San Pablo, el apóstol más incomprendido

Icons

by Karen Armstrong, María José Belmonte Barrenechea (Translator)

San Pablo (Saúl de Tarso) es uno de los personajes más controvertidos del cristianismo y ha sido el gran apóstol de la religión, escribiendo 14 de los 27 libros del Nuevo Testamento. Además ha difundido las enseñanzas cristianas con tanto éxito que logró convertir a una oscura secta minoritaria en la más grande religión de la civilización occidental. Muchos de sus escritos, analizados desde la modernidad, dan lugar a que San Pablo sea uno de los apóstoles más cuestionados por gente de toda ideología, acusándolo de misógino, esclavista y totalitario entre otras cosas. Ahora la autora intenta situar al personaje histórico en su debido contexto para poder ver con ecuanimidad su contribución a la historia.

Genres: Religion, History, Nonfiction, Biography, Christianity, Theology, Spirituality

187 pages, Paperback

First published September 22, 2015

About the author

Karen Armstrong is a British author and commentator of Irish Catholic descent known for her books on comparative religion. A former Roman Catholic religious sister, she went from a conservative to a more liberal and mystical Christian faith. She attended St Anne's College, Oxford, while in the convent and graduated in English. She left the convent in 1969. Her work focuses on commonalities of the major religions, such as the importance of compassion and the Golden Rule.
Armstrong received the US$100,000 TED Prize in February 2008. She used that occasion to call for the creation of a Charter for Compassion, which was unveiled the following year.

Reviews

[Jaylia3 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Since the Apostle St. Paul is known for pronouncements like, “Wives, be subject to your husband as though to the Lord,” and “Women should keep silent at the meeting...if there is something they want to know they should ask their husbands at home,” it’s no wonder many people consider him misogynistic. Except it turns out he probably didn’t write those words and wouldn’t have had those sentiments, according to evidence cited by Karen Armstrong in this fascinating little book that attempts to set the record straight by taking its readers back into biblical times.

Armstrong almost always manages to open up my mind and turn my thinking around. Here she combines a careful reading of the texts attributed to Paul with the latest biblical scholarship and an in-depth look at the history of the time to make her case. When examined closely, Armstrong contends, the quotations above appear to have been inserted awkwardly into Paul’s letters, probably by later followers, and they contradict the main thrusts of Paul’s message which is largely egalitarian. He was a champion of the poor, and insisted on gender, ethnic, and class equality--Armstrong says that in Paul’s congregations there seem to have been about equal numbers of male and female leaders.

How ideas about Paul got so inverted is a moving, sometimes gritty story involving long held Jewish traditions, the clashing beliefs among early pre-church “Christian” leaders, changing historical circumstances, the fact that Jesus didn’t make the imminent return to the world that his believers had at first expected, and the often brutal ways Rome governed conquered people in the outposts of its empire. I particularly enjoyed learning more about the varied cultural groups Paul preached to in those Roman outposts--Armstrong describes their histories, philosophical mindsets, and religious backgrounds.

Armstrong delves deeply into Paul’s life, travels, and beliefs. The Jesus and Paul presented in this book are captivatingly real, flesh and blood men living in difficult times, intent on their missions in spite of the bodily dangers that drew their way. There are only 115 pages of text in this book, but they are backed up by 18 pages endnotes citing Armstrong’s sources.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 4 out of 5]

What's with the bizarre ratings and reviews? There is a 1-star review that doesn't even appear to be about this book. Another gives it 1-star because the reviewer found the book "dull". This is Karen freaking Armstrong, people; probably the best-known living religious scholar in the world. Check yourselves.

On to my review:

This is a much-needed defense of the Apostle Paul. For a number of reasons, it has become fashionable in many quarters for people to treat Paul as a villain who corrupted the humane teachings of Jesus and turned Christianity into a religion of dogma, legalism, and rigid social conservatism; in short, as a reactionary who snuffed out the flame of the spiritual revolution begun by the Galilean. Paul is routinely attacked from every angle. Jewish commentators often resent him because they think he threw away the "Jewishness" of Jesus and paved a theological pathway towards overt anti-Semitism that the Church gleefully sprinted down through the Middle Ages and beyond. Muslims see him as a fraud who distorted the teachings of one of God's great prophets. Atheists and Agnostics who think Jesus was a cool guy see Paul as the first person to begin laying a bunch of proscriptive theological gibberish over the very simple and heartfelt teachings of the Nazarene. Even some Christians, who constantly seek a "return to basics" when it comes to the Gospel message, have to some extent taken onboard the notion that Paul represents a "religious" form of Christianity which Jesus himself subverts.

Are all of these charges completely wrong and illegitimate? No. But what Armstrong has done here is place Paul in his proper context and demonstrate that far from being a corrupter of the Jesus Movement, Paul applied a formidable intellect and creative passion to expounding the revolutionary message of the Messiah and advocating for its relevance to all people, everywhere. As this biographical sketch shows, Paul was not the sort of haughty elitist he is sometimes made out to be, though he was brilliant and well-educated. He travelled around the Mediterranean working as a humble tent-maker to support himself. He advocated for humility and kenosis, a type of self-emptying compassion and renunciation of one's own will, and levelled fierce criticisms against alternative Christian movements that flirted with claiming for themselves a gnostic sense of "enlightenment" that made them holier than others.

As far as Paul's social and legal understanding of the Gospel is concerned, he was incredibly far ahead of his time. To him, the resurrection abolished all "legal" distinctions of caste, ethnicity, nationality, and sex. Everything had been made new; a new international community had been born. Some have said of Paul that he instigated what might be called the first universalist, cosmopolitan liberal revolution in history. They wouldn't be far off the mark. His treatment of the relationship between law, desire, and kenosis is one of history's great original insights into the fundamental predicament of man as a social and political animal. The law provides principles on which to base our actions, but even as it does so, it increases our desire to transgress. Law cordons us off into communities and classes, and goads us into a desire to overcome one another. Paul subverted this conundrum with his vision of a Christian collective that was based kenosis and indifferent to the established legal order.

This is a compelling little biography, and it lets us see how Paul's thought developed over time and how it applied to the particular contexts in which he lived and taught. Far from being a villain, Paul was perhaps the greatest humanitarian of his age. He was a rare individual in history who excelled as both a man of ideas and a man of action (he was like the Trotsky of the Christian movement, if I may be so bold). He almost single-handedly created a uniquely Christian social consciousness that has echoed through history and influenced the modern age more than we realize. Perhaps instead of running away from Paul, we should return to him and reflect on the uncannily permanent relevance of his ideas.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

(2.5) A number of Armstrong’s recent books have been disappointing reads for me – just dense, tedious collections of facts without the animating spark that made A History of God so fascinating. This could be a moderately interesting introduction for readers unfamiliar with the life story of the apostle Paul, but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. However, Armstrong does do a good job of showing how Paul was a transitional figure between Jewish and Christian customs, and there’s a very nice concluding passage:

Above all, we need to take seriously Paul’s insight that no virtue was valid unless it was imbued with a love that was not a luxurious emotion in the heart but expressed daily and practically in self-emptying concern for others.

[Jen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Added 3/10/18.

After re-thinking this book, I took all but one star off. It made me so angry with the Bible that I didn't read it for two years. Anything that takes you from the Word of God is not good, from my POV. I don't recommend this at all.

Original review after this point.


Good, solid book that definitely made me think about the Bible and if I follow the belief that every word is God inspired or if it's made up by men who are fallible and sometimes had an agenda of their own.

I admit, I wasn't comfortable with examining that belief that I hold/held, which is why my review is going to seem a bit vague and maybe negative. I still haven't processed it all and it may take a while for me to do so.

I'm adding a star just because it is making me think so much and deeply about my previously held beliefs. I'm saying "previously", not necessarily because I am overhauling what I believed, but because after questioning one's beliefs, the beliefs never stay quite the same as when they started. They may just get stronger, but they still changed.

So major points on making this stubborn old gal think and self-evaluate. And that doesn't seem to be the major goal of this book! Yay side-effects!

Seriously though, I am NOT by any stretch of the imagination a Biblical scholar or all that well versed in Christian thought, dogma and history, hence me reading books such as this, to educate myself, if only a little. I knew nothing about Paul, didn't even realize that there was such a divide between those who like and those who don't like him and his teachings.

And he didn't even write everything that was attributed to him! Some of the books of the Bible in the New Testament were written in his NAME, but not by HIM. And some of those books make him look like a misogynistic anti-Semite, when he was 1) really all about equality and 2) PROUD of his Jewish heritage.

Which brings me back to the whole, is the Bible written through men, by God, or is it a compilation of writings that is God centered and Holy, but also has some ugly, human things slipped in through the cracks?

Hence my need for hard thinking in the near future.

This was a great history of the times in which Paul was alive and preaching and a very good background of him and his teachings. I would recommend this to those who would like to learn more about the writer of a good chunk of the New Testament and what he believed and faced as he tried to spread the Good News to the gentiles.

This was a very good book for me. 3.5 stars, rounded up to 4, because it has really made me think and might actually change my views on a few things.

My thanks to NetGalley and HMH New Harvest for an eARC copy of this book to read and review.

[James Hartley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had to read this twice as it's fairly dense and, for me at least, was tough to concentrate on at night, which is when I read. These last few weeks, thanks to Covid-19 and Christmas (2020), I've had a lot of time to just sit and read during the day and it's given me a completely new take on what I thought this book was. In a nutshell, Armstrong's style is taut and clean and this little tome is an enlightening, clear-sighted, judicious take on the first extant Christian writer.
These days, seen from our perspective, Paul's letters to the first Christian communities have become squeezed into modern Christian mass and discourse in such a way that there is little historical explanation given as to who he was and when and why he was writing. We have a story from one of the gospels here and a quote from Paul's letter to the Romans there without any context.
Providing context is what this book does best and the sections dealing with Paul's interpretations of what he felt was being revealed to him I found the most fascinating.
Paul never knew Jesus while Jesus was alive but he did meet his brother, and many of the apostles, and argued with them about how best to go about spreading Jesus' message - and to whom. Paul had originally persectuted members of the Jesus movement and was on his way to Damascus to deal with them again (after helping kick them out of Jerusalem) when he experienced his famous conversion. That huge change in his life inspired his own, often lonely mission, and whatever you think of him (some of his more controversial (to modern ears/eyes) pronouncements, the writer argues, were added later by other writers), there's no denying that here was a life whose work has resounded down the ages.

[Steve Greenleaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karen Armstrong is among my favorite writers on the topic of religion, and this book only adds to my admiration. Armstrong is not a Biblical scholar nor an academic student of religion, but she’s someone who’s dived deeply into religious traditions and who brings her findings and observations back to the rest of us through thoughtful, carefully researched, and considered books. This book only adds to my admiration for her work.

Armstrong is no stranger to challenging topics: the monotheistic tradition from its Judaic origins to the present (A History of God), Buddha, Mohammed, the Bible, the Axial Age, and religion and violence. But still, St. Paul can present a unique challenge. As Armstrong reports at the beginning of this book, she’d tackled the subject of St. Paul early in her career as a journalist and student of religion. She began that project, undertaken in the late 1970s, with the assumption that Paul took Christianity in a wrong direction, away from the legacy of Jesus. But as she learned more about this enigmatic and fascinating man (although in some ways we know little about him), she changed her opinion. Thus in 1983, she published The First Christian about Paul, whom she initially thought of as the source of misogyny, authoritarianism, and anti-Judaism in the Christian tradition. She reports that she changed her perception in the course of producing that book (and accompanying television series). This work, published in 2015, updates her quest to come to grips with this “misunderstood apostle.”

No one can doubt Paul’s influence. Indeed, I remember some years ago seeing a poll of scholars about the most influential persons in the Western tradition. In that poll, to my surprise at the time, some of the respondents rated Paul’s influence as greater than that of Jesus. I was shocked, but the explanation provided was that without Paul, the nascent tradition surrounding Jesus would have remained within the existing tent of Judaism. Paul, the Pharisee turned apostle after his vision on the road to Damascus, brought the “Good News” to the Gentiles. Paul's ministry caused chagrin to the Jesus movement in Jerusalem, led by James, the brother of Jesus, who intended to remain within the Judaic tradition, or who at least would have required Gentile converts to adhere to Jewish law and custom.


Another intriguing aspect of Paul’s story is the fact that his letters are the oldest documents to be included in the New Testament canon. (Aand I do mean his letters because some letters were later attributed to him by tradition.) Armstrong undertakes a vital project for her readers, in working to separate out what are certainly authentic Pauline letters and words from those later (inaccurately) attributed to him. Also, his authentic letters, epistles, were scrambled in what came to be the official versions, sometimes mixing letters and dates and subjects. Also, later editors would occasionally interject their own words. The Acts of the Apostles, attributed to Luke, comes after Paul’s letters and provides a different (and not especially accurate) account of Paul’s mission. In fact, some of the most controversial (by contemporary standards) passages in Paul’s letters are later interpolations, such as the injunction for wives to be submissive to their husbands, or (maybe) his injunction to defer to the political authorities. (However, Paul, like Jesus and other earlier followers, believed the end times were imminent, and therefore any injunctions were for a transitory period.) Armstrong notes that Paul’s real value was in his proclamation of the Good News to those outside of the Judaic tradition (although Paul was very much a part of that tradition and was never anti-Jewish). Paul's injunctions about love, justice, and equality became fundamental (if all too often ignored) aspects of the Jesus Movement and then Christianity.

Even misreadings of Paul, such as those of St. Augustine and Martin Luther, have shaped the course of Christianity. How Christians understand, appreciate, and use the legacy of St. Paul remains as vital as ever to the Christian tradition, and Karen Armstrong provides a trustworthy guide to continuing that quest.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Armstrong is a preeminent Christian scholar and a believer herself. She tackles the life and legacy of St. Paul in this short work, taking the rhetorical sheen off of his life and giving him a much more human and historically based ethos. Here are a few points that struck me:

(1) Paul often clashed with the leaders of the Christian movement in Jerusalem. They thought he was a wild card and somewhat dangerous. Not only that, but they didn't initially authorize him to preach; he felt like his revelation of Jesus was enough to be made an apostle, and so he acted accordingly. Only later did Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, tacitly agree to his preaching (under certain conditions), but even that was upended after a time.

(2) The Book of Acts is more like historical fiction than actual history, and puts Paul in situations that (a) sometimes don't accord with his authentic letters and (b) make him out to be far more of a Greek philosopher than he likely was. Armstrong suggests that most of the long, impassioned speeches to Felix, Agrippa, and the people of Athens are made up by the author of Acts, who appropriated Paul further into Greek culture than he likely was.

(3) It's very unlikely that Paul was taken to Rome and was later killed there. It's more likely that when he came to celebrate the feast in Jerusalem, and James virtually forced him to make a show appearance at the Temple, that he was actually killed then during the stampede or shortly thereafter by Roman authorities (who show far more interest in Christian activity in the New Testament than they are likely to have done). All of that stuff about appealing to Caesar, etc., is also likely fiction.

(4) This is the best one—a lot of the "troubling" aspects of Paul's epistles were likely later additions OR weren't written by Paul at all. All that stuff about Paul saying that women shouldn't preach at meetings? Not actually Paul. That part about how slaves should obey their masters, used to justify slavery for centuries? Also not Paul. This was a huge relief to me, too, as a lot of Pauline baggage was lifted from my shoulders by these considerations.

(5) Paul's teachings on grace are far more nuanced than many Christians suggest. For one, his message was not to excoriate the Law or create a new religion separate from Judaism, but just to suggest that there were some aspects of the Law that he didn't think Gentile converts should follow (especially circumcision). While dietary restrictions and so forth were okay for Jews, he thought they were far too great a burden to bear for Gentiles. Thus, the grace of God makes up for their lack of observance of these outward performances, etc., and ultimately everyone's falling-short.

All in all, this book helped make sense of the REAL Paul by putting him back in his first-century context. Like Jesus, Peter, and so many other early figures, modern Christians tend to forget that these were people who lived in a specific sociopolitical context. We tend to transplant their lives and make it seem as if they are just like us, and perceive the world just like we do, when in fact all of their teachings and letters were very much products of the world they lived in. This book helps religious and non-religious readers understand that.

For a fuller consideration of the life and teachings of Paul, I recommend N.T. Wright's biography.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Armstrong is one of Biblical most honored and respected Historians, and her research on Saul of Tarsus doesn't disappoint. Armstrong firmly sets him in the proper historical content, illuminating his choices and why his opinions were so in conflict with most of the early Christian leaders. You won't necessarily like the man any more after spending time with Armstrong's commentary, but you will understand him better. Outstanding scholarship clearly presented.

[Julian Worker · Rating 4 out of 5]

St Paul exerted a more significant influence on the spread of Christianity throughout the world than any other figure in history. He established the first Christian churches in Europe and Asia in the first century. He transformed a minor sect into the largest religion produced by the West. His vision of God on the road to Damascus is one of the most important and powerful stories in the history of Christianity. His life thereafter changed the course of history.

Of course, he didn't write all 14 of the books of the New Testament that he's usually credited with. Perhaps 8 is nearer the mark? The letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians were written after his death by authors whose style differs from Paul's, dealing with general church matters rather specific problems encountered by certain communities. The words and expressions used in the epistles to Timothy and Titus are absent from his genuine writings.

It's ironic that it was Marcion of Sinope - who preached that God had sent Jesus Christ, who was distinct from the "vengeful" God who had created the world - and the Gnostics, who made Paul a prominent figure.

Paul has been blamed for ideas that he never preached and some of his best insights about the spiritual life have been ignored.

Karen Armstrong is a wonderful author about religion, any religion.

There's no index in this book, at least in my version, but it's still recommended.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having recently enjoyed The Lost Art of Scripture from this author, I was interested to discover what she had to say about Paul couched within a thorough investigation of the time and culture he lived in. I have been reading it in small bites over time and again find this author to make ancient culture come to life with solid research and a gift for cutting through stacks of information to deliver clarity.
I will probably revisit as this book is rich with reference detail.


Kindle Unlimited

[Rob Tonkinson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had difficulty discerning the point of this book. The author seems to question the authenticity of plenty of Biblical teaching, which is ok, but there is quite a bit that she just seems to accept without real question and she gives quite a bit of credence to scholars thousands of years from the events. She fills in details with her own thoughts of what motivation might have been in a variety of interactions and sifts things through her worldview. The book is full of history and conjecture and short on doctrinal insight. She does not seem to accept Jesus as God's Son and the Savior, but talks more of that in terms you might find in discussing mythology. The book is short, so a couple of hours is all it takes. But save yourself the time and skip to the last paragraph which is thought provoking and probably the most valuable of the entire text.

[Anneliese Tirry · Rating 3 out of 5]

De vraag die ik eerst moet stellen is "waarom lees/las ik dit boek?" . Het antwoord is simpel, ik wil meer weten over de historische figuur van Jezus en hoe komt het dat we net zijn vreedzame revolutionaire beweging 2.000 jaar hebben onthouden en bvb. niet die van een andere Messias uit die tijd? We weten immers dat er in die tijd van Romeinse Overheersing veel opstandelingen waren in Galilea. Jezus is één van die opstandelingen, enerzijds opstandig tegen de overheerser die mensen onderdrukt en uitbuit, anderzijds opstandig omdat de oude Joodse wetten niet juist werden geïnterpreteerd. Het feit dat we Jezus nog kennen heeft, naast de waarde van zijn boodschap van Liefde, zeker en vast ook te maken met de ijver van de apostelen om zijn leer te verkondigen; en dat zijn méér apostelen dan de 12 die we kennen van het laatste avondmaal.
Paulus is één van die apostelen die Jezus nooit ontmoet heeft maar wel, na een openbaring, de waarde van de boodschap inzag.
Tot daar ben ik helemaal mee met het boek, maar wat daarna volgt is het vervolg van het leven van Paulus en dat is een opeenvolging van brieven en reizen naar Macedonië en Korinthe, aanvaringen met andere apostelen en bewegingen etc. Het verschil tussen wat hij verkondigt en doet en wat de andere Jezusbeweging doet is enorm. Dit deel van het boek is erg detaillistisch en daar liep ik echt verloren.
Wat ik dan weer super vind aan dit boek is dat het leven van Paulus en alles wat errond hangt historisch gekaderd wordt, latere interpreteringen worden weerlegd, brieven en uitspraken die aan Paulus werden toegeschreven maar duidelijk niet van hem zijn, aangetoond.
Ik heb veel bijgeleerd, maar ik heb zeker niet alles mee, daarvoor waren er te veel details.
De vraag die op het einde van het boek rijst is wat Paulus zelf zou gedacht hebben van hoe de kerk is geëvolueerd. Terwijl Paulus voor een egalitaire kerk ging, met gelijkheid van man en vrouw, van Joden en Heidenen enz, is de kerk uitgegroeid tot een elitaire structuur, stevig gebaseerd op de verering van de Caesar.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel shockingly uneducated on the history of Christianity, and I've been trying to fix that. I've read a few of Karen Armstrong's books, and I really enjoy them. She has a way of explaining things in an easy to understand, not overly academic way.

For starters, I always assumed that Paul was one of the original 12 apostles. Turns out he wasn't. Paul became part of the "Jesus Cult" (the author's term) after Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus.

I've been working my way slowly but surely through the Bible, and one thing has been nagging at me. Why don't Christians follow the rules laid down in the Old Testament? The Old Testament is chock full of rules; dietary restrictions, circumcision, etc. What happened to make it ok for members of the "Jesus Cult" not to obey these rules? This book answers that question.

What I never really appreciated is that Jesus and his followers were the original hippies. Peace, love and understanding was the mantra they preached. God is a forgiving, loving God, and we should all live together in peace and harmony. If you don't do something with love, don't bother doing it. Jesus was seriously ahead of his time, and that just doesn't come through in a traditional reading of the Bible. Subsequent interpretations and the interference of other men who grasped for control and power of the Church completely corrupted the message of Jesus and the followers of the Jesus Cult.

Definitely read this book if you are looking for inspiration and to understand the original, pure message Jesus wanted to convey to mankind.

[Kiely · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super readable scholarly look at Paul. Appreciate! Situates many familiar passages within the broader picture of the early church and his biography. Edited during re-read in 2021 to add: this book is the bomb!

[Evren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should start off by saying this was a mostly OK read, though not exactly a page-turner. It is not because the subject-matter was not interesting. On the contrary, I find it very interesting -especially given the historical background-, but I couldn’t help thinking that the lack of a clear-cut plan led to a lot of repetitions and detours and I found it tedious and hard to read at times. Sometimes the whole book felt like a haphazard listing of sources on Paul but still I learnt a lot. I tried to have a look at the more interesting references and what some other sources have to say, which expectedly helps to have an idea of alternative ideas.

I think it is extremely important to read history of religions, whether you are a believer or not.

Most importantly, because the birth and development of a religion, once placed in its historical context, amplifies the basic, unadulterated message (if any) that a religion set out to give in the first place. Come to think of it, what we call religion, and religion, carries a huge historic baggage. We are no longer sure whether some aspects really constitute the basic tenets of a given religion or capricious, haphazard additions thereto in the course of time. While religion is mostly about what is permanent and ever-lasting, history is about what is ephemeral and ever-changing. Differentiating the two might give one a solid perspective as to how to believe. Religions are not ahistorical, they are not born in a vacuum. All religious texts need interpretation, and that interpretation comes only with examples of implementation, which is history itself. No religion can be isolated from history.

Yet, for exactly the same reasons, it is difficult to get hardcore believers to critically read religious history. Mostly because it might come as a confusing shock to the believer to see that what he/she believes to be the universal truth is just a twist of fate at a certain conjuncture in history, which will potentially shake your belief. (I have seen some comments that justify this point.)

Paul indeed seems to be a very interesting figure in the history of Christianity and based on an admittedly limited knowledge on the topic I dare say he might be the main reason why Christianity got spread so wide so fast. Almost at every turn, he seems to combine a politician’s attributes with that of a visionary. A few letters that might have remained from him are clear indications as to how perceptive and how sensitive he is to his audiences’ realities and expectations.

More often than not beginnings are humble, even comical. It is humans that later glorify and dignify these humble and humbling beginnings. The circumstances under which Christ and other first Christians were reportedly martyred were probably anti-climactic, opposite of what is depicted by visual and verbal art (which, in my opinion, makes the suffering and the self-sacrifice even more profound). It is not even known how, when or where Paul died, possibly thinking that all his struggle was in vain, because he didn’t live to see his ideas prevail and there was no way he could have known they would.

Then again, I find it fascinating (though not particularly supernatural) how Paul’s ideas got to prevail in time against all odds. He was not even a real apostle, because he only “saw” Christ in a post-mortem (or post-resurrectory) “vision” on his way to Damascus, which is a highly, if not exclusively personal experience if you ask me. I don’t know how this claim was received by his contemporary rivals, for instance the so-called “super-apostles.” But he eventually made his way to the group of most revered apostles, if not became the most-revered himself.

This book made me think as to why one particular interpretation rather than another gets to prevail; evidently not lack for an abundance of alternatives. For a believer, the answer might be that “because God wanted so” or “because it was the right form of Christianity that reflected Christ’s message the best.” But to the secular mind, I think this approach represents a selection bias (more precisely survival bias), whereby not only the fact that it succeeds or survives legitimizes a certain idea in people’s minds but also that the surviving idea will be the one that gets to shape and reshape them to accept that particular form as the only legitimate form.

On the other hand, for a “scientific” commentary it could also be difficult to escape the same selection bias. After all it is easy, with the advantage of the hindsight, to find reasons and “scientifically” justify how something happened when it happened. But also if you look right, you’ll spot ample reasons that would make you wonder how that same something even survived against all odds. (On another note, I think that is the only good historiography to look at both sides). This fact is especially important in Paul’s case, considering how he was at best low-profile, at worst almost forgotten in the first couple centuries of Christianity (He himself might be forgotten but his ideas were very much alive and powerful during this absence). And actually I thing his “resurrection” could be a very interesting read.

But Paul also represents a beginning; the beginning of proselytisation among the Gentiles of the so-called “Jesus sect.” For his case, he has to stand up against the Romans, the Jews, and more strikingly the first Christians too. His struggle results in a quarrel with James (at some point) and his discord with Peter (incident at Antioch).

Under these circumstances, it is almost as comical to see how it all boils down to circumcision when it comes to “Christianization” of the Gentiles. Paul’s universality in overlooking some of the basic principles of Judaism is striking, and might be explained by his own more cosmopolitan origins. He was a Greek Jew (Hellenistic Judaism) and that seems to have provided him with the opportunity to talk the language (literally and metaphorically) of the Jews of the diaspora and even the Gentiles of the Hellenistic world, sons of Japheth, such as the Greeks and the Galatians. And it seems to have given him a head-start compared to the Jerusalem clique among the Gentiles. For Gentiles to follow the Jewish customs, he had to make some concessions. These concessions seems to have become become one of the more contentious issues between Paul and the Jerusalem clique, but in the end his approach won over (at least according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia.) Yet, he had to justify why some of the old Jewish customs could be shed, and the crucifixion of Jesus gave him the perfect excuse for this. In Paul’s philosophy, that moment signifes a most important rupture from the past, whereby “when God has raised the body of a convicted criminal to his right hand, he destroyed the established wisdom, not only of the Romans but also of the Jews.”

Paul’s understanding of Christianity was spot on when it was related to the corrupted socio-economic structure of the Roman Empire and of the Jewish world at the time. He emphasises the religion’s social aspect much more than its catechism. And historically it has always proved a very powerful message. He seems to be the keenest to keep on Jesus’s message of overturning the tables and disrupting the social order of the Empire as well as of the established Jewish ruling class. This subversion is what makes it a revolution, and examples of it can be encountered in the course of history. Fatefully and expectedly, you can only turn the world upside down once in a long period of time and there will be people that will find their privileged places in that renewed social order as well. And they almost always eventually turn out to be the likes of the privileged of the former regime. And soon enough, you will see many interpretations of Christianity that preys or picks on, or discriminates against, the poor, the outcast or the disadvantaged. It creates its own system of privilege pyramides and hierarchies even using the religious references that had nothing to do with the message of the religion in the first place (just like black folks being demonized as a whole because their “ancestor” reportedly looked at his father when he was naked).

One last thing. The author underlines in many places (pp 13, 15, 17, 20, 41, 45 etc) where Luke’s account is full of contradictions. I don’t know if these contradictions are accepted generally by the believers but it is interesting. If that is the case, then could it be said that the critical thinking in the Christian world started by criticising Bible? Or am I just finding reasons, with the advantage of the hindsight, and justifying how something happened when it happened?

[Terence · Rating 3 out of 5]

A sympathetic but not hagiographic reassessment of Paul and his theology based solely upon a reading of those letters regarded as actually written by the man - Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, I Thessalonians, Philemon - that argues he was far more radical and egalitarian, and not the misogynist he's often caricatured as, than the religious establishment has ever been comfortable with (either in the 1st century AD or now).

[B. Rule · Rating 3 out of 5]

This concise summary of the Pauline corpus largely uses a “Historical Paul” approach. Armstrong absolves Paul of various sins, including misogyny, gender roles, rigid hierarchies, and deference to imperial law, instead blaming such elements in the letters on subsequent interpolations. Too short to get into much theological detail.

[Howard Cincotta · Rating 4 out of 5]

The subtitle may be “The Apostle We Love to Hate,” but author Karen Armstrong is actually arguing that Paul may be the most misunderstood of the early Christian fathers in this extended and quite persuasive examination of Paul in the context of his times.

Who was St. Paul? The historical record identifies him as Saul of Tarsus, a zealously devout Jew who became who believed in strict obedience to Jewish law. In other words, a Pharisee. He was critical of the Jesus movement, if not an outright opponent, until the celebrated moment when he was struck by a blinding light on the road to Damascus and saw a vision of the Messiah. He later identified himself as an Apostle, even though he was never one of the 12 Apostles who actually knew Jesus, and in the Christian tradition, witnessed his resurrection.

Although it not her chief focus, Armstrong takes pains to absolve Paul of the charges of misogyny against women that has long hung as a dark cloud over his ministry. These anti-women commentaries – “be silent in public” – appear in Epistles that bear Paul’s name, although the scholarly consensus is that he did not write them. Moreover, they often contradict, or at least ignore Paul’s central radical message that a belief in Jesus Christ’s message of love and forgiveness effectively eliminated all distinctions between Jew and gentile, rich and poor, male and female.

Armstrong stresses that Paul identified himself as a Jew throughout his life, even though he brought his “good news” gospel to Greek and gentile communities in the Roman world just as Peter and James, Jesus’s brother, led the Jesus movement within Judaism.

Here, then, was the great conundrum. Did followers of Jesus need to remain, or become observant Jews – meaning circumcision and adherence to the Torah and dietary laws? Peter and James said yes. Paul said no: Jews and gentiles alike could achieve salvation through Jesus Christ.

Paul never rejected Judaism in Armstrong’s view; he simply argued that such practices as circumcision and Torah law were secondary matters. All were welcome – Jews and gentiles, but especially the poor and marginalized – into the radically egalitarian communities of Jesus followers that Paul founded in Europe and Asia Minor in the first century. (Only later would they become recognizable churches.)

This division over Judaic practice led indirectly to Paul’s downfall. In 56 CE, he returned to Jerusalem with a contingent of gentile Jesus believers for what was apparently a difficult meeting with James. In Armstrong’s account, James had established the Jesus movement under the Romans with “assiduous Torah observance.” In an eerie parallel to the fate of Jesus, Paul was denounced and arrested by the Romans, and very likely died in prison after being transported to Rome. The Jesus movement within Judaism disappeared after the terrible Jewish wars and destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, but of course, Christianity eventually triumphed in Europe and the Mediterranean world.

One basic reason for Paul’s utopian vision of how his new fledging Christian communities should operate was his conviction that Jesus’s return as the Messiah was imminent, within the lifetime of his followers. Only after his death did Christianity, recognizing that the Messiah’s return might not be so immediate, form a more hierarchical and paternalistic church that reflected the mores of Greco-Roman society as much as religious doctrine. Such an evolution may have been inevitable, but in Armstrong’s view, it does not reflect Paul’s vision of being one with the body of Christ.

Armstrong by no means settles the historical argument over St. Paul’s legacy, but she does offer a powerful argument that we have often misunderstood or ignored Paul’s central message of equality and love.

[Frans Vermeiren · Rating 2 out of 5]

Over the centuries Paul of Tarsus has been a controversial figure in early Christianity, and that will remain the same after this book.
Armstrong vividly paints the communities Paul visited, all of them with their own cultural characteristics. This is the strongest point of this book, together with the differences she convincingly shows between Ephesians and Colossians on one hand and the authentic Pauline letters on the other.
But in general she gives a superficial overview of Pauline scholarship, avoiding the most controversial subjects and hardly adding something new.
Armstrong keeps silent about the Jesus-Paul problem, the fact that Paul, who was active shortly after Jesus’ death, doesn’t mention even once the human being Jesus, his home region Galilee, his disciples, his teachings or his spectacular deeds.
There are also numerous links between Paul and the Essenes, and if I read well, the Essenes aren’t mentioned at all.
In my opinion Armstrong also underemphasizes Paul’s main objective to unite Jews and non-Jews in a broad anti-Roman politicoreligious coalition.
Anyone who is a little bit familiar with the origins of Christianity knows that Josephus’s Testimonium and Tacitus’s description of the persecution of Christians under Nero are highly problematic fragments. I understand that Armstrong tries to vulgarize Pauline scholarship, but presenting Josephus and Tacitus as proof for Jesus’ crucifixion without mentioning the problematic status of these two texts is below any scholarly standard.

[Chris Walker · Rating 4 out of 5]

A game-changer for me when it comes to Paul.
The author's foundational premise - that Paul is only the author of seven of the New Testament Epistles - was not news to me, but this is the first book I've read to unpack the implications of that to attempt to get to the 'real Paul'. And it's not the most encouraging portrait, as Paul emerges as a radical egalitarian and unifier (great!) who was constantly having to fight against competing versions of the gospel and personal slanders from other Christians, both Jews and non-Jews (not great).
Karen Armstrong takes a biographical approach, reconstructing the story from the little we know about Paul and his struggles, based on the aforementioned seven letters and Luke's testimony in Acts (although the historicity of this is doubtful, since it shows a late-1st Century bias).
There's a lot to mull over here for a recovering literalist and lots that wouldn't sit well with Christians who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the need to read their bibles from an understanding of their historical context. But lots of insight to help with the re-reading of the original Paul - another project!

[Erik Steevens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karen Armstrong schets een levendig beeld van de tijd waarin Paulus zijn 'missie' plaats vindt.
Dat deze joodse man het opnam om de Jezus figuur en zijn leer uit te leggen aan één ieder die hij tegenkwam is van een onwaarschijnlijke moed getuigend.
Met dit boek geeft de schrijfster een naar mijn inziens terecht goede verklaring hoe de betekenis van het evangelie in die tijd er oorspronkelijk uit zag. Ik bedoel daarmee dat de liefde, de liefde voor de naaste ongeacht ras, geslacht en overtuiging de enige weg is tot het geluk en niet wat men spijtig genoeg van deze oorspronkelijke Jezus visie achteraf gemaakt heeft. Zelfs hetgeen Paulus met enkele medestanders trachtte te verkondigen is achteraf verdraaid en aangepast. Na meer dan 2000 jaar later zijn we nog amper een stap vooruitgekomen. Macht, egoïsme, naijver, jaloezie, enz. blijven nog steeds de hangijzers waren we mee blijven aanmodderen. Met dit boek over Paulus brengt Karen Armstrong misschien weer het licht opgeflakkerd in onze duistere tijden.

[Krista Joy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Was interesting to learn more about the culture of the Roman Empire that Paul was traveling in and I enjoyed thinking more about Paul and understanding the context of his faith.

My main problem is that the author doesn't think the Bible is accurate and disputes the reliability many times. While that is her prerogative to believe I wish there had been more evidence shown to back up these claims and a balanced view rather than an opinion presented as obvious fact like below where you are like wait, what? with no further elaboration:

"It is most unlikely that a special nighttime meeting of the Sanhedrin would have been convened during a major festival to decide the fate of an obscure prophet from Nazareth, as the gospels claimed."

[Jeannine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, where do I start... I listened to this in my car so I was unable to take notes but I disagreed with so much of what she says. I looked at the end of the book and do not see scholarly notes although there are some footnotes. So, here you find strong opinions but I don't see them backed up with any scholarship. Today I was listening to her take on Paul's missionary journey and his time in Corinth and reads Paul as a depressed mess who felt himself a failure. A lot of conjecture that isn't backed up.. there isn't even a reference to particular verses as she espouses her thoughts. As long as you know this and aren't confused about the biblical scholarship it's good to open yourself up to opposing views. Do your own Bible study on anything that alarms you.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read for those who are into biblical history. Not for those who are not.

[Andrew Scholes · Rating 1 out of 5]

Her view of scripture is suspect. She had a number areas that made me question where she got that interpretation from. "That God had announced to the world when He (capitalization mine) had vindicated Jesus and named Him (my cap again) as the messiah. Ummmmm What? Named Him? He IS the messiah. "They not have understood that Paul . . ." I'd like to buy a verb please. "But from a very early date, Jesus's followers were convinced that Jesus had been buried in a respectable tomb and, later, the authors of the four gospels developed an elaborate story to explain how His disciples had persuaded the Roman authorities to permit them this. This was a crucial element in the earliest Christian tradition." This was a cue right away of her disavowal of the truth and inspiration of scripture. "Jesus was among the people baptized by John; when He emerged from the water, it was said that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him." This may be picking nits but I would have used something stronger than "it was said", it is recorded in scripture. "The Spirit would be crucial to this early movement; it was not a separate being, of course, but a term used by Jews to denote the presence and power of God in human life." A term used by Jews? What? "The self-obsession that limits our humanity and holds us back from the transcendence known variously as Brahman, Dao, Nirvana or God." This gives us her view of God. All names of Gods used by various religions are the same. As far as she is concerned, the is no difference between other religi0ns gods and God Almighty. Many times, she discusses the various letters, Galatians, Colossians etc. and questions the authorship of them when the book clearly says that Paul was the author. "But Acts is no longer regarded as historically reliable" By who? "i have also avoided calling the early communities of the Jesus movement "churches" because this term inevitably evokes imagery of spires, pews, hymnbooks, and global hierarchical organizations that simply did not exist in Paul's day." She is the one with the view of the term church as the building rather than a group of believers. I refer her to Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:25, 32. "Luke's account of what is often called Paul's first missionary journey, which is full of legendary material, is clearly not historical." According to whom? There is no documentation by her as to why it is clearly not historical. I have fund it beneficial at times to read something that is so antithetical to my beliefs. It helps to define and refine what I believe. I would not recommend this book unless you are strong in your beliefs and reasdy to have them challenged.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Published in 2015 by Brilliance Audio.
Read by the author, Karen Armstrong.
Duration: 5 hours, 21 minutes.
Unabridged.

Karen Armstrong is a multiple award-winning author of more than 25 books, the great majority of them exploring religion. She is particularly interested in Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

This book is aimed at the informed layman - not at other historians or religious experts. I read A LOT of history and have gone to church my entire life, but I can get lost in the weeds pretty quickly if too much professional jargon is used. Armstrong assumes a basic knowledge of the Christianity and of the New Testament. Nothing too complicated or deep and most of my Bible knowledge comes from Sunday school and small group Bible studies led by layman with a workbook. Armstrong takes care to explain things along the way because she is not out to impress the intellectuals - she has written a history for regular folks.

Paul has always been interesting to me. His writings have always seemed to me to be the first real attempt to move Jesus' teachings into a formal religion. There are times when I find his writings to be quite inspirational. At other times, he strikes me as obtuse and misogynistic. But, I wanted to get into the book to have a better understanding of what he was teaching and when he taught it.

The first thing that surprised me was the concept of Deutero-Pauline letters. Many scholars are now assuming that nearly half of the New Testament letters from Paul were not actually written by Paul, but by writers that came after him and used his name. This was a fairly common practice in Roman times - if you liked an author, you just borrowed his name. The evidence for this comes from analyzing the vocabulary used, the writing styles and changes in theology.

For me, this mostly cleared up one of my major frustrations with Paul - his inconsistencies. I say mostly because he still had some, but not nearly as many...

Read more at: https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2019...

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Characteristics of most of Karen Armstrong's books on religions and religious figures is a deep sympathy with the religion or person portrayed, which sometimes bleeds into apologia that runs contrary to historical accuracy. In the introduction, Armstrong tells readers with her earliest exposure to Paul, she thought of him as a kind of corrupter of Jesus's more inclusive messages. In this account, she handwaves away the things she doesn't like. For instance, in some of Paul's letters, he advocates women remain silent in church and veil their heads. Armstrong's gloss? That was probably a letter addition to the letter, and anyway, were it not, Paul was writing to a particular community who needed to uphold such patriarchal values so as not to attract attention. Religious historian Bart Ehrmann has argued that a close textual study would reveal that part of the letter to be a later interpolation. Armstrong's concession there doesn't trouble me. What does trouble is the second part of the gloss where she says that were it not a textual addition, Paul couldn't have meant this to be a universal statement on church practices. It is here that I think matters get murkier since it's extremely difficult to read the intentions of historical persons. Take Jesus's account in the gospels, for instance. Assuming at least some portion of his sermons reflect the historical record, how would we know when to say the message is particular or generalizable? There is no easy way to do this, I don't think. If this book is your first exposure to Paul in biography, it is okay. But for a better grasp of Paul, better to read Paul's letters yourself or better to read a better biography.

[Matt Little · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this because I've always struggled with Paul's teaching, which I find unintelligible, longwinded and contradictory. Turns out, the author says he didn't write most of the most controversial books. She gives tons of context, but her style is almost too authoritative as she rarely explains the sources of her claims (maybe those are in the footnotes of the written book, which didn't translate to the audiobook?) After the first chapter, which was incredibly compelling, the text became increasingly dense and hard to follow. I finished it simply by listening when I was walking home from work with nothing better to do. It had some great insights, but not written for the layperson (she'd made a TV documentary preciously so I wrongly assumed she'd be good at communicating clearly and engagingly)

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a feminist, I’ve always found certain passages in the Bible that are attributed to St. Paul to be rather offensive. As someone who reads a lot of history books, I try not to be too judgmental about historical figures, knowing that there are far too many cases where the evidence against the person is circumstantial, ambiguous, and/or blatant falsification. (I was a member of the Richard III Society for a while, if that’s a clue.) The author of this book claims that many of the passages that I find most troubling were not actually written by St. Paul, but by other people writing in his name, a common practice in the ancient world. Others were likely inserted by scribes in later centuries. Though I’m not entirely convinced that Paul was quite as egalitarian as the author claims (particularly with respect to the role of women in society), I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and to cut him a little more slack.

[Michael Dunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I feel I know Paul as a person after reading this book. That was enjoyable. So much I had never put together about his life and his place in the Jesus movement and the challenges he faced. I was struck with how contemporary they are.