Pablo no fue cristiano: El mensaje original de un apóstol mal entendido

by Pamela Eisenbaum

Pablo no es el fundador del cristianismo ni un converso ferviente del judaísmo, como se ha dicho frecuentemente. Tampoco afirmó que Jesús sustituyera a la Torá. Pablo, argumenta convincentemente Pamela Eisembaum, continuó siendo un judío piadoso que creía que Jesús uniría a los judíos y a los paganos, y cumpliría el plan universal de Dios para la humanidad. Fruto de una meticulosa investigación, este libro constituye una contribución muy necesaria para corregir las ideas erróneas sostenidas por cristianos y judíos, tanto liberales como conservadores.

Genres: Religion, Theology, History, Nonfiction, Christianity, New Testament, Biblical Studies

440 pages, Paperback

First published September 8, 2009

About the author

Pamela Eisenbaum is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Origins at the Iliff School of Theology. One of four Jewish New Testament scholars teaching in Christian theological schools, she is the author of Invitation to Romans, a contributor to the Women’s Bible Commentary and the Oxford Access Bible, and has published many essays on the Bible, ancient Judaism, and the origins of Christianity, especially Paul. She was a featured scholar in the ABC documentary Jesus and Paul: The Word and the Witness.

Reviews

[Ancient Weaver · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good. Not as in-depth as I had hoped, but Eisenbaum has enough end notes to make this a good jumping-off point for further study.

Interesting to see how tradition, prejudice, subjectivity, and partisan ideology have shaped our understanding of ancient documents. Paul has been made into both hero and villain over the last 500 years. He's been used as a weapon first by Catholics against Jews, and then in turn, by Protestants against Catholics. Perhaps now that non-Christians like Eisenbaum are given a chance to investigate Paul and his writings, we'll be able to get a cooler, more balanced assessment.

One of the most interesting points Eisenbaum brings up in the book (at least for me) is her claims about how Bible translators have been mistranslating key passages in Paul's epistles for a very long time. Supposedly, these biblical translators have been more keen on making Paul say things that prop up the theological dogmas of the various church institutions rather than presenting us with accurate translations of what Paul actually wrote in the original Greek. (The argument is a bit technical seeing that it revolves around points of ancient Greek grammar. Does pistis Christou mean "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ?")

When these arguments about translation are confined to an examination of the grammar alone, they seem to be inconclusive. But, when matters of grammar are examined in conjuction with the larger context of Paul's message and viewpoints, there is good reason to believe that the old translation needs to be corrected and long held church dogmas about Paul and the Bible need to be reexamined.

Anyway, this is just one of Eisenbaum's various arguments against long held opinions about Paul and his writings. They're all worth taking a look at.

[Naomi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm recommending this for all my liberal and moderate religious friends' bookshelves. Why? Because Eisenbaum challenges generations of tradition that have permeated European spirituality and its philosophical and religious descendants. Her challenge provides a basis for greater appreciation of the varieties of Judaism in the first centuries of the common era, illuminates the early church before it was self-consciously a separate movement from Judaism, and shares greater understanding for students seeking to appreciate the religious of Jesus and Paul, not the traditions that developed about Jesus and Paul.

Unitarian Universalist Christians in particular need to absorb this text and integrate Eisenbaum's wisdom into our Biblical exegesis, as we return to the pluralistic early christian era for inspiration and because we have obligations to invite folks to a christianity free of and directly working against anti-Semitism.

[Dean Summers · Rating 3 out of 5]

The provocative title means, in the first place, that Paul the Apostle of Christ Jesus was neither a Lutheran nor an Augustinian. That should go without saying. Paul lived five hundred years before Augustine and fifteen hundred years before Luther. Even so, Augustine for fifteen hundred years, and Luther for five hundred, have so profoundly influenced the way Western readers hear Paul’s letters that it takes some real work to allow Paul to speak for himself. Pamela Eisenbaum does an outstanding job of allowing us to hear Paul without the Augustinian and Lutheran overtones.

When Dr. Eisenbaum says that Paul was not a Christian, she means, in the second place, that Paul was a Jew. And that should go without saying. Paul wears his Jewishness as a badge of honor. Even so, from Paul’s day to ours, Jews have suffered two thousand years of Jew hatred perpetrated in the name of Jesus. In that toxic atmosphere, for Christians and Jews alike, Paul is too often heard as history’s most prominent convert from Judaism to a religion hostile to Judaism. (It should go without saying that any religion that breeds hostility is neither the way of Jesus, nor that of Paul his apostle, nor that of anyone who has ever taken Jesus seriously.) Pamela Eisenbaum does an outstanding job of taking us back to Paul’s own time and place to allow him to speak clearly as a First Century Hellenistic Jew, whose religion was, from first to last, entirely Jewish.

So far, so good. Then, she lost me. When Dr. Eisenbaum says that Paul was not a Christian, it turns out that she especially wants us to believe that Paul was never an advocate of Christ for Jews, but only an advocate of Christ for Gentiles. “To put it boldly,” she says on page 242, “Jesus saves, but he only saves Gentiles.” She explains that atonement with God through the blood of Jesus is entirely unnecessary for Jews, because Jews already stand secure in God’s grace through God’s promise to Abraham. And she puts forward that thesis as a legitimate reading of Paul’s letters. At that point, Dr. Eisenbaum seems to be looking down that deep well and seeing her own reflection.

Dr. Eisenbaum supports her third thesis with an array of facts half told. She refers quite often to “Christ,” but she never mentions that “Christ” was the way Hellenistic Jews referred to the Messiah—their Messiah, whether they meant Jesus or someone else. That is a point not just worth mentioning, but worth emphasizing. Dr. Eisenbaum discusses Paul’s use of the Greek word hagioi as his preferred word for Christians. In English Bibles, hagioi is usually translated “saints.” Dr. Eisenbaum points out, correctly, that hagioi can be translated as “Holy Ones,” and she takes the time to examine the theme of holiness in Paul’s letters. However, she does not mention that hagioi was, for Hellenistic Jews, the dynamic equivalent of the Hebrew word chassidim, which is best rendered into English as “covenant partners.” With respect to his chassidim, the covenant Paul has in mind is the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus the Messiah. Paul refers to that covenant in formal language that predates his own mission to the Gentiles and even his own commitment to Jesus—back when most, if not all, followers of Jesus where Jews (see 1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Those are points not just worth mentioning, but worth emphasizing.

And here is yet another: Dr. Eisenbaum routinely juxtaposes “Jews” and “Gentiles.” In doing so, she commingles what is for Paul two related but separate juxtapositions. For Paul (not as an inviolable rule, but as a regular habit of thought), it is not Jews and Gentiles, but Jews and Greeks, or more precisely Judeans and Greeks. (“Jew” is a shortened form of “Judean.”) For Paul, it is not Jews and Gentiles. It is Israel and the Gentiles, or more precisely Israel and the nations. (In English Bibles, the word “Gentiles” represents a Greek word that should rightly be translated “the nations.”) When Paul speaks of Judeans and Greeks, he is speaking of people from two cultural spheres of influence. When he speaks of Israel and the nations, he is speaking of Israel as the people of God in contrast to all who remain alienated from God. Paul understands Israel to include all Judeans and Greeks and others who are loyal to God’s Messiah Jesus.

The most glaring omission is that Dr. Eisenbaum never provides a vivid portrait of Paul’s Jesus. Throughout her book, Jesus is an illusive, shadowy figure. Commenting on Jesus’ surrender to death by crucifixion, and on the atonement it is supposed to provide for Gentiles, Dr. Eisenbaum is content to say, “It must remain something of a mystery exactly why Paul (and presumably other followers of Jesus) came to understand this particular act by this particular individual as able to achieve this profound reconciliation…” (p. 241). That’s not good enough. You can’t understand Paul without understanding Paul’s Jesus.

Here is Paul in his own words: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…” (Romans 1:1–4, RSV).

Again Paul says, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16).

And again Paul says, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:20–25).

Seems Paul was a Christian after all.

[John Otto · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book really is a waste of time. There is nothing remarkable in it, although the author insists that her thinking that Paul remained a Jew after his Damascus road experience is radical and "a new paradigm." Everyone already knew before this book that Christianity started out as simply a subset of the Jewish religion; there was not a dramatic break. The author thinks her idea that Paul thought both faith and works are necessary for salvation is revolutionary, but it is nothing I haven't heard since I was old enough to sit in a church pew. I was very irritated by the author's attempt to inject drama into what is essentially shop-worn ideas. Although the book is titled, "Paul Was Not A Christian," Chapter Three is entitled "How Paul Became A Christian." I don't recommend this book for anyone,

[Eric Pearson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first book to earn the elusive fifth star from me. This is an incredibly thoughtful and well organized deconstruction of modern conceptions of Paul and she artfully traces the development of Christian and Jewish interpretations of Paul's writings, and she chips away at the augustinian-Lutheran lens that modern readers unconsciously read Paul's letters through. I will say the book is a little backwards in the sense that her main argument is at the end of the book. However, I enjoyed this structure, as a lot of the points of her argument did require the initial discussion and background found throughout the beginning and middle of the book.

[Tonia Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book examines the Biblical Paul from the perspective of his Jewishness - putting a new twist on some of his letters.

[Margie Dorn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a worthwhile read, and I learned a lot, and some things that I already knew had the details filled in. Eisenbaum is saying, with reason, that because Christianity was not yet full-fledged, and had not yet been given a name, and was still a Jewish sect when Paul was writing, that Paul was writing from a Jewish perspective. Yes, so far so good, and I can agree. The reason I could not give it full marks was that her argument never seemed to get anywhere substantive beyond that--I was not "convinced" by her final chapters, especially since she seemed to leave so much unaddressed. She did not finish the job, not with this book, anyway. I'll return to the book at some point in the future because there is much in it that is worthwhile that I want to solidify in my head that will be helpful in my classes. Her final chapters are another matter.

[Roger Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am no expert in the texts and period to which this book speaks, but I generally buy its main argument. That said, I found the skipping around through historical reception distracting in the sense that it moved to later Christian figures who claimed Paul for themselves before fully dealing with the authorship problems in close-textual analysis for the texts attributed to Paul. The comparisons to Dead Sea Scroll texts are especially helpful, though.

[Blurp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spoiler alert: Paul was Jewish!

[Zglenallen · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a follower of Christ, this book gives a lot of food for thought. There is a lot in here that I can agree with and a lot that also enlightens much of my own thinking over a period of 40 plus years as a follower of Christ and how the faith of Christianity relates to its Judaic roots. An issue that I think 2000 years of Christianity has willfully ignored at best and purposely avoid at worst.

My main issue is that in concentrating on Pauline theology the author does not take into account other early church sources that also inform on the tenants of the Christian faith which all Biblical scholars and teachers will know is a dangerous thing to do to avoid falling into the trap of diverging from the central truth of Christianity. For instance the authors stance on the deity of Christ is unclear though one would assume that as a Jewish author they do not accept this. This throws a lot of what the author says out of kilter with the faith as understood over the past two millennia. But this isn’t a criticism rather an observation on the limitations that this book has for the Christian reader.

On the very positive side what this book does help with is a deeper understanding of the roots of the Christian faith and helps in realigning some beliefs away from what be seen as anti semantic which can only be a good thing. It helps the reader to understand that the Jewishness of Christ and the early church was important to the moving forward of Gods plan and that The Church corporate has forgotten or chosen to ignore this.

God declare that he is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and we forget that we as followers of Christ have more in common with our Jewish brethren than we have that is different. True believers worship Yahweh in spirit and truth and this is true of both Judaism as it is Christianity.

One thing annoying about the Kindle version, the notes are not hyperlinked making reading the notes as you read the text frustratingly slow and in reality I gave up on trying to do this.

Well worth the read and great for expanding the mind in a positive way.

[Isaac Riley · Rating 4 out of 5]

An absolutely brilliant treatment of Paul, Eisenbaum carefully examines the perspective of Paul in a way that properly does justice to the Jewishness of the Apostle and creates a consistency to his view of the world that better reflects our historical understanding of first century Judaism and the biblical evidence of Paul's continued faithfulness to his heritage.

While I don't necessarily agree with every nuance of Eisenbaum's analysis or conclusions (in fact I certainly don't agree with everything she wrote), her own Jewish background enables her to guide the reader through the frequent Christian biases which often inform our reading of the text and better see Paul the Jew speaking about his revelation of the significance of Jesus.

A provocative title, but one which summaries well the wrestling match often centered around Paul's identity, Eisenbaum's work excellently brings stellar scholarship and a close attention to the biblical text together for a deeper and more historically informed understanding of the most influential biblical author.

[Chris Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! The author supports the perspective on Paul, and the purpose of this book is to clearly delineate what that means. The thesis, as I understand it is that Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, and his letters should be read with that in mind. Prof. Eisenbaum consistently shows what the traditional readings of Paul have said, proceeds to show how the translation(s) were made and how certain misreadings have occurred. She then uses her skills as a translator to support those urging a new paradigm for Pauline scholarship. I have never really been a fan of Paul, but this book puts him in a new light (for me). It does a magnificent job of explaining and clarifying many parts of Paul's story. It was not meant to address the two main gripes I have with Paul, but the bibliography should provide some direction that may help. Well researched, well written, it is a thoughtful and thought-provoking work.

[Bob Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did Paul convert to Christianity? What as the relationship of Paul to the church? How should Paul be understood? These are all questions that Pamela Eisenbaum in her book Paul was not a Christian.

Just from the title of the book, the reader can guess Eisenbaum’s positions. She claims that Paul never left Judaism…he was born and lived and died a Jew. With this claim, she does say that Paul viewed Jesus as the promised messiah and the end of the world was right around the corner.

Her claims are similar to those in the New Perspective but with slight variations. She claims that since Paul remained Jewish, his view of the Trinity should not be equated with later Christian theology and that Jesus should not, in Paul’s views be understood as divine.

Whether or not you agree with her, her writing is very clear and less technical. This makes her writing accessible to mainstream audiences.

I recommend this book to all interested in NT writings.

Grade: B-

[Stephen Self · Rating 4 out of 5]

Useful as a vade mecum to help reorient oneself to Paul’s essential Jewishness and the Jewish scriptural traditions he works with and interprets. However, the author clearly has her bias (which she acknowledges from the start) and, especially in the final chapters, it became evident that her self-proclaimed radical continuation of the New Perspective into a completely Judeocentric new paradigm pushed her into forced and selective readings of Pauline texts. Jesus is so wholly central to Paul’s thought, exegesis, and topsy-turvy life that He can’t simply be compartmentalized as “the gentile option” on the menu of God’s grace.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book that synthesizes some non-traditional understandings of Paul, positing that most Christian interpretation of Paul relies on later interpretations of Paul, rather than Paul himself. This provocative and compelling book is taking me back to the very beginning in seeking to understanding God, salvation history, and the connection between Jewish faith and Christian faith.

[Marcelo Gonzalez · Rating 5 out of 5]

A "new" perspective on Paul that strives to erase some of the lasting damage to public perception of Paul's theology caused by Augustine, Luther, and hundreds of years worth of their acolytes.

It's wonderful, well argued, and my only annoyance is the frequent repetition of certain points, but one can easily forgive that.

[Debbie Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting perspective

The author interprets Paul’s letters from a Jewish point of view. She explains the covenantal relationship that Jews have with God and the role of Torah in that relationship. The reader is reminded that Paul was writing to Gentiles.

[Harrison Glaze · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting and some valuable stuff on Paul’s context and self-understanding here, and the aims for Jewish-Christian dialogue are laudable, but the sensational premise and central arguments rather overstep the (not generally very new) evidence.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent scholarship. For the first time, Paul makes sense to me.

[Melissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dry, unconvincing, and redundant.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

A critical and enlightening perspective that makes sense of a lot of things in the Pauline corpus. Definitely recommended

[David S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important way to not only look at Paul, but at the early faith in general

[Zach Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

The middle of the book gets a little repetitive, but that does not overshadow an electric beginning and end that added so much essential context to my (mis)understanding of Paul.

[Demetri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book challenging the paradigmatic interpretations of Paul and his letters. This is a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-defended book that is highly convincing. Some inconsistencies that seem to pop up while reading Pauline letters are reconciled when one reads Paul as he would have read himself (i.e., in the historical and social context of a first-century Jew).

[Caitlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating revisionist work about Paul of the Bible, one of the major authors that helped cement Christianity as we know it. Eisenbaum gives a detailed history of Judaism, to help defend her thesis that Paul never gave up his Judaism, what we call a conversion was nothing of the sort. She provides compelling evidence that Paul recognized in his vision of Christ that Christ was a sign that the end of times is nearer than anyone thought and therefore it is time for Israel to be the 'light unto the nations' that is part of the Hebrew covenant. In minute detail she discusses how many English translations have interpreted the ancient Greek to say 'faith in Christ' rather than what she feels is more accurate 'faith of Christ.' Replacing 'in' with 'of' has profound consequences for the entire meaning of Paul's message. According to Eisenbaum he is saying that Gentiles need to have the faith of Christ to enter into the salvation plan of God. Paul never says that Jews need to leave behind Torah, or that Jesus replaces Torah. Eisenbaum argues that Paul sees Jesus as the same function for Gentiles as Torah is for Jews. And Paul was not 'converted' so much as had a shift in priorities. He believed Christ appeared to him to get him to help bring all nations into the fold of God.

I think Eisenbaum is convincing. At times she is repetitive and at times it feels like she is trying to convince you of something you don't want to believe, but I think over all what she says is profoundly thought provoking. I will never know if it should be 'in' or 'of' or the other minutiae of Judaism, but I can believe that Paul believed the world was nearing its end and that it was his duty to help Gentiles find salvation. I can completely believe that from Paul's perspective Paul was not 'converted,' did not abandon his Jewish beliefs or heritage.

2000 years of Christian history has undoubtedly changed and added onto Paul's original message. Even to the point where half of the Pauline books in the New Testament probably weren't even written by him! Unfortunately, by interpreting Paul in the way that Christians did, that he turned his back on Judaism helped contribute to centuries of persecution of Jews. But maybe it didn't have to be that way! Maybe Jews and Christians never needed to have the rift religiously and historically that they have had. The ultimate value of 'Paul Was not a Christian' is that it helps us look at a more realistic version of a man who has come to define a religion and betray another. I highly recommend this book and would love to know the opinion of other Jewish/Christian/relgious scholars.

[Brianna Daly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another seminary book— a new perspective I’ve never thought through and taught me so much. Very interesting! Jesus was Jewish so why don’t we talk about that more? Loving learning more about Jewish culture

[Michael Brady · Rating 5 out of 5]

A sophisticated argument, skillfully rendered...

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Romans 3:22

Could key elements of traditional Christian dogma - from Augustine to Luther - hinge on a choice between nominative and genitive case when translating a key phrase in Paul's letters from their original Greek? Does the bulk of the history of Christianity arise from distinction between the Christian notion of faith in Christ and Paul's expression the faithfulness of Christ? Wow! The concept rocks my world and I'm not even a Christian.

Professor Pamela Eisenbaum is a practicing Jew who teaches in a Christian seminary. Tough duty; I imagine watching her work would be a treat. "Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle" is as thought-provoking as it is accessible. A skilled writer, Eisenbaum is methodical but never plodding. As she guides us through her challenging thesis there are moments when tells us she needs to slow down to carefully spell out a complex concept in detail. Heed her warning and you will be rewarded.

I don't read Greek (of course neither do most Christians...okay, other than those in Greece I suppose) so I'll be sending this book along to some fine friends who do. I look forward to hearing what they - a retired Roman Catholic priest and a 20-something evangelical minister - think of Professor Eisenbaum's approach to the pivotal role Paul played - whether intentionally or accidentally - in the early church.

Fun stuff. "Paul Was Not a Christian" should be on every Christian theology nerd's reading list.

PS I recommended the book and its author to Justin Brierley at the Unbelievable radio program and podcast.

[Maddie Grace Rogers · Rating 3 out of 5]

thought provoking and insightful, repetitive at times but relatively easy to follow base for understanding Paul

[Joey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pamela Eisenbaum is a practicing Jew who is a Professor at a Christian seminary. This book clearly shows how grossly misinterpreted Paul is in his writings when read through an evangelical lense. By educating the reader of how Jews understand their own faith and how it correlates with Paul's declarations, Eisenbaum shows that Paul was not arguing that Judaism should be thought of as a hopeless religion desperately trying to fulfill the law in order to gain salvation while Christianity was the true religion to gain salvation through faith.

Her argument is very convincing, and it makes sense when the reader can account for what Judaism truly is rather than how Christians have always understood it through stereotypical and false assumptions. It is also refreshing to see her argument built on all of Paul's authentic and collective writings rather than on a handful of selected versus from books that have been rendered as pseudopigraphical by the majority of biblical scholars.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this book a lot. We part ways on the authenticity of some of Paul's letters which she uses to clarify her perspective on who Paul is. However, really I like the premise of the book and regardless of how she gets there, I agree with many of her conclusions.