Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity

by James D. Tabor

In this “compulsively readable exploration of the tangled world of Christian origins” (Publishers Weekly), religious historian James Tabor illuminates the earliest years of Jesus’ teachings before Paul shaped them into the religion we know today.This fascinating examination of the earliest years of Christianity reveals how the man we call St. Paul shaped Christianity as we know it today. Historians know almost nothing about the two decades following the crucifixion of Jesus, when his followers regrouped and began to spread his message. During this time Paul joined the movement and began to preach to the gentiles. Using the oldest Christian documents that we have—the letters of Paul—as well as other early Chris­tian sources, historian and scholar James Tabor reconstructs the origins of Christianity. Tabor shows how Paul separated himself from Peter and James to introduce his own version of Christianity, which would continue to develop independently of the message that Jesus, James, and Peter preached. Paul and Jesus illuminates the fascinating period of history when Christianity was born out of Judaism.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology, Spirituality, New Testament

321 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968-70 while a student), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89).

Reviews

[Sheila · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Tabor's four decades of research about Paul and his role in the development of Christianity has resulted in this, his latest well-researched work. The main portion of this book is divided into nine sections that logically present Tabor's research and his arguments: Paul not only departed vividly from the teachings of Jesus and the original Twelve Apostles, but his later and completely independent interpretation of the message of Jesus actually superceded the teachings of Jesus in the surviving Christian faith.

According to the evidence presented by Tabor, Paul never actually met Jesus, but instead proceeded to teach his (Paul's) gospel after having visions of Jesus talking to him seven years after the crucifixion. Further, Paul was never "made" an apostle by the surviving Apostles as led by James, the brother of Jesus. The closest he came was what appears to be a "live and let live" agreement between him and the original Apostles (who were still spreading the teachings of Jesus amongst the Jewish population) that Paul could continue to preach in the name of Jesus to the Gentiles. Paul believed he was chosen by God to do this before he was born, so he thought his gospel was superior to that of the Twelve Apostles'. He also held the belief that Jesus had been sent to carry out the first part of God's plan and he had been sent to carry out the second part, and exhorted followers to be like him. There was an innate conflict between what Paul preached (without learning first from the living Jesus or the Twelve Apostles) and what the remaining Apostles would continue to preach in Jesus' name. The differences were and are staggering.

The Christian beliefs that were affected go to the core of the religion. The beliefs surrounding the Eucharist, whether blood and body are being consumed or if it is the Jewish ritual of blessing for bread and wine; baptism, whether it is when the seed of the Holy Spirit is implanted or if it is the traditional water purification ritual of the Jewish faith. The resurrection of the dead: is it in a reformed body from the sleep of the dead, or in a glorious new spiritual body that is apparently neither male nor female, as according to Paul. These are only examples; Paul believed that the revelations he received from his visions of the heavenly Christ were far superior to any of the teachings of the earthly Jesus. When Paul proceeded to preach to the Gentiles, it was his version that was heard and remembered. Tabor brings in other writers and accounts contemporaneous to Paul for a cross-analysis; what emerges is the likelihood that these other sources that are in the background of Church may be closer in tone to Jesus' message than the current core beliefs of Christianity. Because of the thoroughness of Dr. Tabor's work, his conclusions become far more than a hypothesis or argument. Although the subject matter is very detailed, I found Dr. Tabor's writing style to be very readable and the evidence presented believable.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Countless tomes have been written about Paul and his theology, such that it is difficult to imagine any scholar being able to produce a work that succeeds in saying anything new or revolutionary about this most unique of apostles. In truth, I would suggest that this principle also applies in the current case: readers of other scholarly works on Paul will probably recognise most of the arguments Tabor addresses in this book, including the fractured nature of the early Christian leadership and the highly idiosyncratic nature of Paul's "gospel". However, where Tabor succeeds and others fail is in his ability to distill quite abstruse theological posturings into relatively clear language, meaning that even well-informed students of Paul can benefit from reading what Tabor has to say here.

This book doesn't attempt an overview of Paul's theology or of Pauline scholarship more generally, but rather focuses more on the influence Paul had on the trajectory of early Christian thought, and the kind of divisions that emerged between Paul and those he derisively calls "the super-apostles". Tabor's main thesis (and again this isn't terribly new or revolutionary so far as it goes) is that Paul's gospel - over and against James' gospel, or Peter's gospel or even Jesus' gospel - came to become the normative message of later Christianity. What Tabor wants to show is that Paul did not offer this gospel unopposed, and that he faced quite a degree of disapprobation from James and other members of the so-called "Jerusalem Church" as he preached a message quite at odds with their more stringently Jewish gospel. What's more, Tabor also wishes to show that Paul's gospel has been unfortunately whitewashed by centuries of revisionist theology, and that it therefore becomes necessary to read his epistles on their own terms, rather than through the distorting lens of modern systematic theology.

For example, Tabor stresses the mystical element of Paul's teachings, frequently overlooked despite his constant invocation of the Greek term "mysterion". Tabor wishes to disambiguate the meaning of this term, and to translate it closer to its original meaning of "secret". For Tabor, Paul believed that he was in possession of a divine, almost incommunicable secret revealed to him while he was caught up in an ecstatic trance in "the third heaven". This secret, according to Tabor, relates to Paul's eschatology and his belief that those "in Christ" had already become children of God, soon to take their place in heaven above the angels. Furthermore, Tabor takes this expression "in Christ" quite literally. For him, Paul believed that he and other believers in his gospel had formed a mystical union with the resurrected Christ, one recapitulated every time the eucharist was performed in the churches he had founded. The mundane world of flesh as drawing to an end, and the resurrection of Jesus represented "the first fruits" of a renewed spiritual world, of which the believers in Paul's gospel were (already but not yet) to take part.

Where other writers on the early disputes between Paul and the Judaising apostles tend to focus quite narrowly on issues such as circumcision and dietary laws, Tabor succeeds in showing that the differences were actually much more profound. Paul had instituted a Hellenised and deeply esoteric cosmology which stood at odds with the more prosaic, Jewish cosmology of the other apostles. They disagreed with him not merely on issues of praxis, but on quite weighty issues of the role of the early Christian movement in the broadest of cosmological contexts. The eschatology of Jesus (and presumably his earliest followers) centred upon the institution of a divine kingdom on Earth; an act of divine intervention at a specific moment in history that would deliver earthly power to the messiah and his subjects at the expense of the previously prevailing earthly powers. Paul's eschatology, on the other hand, centred on a mystical, spiritual communion with the resurrected Christ, and that whatever power or glory that was to be devolved on those who formed a family "in Christ" would be of an entirely spiritual and heavenly nature. Where as the scholars involved in the "New Perspective on Paul" would aver that we should interpret Paul through the lens of first century Palestinian Judaism, Tabor makes the rather bold claim that we should instead view Paul as offering a highly unique and esoteric theology, based more in gentile mystery religions than in what may have then been considered orthodox Judaism.

The claims Tabor makes here certainly do serve to explain otherwise troubling aspects of Paul's epistles, particularly his almost complete disregard of Jesus' earthly ministry (as it was only the communion with the heavenly, resurrected spirit of Christ that was of any importance) and his, at times, quite savage rebukes of those who taught a contrary gospel. For Tabor, Paul wasn't merely teaching a gospel of Christ with a different emphasis to the other leaders of the early Christian movement, he was teaching - quite emphatically - his own gospel (he frequently uses the term "my gospel" as opposed to "the gospel") that was, in many respects, completely incompatible with the gospel being preached by the other apostles. Although Paul was obviously keen to trace his authority to the revelations of the resurrected Christ, Paul's epistles are riven with a defensiveness about his own authority and with a hostility to competing apostles (who sometimes had the temerity to preach within the churches that Paul stresses he himself founded - a point that surely wouldn't have been such an issue had there been a more or less unified gospel of Christ at the time he wrote) that make much more sense when we accept the fact that Paul's gospel was a deeply idiosyncratic one.

To that extent, the book certainly succeeded in opening my eyes to the more abstruse elements of Paul's thought that are too frequently overlooked by other scholars of Paul, who too often attempt to form any overly systematic, rationalised view of Paul's theology where perhaps it doesn't exist.

[Travis · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Tabor is, in my estimation, one of the best living scholars of Christian origins. I really loved his earlier book, The Jesus Dynsasty, and have been intending to read Paul and Jesus for several years.

Tabor's main thesis in Paul and Jesus is largely uncontroversial among contemporary academic scholars of early Christianity: Paul invented Christianity. Christianity as a religious system would have been repudiated by Jesus himself and by his earliest followers.

Jesus and his earliest followers (the leaders of whom were his brother James and his disciples Peter and John) were all observant Jews. Even after Jesus's death and the resurrection experiences, they remained observant Jews. They saw Jesus not as a divine figure but as God's human agent to bring about the overthrow of Rome, and they saw the resurrection as a sign of God's promise to send Jesus back soon to destroy Rome. There was nothing in the beliefs and actions of these early Jewish followers of Jesus to separate them from other Jews other than their belief that Jesus was God's chosen agent, his messiah, who would govern the newly liberated Israel once God destroyed the power of Rome. First-century Jews had seen many messianic pretenders come and go; Jesus was just another one among them, and believing him to be the true messiah did not make Jesus's followers any less Jews than their co-religionists. James and Peter and John and the other Jewish followers of Jesus could and did very easily remain observant Jews who followed the Torah.

The Christian religion that eventually spread throughout the Mediterranean world, though, was radically different than the praxis of the Jewish followers of Jesus. Christianity arose from the visionary experiences of Paul and had nothing to do with the religious, political, or ethical teachings of Jesus. Paul transformed the Jesus movement from a political movement focused upon and expecting the overthrow of Rome to a religious movement that saw Jesus not as a purely human ruler but rather as a divine savior who had come to liberate humanity from bondage to sin and to replace the Torah with something better: a new relationship with God mediated by Jesus. Paul's teachings were not, as Paul himself was at pains to emphasize, derived from James, Peter, John, and other Jewish followers of Jesus but from Paul's own visions of Jesus.

The authentic Pauline epistles (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon) have practically nothing to do with the life and teachings of Jesus in Q (a now lost sayings gospel that Luke and Matthew both incorporated into their gospels), and so I find myself agreeing completely with Tabor. One thing he reminded me of was how the epistle of James and the Didache (an early Jewish-Christian instruction manual for new followers of Jesus that dates to around the end of the first century) both radically diverge from Paul's doctrines, with the epistle of James attacking Paul's teaching directly. Tabor also does a wonderful job of explicating the conflicts between Paul and the Jewish followers of Jesus, especially in his writings in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, as well as in showing the tendentiousness of the Acts accounts as largely pro-Pauline, unhistorical hagiography.

Tabor writes for a lay audience, and I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in the early years of Christian history or in the historical figure of Paul.

[John Martindale · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tabor's scholarship seemed to me extremely procrustean, it was hard to maintain my composure as I witnessed Tabor shamelessly stretching and hacking the data to snuggly fit his conjectures. As it suited him, he stated with absolute certainty who did or didn't write what and when it was written and as if there was no debate, he states how things were formed, edited and what was polemically left out of, or included in various books whenever it would bolster his own theory. He read between the lines, claimed motives and agendas where none were to be obviously found. Tabor formed some quite fabulous speculations which he presented with all the certitude of a scientist stating that water boils at 211.9 degrees. With incredible ease he dismisses all that doesn't fit with his thesis, but when something like the Gospel of Thomas supports his view, he gives it an early date and claims it to be reliable. But yeah, I don't want to merely write an emotional diatribe, so I am going to avoid responding to these parts of the book that raised my blood pressure to the boiling point. What will follow are a few of my more claim reflections concerning various sections of Tabor's "Jesus and Paul".

CONCERNING THE SUPPOSED COMPLETE BREAK BETWEEN PAUL & THE JERUSALEM CHURCH
I find it interesting that Paul was raising an offering for the church in Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians 16, we read “Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatians churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me”
Then in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul mentions how despite severe poverty, the Macedonians gave generously and how he told the Macedonians the Corinthians were also eager to give, Paul wanted the Corinthians to be prepared though, so Paul thought it “Necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you (the Corinthians) had promised”
And finally, in Romans 15, Paul wrote “I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem, They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' Spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.”

I wonder why Tabor made no mention to this collection Paul was gathering for the Jerusalem church.Tabor claims by the time 2 Corinthians and Romans were written there was a bitter rift, how Paul was now a total enemy of the church of Jerusalem. This collection, I think lends support to how most scholars (As Tabor acknowledged) believe that the “false apostles” and “ministers of Satan” referred to in 2 Corinthians 11 were not a reference to Peter, James and John. I found it interesting that Tabor claimed the only reason most scholars believed the false apostles mentioned in 2 Cor are not the Pillars of the Jerusalem church was merely because of a pro-Christian bias. I suspect there are other reasons, like the one I just gave, among others. It would seem odd for Paul seeking to raise funds for the Poor in the Jerusalem church, and telling the Gentile churches they owed them, if he was there bitter enemies. If they were his bitter enemies, then evidently Paul is practicing what he preached in Romans 12 about loving ones enemy. Interestingly enough, when discussing Paul's ethics, Tabor makes no mention to the aspects of Paul's ethical teachings that were similar to parts of the sermon on the mount, I suppose this is because the sermon on the mount (if I recall right) is suppose to be from the Q source, which, If I remember correctly, is among the only non-Pauline NT material (other than the book of James).

Tabor of course makes no mention to Peter's vision where God tells him not to call unclean what God has called clean, and how Peter later witnessed Cornelius and his household receiving the Holy Spirit despite being uncircumcised gentiles, Peter then goes and shares the news with an astonished church. Tabor has a low very low opinion of Acts (despite a large amount of evidence for it's astonishing historical accuracy, which he doesn't even acknowledge in the slightest), so it is no surprise. But I personally, think that in light of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians, Paul said, Peter was acting the hypocrite, implying Peter knew better. Speaking of this rebuke, a simple rebuke doesn't imply a complete break with Peter, Tabor claims this dogmatically, but this is pure speculation. My sister has rebuked me a few times in my life and we are still the closest of friends. Also, I don't think that this necessarily is a different account of the counsel at Jerusalem and that this is really what Barnabas and Paul broke up over. Once again... maybe... maybe not. I don't think we have a place to be dogmatic here.

What is interesting to me is if Luke is right concerning Peter, it means he once thought Gentiles needed to become a Jew before they could receive the holy spirit, but through the vision, God made it clear that He was doing a new thing. Yet, as we see in Galatians, the seed God had planted in Peter and the Jerusalem church were struggling to take root. So it therefore makes perfect sense to me that God would call Paul out and make sure He took him in the desert and download the same gospel he presented to Peter, making him an apostle to the Gentiles. As we know, it truly did take root in Paul and as Paul states in Galatians, Peter, James and John recognized and approved of it, giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and pleading with him to just remember the poor, the one thing Paul was already eager to do. I do think however that Peter, James and John also still found it easy to associate with those who were Paul's enemies and thus were in a sense struck in the middle between what would have seemed like two extremes.

CONCERNING PAULS TEACHINGS & THE GOSPELS
Tabor claimed Paul made up the “In Christ” concept and that it was not found elsewhere, but this idea comes through pretty strongly in the gospel of John, especially the “Abide in me” chapter 15, Tabor didn't go at length to try and establish that John was also pro-Paul propaganda. I don't think he mentioned John's epistles at all. I am surprised, for in them John is very strong in his statements that “If one continues sinning, and say you know God, you lie” and a bunch more like that is in there. This doesn't fit with Tabor's interpretation of Paul which was that Paul taught utter lawlessness, but then was inconsistent because of his sexism and his backwards prejudices against sex.

Tabor mentioned how John didn't mention the Eucharist as evidence for his claim that Paul made it up. But fails to commit on how John wrote how Jesus, to thin out the crowd, told them (to the Disciples chagrin) “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood”

From what I gathered, the only reason Tabor gave that Mark was Pauline, was that it had to be because contains the Eucharist, and Tabor knows a priori that Paul made up the Eucharist, so therefore, we have proof Mark is mere Pauline propaganda. What I find interesting is that the author of Mark, who was supposedly purely Pauline, and thus shouldn't have had any interest in a historical Jesus at all, but only of some life giving Spirit, would waste his time fabricating the story of Jesus in the flesh and his ministry. Another thing I find odd, Mark who is merely making up some pro-Paul myths, didn't put more words in Jesus' mouth. Why doesn't Jesus say anything against circumcision? Why isn't Jesus as anti the law as Tabor thinks Paul was? Jesus was strangely silent on the hot issues of the early church, if it is merely being made up with theological motivations, isn't this something that needs to be accounted for?

Tabor wrote as evidence that Paul made up his own version of Communion, that Didache doesn't mention the bread representing the body and the wine representing the blood. I just read the Didache, and yes, this is true, but is Tabor seeking to state that the Didache is not Pauline? If so, right before instructions on Communion, it states that people are to be baptized in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I thought Tabor is claiming that this is Pauline. Concerning the fact the Didache has a lot in it that Tabor claims is from Q. I notice plenty concerning the ethical content in Didache that is also found in the writings of Paul. Tabor of course completely left out the parts of Paul that don't fit his thesis.

Concerning the resurrection accounts being irreconcilable, it is interesting to note that according to scripture, these happened over (I think it was) forty days. Plenty of time for appearances in both Jerusalem and Galilee. The Gospel of John mentions appearances of Jesus both in Jerusalem and Galilee. So no, I don't see the accounts as completely irreconcilable, as Tabor confidently asserts.


CONCERNING TABORS DOGMATIC TONE
One thing that bothered me was the dogmatism and complete certainty Tabor presented his conclusions. He came across as strong as some redneck evangelical fundamentalist, just on the other end of the isle. I might not have reacted so strongly, if Tabor would write “possibly”, “It seems” “Let me suggest” “Maybe” “Or there are good reasons to think...” when he was making conjectures. I only noticed a few times where Tabor had the humility to do this. Most of the time though, he presented things with a black and white tone, stating things as absolute fact which are still debate by reputable scholars.

I recall how Tabor confidently stated, how Paul wrote, full of bitter sarcasm about those who are “Reputed Pillars of the Church.” Did Paul write this sarcastically? Maybe, but maybe not. We all know relationships can be hurt, because someone reads a text message from a friend and reads sarcasm where there was none. With such friends, they can later clarify, but Paul is dead, so we can't make sure he wrote that with sarcasm. So why confidently assert Paul did? Unless one wants to put Paul in a bad light?

CONCERNING TABOR'S SEEMING HATRED OF PAUL
Really, one of the the things that was hard to endure was Tabor's interpretation of Paul's teachings, which he put in the worst possible light, leaving out the most beautiful parts. Tabor's absolute disgust for Paul started to show through. It was hard to wade through it, it was like hearing a friend slandered. Being familiar enough with Scripture, I knew what Tabor was leaving out, how he was taking out of context and spinning what he included in such a way to make Paul look like a absolutely terrible person with simply horrible teachings.

But yeah, this review is long enough, but I am only scratching the surface. I do hope another scholars writes a book in response to Tabors libel against Paul. I also went through N. T Wrights "Paul: In Fresh Perspective", as I went through Tabors book. I suppose one good thing about Tabors book was it spark an interest in me to defend Paul, and thus get more familiar with it all

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tabor knocks it out of the park. He is a Christian, yet gets the reality of what happened. Paul of Tarsus and the Book of Acts shaped Western Civilization more so than most people realize.

Paul and his seven authentic letters state what he believed and experienced, and the Book of Acts for me is nothing but fan-fiction while Tabor takes it as depicting a reality of sorts.

Tabor understands that there is a tension within the New Testament between earthly Jesus and heavenly Christ. The NT is best read in the chronological order that it was composed and Tabor lends his expertise to that.

Tabor did one thing that surprised me. He put the Epistle of Hebrews later than I thought it belonged. I checked wiki and it tended to affirm my position, Tabor is a specialist and I’ll go with his expertise. Also, when I re-read the NT, there is always one thing that stands out Hebrews is the most ‘polished and eloquent’ as wiki says and the most philosophically coherent as I would say. It’s obvious that it wasn’t written by Paul since Paul’s letter s are never eloquent and at best are philosophically juvenile, just read them for yourselves.

Paul and Hebrews make Jesus not earthly but a Christ of another world, a spiritual world, or one could say a heavenly world. Acts (Luke) reshapes Paul and makes Paul allies with the Jerusalem Church (Peter, James, John). Paul mocks them in his authentic writings as so-called apostles or super-apostles. They are at cross purposes and are not harmonizable unless the differences are glossed over.

Paul’s Christ gets revisualized by the Gospels. For Paul as Tabor points out ‘gospel’ meant Paul’s affirmations. The four Gospels take that to mean ‘good news’ for Christians. Paul says ‘Christ was resurrected according to scripture’, yet the NT didn’t exist and the OT doesn’t have a resurrected figure who forgives sins. Taking out the chronological time-line of date of writing as the NT does, perverts the meaning for what is going on theologically. Tabor provides the correct chronological order and interpretation.

Tabor puts the real story about the story back into what is really happening. I’m currently reading the Ante-Nicene Father’s early writings and something stuck-out in relation to this book. The early Church fathers are fighting against the ghost of Docetism (Christ is spiritual and only appeared physical) since they need to reshape the Church as part of reality while at the same time, they need Paul’s certainty in Christ such that they create their version of Jesus Christ which remains with us today.

Tabor doesn’t mention but Elaine Pagels does in her book “Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelations” the author of Revelations tries to undo Paul’s teachings as much as possible while mostly speaking of a spiritual realm with a Christ who is anti-thetical (promising a ‘lake of fire’) to the Gospels.

There is one criticism I would heap at this book. Tabor tries to defend Paul’s tolerance for slavery. There is no earthly way I could excuse the divine for allowing slavery which means they can not only beat you at will but can rape your mother, sister, daughter or even your brother if you are slaves. Apologists just need to say it is wrong and admit that context doesn’t justify such cruelty and perhaps their God is not real.

[11811 (Eleven) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul's an asshole. I'll leave it at that.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always struggled with the letters of Paul, both because they can be hard to understand and because when I do understand them I often don't much like what they say. In "Paul and Jesus", James Tabor presents a striking and quite well-reasoned hypothesis: that the Christianity practiced today owes less to Jesus than it does to Paul, and in fact, Pauline Christianity may be actively in conflict with the messages preached by the historical Jesus. Tabor presents the writings of Paul in the order scholars understand them to have been written in, and traces the development of Paul's theology and Christology. He correctly points out that all four Gospels were written after the letters of Paul, and shows that the canonical Gospels themselves are deeply influenced by Paul's points of view - sometimes in ways that may not be consistent with the historical sayings of Jesus. A fascinating book. If you are a person who likes to examine the history - and as far as possible, the facts - behind faith, you will enjoy this book.

[Mbogo J · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this mostly because I was curious to see what the Church of Jerusalem taught. Most Biblical scholars agree that there was significant friction between the version of Christianity that Paul taught and what the disciples who had met Jesus taught. Blowback from this tiff can be seen in Paul's letters especially the Galatians and Corinthians where Paul chides the churches he had formed there who had abandoned him and switched their allegiance to James, Peter and John. I was curious to see what this other church of Jerusalem taught that was so different from what Paul taught. The answer turned out to be a bit underwhelming but I do not blame the author, mostly my high expectations.

It turns out while Paul was mostly advocating for a new religion (which later turned into Christianity) the disciples advocated for a simpler version which was converts continue practicing as Jews but institute behavior changes that Jesus had advocated for. Simple things really, be kind to your neighbour, taking care of the widows...The disciples saw Jesus' mission not to abolish the Torah but to reaffirm it. Paul on the other hand thought different. He thought the Torah to be the old covenant, the new covenant was with Christ and this called for a new religion with new practices. Tabor then spent a rather long time showing which aspects of current Christian theology which can be traced directly to Paul and the fishy circumstances which Paul got his visions. I dont know whether it was unfortunate or not but the hands of fate and chance ensured that the church of Jerusalem was scattered and killed during the quelling of uprisings there in the reigns of Hadrian and Vespasian and somehow Paul's version thrived, which is the Christianity we know today. May be a practicing Christian would make a better call on that, I just read this for information purposes and lack skin in the game.

I had a slight problem with Tabor though. He seemed to have utter contempt and disdain for Paul. It appears he thought of him to be a fraud who somehow made his fraudulent activities dogma. This bias made it hard for me to trust Tabor. Paul did not get a fair trial here. The judge was biased, the source of the bias unknown. Tabor wrote his PHD thesis on Paul which means his research was exhaustive, but why the hate? I thought we are supposed to love our thesis topics? Bottom line is that in future I will have to look for a more sober voice on this, Bart Ehrman comes to mind. He is fair and measured in his writings. Tabor on the other hand is a bit suspect, at some point he was speaking on Paul's intent and thoughts. Really? You should add the word might from time to time to tell the unsuspecting reader that most of what you are saying is speculation. This book should be read cautiously.

[Victoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always appreciate readable books on Christianity or other religions for that matter, and James Tabor has delivered. Forty-five years of research and teaching give him some authority. He displays a Paul I haven't seen before, a man whose conversion beginning on the road to Damascus lasted at least 3 years of revelations, whose Gospel is proprietary and superior to those of Peter and James to the Jews. I've always disliked Paul because of his attitudes toward women, and now I see that I can blame him for all the aspects of Christianity which I have left behind.

[George Miles · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did not agree with some of the key assertions of this book. That in itself is not a reason to rank it poorly - I have given other books with which I disagreed and with which struggled high ratings and good reviews. But I felt many of the arguments were based on flimsy evidence, what i considered mis-reading of texts, and poor reasoning. And this book really did not make me think so much as want to dismiss it.

[Caio Cristófalo · Rating 4 out of 5]

O livro discorre sobre a importância de Paulo na construção do Cristianismo contemporâneo. Metade do Novo Testamento é composto por cartas de sua autoria e a outra metade é de textos em consonância com suas ideias. A maior virtude do texto é lembrar-nos de que a visão paulina sobre o significado de Jesus ia de encontro àquela defendida pelos apóstolos originais em Jerusalém - Tiago (irmão de Jesus), Pedro e João. Enquanto Paulo fala sobre o reino celestial de Cristo, que se estabeleceria a qualquer momento - ainda estamos esperando -, os outros apóstolos defendem um reino de Deus que já se estabeleceu na terra, aqui e hoje. No fim, a teologia cristã que o mundo conhece hoje é resultado da pregação de um só homem, que tirava sua legitimidade da auto-intitulação de apóstolo (duramente questionada pelos discípulos de Jesus) e de visões/conversas que tinha com o Cristo nos céus. É preciso fé para crer.

[Keith Akers · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a marvelous little book which is basic to understanding the "historical Paul." Tabor is a key figure in the growing movement to recognize and understand "Jewish Christianity," the religion of Jesus before Paul came along, which centered on James, the brother of Jesus, during the apostolic period from Jesus' death to the destruction of the temple (roughly 30 -- 70 CE). He is objective but very sympathetic to Paul. He shows not only where Paul diverges from the primitive Jesus movement, but also where he agrees, going through the letters of Paul and explaining countless passages which are familiar to Christians and others who have looked through Paul's letters.

Central to this book is his understanding of how Paul saw the resurrection. Briefly, Paul did not think of the resurrection as something physical, but a spiritual resurrection, based on Paul's own vision of Jesus, which was an apparition or vision of some sort. Also, this vision of Jesus is foundational in Paul's life and letters and in his understanding of what Christianity was. Paul never knew the earthly Jesus, but based his religion on his own vision of Jesus, not what he picked up from the other disciples.

The final chapter on the "battle of the apostles" was especially interesting to me, and my biggest regret about the book (and not very big) is that Tabor doesn't go into more detail on this critical bit of Christian history. Tabor makes it clear that all was not well in the early church, and it was not one big happy family.

Tabor equates the "apostolic council" described in Acts 15 with the meeting of Paul with James, Peter, and John described in Galatians 2:1-10. While most people reading this review will likely regard this as a really minor point, and while Tabor's description is very readable and well-thought out, I don't think this point of view can be sustained. Galatians describes a private, genial meeting which results in no restrictions whatsoever on gentile converts; Acts describes a large, semi-public meeting which does result in restrictions on gentile converts, although they are represented as minor. Worse still, in Galatians this meeting precedes the incident at Antioch, where Paul denounces Peter to his face; but in Acts this meeting follows the incident at Antioch. This makes all the difference in the world; if you follow the account in Acts, you'd think that the apostolic council solved the problem, but if you read the accounts in Galatians, it's clear that this event created the problem, and there was likely no resolution afterwards. And, to stress a point which Tabor himself elegantly makes, if there is any discrepancy between Paul and Acts, we must prefer the letters of Paul, who was an eye-witness and a contemporary, to the account in Acts, likely written at least 50 years later.

This is a book I can highly recommend as the starting point for any discussion of Paul. Indeed, it really should be the starting point for any discussion of Jesus as well, as today's Christianity was heavily influenced by the views of Paul.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not much new here for those of us already critically informed by things, but some tidbits.

Tabor shows how Paul took personal visions of Jesus, merged them with what must only be considered his conception of a Hellenistic mystery religion, used this to invent the Eucharist and his idea of Baptism, and got either his direct followers of the next generation, or those directly in his orbit, to write most of the Christian New Testament that's not directly attributed to Paul. In doing so, he gave James (Jacob), Jesus' brother, the back of his hand at best and possibly worse. And even more so with Peter, Tabor argues.

None of that is new to me, other than thinking more clearly about Paul creating a mystery religion. What was a bit newer is realizing just how much Paul transformed crudely corporeal Jewish ideas of a bodily resurrection into something creative, somewhat along the lines, perhaps, of middle Platonism, but without any school of Platonism's antithesis to matters bodily.

(Edited update: Why Tabor thought purely in terms of mystery religion, when in all likelihood, Paul's invention of the Eucharist did NOT come from them, and his framing of baptism may or may not have done so, instead of looking more at Paul's proto-Gnosticism, I don't know.)

That said, the book has a couple of weak points. While it generally rejects the gospels for historical value, Tabor still accepts conventional datings of Jesus' birth and death. Alternate ideas, such as "Jesus" perhaps actually being the Pharisee leader crucified a century earlier by a Maccabean king, don't cross Tabor's mind. Early alternative books, like the Didache and the Gospel of Peter, which show the breadth of early Jesus tradition, might "work better" if given more years to evolve.

And, interestingly, in other books, Tabor goes down the road of the likes of Robert Eisenman and other at-the-edge Dead Sea Scrolls scholars in postulating a Jesus-Davidid "messianic dynasty," in Tabor's case including John the Baptizer. Such ideas could explain later rivalry between followers of John **versus** followers of Jesus, but is not the only possible explanation.

And, Tabor is not one to psychologize Paul, namely on the "why" this persecutor became a zealot.

I'd say this book is a four-star for people with little familiarity of the actual development of the New Testament, but just three stars for those who know more.

[Victor Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

As one raised Catholic and steeped in its theology, I wondered, although I dared not question it too openly then, why the Christian scriptures were so heavy on the words and activity of the notorious Saul-cum-Paul, who not only never known Jesus personally but made it a point to persecute his followers. The very readable James Tabor stated my quandary directly with this one sentence in his introduction to Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity: “Although he calls himself the least and the last, he is keen to make the point that his own revelations directly from the heavenly Christ are more significant than anything Jesus taught in his earthly life, and thus supersede the experiences of the other apostles.” Tabor politely implies that Paul, in his writings, shows he was quite full of himself even while protesting, perhaps too loudly, that he was filled with Christ.
He then explains how Paul rose to prominence in first-century Christianity, even out-pacing Jesus’s brother James and Peter. “Paul’s triumph is almost wholly a literary victory, reinforced by an emerging theological orthodoxy backed by Roman political power.” Paul was the first to write anything substantial about being Christian—his epistles predate the gospels by decades—and his words went on to define the religion-in-making.
In his search for the historical Paul, Professor Tabor remains balanced throughout the book but, thankfully for the lay reader, also very straightforward. I don’t know if the product would have “sold” as well had it been properly labelled the Pauline Church with some Jesus thrown in for flavor, but it would have been truer to reality and not too bad as a religious system of its own.

[Lauren · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really, a truly wonderful book by author James Tabor. His voice is clear and concise, which is a welcome respite from some of the more stuffy religious scholars. Tabor's arguments are persuasive and well-thought, while also acknowledging alternate points of view and including extensive footnotes that further explain, refute or provide evidence.

The cumulative effect of reading "Paul and Jesus" is that the reader is forever changed and brought to know Paul in a very different light than is popularly known. In so doing, one comes to know Jesus of Nazareth differently, which has far-reaching effects (at least for this reader). To say that this book is life-changing is an understatement.

[Joshua Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing book that looks at the ways in which Paul shaped our understanding of Christianity and provides insight into what the early "Christianity" of Jesus' followers after the crucifixion may have looked like. It would be beneficial for anyone purporting to be a Christian to read such a book, but alas for most who profess faith this book would appear far too heretical and be seen as a challenge to cherished beliefs.

[Jane Botten · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deeply thought provoking. As a believer, I spent many years swallowing the bible whole, reading it through once a year and believing very word. Since I left religion I have been very confused. My faith in God is unshaken but Mr. Tabor has rocked my ideas about Jesus. I never liked Paul and like him less now. I found the book quite shocking, but I did need to be shocked out of some brainwashing. Certainly got me thinking...

[Shay E · Rating 2 out of 5]

A proposition that is just “potentially plausible” on one page becomes “likely” on the next page, then transforms into something that “we know” and serves as the basis for the next vaguely plausible assertion. This happens over and over again. I don’t know enough about the New Testament to properly assess the arguments, maybe they really are plausible or likely, but just as a matter of logic this was an infuriating read. I still learned a lot and am glad I read it, though.

[Larry Koester · Rating 2 out of 5]

Author makes guesses based on questionable assumptions. Assumptions that keep shifting over the years according to assumed dating. Does not spend to credibility. Mint worth my reading.

[Steve Cran · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pauline Origins of Christianity

The Christianity that many people practice today is not the Christianity that Jesus authored but rather it is Paul’s revelations that gave birth to the Christianity practiced today.
Paul’s Christianity veers sharply away from it’s parent religion Judaism. In fact is was meant to supersede and replace it.

Jesus and his original follower were Orthodox Jews who firmly believed in the Torah and ways of Judaism. After Jesus was crucified the movement beacame a Jewish Christians sort of religion. They believed that Jesus was the messiah born from a human mother and father. Jesus himself was most likely a rabbi. After the death of Jesus his brother James took the helm.

Paul came about like a decade after the death of Jesus. Paul was originally Saul who was from the tribe of Benjamin. Himself a practicing Jew, originally he had been a persecutor of the Jewish Christians . It was coming back from/Damascus That he had his revelation. He met Jesus in the spirit as opposed toJesus in the flesh.

Paul’s revelation was from Jesus’s spiritual body.Paul brought a revelation that salvation could come through accepting Jesus. Jesus was not just a messiah but he was also so new Adam. He was the first of spiritual being that God created . He would bring heaven on earth and everyone would have spiritual bodies. The leadership In Jerusalem adhered more strongly to Jewish traditions and were opposed to Paul. There was a break between the two. In fact it was open hostility.

Most of it has been glossed over in favor of Paul’s version with the Christianity of Jesus being lost in a literary battle. Most of the New Testament in Pauline rather then but traces slip out like in the Q source and in Didache and Jerome.

If trying to figure out who Jesus was challenging enough try figuring out Paul. Only seven original letters of his exist. Other writing that are attribute to him are written in a different style, vocabulary and used of setting.

[Daniel Wiedrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating.

[Lloyd Downey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book. Very impressive scholarship. In fact, I wonder how and why people like James Tabor serve as academics in religion. Do they really believe this stuff or are they objective historians who just happen to have chosen the subject of religion as their field of study but are not committed in any way to the religion itself. Well, this question is not answered in the book. But, I get the impression that if you approach the history of religion from the perspective of a believer, then you are bound to be delivering something that is not objective. Anyway, I did not detect any sign of partisanship with Tabor's account of Paul and his mission.
I'd long considered that it was pretty clearly Paul who moulded the current version of Christianity so some of this was not surprising. And I've recently read "Lost Christianities" By Bart D Ehrman, where he draws attention to the massive number of Christian sects, with wildly varying beliefs and a huge number of sacred books that were in circulation for the first 300-400 years after Christ was born. But Tabor, really makes clear the fundamental role of Paul in determining the version of Christianity that became the
"Accepted" version ....followed by the catholic church and, with variations, by most of the other Christian denominations that abound today.
Tabor claims, (quite convincingly as far as I can determine) that the true inheritors of the Christian teaching were centred in Jerusalem and Jesus's brother James was the leader of the group. He had been nominated by Jesus himself, he was totally familiar with Jesus teaching at first hand. And this initial group of Christians were, quite clearly, just another Jewish sect. (Josephus made the point that to identify someone as the Messiah was not uncommon in first-century Jewish-Roman Palestine. Josephus, the Jewish historian of that period, names half a dozen others, before and after Jesus.....And "recently an exciting new text was published.......Experts date it to the end of the first century B.C., so it is definitely pre-Christian.........the final section of the text focuses on the death and resurrection of a messianic leader, most likely Simon of Perea, who led a revolt in Judea in 4 B.C. following the death of Herod the Great. Josephus reports that Simon’s followers crowned him, a tall and handsome figure, as king of the Jews. He ravaged the countryside for a time, burning down the royal palace at Jericho. Gratus, Herod's military commander, pursued Simon and caught up with him in Transjordan and beheaded him. ...The slain leader, is nonetheless addressed by the angel Gabriel: “I command you, prince of princes in three days you shall live!”.......Since the text is pre-Christian, the parallels with Jesus are all the more amazing. Not only do we have reference here to a “slain” Messiah, an idea many have argued originated only with the unexpected crucifixion of Jesus, but also the reference to Simon being raised from the dead after three days.......Simon apparently had no “Peter” or “Paul” to carry on his messianic mission, but nonetheless the faith his followers had in his death and resurrection after three days was written down in a text".
What is especially interesting about Paul, is that he never actually met Jesus in the flesh but had various visions in which he was instructed by Jesus...and his version of Christianity (including the involvement of the Gentiles and the transformation of bread and wine in the eucharist into the body and blood of Christ, are apparently the invention of Paul.. In fact, he disparages the original leadership of the church...partricularly James and Peter , on the grounds that he (Paul) is getting his instructions direct from Jesus whilst they were only going on what they had learned direct from Jesus's mouth.
One of the interesting and insightful claims made by Tabor, related to the chronology of the various sacred books (including those that that made it into the current bible and some that did not). It was apparently something like the following:
30 AD the death of Christ
37 AD Paul receives his apparition of Christ raised from the dead
37-~40 AD Paul goes into seclusion in Arabia and has other visions involving Christ
~40 AD Paul first meets Peter and James (in Jerusalem) but none of the other disciples
37-50 AD a document called Q was produced that apparently contained the sayings of Jesus but is now lost. It has nothing of Paul's doctrines
50 AD Paul meets James and Peter in Jerusalem plus the other apostles for the first time.
50-60 AD...authentic letters from Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon.
~62-64 AD Death of Paul
80-100 AD Disputed letters by Paul: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians.
80-100 AD Pseudo Paul: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus
80 AD plus Book of Mark written...no account of Jesus' birth; no post resurrection appearances of Jesus to disciples (in original version).
~90 AD Book of Matthew ....used Mark as main reference. (incorporates 90% of Mark but edits and embellishes....and comes up with virgin birth and resurrection.)
90-130 AD Book of Luke and Acts (Both apparently written by same person and Luke draws heavily on Acts and very "pro-Paul")
90-100 AD Book of John... Last of the gospels to be written and the most embellished....especially with the resurrection.
100-120 AD(or earlier) Didache ...A handbook for Christian converts. Nothing here that corresponds with Paul's doctrines: no divinity of Christ, no atonement through his body and blood, no reference to his resurrection from the dead
~200 AD plus...Gospel of Thomas but contains fragments of text written about the earliest followers of Jesus, led by James.
So there are a few interesting things emerge from this. Especially that James and Peter were basically running a Jewish sect based on their direct experience of Jesus and Paul was running a mission to the Gentiles based on his own visions and direct revelations from Jesus. Paul seemed to be making it up as he went along. But both groups were essentially apocalyptic....expecting the kingdom of Jesus (end of world etc) to be coming very soon......certainly within their lifetime. Paul's letters to his various churches are actually the oldest of the books of the New Testament and, presumably were also available to the later writers of the Gospels.....though Mark (the first of the gospels) seems rather free of Paul's doctrines. As Tabor says....the history of the early church is really about how Paul's writings trumped the meagre writings and verbal traditions of James, Peter and the rest of the disciples. And Paul's revelations ended up trumping the actual first-hand teachings of Jesus as preached by those that actually spent time with him.
So "the fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God “born in the flesh,” that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul, not Jesus......Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the “communion” with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also traces back to Paul. This is the Christianity familiar to us, the Christianity of the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion."
Tabor says: "Not only do I believe Paul should be seen as the “founder” of the Christianity that we know today, rather than Jesus and his original apostles, but I argue he made a decisive bitter break with those first apostles, promoting and preaching views they found to be utterly reprehensible......Conversely, I think the evidence shows that James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, as well as Peter and the other apostles, held to a Jewish version of the Christian faith that faded away and was forgotten due to the total triumph of Paul’s version of Christianity"......He also says: "Paul’s literary victory rested upon three pillars: 1) the gospel of Mark, our earliest narrative of the career and death of Jesus, is heavily Pauline in its theological content; 2) the two-volume work Luke-Acts vastly expanded Mark’s story to culminate with a final scene of Paul preaching his gospel in Rome; and, 3) the six later letters written in Paul’s name, but after Paul’s lifetime." [I'm a bit confused here because elsewhere Tabor says that the Gospel of Mark has no account of Jesus' birth or post resurrection appearances....yet he also says that Mark is "heavily Pauline".......though I guess the two are not directly incompatible].
Tabor writes: "There are six major elements in Paul’s Christianity
1. A New Spiritual Body.....Paul understood Jesus’ resurrection as “putting off” the body like clothing, but not being left “naked,” as in Greek thought, but “putting on” a new spiritual body with the old one left behind.....What is often overlooked is that Paul is our earliest witness, chronologically speaking, to claim to have “seen” Jesus after his death....And his is the only first-person claim we have........His letters were written decades earlier than Mark, the first written gospel.
2. A Cosmic Family and a Heavenly Kingdom.....According to Paul this new genus of Spirit-beings of which Jesus was the “firstborn” is part of an expanded cosmic family....God, as Creator, has inaugurated a process through which he is reproducing himself—literally bringing to birth a “God-Family.” Jesus, now transformed into the heavenly glorified Christ/ Messiah, is the firstborn brother of an expanded group of divine offspring....In Paul’s view the kingdom of God would have nothing to do with the righteous reign of a human Messiah on earth,......Paul understood the kingdom as a “cosmic takeover” of the entire universe by the newly born heavenly family—
3. A Mystical Union with Christ....Baptism brought about a mystical union with what Paul called the “spiritual body” of Christ, and was the act through which one received the impregnating Holy Spirit.....These writers [see reference at end of sentence] based their accounts of Jesus’ final meal on Paul, directly quoting what he had written in his letters almost word for word (Mark 14: 22–25; Matthew 26: 26–29; Luke 22: 15–20; John 6: 52–56; 1 Corinthians 11: 23–26). This is one of the strongest indications that the New Testament gospels are essentially Pauline documents, with underlying elements of the earlier Jesus tradition......As a Jew living in a Jewish culture, Jesus would have considered this sort of language about eating flesh and drinking blood, even taken symbolically, as utterly reprehensible, akin to magic or ritual cannibalism.....Despite what Paul asserts, it is extremely improbable that Jesus ever said these words. They are Paul’s own interpretation of the meaning and significance of the Eucharist ceremony that he claims he received from the heavenly Christ by a revelation.
4. Already but Not Yet. Paul operated with a strongly apocalyptic perspective that influenced all he said or did. He was quite sure that he and his followers would live to see the return of Christ from heaven.....Paul states emphatically that the “appointed time has grown very short,” and he advised his followers not to marry, begin a new business, or worry if they were slaves, since everything in the world was about to be turned upside down and all social relations were terminal. Right up until the end of his life he expected to live to see the great event.
5. Under the Torah of Christ. As a Jew Paul decisively turned his back on the Torah revelation given to Moses on Mount Sinai, with all of its laws, customs, and traditions. ..He also believed that the new revelations he was receiving as the Thirteenth Apostle made anything that had gone before pale by contrast (2 Corinthians 3: 7–9)....Paul put his own “life in the Spirit” forward as the model for his followers to imitate and was often disappointed in their seeming inability to “walk in the Spirit,” since they failed to exhibit even the minimum standards of righteous behaviour.
6. The Battle of the Apostles......As Paul puts it: God chose to “reveal his Son to me” (Galatians 1: 16). This places him in a rather extraordinary position with reference to the original apostles, since he understood that his singular position as the “Thirteenth Apostle” was to take the message about Christ to the non-Jewish world. Paul, as a kind of “second Christ,” was commissioned to go to the entire world.....Paul’s relationship with the original apostles was sporadic and minimal......Paul spoke of the Jerusalem leadership sarcastically, referring to James, Peter, and John as the “so-called pillars,” and “those reputed to be somebody,” but adds, “what they are means nothing to me” (Galatians 2: 6, 9).....His work, which was almost exclusively with non-Jews, would not interfere with their own preaching to Jews......Sometime in the mid to late 50s A.D., Paul made a clear and decisive break with the Jerusalem establishment.
After all, the entire New Testament canon is largely a post-Paul and pro-Paul production.
Paul proved too radical, too apocalyptic, and too controversial even for the emerging Church in the second through the fourth centuries. He was domesticated, first by the author of Acts, as I have noted, but subsequently by letters written in his name, purporting to be from his hand, that are found in the New Testament.
What Paul most expected to happen never came about and his grand vision of the imminent transformation of the world, and his pivotal role therein, utterly failed.
The thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament make up nearly one-quarter of the New Testament and they are the primary documents that have shaped the course of Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. 10.......The “Jesus” who most influenced history was the “Jesus Christ” of Paul, not the historical figure of Jesus".
All in all, I found Tabor's views very persuasive. Although he says very little about the role of Augustine around the late 300's AD in cementing these theological views and in stamping out any country or dissenting views....leading eventually to the inquisition and other measures to stamp out heresy (which was anything that went contrary to the Pauline view of Christianity).
An easy five stars from me.

[Hal · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well researched and written book. Dr. Tabor as in his previous work makes a complex subject very readable and interesting. The central theme of this work involves the differences in how the Apostles and later the self proclaimed Apostle Paul saw their mission in forwarding Christianity.

As a firm non-believer myself, I am always looking for information that would change my mind. I find myself still wandering in the wilderness. Based on his work here I drew the conclusion that Christianity would have been more correctly called Paulism. I consider those behind the Christian movement, primarily led by Paul, the greatest MLM folks of all time. As with all religious movements it is unfortunate that millions perhaps billions had to pay with their lives up to this day.

The book offers much for thought and analysis and it gives us much to chew on in that respect. I would recommend this book to anyone with curiosity and a quest for knowledge on the subject. I look forward to his next book.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tabor writes well, meaning that his sentence structure, his vocabulary, his knowledge of the era and his detective-like analyses make for an interesting read. However, as one who claims to be a historian, he makes far too many leaps of judgement to allow this work to be seen as a new era in historical Jesus scholarship. Two examples will suffice. Tabor's entire thesis-- that Paul transformed Christianity-- is based on two assumptions: That Paul had a mysterious three-year experience in the Sinai dessert where he acquired his revelations and that he had a major conflict with Jesus' family and Peter who had assumed leadership in the Jesus movement. These notions may seem plausible from some of the data, but they are far from reliable historical facts, despite the disconnected quotes that the author draws together to make his points. I see Tabor's book ultimately sitting on a shelf with "The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed" and "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (the author of the latter providing the only endorsement on the back cover of Tabor's book).

[Eduardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

What if Christianity as we know today is a product of the apocalyptic view Paul had of events that took place in first century Palestine? Or more explicitly, how extensive are Paul's ideas and how they transformed proto-christianity into a far less jewish religion? This book brings good points to the table, even if sometimes it goes a little overboard, I couldn't recommend it more.

[Angie · Rating 4 out of 5]

So far this book is fascinating. And also reaffirms my decision to not consider myself a Christian when Christians are really Paulians. Can't wait to see how it ends.

[. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Основни кротки на християнството дали идвщаи от атеизмъм (и секуларни библейски учени) или идващи от исляма може и да са легитимни. Една такава е критиката, че християнството е религия измислена от Павел, който не е слушал уроците на Исус.

Това е много легитимна критика!

Павел наистина трябва да сме му много благородни, че се е жертвал, включително и живота си за да разпространи словото сред езичниците, но и все пак Павел е просто човек.

Писмата му трябва да се гледа както се гледа на някоя проповед. Може да има истина, да е боговдъхновена, но все пак са думите на човек.

Лошото е че когато се критикува алтернативата, която се предлага при атеистите е НИЩО т.е. вакуум, който се запълва с the current thing, т.е. с джендър нихилизъм, или хедонизъм.

А другото е ислям.

Ако Павел и евангелията са недостоверни, то корана е повече от недостоверен.

Тъй че приемам диагнозата, но не приемам лечението.

Да Павел не е слушал уроците на Исус приживе, а го е видял на видение след това.

И да ок съм с тва неговите книги от новия завет да се гледат като на човешки проповеди.

Но има неверни неща, които се твърдят за Павел.

Това, че той бил измислил спасението чрез вяра и покаяние, и че Исус не го бил преподавал така.

Това е лъжа.

Какви дела е направил на кръста разбойника, че да е първия човек отишъл в рая?

Никакви, просто се е покаял.

Но и не е прав Павел , че делата нямат значение. Просто не трябва делата да са от суета и показност, я от любов.

Ствременното християнство наистина до голяма степен стъпва върху Павел. Особено протестанството.

Тва е интересно, защото докато при православието традицията замазва библията и съответно нещата са мн по мистични и неясни, ама там и евангелията малко остават назад.

Докато при протестантите евангелията са напред, но са наравно с писмата на Павел, а това не е ок.

Та да наистина християнството такова каквото го познаваме е продукт на 80% на Павел, но това не означава, че е твърде далече от оригинала, и не значи, че ученията на Исус не са нещо практически уникално.

Никой не достига до отец освен, чрез Исус. Т.е. човек трябва да мине или през Истината в евангелията или поне през Истината в света, ако е бил недостигнат от евангелията.

И да бъде истинен в делата си, да ходи по този път.

Интересното е че според мен критиките всъщност могат да направят христовото учение по-стабилно. Точно щото е истина.

Просто не трябва и да се изпада във фарисейщини.

Все пак божият закон е записан и на човешкото сърце в съвета му. Човек знае кога върши добро и кога зло.

Ако се интересува от истината, а не от някакви моментни първи впечатления то това е важното.


Лошото е когато някой имаш се за християнин не се интересува от истината РЕАЛНО, а се задоволява с някакви първи впечатления на пръво поглед.

Това е много лошото.

От това трябва да се бяга.

Християните са ученици на Христос, ученици на истината.


Истината е че Павел наистина не е виждал и чувал уроците на Исус на живо, и е нормално да е по-малко авторитет от евангелията.


Иначе автора се опитва да убеди читателя как и разпятието и смъртта на Исус са мит, което прекалява.

Най-малкото такъв жизнен култ базиран на лъжа нямаше да издържи 2000 години.

Истината е че просто словото е в плът и в любов. А не в е думи.

Тва с цитирането на стихове р фарисейщина.

Човек трябва да следва съвестта и истината. Ако нещо е вярно и истина то е добро и то напътства.

Та в това отношение църквите са много зле. Но все пак те са от хора, а хората бъркаме.


Но ПЕРФЕКТНОТО Е ВРАГ НА ДОБРОТО.

Не е важно да са перфектни, и дори да не са криндж и зле в някакви моменти и теми. Важно е да са добри. :)

Книгата е подходяща за някакви богословски нърдове, но не е нещо особено.

Авторът твърди, че Марк е оригиналното евангелие, което е допълнено и то в оригинал не включва разпиятието и възкресението и съответно то не се е случило.


Не знам достатт за автора на книгата и неговия личен живот - по плодовете ще ги познаете - но някак си предполагам, че не му са много живи плодовете.

[Phillip]

Personally I don't think any anti-supernaturlist, atheist who is not a Christian or is filled with the Holy spirit should be writing critcal so-call scholarship about the Bible like Mr. James Tabor does.
What I saw after 55 years of studying the Bible, was that it could legitimately subtitled "unto the 12 tribes of Israel." And this is just what Jesus said in Matthew 15: 24 " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
This is just who Jesus sent the great apostle to minister to. The house of Israel. It's a radical idea but the fact is not a word in the four Gospels were addressed to the Church but to the 11 other Tribes and the rest of the apostles were ministers to the house of Judah or to the Jews. It seems quite reasonable there was disputes between them. After all everyone knew that in Jerusalem, the Jews considered the other 11 tribes as Paul himself said as "being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

But now in Christ Jesus, you were afar off ( scattered in the Diaspora) are made nigh by the blood of Christ
For he is our peace who hath made us both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us....for to make of twain ONE NEW MAN, thus making peace." ( Ephesians 2: 10-15)

So did Paul obey the command of Jesus? Yes he did! For we see in Revelation chapter 7 that the 144,000 male heads of the extended families of greater Israel will be returning unto the Mighty God of Jacob to the land of their fathers during the Great Tribulation in these last of the last days to be the firstfruit of the soon coming kingdom of God.

[G0thamite · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm just dropping top of mind thoughts about this work. Tabor presents a radically different picture of Paul than held by evangelicals. He presents a very "Baurian" view of early Christianity, i.e., the Peter and apostles/Paul conflict thesis. He argues that Paul invented what we know today as Western Christianity. Paul hijacked the early Jesus movement and our New Testament presents Paul's point of view and minimizes that of Peter. Paul was the first supersessionist. Paul turned the second-temple Messianic Banquet meal into a bloody sacrifice experience. He turned the normal Jewish ritual cleansing into a baptism that puts one into contact with the "cosmic Christ." Acts hides the conflict to a large degree between Paul and Peter while Paul's letters give us the real story, especially Galatians and the Corinthians letters. Peter and Paul were bitter rivals. He accepts only 7 of the 13 letters of Paul. He draws on non-canonical sources in addition to the New Testament in support of his thesis. Paul's new vision of Christianity was achieved as the churches became more and more Gentile and the canon that was forming favored Paul's views and minimized the voices of the original Messiah movement (Peter, James and the Twelve). If you don't share Tabor's view of things, you will still come away challenged and spurred on to study Paul from another perspective - always a good thing - to continue learning from different ideas. I found myself returning to the Scriptures and testing his ideas against mine. A great exercise!

[josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Firstly this is a very interesting read- I even ordered a copy and sent it to a friend who I thought it would interest— so I recommend it. The content is solid, but I’m not completely satisfied with the presentation. In the opening chapters, I don’t feel that James Tabor makes it clear where he is going with the book, or what his presuppositions are in writing it. This makes his narrative feel more like a ride and less like an analysis. Maybe that’s what he intended, but if so then I argue he didn’t make clear his select audience. The only parts of the book that I thought were clearly defined were the Introduction, the final chapter, and the Appendix. The latter two should have been opening chapters. That said, if you read this (and again, I suggest you do) I recommend reading the Appendix first. An example is that he delegitimizes several of Paul’s letters in the Appendix- something that would have been helpful to know before reading the entire book about Paul and his letters.
Again, great content, well referenced, but I would love to see it presented in a more broken-down, digestible way. I see he has a similar book on Jesus, so I’m wondering if he wrote this assuming we’ve read that. Most of my lingering questions could most possibly be answered in that book…