinions and views on many things, absolutely including religion. This is a man who not only owns, but kept right on his desk, within easy reach, the major religious texts of most of the major world religions, and was pretty conversant in their contents. He's well-educated, well-read, and extremely knowledgeable about these things. So when he suggested that Paul was very much misunderstood, misinterpreted and maligned, and had many valuable things to say, I took it to heart. And so, when I saw that Bruce Chilton (whose Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography I had read and found very interesting and insightful) had written a book about Paul, I added it to my list, figuring that if anything would give me a reasonable picture of this man, this book would probably do it. It's taken several years to get to it (I had sort of hoped to be able to discuss it with that minister after reading it), but I have now read Paul's biography.
I still have a somewhat incomplete picture, because I'm not even close to tackling the New Testament yet, but this book definitely gave me some insights, and when I do get to his writings, I think I'll have a much better context for them now, and will know that many of the particularly egregious examples of misogyny, anti-semitism, and racism are falsely attributed to him, and shouldn't colour my picture of him too much. True, those writings were inspired by him, but they are not his words, and he shouldn't be judged by them.
But that doesn't mean that I've come around to believing that he was actually an all-around awesome guy. On the contrary, I'm left with the very strong impression that he was a bit of a nutjob. My somewhat atheist self finds it difficult to understand or relate to really fervent religiousness, but Paul goes rather beyond that into the territory of really incomprehensible. He runs around deliberately antagonizing people, and seems baffled that they get angry with him. His message was one that was controversial to say the least, went against what ages of scripture said, and was highly offensive to many people. Of course they got angry and ran him out of town after town.
I'm also left with a great deal of non-clarity as to what he was actually preaching, as well as the sense that he wasn't entirely sure either. The rules he lays out are contradictory and confusing, and don't seem to make any sense, even to him. Don't follow the Torah, but follow this rule that it sets out. Circumcision is unnecessary, but I'm going to do it occasionally anyway. Follow this rule, but don't worry about that one. How is anyone supposed to make heads or tails of any of this?
He tries to make his flexibility into a good thing, announcing that he behaves one way with one group of people, and another with a different group. "He observes food laws with Jews and ignores them with Gentiles; he refuses idol-meat when occasion demands but eats away at other times." (214) This just adds to the confusion of his message, and, frankly, makes him seem hypocritical.
Furthermore, the notion that one is saved and righteous by faith and grace alone has always seemed to me like a free pass, and like it justifies any atrocities you care to commit as long as you truly have faith in your saviour. To suggest that it's simply faith, and not works, that makes one a Christian seems too open to me. It implies to me that according to this, if I do good deeds regularly, I am charitable, kind to my neighbours, and so on and so forth, but don't acknowledge Jesus and the Lord, the guy across the street who spends all his time, I don't know, acquiring wealth, parking his giant expensive, gas-guzzling car illegally, and generally seeing to his own needs above all others, but has absolute faith in Jesus as his saviour, he's basically a better person than I am? Somehow, I don't think that's what Jesus would think, but it's what Paul's writings seem to imply. I have absolute faith in my saviour, and that means I can strap a bomb to myself, kill a bunch of people in his name, and still go to heaven, because it's my faith that matters, not what I do. Sorry Paul. I just can't get behind that. I'm sure that's not what he had in mind, but when he emphasizes over and over faith over works, then his message is open to that interpretation.
As for his alleged misogyny, I think it's maybe a little exaggerated, and definitely misinterpreted. He concluded that one should keep one's body pure, and not engage in sexual relations. In his view, the end was near anyway, after which time, we would all go off to whatever afterlife exists, where sex would be as irrelevant as food, so we might as well get a heard start on our bodies' purity, or something to that effect. Plus, if you become that intimate with another person, it takes something away from your intimacy with God, so we should all really just keep our bodies to ourselves and devote ourselves wholly to God. Problem is, those darn women are just so scrumptiously tempting. If he had to be exposed to them too much, his willpower might fade, and he'd succumb to that temptation. Therefore, we'd best keep them covered, apart from men to avoid accidental touching, and as silent as possible so their voices don't turn the men on too much either. Misogyny? Not quite in the sense we usually think of it. But intense fear of sexuality and lack of faith in his own self-control? Oh yes. And if I can't control myself, I'll just go ahead and put the onus on other people to make sure I don't stray. What's truly mind-boggling is that that attitude is still so prevalent in many places.
His alleged anti-semitism and racism does seem to come mainly from misinterpretation and from books attributed to him despite the fact that he didn't write them, but yeah. He still contributed plenty of screwed up notions, so I still can't really come around to being on Paul's side. What's interesting is that neither could most people in his time. The only reason he became the "father," so to speak, of Christianity is because he wrote so much down. James and Peter had much wider followings as that time, and if they had written as much as Paul did, and managed to have it preserved, I think the face of Christianity would have been rather different. It might not even have strayed so far from Judaism, but rather might have shaped Judaism a bit differently, or else become kind of a sect of it, instead of something entirely different. I'm quite sure that Jesus wouldn't recognize the religion he inspired, and I don't know that Paul would either.
In any case, I didn't find this one quite as enjoyable as Rabbi Jesus, but I think that's mainly because I simply have more sympathy for Jesus than I do for Paul. It was still well-researched, well-written, and just as informative and insightful. But I'm afraid, Jim, that it did not vastly alter or improve my opinion of Paul.
I still have a somewhat incomplete picture, because I'm not even close to tackling the New Testament yet, but this book definitely gave me some insights, and when I do get to his writings, I think I'll have a much better context for them now, and will know that many of the particularly egregious examples of misogyny, anti-semitism, and racism are falsely attributed to him, and shouldn't colour my picture of him too much. True, those writings were inspired by him, but they are not his words, and he shouldn't be judged by them.
But that doesn't mean that I've come around to believing that he was actually an all-around awesome guy. On the contrary, I'm left with the very strong impression that he was a bit of a nutjob. My somewhat atheist self finds it difficult to understand or relate to really fervent religiousness, but Paul goes rather beyond that into the territory of really incomprehensible. He runs around deliberately antagonizing people, and seems baffled that they get angry with him. His message was one that was controversial to say the least, went against what ages of scripture said, and was highly offensive to many people. Of course they got angry and ran him out of town after town.
I'm also left with a great deal of non-clarity as to what he was actually preaching, as well as the sense that he wasn't entirely sure either. The rules he lays out are contradictory and confusing, and don't seem to make any sense, even to him. Don't follow the Torah, but follow this rule that it sets out. Circumcision is unnecessary, but I'm going to do it occasionally anyway. Follow this rule, but don't worry about that one. How is anyone supposed to make heads or tails of any of this?
He tries to make his flexibility into a good thing, announcing that he behaves one way with one group of people, and another with a different group. "He observes food laws with Jews and ignores them with Gentiles; he refuses idol-meat when occasion demands but eats away at other times." (214) This just adds to the confusion of his message, and, frankly, makes him seem hypocritical.
Furthermore, the notion that one is saved and righteous by faith and grace alone has always seemed to me like a free pass, and like it justifies any atrocities you care to commit as long as you truly have faith in your saviour. To suggest that it's simply faith, and not works, that makes one a Christian seems too open to me. It implies to me that according to this, if I do good deeds regularly, I am charitable, kind to my neighbours, and so on and so forth, but don't acknowledge Jesus and the Lord, the guy across the street who spends all his time, I don't know, acquiring wealth, parking his giant expensive, gas-guzzling car illegally, and generally seeing to his own needs above all others, but has absolute faith in Jesus as his saviour, he's basically a better person than I am? Somehow, I don't think that's what Jesus would think, but it's what Paul's writings seem to imply. I have absolute faith in my saviour, and that means I can strap a bomb to myself, kill a bunch of people in his name, and still go to heaven, because it's my faith that matters, not what I do. Sorry Paul. I just can't get behind that. I'm sure that's not what he had in mind, but when he emphasizes over and over faith over works, then his message is open to that interpretation.
As for his alleged misogyny, I think it's maybe a little exaggerated, and definitely misinterpreted. He concluded that one should keep one's body pure, and not engage in sexual relations. In his view, the end was near anyway, after which time, we would all go off to whatever afterlife exists, where sex would be as irrelevant as food, so we might as well get a heard start on our bodies' purity, or something to that effect. Plus, if you become that intimate with another person, it takes something away from your intimacy with God, so we should all really just keep our bodies to ourselves and devote ourselves wholly to God. Problem is, those darn women are just so scrumptiously tempting. If he had to be exposed to them too much, his willpower might fade, and he'd succumb to that temptation. Therefore, we'd best keep them covered, apart from men to avoid accidental touching, and as silent as possible so their voices don't turn the men on too much either. Misogyny? Not quite in the sense we usually think of it. But intense fear of sexuality and lack of faith in his own self-control? Oh yes. And if I can't control myself, I'll just go ahead and put the onus on other people to make sure I don't stray. What's truly mind-boggling is that that attitude is still so prevalent in many places.
His alleged anti-semitism and racism does seem to come mainly from misinterpretation and from books attributed to him despite the fact that he didn't write them, but yeah. He still contributed plenty of screwed up notions, so I still can't really come around to being on Paul's side. What's interesting is that neither could most people in his time. The only reason he became the "father," so to speak, of Christianity is because he wrote so much down. James and Peter had much wider followings as that time, and if they had written as much as Paul did, and managed to have it preserved, I think the face of Christianity would have been rather different. It might not even have strayed so far from Judaism, but rather might have shaped Judaism a bit differently, or else become kind of a sect of it, instead of something entirely different. I'm quite sure that Jesus wouldn't recognize the religion he inspired, and I don't know that Paul would either.
In any case, I didn't find this one quite as enjoyable as Rabbi Jesus, but I think that's mainly because I simply have more sympathy for Jesus than I do for Paul. It was still well-researched, well-written, and just as informative and insightful. But I'm afraid, Jim, that it did not vastly alter or improve my opinion of Paul.
February 2, 2021
I enjoyed this book very much. (And I read it over an extremely long period in between other books.) Mr. Chilton has a way of reading between the lines of Acts and the Epistles to create a narrative of a human life. He took Paul down from the pedestal that we have put him on. But he did not do this to debunk. Rather, he did it, I feel, to help us understand.
I am not fit to judge the accuracy of Mr. Chilton's reading of Paul's life, but I was stimulated tremendously to consider (1) the progression and evolution of Paul's message; (2) the context of the messages (a picture of Corinth -- new for me -- and the roles and activities of Titus and Timothy, for example); (3) the politics of the very early church; (4) the monumental problems of diversity, as it were, that the early church, or segments of it at least, was negotiating; (5) the historical effects of persecution; (6) the effects of the Gentile world on an essentially Hebrew message.
For all this, I am very grateful as I feel that my approach has been broadened.
Mr. Chilton's prose is very clear. His narrative and explanatory skills are quite good. His notes are extensive (though I did not visit them very much!).
I view the book as a popular, rather than academic, study. This is not to say that it is simple. One has to pursue the lines of thought and history. So, it is perfect for the serious reader.
Thank you, Mr. Chilton.
I am not fit to judge the accuracy of Mr. Chilton's reading of Paul's life, but I was stimulated tremendously to consider (1) the progression and evolution of Paul's message; (2) the context of the messages (a picture of Corinth -- new for me -- and the roles and activities of Titus and Timothy, for example); (3) the politics of the very early church; (4) the monumental problems of diversity, as it were, that the early church, or segments of it at least, was negotiating; (5) the historical effects of persecution; (6) the effects of the Gentile world on an essentially Hebrew message.
For all this, I am very grateful as I feel that my approach has been broadened.
Mr. Chilton's prose is very clear. His narrative and explanatory skills are quite good. His notes are extensive (though I did not visit them very much!).
I view the book as a popular, rather than academic, study. This is not to say that it is simple. One has to pursue the lines of thought and history. So, it is perfect for the serious reader.
Thank you, Mr. Chilton.
November 30, 2021
Had to read this as part of a course for a book study assignment. This was a mostly easy to read account of the apostle Paul. Lots of vivid accounts of the historical context (easy to read) with lots of explanations of the evolution of Paul's (and Christian) theology which was more challenging for me to digest as a non biblical scholar. Overall a great book and very informative.
March 6, 2013
Chilton paints a rough picture of Paul, highlighting his tremendous passion but also his contradictions. He draws from Paul's writings chiefly (and Acts) but also from contemporaneous non-Biblical sources, and manages to piece together a mostly coherent story. Paul was the wild man of Tarsus, one of the most single-minded and willful men in history, without whom Christianity (and probably the world) would look different today.
Chilton's writing is suitably Pauline -- self-assured and at times simply blunt. He reminds me of some of the Jesuits teachers I had, those who would insist that we not say things like "I think." (We already know it's you. Just say it.) He's also funny at times, which might come off as irreverent to some. (After explaining the controversy over the circumcision of Timothy, he says "With Silas effectively in charge, Paul's little company -- including Timothy (limping slightly) -- made their way north and west...")
Chilton's writing is suitably Pauline -- self-assured and at times simply blunt. He reminds me of some of the Jesuits teachers I had, those who would insist that we not say things like "I think." (We already know it's you. Just say it.) He's also funny at times, which might come off as irreverent to some. (After explaining the controversy over the circumcision of Timothy, he says "With Silas effectively in charge, Paul's little company -- including Timothy (limping slightly) -- made their way north and west...")
February 23, 2009
Books like these are hard to write and often hard to read. But it's an irresistible genre. Rather than read all the evidence for understanding the historical Paul, just tell me a rich story that capsulizes what we know into a readable speculative biography of his life.
In this case, Chilton's prose won't threaten sales of John Grisham or David McCullough - his writing is somewhat prosaic and indirect. But the story is coherent and compelling.
Be forewarned though - there will be some theological point that will distract you and tempt you to quit reading. Hang in there, forgive any small points of doctrinal pique. The overall story is well enough presented to get you past the partisan issues of interpretation.
In this case, Chilton's prose won't threaten sales of John Grisham or David McCullough - his writing is somewhat prosaic and indirect. But the story is coherent and compelling.
Be forewarned though - there will be some theological point that will distract you and tempt you to quit reading. Hang in there, forgive any small points of doctrinal pique. The overall story is well enough presented to get you past the partisan issues of interpretation.
September 9, 2014
I as a Christian woman have had my moments of anger with Paul. This is why I read this book. Wow! The research that makes the Book of Acts come alive is the most impressive section of this book. I came to understand what being from Tarsus meant, why some men like Barnabas and Titus entered and left Paul's mission, the importance of James which I had not realized after all my years in Sunday School, etc. Later chapters help me realize that Paul had to move on to distant lands because of the uniqueness of his message and his break with James and Peter. I could go on and on. This story of Paul needs to be read if you have learned his message but not his identity as a flawed but passionate man.
December 31, 2014
An interesting book; I am not sure what the bounds are between good theology, decent history and speculation within it and it is certainly not going to get a nihil obstat! But I will be re-reading Acts and the letters soon with a somewhat different eye.
Want to read
February 25, 2007I started reading this book last year after having checked it out from the library -- twice. The first few chapters were quite compelling. I can't wait to finish it.
September 17, 2007
The historical and social context of Paul very much informs my understanding of his writings. Having never been terribly fond of him before this book made me more sympathetic.
Read
September 23, 2010Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography by Bruce Chilton (2005)
December 28, 2017
This book really made me think! I have lots of history to read in order to better understand the Book of Acts. Chilton posits some pretty interesting ideas!
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews