The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon [Paperback]

The apostle Paul: Marmite man. It seems you either love him or loathe him, find him appealing or appalling. Defender of slavery, and a man with dodgy views on women; or the great exponent of faith in Christ and its outworking through grace. In this lively and accessible book, John Dominic Crossan (a Catholic) and Marcus Borg (a Lutheran), show us a different Paul. A Paul who, if you read the New Testament letter to Philemon carefully, had revolutionary views on slavery; who, in a good way, stressed a thoroughly Jewish, and rather mystical, `being in Christ' as the key motivation for Christian communities to live lives of loyalty to the Lord, rather than to the Roman Empire; and who preached a Christ whose death was first and foremost about God's self-offering in love, rather than about punishment or sacrifice for sin.

Lots to reflect on here, then, about what Paul might have meant `back then' - and certainly enough to make a `Paul sceptic' thoughtful about how the apostle could still be deeply relevant today. Not a perfect book, though - the authors need to explain a bit more clearly why they think Paul didn't write some of the New Testament letters that bear his name; and say more about how their account of Christ's death and resurrection bring about `new life in Christ'. Read it with care, then - but enjoy nevertheless the cohesive, persuasive, and even rather winsome portrait that emerges. Definitely worth dipping into this particular Marmite pot afresh...

As a relative newcomer to theology reading, I was very pleased with this book. It is laid out in a logical order and points are explained clearly. It starts by covering which of Paul's letters are generally considered to have been actually written by Paul, which are thought not to have been written by him, and which are questioned. The authors then go on to analyse parts of Paul's letters in detail, taking into consideration the times at which the letters were written and the places where Paul would likely have been when he wrote them. As a reader, you need to keep referring to the Bible as you progress through the book. The authors offer different ways for interpreting Paul's words, and they discuss the matters which Paul might have considered to be most important. Finally, they consider what might have happened to Paul at the end of his life.

Borg & Crossan are described in many places as liberal theologians, and their views might not fit with everybody's understanding of the Bible. However, they do not insist that any one interpretation of Paul is correct. This could have been a dry and boring read, but for me it wasn't; it brought Paul to life.

Forget about the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). Here comes the Radically New Perspective on Paul. From the people who gave us the sound bite "Jesus was something of a party animal", no less. In other words: enter the Jesus Seminar!

Unfortunately, "The First Paul" is something of a disappointment. I expected it to be a historical-critical study of Paul. The first part of the book is. The second part, however, reads more like a theological treatise, expounding the particular religious viewpoints of the two authors, who turn out to deny substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection and justification by faith alone. No surprise there.

In the first part, the authors point out (correctly) that the historical figure Paul of Tarsus wasn't conservative, patriarchal, pro-slavery or pro-Roman. The message of the genuine Pauline epistles is surprisingly radical: Paul demands that Philemon sets his slave Onesimus free, he supports equality between men and women in both family, church and apostolate, and the whole notion of Jesus being "Lord" or "the Son of God" was subversive in an empire where the emperors were hailed as Lords, Sons of God, etc. Augustus was even called "Very God of Very God", "Redeemer", and so on! Later, this radicalism was muted in the deutero-Pauline epistles, and turned into its reactionary opposite in the Pastorals. In plain English: the church slowly but steadfastly adapted itself to the hierarchies of the empire which Paul had criticized. However, as they were doing it, phoney epistles were penned in Paul's name to justify the changes! The radical visionary was turned into a harmless, conservative icon.

The second part of the book, as already noted, contain Borg's and Crossan's private theological musings. They don't seem to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Well, neither do I. But Paul most certainly did! That the resurrection body wasn't simply a resuscitated corpse misses the point. Did Jews or Zoroastrians believe that physical resurrection simply meant that a dead body would start walking again? I think not. Borg and Crossan adopt the later Gnostic position: the resurrected Jesus was a spirit. Indeed, it's unclear whether they even believe that, or whether it's simply a metaphor for healthy, happy, holy living. Alan Watts is the man, yes? Their view of atonement probably isn't Pauline either. However, they obviously have a point when claiming that Paul's view of justification had nothing to do with Luther.

Since I expected all of "The First Paul" to be a study of the apostle himself, I wasn't completely satisfied with the book. It's not bad, if you are primarily interested in the Jesus Seminar and their particular brand of liberal theology. But as a study of the radical apostle to the Gentiles, it feels somewhat derailed.

Three stars.

And now, let's party...