Defending the Apostle Paul: Weighing The Evidence
Introduction:
I have found it necessary to revisit this important question. Please
refer to my first attempt to answer this important question – ‘The Apostle
Paul: Disciple or Fraud’ (downloadable from www.circumcisedheart.info).
One of the foundational issues I see in much study, interpretation
and debate about New Testament theological narratives and personalities, is
that we are all coming to the text with presuppositions, even when we don’t
recognize that we are.
A large part of the reason for this comes from the fragmentary
nature of our historical and chronological understanding; the corrupted nature
of the text, along with the inevitable interpretative and even deliberately biased
choices made in the multiple translations that have taken place over the 1900+
years since the autographs were composed.
Where is the proof that such challenges and such presuppositions
exist?
Let’s consider just the view we have of the Apostle Paul[1].
There are in fact, a great range of views of the Apostle Paul. Just as an
example, a book ‘Four Views on the Apostle Paul’[2]
has just been released in which four notable biblical scholars argue for four
significantly different takes on who and what Paul was. I will come back to
some of the arguments from this book.
But all of these very different views still see the Apostle Paul
as essentially an advocate for the claims of Yeshua/Jesus as the Messiah.
There are an increasing number of voices though that dispute even
this; that argue that the Apostle Paul was out to discredit the religion of the
Jewish people, that he was really a liar, a hypocrite, an egocentric and
dishonest preacher who only sought to promote his own status and views which
were very contradictory to the proto-Judaism of his day. Some question whether
he was even a Jew and argue that he was a Roman!
Add to this the very strong evidence for the corruption, both the
redacting (editing) and interpolation (added material) of some parts of his
epistles; the apparent discrepancies between the chronological narratives in
the epistles compared with other books of the NT; as well as, some of the
quotations of the Tanakh (OT) being clearly different and even contradictory to
the original text they quote[3]!
The number, breadth and variety of divergent views is ample proof
that the Apostle Paul’s letters can at the very least be ‘cherry-picked’[4]
to argue for very different and opposing views. Many who do this would appear
to do so in a diligent and most sincere manner, and yet still end up with very
different understandings.
So, with such divergence (and confusion!), how can we hope to
approach this question and bring even a little clarity and resolution to the
enigma that is the Apostle Paul?
I would like to suggest what is essentially a scientific approach;
that is I will try to use a scientific method from the historical sciences.
Historical scientists essentially proceed by inferring history
from its results; that is they reason from clues back to causes.
Further than
this they investigate various hypotheses to see which hypothesis, if true,
would best explain the known data.
This may sound simple but where there are a number of possibly
adequate competing hypotheses, this can prove very difficult. Also to establish
a casual claim, that is a valid and logically consistent link between the
‘probable’ events of the past and our current understanding or interpretation,
this scientific approach requires the
identification of three things:
- Evidence that the cause proposed was present;
- Evidence that on other occasions it has demonstrated the capacity to produce the effect under study, and
- That there is an absence of evidence, despite a thorough search, of any other possible causes.[5]
So I propose to primarily use the approach of putting forward an
historical hypothesis, and then, while trying to, as best as possible, take
into account the other contributing factors such as textual redaction; demonstrate
that my hypotheses best explains the known data. That is, that my ‘view’ of the
Apostle Paul is the ‘best fit’ and therefore most likely the true view.
I will try to establish what I believe was the understanding and
approach of the Apostle Paul; both where he saw himself in the scheme of
things; what his view of Yeshua was; what his view of the significance of the
resurrection was; and what the historical and societal conditions were within
which he was operating and into which his words had contextual meaning and
‘audience – relevance’.
Once my pre-suppositions have been articulated, I will then
demonstrate which portions of Paul’s epistles strongly support this hypothesis,
as well as how other NT writings support this position.
Once I have put forward this hypotheses, I will then consider the
apparently conflicting evidence and try and demonstrate how it best fits all
this evidence as well; the chronological questions; the character questions;
the doctrine questions and the historical ramifications.
As part of my investigation of the contrary evidence, I will try
to show where the text as we have it, clearly does not agree with my hypothesis
or view, and why such text is almost certainly corrupted or an interpolation
(added to the original). I will also try to show how certain ‘texts’ can be
re-interpreted within this framework and view so that they are no longer seen
as presenting the Apostle Paul as a fraud or alternatively as the progenitor of
a new religion.
I do not expect this short book to be totally comprehensive,
especially in terms of the investigation of conflicting evidence. However, if
my hypothesis is in fact the best fit for all the evidence in total, then it
will generally be able to effectively address other evidence that is presented
that may appear to be contradictory.
As at this stage in the redemptive history of the world, we are
not privy to all the facts and all the truth, our conclusions can not hope to
be totally without question. There will still remain room for questions and the
need to accept at least a small degree of tension and tentativeness in our
conclusions. Let us begin.
(if you want to jump ahead you can download the whole series here as a Kindle book - http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Apostle-Paul-Weighing-ebook/dp/B009TLLK0U/)
[1] While his Hebrew name was Sha’ul, to ease the readers engagement and
comprehension of this article I will stick with his ‘Christianized’ name Paul,
which has a certain appeal to me, and with the common but questionable (by some
at least) title Apostle.
[2] ‘Four Views on
the Apostle Paul’ by Thomas R Schreiner, Luke Thomas Johnson, Douglas A
Campbell and Mark D Nanos (2012). The four views are essentially a Reformed
view; a Catholic view; a Post-New Perspective view and a Jewish view.
[3] Some scholars give the Apostle Paul such a high, almost God-like status
that they accept he could change the text of the Tanakh to suit his
interpretative style! This appears partly due to being so reliant on how they
interpret Paul to describe Jesus, that they speak of ‘Jesus in Paul’ and almost
make Paul (and Jesus) to be God!
[4] ”Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that
seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of
related cases or data that may contradict that position.” – Wikipedia.org
[5] Scriven, ‘Causes,
Connections and Conditions in History’ p 249-250
No comments:
Post a Comment