The Search for the Historical Paul - John Dominic Crossan

we are truly blessed to have with us John Dominic Crossan professor emeritus of religious studies from DePaul University in Chicago professor Carson was educated in Rome at the Pontifical biblical Institute and also in Ireland at Weymouth College he's the former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar which is a group of scholars dedicated to the quest of the historical Jesus he has written 20 books about the search for the historical Jesus over the past 30 years but his latest book in search of Paul takes him along with his co-author Jonathan Reed and archeologists in a new direction of exploring Paul's mission and the counterpoint of the Roman Imperial theology which prevailed as the predominant religious point of view during the time of Paul the book talks about how Paul attacks the Roman Imperial theology with a vision of the kingdom of God emphasizing peace through justice this book also I believe is noteworthy and exploring Paul's relationship to his own Judaism and Paul's understanding of Christianity please join me in welcoming to the Free Library of Philadelphia professor John Dominic Crossan it's my sound okay death sounds okay to me it is a pleasure and an honor to be with you in this magnificent venue to talk about in search of Paul and the good news of course is we think we found him otherwise it'd be a rather short book what I'm going to do is just have a few words of introduction and then I'll ever have three points and I'm going to stop even if necessary in mid-sentence at twenty to nine to give you twenty minutes of questions first of all let's do the math there's 27 books in the New Testament 13 of those are attributed attributed to Paul and one of one other book the fourteenth the Acts of the Apostles is half about Paul so he dominates the New Testament secondly even if you're not the least bit interested in the New Testament not a Christian Paul is a major figure in Western civilization that is why it is worth trying to understand him completely secondly of those 13 letters there is a massive consensus in certain distinctions that seven of them seven of them pretty definitely come as original and authentic from Paul Galatians and Romans verse the second Corinthians Philippians Philemon and first Thessalonians then there are various shades of agreement that 1st 2nd Thessalonians possibly is not from Paul Ephesians and Colossians is probably not from Paul and 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus are almost certainly not from Paul all of those are scholarly more or less consensus and in this book we are going to be talking about the Paul primarily of the authentic original letters because here's your problem there is actually in the New Testament across those 13 letters not to speak of the Acts of the Apostles as well three different Paul's there is a conservative Paul there is a liberal poll and there is a radical poll and it's not just that there's three of them the earliest the most original is the radical poll then you sort of have the liberal poll and finally you get the conservative Paul in plain language somebody is cleaning up Paul sanitizing Paul D radicalizing Paul making him safe for the Roman Empire let me give you an illustration using gender that you probably all know the story about in for example first Timothy when Paul Paul is now in quotation marks Paul says that women should remain at home they should not be teaching man which of course is a precious indication that that's exactly what they were doing women should not teach man they should remain at home and it should be pregnant quiet and if they have any questions ask their husband nothing is mentioned about barefoot but otherwise you know this is a conservative poll this is the conservative Paul if you look at Ephesians or Colossians when Paul is talking about relations say between husband and wife he says something a little bit different he says definitely that the wife should obey her husband as Christ excuse me as a church obeys Christ but it also says and spends much more time talking about the duties of a husband which are to sacrifice himself for his wife the way Christ sacrifice for the church now if you only quote one of them women should obey their husband that's one thing if you quote the two of them honestly if you give me the choice Levite gender for the moment that I either have to obey like the church obeyed Christ or I have to sacrifice myself like Christ did for the church I'm going to go with that obedience option especially since of course the church has never obeyed Christ so it's not that hard to imitate it but that's the liberal poll I mean a lot of Roman paterfamilias would raise their eyebrows at those obligations of a husband it might have be quite happy with the obedience part but then there is the radical Paul for example just taking all most cases at random when Paul is sending the letter to the Romans his most important letter it will actually be his last will and testament or he doesn't know that he sends it with a woman Phoebe and I don't think he's been a feminist he simply doesn't make any distinction a woman a man who's going to Rome Phoebe puts up her hand as a where you got it Phoebe and remember that you don't just take the letter and drop it into the mailbox address to the Christians she would have to take the letter around the various congregations assemblies churches as we call it in Rome read the letter explain the letter and say no that's what Paul meant not that which is very difficult if she can talk in church by the way also in that same letter to the Romans he mentions a person called junior who meet the Clare's to be prominent among the Apostles this is the radical Paul and our book is primarily about the radical Paul now I want to take three examples tonight three of what's really new about this book one thing of course is new is that an archaeologist and an egg Street are actually cooperating together neither of us has reduced the other to a footnote we decided to let's say we decided that this chapter will be about the Corinthians it's up to me to say what I wanted to say about Paul's letters to the Corinthian and then Jonathan would say whatever he wanted to say about the archaeology involved then we would have to get it together after each of us had written what we wanted to do so that's already in format of course in original but I want to look at the content on three points the relationship between Paul and the Roman Empire the relationship between Paul and the Jewish tradition the relationship between Paul and the Christian community those are the three I want to emphasize what we are saying that is new and I'll exemplify in each case by something which we may have mentioned in the book but which I at least had not seen I'm not certain I Jonathan may have seen them but I did not see them until this summer and I'm not even certain if if he was able to see them it was in September of this year for the first time that I got to see two inscriptions and a fresco that I'm going to use to illustrate those three points so the first point is this let me give it to you as a question and you're all smart enough to know that when I asked this question the answer is so obvious that it can't be the obvious answer so nevertheless there was in the first century a human being whom people declared to be divine son of God God God from God Redeemer Liberator Lord and Savior of the world of whom am i speaking yeah most of you are too smart to fall for that one right but I would say in 99.9% of people who aren't set up that it can't be the obvious answer would say Jesus my point is that if Jesus had never existed and before Jesus ever existed Caesar let's call him Octavian the Augustus that's Octavian the divine one like Jesus the Christ it's a title Octavian Caesar Augustus was accepted as divine across the Roman Empire accepted on coins you could look at a coin that says Imperator in breviary usually Imperator Caesar Divi filius DVF's son of God you could see it on inscriptions you could get it in images you could get it in structure it was everywhere all around you this is why the archaeology that's so important to us is the archaeology of what we call Roman Imperial theology we're not just interested in saying well where Paul was the Thessalonica here's some pictures of Thessalonica excavations can't see anything there from the first century but what the heck is good background know what we're interested in is showing you the archaeology of Roman Imperial theology that when for example Paul walked through a gate at Ephesus it's still there was built before he was passed before he was even born when he walked under that gate if he looked up going out on the Left it was going to say that the Imperator Caesar was son of God it would also be on the silver denarii he'd have in his hand so the first thing I wanted you to understand and the most important thing we're stressing in this book is that Roman Imperial theology was the glue the ideological glue that held the Roman Empire together you cannot you cannot hold an empire together with military force alone you can only hold it together with military economic political and ideological power so in other words every time you hear Paul insisting that Jesus Christ is Lord not seeing that Jesus is the Christ which would make sense of course to a Jewish audience but Jesus Christ is Lord what you are hearing footnote this high treason you are not saying what we all have our little Lord and Jesus is just our little Lord what you're saying is our guy is and your God ain't and that of course is going to raise all sorts of problems because any sane person is going to say wait a minute now wait a minute I can understand why Caesar is divine he's brought peace to the Roman Empire he's brought stability and security across the Mediterranean if the economy is booming in so far as the ancient economy ever could boom if that ain't a God who needs one what uses Jupiter up there with the Thunder we would like somebody down here on earth with some victory it made sense to people don't think of as well you know how pagans are they believe all that weird stuff let me exemplify that from the inscription the Roman Emperor had worked out a marvelous way of avoiding tourney by having two consuls in for a year that was like two kings for a year having a Democratic and Republican president each in for a year so each can take keep an eye on the other and neither can do too much damage for the right of office well it worked fine for a while but but Rome was learning about the time Jesus was born is what some countries still haven't learned that you can have a republic or you can have an empire but you can't have both for the same time for long Greece had already learned by the way that you can have a democracy or you can have an empire but you can't have both at the same time for long what was happening was the two consuls let's imagine one going West and grabbing other people's stuff which is what empires do the other going east and grabbing other people's stuff then looking at one another and say when I'm not coming back to cooperate with you and so you had Roman Civil War and for almost twenty years it looks like the Roman Empire was doomed and the Mediterranean was being ripped apart in it and finally on the 2nd of September in the year 31 BCE off the embracing Gulf from the northwest coast of Greece the battle fleets of Antony and siap and Cleopatra finally came out to face the battle fleets of Octavian which was then who he was and his general Admiral general Agrippa in the Ionian Sea and at the end of the day there was only one left standing in effect there'd be later suicides in Alexandria but the one left standing was Octavian he took the title of princeps which means first among equals are as I put it first among equals with all the equals of lead but in all sincerity across the Roman Empire that went up a great sigh of relief it's over he is the savior and they knew what he had saved them from he had saved them from the horrors of civil war could be cynical of course and say he saved them from Roman civil war yep but he saved them so when they said divine our said son of God our said Savior our said the Lord they weren't empty titles they made sense that's going to mean that if you're taking those titles and giving it to somebody else you better have a Content that makes sense to people now on the inscription obviously there was a sea battle so you can't have anything out in the middle of the sea to mark the battle but on his tenth site on the tenth site as he said in which he went forth to battle he proclaimed you can still see it there somewhat weather-beaten and letters almost this high that on this place where I achieved victory so that peace was established on land and sea I set up a memorial on the place from which I went forth to battle you know when you really set a memorial on your own tent site you're already making a move that this is going forth to destiny but watch this first victory then peace that if you could imagine is the bumper sticker on every Roman chariot first victory then peace our peace through victory and in fact I think if you changes the Gustus he would say door there's another way this is the way of empire this is the way it always has been first you establish victory and then you establish peace when justice now that other good stuff too but victory first turning to my second point victory for peace are a fuller way of putting it would be piety war victory and peace and you can find that all over the place even the title Imperator that we translate as Emperor does not mean Emperor Augustus said he was proclaimed Imperator 22 times it means Conqueror first victory then peace you remember the opening words of Virgil and eared you ever had the pleasure of a classical education the opening words of Virgil's Aeneid weapons ARMA so turning to my second point Paul in relationship to his Jewish tradition let me put it again with a kind of a question did you ever imagine what might have happened if the Roman Empire had become Jewish instead of Christian and watch your mind at work among around that question to catalogue our prejudices but you say ever the Roman Empire said that the the Jews were atheists because it didn't worship the gods like everyone else they were misanthropes because it didn't come out and celebrate the gods like everyone else and there were superstitious to say their God made them do that of course the Roman Empire could never become Jewish but those of course were exactly what the Roman Empire said about Christianity when it first began to see them in fact they were worse than the Jews because the Jews at least had their own country and have been around for a while so I'm not going to argue we don't argue in the book when we're the other I just want you to imagine what life was like in the great cities of the Roman Empire do not think of the Jews huddling in the ghetto they were a proud self-sufficient part of the Roman Empire let me look at a second example a second inscription at a place called aphrodisias we're not claiming the pole ever went there but Ani the Gateway imagined a pillar say like that and like that the pillars there would be at the gates of a Jewish building probably the synagogue not certain because we haven't found the building but on the right hand side there is a entrance doorway with the face here was face a in the face towards you we call face be a non distr 126 names of donors of donors whose helped build this place this building of those hundred and twenty-six names 55% are Jewish 2% 2% are converts that's official pagans who have converted to Judaism if their me if they were male for example and they are they would have been circumcised but forty three percent forty three percent are pagan donors and the first nine of them are members of the boule the City Council by the way the first person mentioned the very first person mentioned is a woman Jael she's the only woman only person mentions was a woman jah-el but she's also decided called the patron now what do you do with something like that was only discovered when they were building the museum at aphrodisias we never knew they were Jews at aphrodisias Sweden didn't know there was a synagogue there what you do with numbers like that you see that's totally exceptional all right what's exception about aphrodisias that explains it all right do we have to face the fact that there was exactly what Luke said in the Acts of the Apostles there were Jews there were God worshippers are god-fearers the term that Luke uses and then of course the great the great mass of pagans if you imagine Judaism as an island with in a sea of paganism there's a coral reef if you will around it of the supporters the sympathizers who remain pagan they couldn't remain in the boules in the City Council they'd have to offer sacrifice for example but they're there in in between there they're not fully pagans anymore they they believe in the christen excuse me the Jewish God they probably almost certainly accept much of Jewish morality and they probably almost definitely attend the synagogue so we can't just think of Jews and pagans Jews God worshippers now on this inscription at aphrodisias unfortunately it's not in the museum which makes you want to scream because it's footprint is only well about the size of this I mean it wouldn't take up much room get it in there it took me I was trying or two or three or four I finally got into the storage sheds this September to see it it's it's not that scholars don't know exactly what's on it it's just that I like to see things and not just talk about what I haven't seen anything now imagine what Paul is doing Paul Luke says goes to the synagogue and tries to convert the Jews to Christianity that's Luke but Paul is told by God to go to the pagans and he's told in the agreement at Jerusalem to go to the pagans what Paul is going to the synagogues for is for the god worshippers he is the phrase we use in the book is convert poaching now understand it's not a question that Jewish Judaism excuse me is a missionary religion trying to convert all the pagans mission can be conducted by conversion or by attraction what we have to face is that Judaism was extremely attractive to lots of pagans who weren't quite ready to leave especially men to leave the privilege of paganism or be circumcised women would be a much different situation in the Roman Empire and if Paul is going after that group then there's going to be explosive results not only will his fellow Jews be thoroughly annoyed infuriated rightly but don't presume that all of these God worshipers are all going over the Christianity of course not many of them will stay extremely loyal to their Jewish friends or Jewish associates in the synagogue and Paul is going to get it from both sides in every city he goes which is exactly what happens the Paul in every city he goes so that's what is going on and that explains by the way all sorts of things it explains why how could pagans really read Paul's letters they're hard enough when you're a Christian to know what he's talking about could pagans really read the Epistle to the Galatians even if you say well Paul would have given special instruction a habit if they are however God worshipers then of course they know the Jewish traditions of course they know all of that and it also begins to explain why would use care about what Paul is doing if he's down there by the by the the wharfs at Corinth and he's telling the longshoremen who help pull those boats across the Isthmus that you don't have to follow the Jewish laws why would anyone care wouldn't the pagans say Jewish laws huh why would you scare on the other hand if he's going for that in-between group and that's explosive that socially explosive and it explains a lot about Paul the third point I want to talk about is all right what would Paul tell these God worshippers what's he got that's new the the Roman program if you summarize it as first victory then peace is actually the normalcy of civilization it's not something invented by Rome and it's not that Rome is the the axis of evil in the Mediterranean world are the evil empire of the first century Rome is the normalcy of civilization which has always been Imperial since the first time it learned how to do it it has always been Imperial so what alternative message can Paul give if it's for millions of people the idea that Caesar is divine makes sense he's running the Roman Empire which is kind of the world he's got 23 legions on the back and back and call now what have you got to tell us Paul that makes this beyond some kind of a Jewish joke and we noticed that the Romans aren't laughing let me come back to this radical Paul and I want to do this by giving you an example a concrete example if you stand at Ephesus today and you're looking out towards what used to be the shoreline high up and what's called the Bulbul da which is not nearly as nice a name as Nightingale mountain on your left on the northern slope is a small cave or grotto it's the one that we have images in the first part of the book inside that as you enter it's a long narrow maybe 8 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet 9 or 30 40 feet long long and narrow there's frescoes all around it the frescoes are probably from about the 6th century but as you enter on your right there's a picture of Paul and we know it's Paul because the Greek word is there and next to him is a female Saint Tecla and each of them have their Masari first of all each of them are the same height and that's very important because same stature means same status they're the same height Paul's hand is raised in the teaching gesture so is Tecla s-- same stature same teaching gesture with hands but but somebody has goes out her eyes and scratched out her right hand in fact kind of burned it off now if it was simply the both of their eyes were scratched out then it could be some of the typical iconoclasm that you find in many cases say and they can kapadokya in caves but that's usually everyone's you don't just pick on the woman and you don't especially pick on our hand unless you know exactly what you're doing you're denying her teaching authority now that's an image I want to think about a time when on the one hand male and female female and male are equal before Christ within Christianity and a time when we are attacking the Equality of the female let me take an example from the text of Paul pause shortest epistle is something we should read a lot more often it's the Epistle to Philemon or Philemon it's pronounced both ways here's the situation Paul is at Ephesus and he's in prison and it's serious prison he's in proconsular prison and he's in danger being put to death what type of prison the Romans had basically about three levels one was the dungeon where you were simply dropped in to let disease or starvation take care of you the second coming up the level as it were is that you are in Chains to a guard you are chained to a guard in the guard house of the barracks the third one and the easiest one of course was simple house arrest in the top two you are allowed to have friends supporters help you and of course on the one hand you are in danger of being condemned to death any day on the other it all depended on the humanity of the guard and the guards capacity for bribery how it could be now Paul is writing a letter so obviously Paul has a fair amount of Liberty but he is in danger of being put to death so that's a situation secondly a runaway slave comes to Paul in prison an se muss is his name now how are we to understand this once again the Romans had two types of runaways legally when was a fugitive as a slave would simply abandon the master of mistress and fled if they were caught it would be crucified if they were caught they would be branded for life if they were caught they could be sent to the the mines but usually they were made a public warning because the one thing the Romans did not want was slaves simply abandoning and running on the other hand the Romans did accept that a slave who is going to be punished very brutally or might have a might be danger be put to death could flee as they said Adam eekum that is could flee to a friend preferably of course a more influential friend of their master or mistress and beg for mercy the classical case is one per Caesar is in having as a guest with a very rich aristocrat called Palio near Naples and a servant breaks a crystal vase and the master is going to toss him into a place of lamprey yields to be eaten alive and Caesar Caesar Augustus is so infuriated that this that he orders all the crystal in the entire house to be broken the pond with the yields to be drained and he frees the slave it's a classic story as a flight at a Meachem now you understand that if a slave was caught between leaving the house and getting to the friend it's a question of intention and I wouldn't want to bet which way it could be but now in this case on the presumption that anneza muss is not an absolute fool to flee as a fugitive us to flee from his master and to come to Paul in Roman prison in dangers his life of course and Paul's life as well so I am taking it for granted the what he is under roman law is fleeing at a Meachem and of course like fleeing the caesar he flees to Paul who has converted his master with that situation in mind don't take my word for this read the letter to Philemon and by the time you get to the end of it you should be very very sorry for for Palamon he doesn't really have a chance Paul does a job on him every line of that letter does a job on him but what I want you to watch is not just this as a glimpse into the character of Paul but it limps into the theology of Paul because according to what we read in Ephesians and Colossians the answer should be quite simple he should sell uneasiness go back to your master and obey your master and he should write a letter to Philemon saying don't be brutal to your slave that's the answer according to Ephesians and Colossians that's not what Paul does first of all he writes to Philemon and to all his friends and the church that meets at his house so this is very Republic and he sends it by the way not only from Paul but from all the people who are assisting Paul so huge public operation he says that uh nazy must has converted to become a Christian as he when he was with Paul and he says I'm sending him back to you that is my very heart to you why and you were waiting if you're reading it for him to tell now now be a good slave Onesimus and don't run away again what he does actually is everything except say to poor Philemon free him but the message is quite clear he says for example I could easily command you to do your duty but I prefer to appeal to you message is very clear he says it is most important that you do it voluntarily therefore I will not order you he says maybe actually God has done this so you'd be able to free him freely and he says you must have him back no longer as a slave but as a beloved brother in the body and in the in Christ so it's not just well we're all equal inside we're all equal internally overall spiritual equal no in the body and in Christ what he does is tell as clearly as you can without saying it you cannot have a Christian slave as a Christian master now be clear he's not talking about the world outside he's not making any general statements about slavery he's not saying slavery should be abandoned in the Roman Empire he's raising a very simple question can a Christian master same with Christian mistress have a Christian slave how can you be equal and unequal at the same time and if you read the language of the letter it's all the language of the family brother sister father mother it's the family he's imagining Christ's family as all equal before God read the letter for yourself but it's the clearest way when you could where you can understand the heart of Paul what it means when he opposes Romans first victory then peace with first justice than peace and he's only talking as he says in Galatians in Christ he says in Galatians in Christ there's neither Jew nor Gentile male nor female slave nor free which means when you come into the Christian community if you come as a Jewish Christian or a pagan Christian you're equal if you come as a male Christian or a female person your equal come as a slave come as a free your equal but there's a peculiar problem in Christ now we might well say to him and now I'll conclude what we're women are Paul you're just talking within Christianity you're not talking about the great big world we here in America say that all people are equal you're just saying that people inside Christianity are all equal and I think Paul would say to us well yeah and I'm having a little trouble around the Aegean persuading people of that how are you doing with the whole world and your program all right it's right at 22 so we have 20 minutes for a discussion well um a lot of ideas to think about a lot of ideas to ask questions about I'm Elliot shell caught the present in the library and I want to remind you that we have volunteers on each side because we want you to ask your questions with a microphone that each of them have so if you would like to ask a question please raise your hand and we will get a microphone to you right away so some questions gentlemen right there first yes did did paul accept James as the head of the first christians did basically no except if he happen to agree with paul and no because what happened at antioch after they had made the decision that yes it was possible for Gentiles now to come into the Christian community without their males been circumcised then the question came up what are you going to do if you have Jewish Christians and pagan Christians in the same community celebrating the meal which is the Lord's Supper and either everyone are nobody observes kosher the first way of doing it was nobody observes kosher and James of Jerusalem said everyone observes kosher and Paul called that hypocrisy broke with James broke with Peter broke with Barnabas and as I understand it went west and never came back until he had to come back once to Jerusalem with the famous collection so no would he accept him as head on the one hand Paul is risking his life as he knows to hold the two wings of the church if you will together he knows when he writes to the Romans that I'm going to Jerusalem pray for me that the gift will be acceptable to the Christian Jews and that I will be protected from the non-christian Jews so he knows how dangerous it is but it's an attempt to hold together but you might call Jewish Christianity and pagan Christianity would he accept the how would I put it the moral leadership of James yes would he accept the legal leadership of James no not at all but yes he what it was very important for Paul is the church didn't split right down the middle and for that he risked his life and it probably cost him his life another question please raise your hand okay again on the on the left on my left thank you um a great issue here is the relevance of these this historical information to what has happening currently in our world and how we are pretending to spread Christianity and how we can interpret Paul and Paul's message and how it is being applied now and it seems to me that there are two different levels one would be the social political humanistic part and on the other hand the the mythical part which seems to grab people's attention and interest more intensely than the social political humanistic and how can we separate those two components and perhaps be more more practical and how these principles could apply the first thing we would have to do is recognize that as formulated that distinction which many of us would make today is totally irrelevant for the first century they wouldn't simply know what that distinction was if they showed you one of those coins I was asking about and said well Divi phileas is that religious or political it's 100 percent both not even 50 percent both so the profound distinction that of these two worldviews and the meaning to prefer the poor this is an imperial view - he's not saying what this is just my suggestion are this is just Christ's little idea he's saying over against this whole cosmic global transcendental program is an alternative now it is absolutely possible to say all of that in the language of Paul are in the language of I don't want to say secular - I was going to say it so let me say secular language the reason is because the language of Paul was the secular language if you want to put it of the first century which didn't make the difference between the sacred and the secular the we do so when we read for example Romans and is talking about the justice and righteousness of God and the word des cailloux sunay for example we think that's really very Christian especially after Luther and really if we were talking to Augustus he would say eh that sounds like my program justification that means making the world just yeah that's the Roman program read Virgil that's our program we will make the world just we will do it by first victory of course and by keeping the legions on the periphery to protect us and inside we will have security so we really need to appreciate the integrity of Roman Imperial theology to give full value to paul's alternative and to recognize that it's religio-political it's socio-economic it's mythopoetic I give you a fast example over tells the story of imagines himself up in the Palatine Hill he's walking around and he sees this magnificent Palace and he says that must be the Palace of Jupiter and the guy said oh no no that's the Palace of Augustus and over it says ah so I got it right now look at the delicacy of that message is he saying is like Jupiter and Earth Jupiter incarnate that's the power of this ubiquitous indirect theology and you have to take that on and you have to be ready to say okay Caesar we know we can see what Caesar has done tell me what your Jesus has done for anyone now that's a first century debate and the more you use the titles of Caesar for Jesus the more you're going to be challenged Caesar we know what's your Jesus done for anyone and you say well he rose from the dead well Julius Caesar ascended into heaven it's on all the coins you got the star they the meteors streaking up to heaven which is a spirit of Julius Caesar now they're in different theologies but the ordinary person would say well they're both up in heaven who's doing what for whom and that's a very good first century problem because they're not saying what we've had an Enlightenment please we don't do heaven they're not saying that they believe that wonderful things can happen what they want to know is why I should give a hoot about your wonderful thing what's in it for me so if a person were to say well jr. Caesar might be up in heaven and you might be taking care of his family he's not doing anything for mine Paul's got a customer got a customer if somebody says this is marvelous under the jeweler cloudy we've never had it so good which business is booming move on Paul not a customer won't hear your message but the message is clear that's what I want to say it's a very very clear message and when your message is not clear you're going to lose no matter how good it is because the Roman message was very very clear that's why I've sort of oversimplified it down to first just first but first victory then piste first justice then peace I don't think I'm betraying either side but I am putting it as simple as their own theology is at its heart well let's have a gentleman right here with the plaid shirt and I keep looking over this way to make sure I'm not missing anybody I have two questions which I hope may be your one question I'm interested in how Paul the Jew knot becomes Paul the Christian I mean regardless you know forgetting his conversion experience but how does he go from Paul the Jew to Paul the Christian theologian um and what exude that because the language that he uses in the way that he talks in the way that he explains his experiences seems so I'm Josh um the second part of my question is Paul the mystic and did do we have any sense that he might have been as in his pre-conversion days involved in some kind of Jewish mystical circle that might have colored the way that he thinks and talks about Jesus let me start with the second one if I forgot what the first one is by the time I finished that when the things that happened after 70 and yes meanwhile we are certain of course he was Jewish and we are certain he was a Pharisee so we're certain of those two things but I think it's clear he was a mystic as well and not only a mystic but an ecstatic about mystic I mean somebody who's achieved union with God and an ecstatic I mean somebody who has experiences that are altered states of consciousness and possibly both now the important thing to realize of course is that Paul insists and Luke does too that he knew enough about Christianity to persecute it at Damascus I'm not imagining they mandate from the high priest to go to the maskers but I am imagining not imagining but remembering that Paul himself locates this at Damascus I think Paul had a mystical experience now he knew all about Christianity and he was persecuting he says himself he tried to destroy it we don't have to imagine killing people he would not have that part but in every way probably trying to get Christian Jews out of the synagogue what were they doing that had them so incensed now here we have to guess we grope in the dark I imagine that what they are claiming is that this is as you know the end time or they are claiming and therefore as we've always said in our tradition the Gentiles should be able to be full members of the People of God without their males being circumcised or without observing kosher that's in the tradition as what's supposed to happen in God's final days of cleaning up the world come now what has happened then in this mystical experience is that he is gone 180 degrees not simply from persecuting the Christic Christian Jews because of this belief - minding his own business to be in a quiet Jew to be even a Jewish Christian to be even a Jewish Christian apostille but being a Jewish Christian apostle to the Gentiles he has gone to 180 degrees if I had to imagine what Paul experienced in that mystical experience at Damascus we put the two images in the book one in which the blinding light comes down and blinds him which is Luke's account Paul never says that Paul says he has seen the Lord I think again I'm guessing that he saw Christ that he know knew all by Christ knew all about the crucifixion and everything else knew about the claims that they're making about resurrection and everything else and what he had was a mystical experience of Christ if you say well how did he know it was Christ well in Christian art they usually show the wounds so I would imagine that's what he saw not a blinding light but Christ himself that's a mystical experience in one sense he doesn't have to be educated in Christianity just has to believe what he's persecuted so I suspected he's persecuting it precisely for that which he then accepts it's accepting Gentiles all the way to you're called to do it now that's groping a little bit in the dark but that it was a mystic I'm absolutely sure about now your question about this sounds so on Jewish the language that you use yeah it's not at all it's not at all but it is if you imagine just keep it simple Paul a Jewish member of the synagogue and let's imagine he's at aphrodisias and he's trying he's as I said convert torching with the members of the City Council who are the the supporters of the synagogue that's dynamite and he's going to warn them and hit this is where his language comes in that for Paul you could not be a God fear you're lost between word worlds you're either Jewish or you're not I don't think he would ever accept that there is this in-between group which by the way I think Judaism had great wisdom in not trying to convert the pagans because as soon as we Christians did it we found they had converted us so in one sense the Jewish idea of an attraction where the accepted God but didn't move in too much so they converted you had a certain wisdom about it but my point is that his language only strikes us as being weirdly on Jewish it's probably the sort of language that he grew up with Tarsus as a smart young Jewish boy in a synagogue learning how to debate with smart-aleck pagans learning how to now even apologize and being apologetic the founder of Judaism and you can be a polemic go over unto the the offense so I think it's utterly Jewish but then remember Josephus is equally utterly Jewish when he says that's the will of God that the Roman Empire around the world that's also a Jewish option so it is within the Jewish options yes let's have the gentlemen here in the in the middle this microphones coming up I wonder if you'd care to elaborate on on how women became subject to men in the early church my understanding is that women were pretty much running the show early on being the host of the eucharist meals and so on and i've read that the idea that when it became a public religion the men had to take over because women couldn't be running something that was so public could you elaborate on your feeling about that but basically my answer is pretty much what you have said the only background I would insist on is when you think of the Roman Empire it's what I call the normalcy of civilization and part of that normalcy is patriarchy so when you have this radical vision of a Jesus or a Paul you should not be surprised and you should be expecting that would be a the drag of normalcy to get it back so it doesn't look quite so radical you get in trouble you could get yourself crucified being a Christian last thing on earth that he was want to be she's quite sincere with you so you expected and as I said the very fact that you you lay down that women are not supposed to teach men you know we haven't had lots of pagan texts insisting that women are not allowed to teach man the either were able to do it under certain limited circumstances or they weren't doing it but what you have in from the Pauline texts is the insistence that in the Pauline communities men and women are equal now what Paul gets very nervous about with with is any eradication of difference not hierarchy that's what's laid out but difference between me and he wants that - maintained but you shouldn't be surprised that in for example Timothy and Titus you not only have women are to be silent and at home but the man who are to run the church the men are to be male of course but they're also to be married and we want to see some kids because we don't want any of this married but really conducting a virginal marriage like the reader radical stuff we don't want to do that we want the Christian overseer his Capas are pres Beatrice to look just like his neighbor next door the Roman paterfamilias we want to see everything the same the barbecue the grass we won't see everything looking exactly the same now we shouldn't be surprised surprised it's the drag of normalcy it's the first move towards the day when Constantine would look around and say well this thing makes sense there should be one in Prior when capital city one Emperor me one religion when God when Lord when baptism this religion really makes sense we're moving that way in but that should not surprise us neither should it justifies doing it okay I believe one of the gentlemen up in the front row here has his hand up the way we'll get the microphone for you um I'll see if I can get to the core of this um it seems like in a lot of the discourse today particularly run the subjects of marriage and homosexuality and how the church should be the eye that Paul is sited at least as much if not more than Jesus what Paul said I'm wondering if that how long that tension has been there or when ad if there are different points in history when Jesus saying was eclipsed by Paul and sort of that interplay between them all right and the wider ambience for example many people say that Paul invented Christianity and one of the things where deny a burly in this book and that's by the subtitle says Jesus is apostille opposed Rome's Empire Jesus is apostle is the apostle of Jesus no there's complete continuity between Jesus and Paul but for example in Romans when Paul is listening the sins of the Gentiles he mentions homosexuality female as well as male who sees me and says it's unnatural and just about any Jewish author you can find at the same time makes exactly the same statement and in a way kind of jives at the pagans as if that was all that was going on but watch exactly what happens he makes the statement it's unnatural that's a judgment about what is natural and unnatural Aristotle who is the greatest mind of antiquity sorry Plato the greatest mind of antiquity said that slavery is natural Philo said it's a matter of greed it's not so when i read paul saying that it's unnatural i understand that he's judging nature in terms of genitals in terms of bodies and we tend to judge that in terms of hormones and in terms of chemistry not biology so we do not judge natural and unnatural on the same criteria as he does and we come up with different answers on that one I would simply say Paul is wrong get over it I mean obviously not addressing you personally there there are other things he's wrong about if that was all he had to say then we wouldn't be wasting our time on him but to reduce Paul's whole message to that went one I'm not the only thing he is wrong about but he's wrong on that but he's wrong along with every other Jewish author I know in the first century on that point but they always make that same statement it's unnatural they don't explain why the evening is wrong or anything else but they say this is unnatural so that is what I would want to ask them who decides what is natural and how yes the going over to the side here just two questions why does Paul speak so little about Jesus in his letters and the other question could he say something about the role of the local church in Paul's program Kay so why does Jesus he speak so little about Jesus in terms of the teachings of Jesus he doesn't quote very often that Jesus said Jesus said you said exactly but his favorite expression is in Christ and that's almost like a mystical term it we use it translators like it within Christianity are in the Christian community I think he sees it much more almost like mystical quasi organic inclusion because he could easily say well there's there's in the family of God Jesus is the eldest son and where all the little children there's not quite what he says he says in the family of God we are being we are participators in the sonship of Christ so I think on the one hand he is not quoting Jesus in the parables as you say or anything else but he is his entire theology is based about life in Christ and I think we have to take that as I said mystically almost organically if you said let me try and see if an illustration helps if you could imagine in the 60s you met Martin Luther King you put his arm around you and said I'm going to give you my spirit you said well now if I take your spirit Martin could I get myself killed yeah well then I settle for 5% the way Paul sees it is we've given this we've been given the Spirit of God we've been given the Spirit of Christ that's what he can write to the Philippians from prison that whatever happens happens nothing can separate me from Christ because he has already accepted that sort of in Christ so you're right he never talks about Jesus and he talks about Jesus the whole time your second question is about the local church what I really imagine when you hear the term a house church when you talks about Prisca and Aquila notice the order the art-design couple I think of those shops when you go through the other Roman cities what you see is those the remains of those shops on the Main streets 10 feet by 10 feet say but many of those shops open up into the villa so on a typical Street you can see it more clearly at Pompeii and Herculaneum because of the vagaries you have a huge doorway leading into a villa shop shop doorway shop shop the villa goes in like that and then opens up to maybe the whole block but many cases those shops open it to the villa they're being run by slaves they're been run by freedmen or freed women they maybe are rented out but in that case there is an osmosis between the shop and the villa which is very hard for us to even imagine it's not the person for all equal that's not the point but it's not that all the rich live here then over there are the poor live nutin young the shops on the main street if you have a the richest villa in Pompeii the Vale of the faun has at least four shops out front nobody wastes street frontage in the Roman world I think the shop churches is a phrase I would use if you're trying to imagine where did they meet was it in a villa not yet in a shop and shops are marvelous because you know there's people coming and going all the time and who knows when the open and when they close and but the shops will connect directly to the villas in many cases that's the way you get in to the more powerful members of society not by trying to go and convert an aristocrat or something like that so think of the house churches when you walk around a Roman ruins and you see these 10 by 10 little things on the Main Street think of all so a couple more questions uh right here first I am Paul's letters his letters attributed to Paul and I'm thinking about Philippians right now it seems to me he shows tremendous insight into good mental health practice yes the fourth chapter of Philippians he talked about think about things which are pure and good and so forth and I'm just wondering if a kind of wisdom was

Channel: Religious Studies

Views: 128,259

Keywords: the historical jesus, the search for jesus, the apostle paul, john dominic crossan, bible scholar, christianity, bible secrets, yt:stretch=16:9

Id: txdUXCY0clU

Length: 62min 27sec (3747 seconds)

Published: Sun Apr 21 2013