Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

Review of “Paul was not a christian”By Pamela eisenbaum Pamela Eisenbaum is professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Origins at Iliff School of Theology/University of Denver. Her unique situation as a practicing Jew and professor of Christian origins has led to her ideas for this book. Her primary thesis is quite simple: “Paul lived and died a Jew.” This simple thesis can be affirmed by almost any contemporary NT scholar, but the implications which she draws from it are far from typical. Eisenbaum is motivated to oppose the traditional notions about Paul as one who converted from the ‘bad’ religion of works to the ‘grace’ religion of Christianity. She argues that Paul saw himself as a Jew and that in his historical context he would have been understood as a sectarian Jew, not a ‘Christian.’ (6-8) This may sound radical to lay readers but virtually all contemporary Pauline scholarship recognizes that Paul did live and die a Jew. The unique thing about Paul is how he understood his Judaism differently than many of his contemporaries, but more on that later. From this basic premise Eisenbaum sketches a view of Paul that allows for a very different interpretation of his (undisputed) writings. The second chapter focuses on the problems of the evidence and interpretation of Paul. She first points out that Acts and Paul portray different ‘versions’ of Paul. Eisenbaum concludes that due to the indirect nature of the Pauline material in Acts, it will not be used in her study, she will focus only on the letters of Paul. (She takes Acts to be a second century work of little historical value for Pauline studies, while this is a scholarly option, many are now leaning towards an earlier date with more optimism concerning its value.)She also discusses the problems of the letters themselves, including a rather typical overview of why the some of the letters are disputed. Eisenbaum therefore conducts her investigation based solely on the undisputed epistles. She continues by noting some interpretive difficulties within these undisputed letter themselves, such as apparent contradictions and assuages which are simply difficult to interpret because we do not have the same background information as Paul’s initial audience would have had. From here Eisenbaum seeks to point the way forward to a fresh understanding of Paul which will help resolve some of these difficulties. This skepticism regarding the Paul of Acts and the disputed epistles is rather radical. Most scholars do doubt Pauline authorship of those epistles, but many still see the material there as genuinely reflecting actual Pauline tradition. Chapter three discusses how Paul came to be understood as a ‘Christian.’ Since earliest times Paul was interpreted in light of the story of Acts as well as the now disputed epistles. Eisenbaum argues that the understanding of Paul found in Acts and the disputed epistles is different than the picture of Paul we find in the undisputed letters and has altered Pauline interpretation. While the differences in emphases she points out are there, I question whether or not these are not simply that, different emphases, and may not consist in mutually exclusive pictures of Paul. Eisenbaum then traced how through Augustine and Luther the Western introspective conscience was read into Paul. Augustine’s Confessions were understood as parallel with the conversion of Paul and Luther’s need for justification by faith from overwhelming guilt was read too much into Paul. From here Eisenbaum wants to proceed with two main challenges: 1) Judaism is/was not a religion of works, and 2) Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith. These two critiques are common in new perspective approaches. Chapter four shows how 20th century Jewish scholarship continued to read Paul in Augustinian/Lutheran light until the emergence of the New Perspective. The New Perspective corrects the wrong view of 2nd Temple Judaism and therefore enables a fresh reading of Paul. Eisenbaum essentially wants to push the New Perspective even further. She notes that in Sander’s work, Pauline religion is still antithetical to Judaism and she says that Judaism should not be understood as opposite to Paul’s religion. Chapter five consists in a brief attempt to describe the Judaism of Paul’s time, or Hellenistic 2nd Temple Judaism. The chapter is something of an explication of the points of the New Perspective. Judaism was not a strictly legal system focusing on minutia and weighing merits vs demerits but was also based on grace. For more on this view see Sanders’ covenantal nomism. Another important point from the chapter is the idea that Gentiles did not have to be ‘converted’ to be saved. They had to abandon their idols for the one true God but they did not have to become Jews and be circumcised. Much of the material in this chapter is based on findings in 2nd Temple Judaism and so I cannot either affirm nor deny its findings. Many different scholars represent 2nd Temple Judaism differently. I have read some texts from this period but there is a lot more that I could read. Suffice it to say that I think one needs to engage with second temple texts for themselves to see what they think, otherwise you should trust a scholar who you consider to be a good thinker who typically comes to sound conclusions. Chapter six discusses who exactly was Jewish and what was the relation towards Gentiles. Eisenbaum suggests that the majority of Jews were not hostile to Gentiles and that “Gentiles were not susceptible to ritual impurity, and Jews did not contract impurity by contact with Gentiles.” (100) She points out the high level of Jew/Gentile intermingling in the 2nd Temple Period. Just as resident aliens in the OT could become part of Israel, so also God fearers and any who would come and obey the Jewish way of life could join in the community even while uncircumcised. Acceptance in the Jewish community (πολειτεια) came to be more based on observance of proper conduct and morality than ethnicity. In light of these ideas Eisenbaum suggests that Paul’s extensive interaction with Gentiles was not novel. Chapter seven looks specifically at the Pharisees because this is the group which Paul (and Josephus) were in. The Pharisees exercised political influence and were also influential among the common people. They sought to uphold the traditions of the elders with the Torah. They are typically faulted for being hypocrites in the Gospels and the Qumran scrolls. They tended towards leniency in Torah interpretation. For example, their teaching on marriage and divorce was more lenient than that of Jesus and the Essenes. They also extended some of the priestly cultic washing rituals surrounding eating to the common people, which was uncommon in non-Pharisaic circles. All of this shows that Paul was probably not a super strict Torah interpreter, but likely tended towards more loose and creative interpretations already prior to his ‘conversion.’ Chapter eight looks more closely at Paul’s ‘conversion’ from his ‘former’ life. Essentially Eisenbaum follows Stendahl in stating that Paul’s life changing experience was much more of a prophetic call than a ‘conversion.’ Paul at this time was still a sectarian Jew and did not reject his Jewishness. Paul then should not be interpreted through his conversion experience, indeed he hardly refers to it in the undisputed epistles. Eisenbaum suggests that Paul should be understood changing within his context, not changing to something totally different. She further suggests that Paul’s experience of the risen Christ caused him to push forward his eschatology and led to his desire to fulfill the OT expectations of many Gentiles coming to true monotheistic faith. Chapter nine looks at the ways in which Paul remains a rather typical first century Jew. Paul looks down on Gentiles for their sexual immorality and idolatry and considers these issues of moral purity. The believing community is at risk of defilement for allowing these issues of moral impurity to go unchecked. Paul’s conception of holiness for the believers is also typically Jewish. Just as OT Israel was distinguished from other nations by the ritual and moral law, believing Gentiles are distinguished from non-believing by their moral purity. Paul’s divorce views are lenient, which is an indicator of his Pharisiac interpretive tendencies. Marriage partners must be of the same πολιτεια but not the same race. The OT was for Paul’s God’s word and authoritative Scripture. Eisenbaum claims that Paul never condemned the law (Torah) but only condemned the observance of the law by Gentiles. Since Christ, Gentiles do not need to become Jews, but can be the eschatological nations which come to true monotheism. Chapter ten is a defense of Paul’s radical Jewish monotheism. Most Christian scholars simply assume Paul’s monotheism, but Eisenbaum suggests its greater importance. She goes as far as to say that proclaiming aniconic monotheism was more central to Paul’s mission than proclaiming Christ! Paul’s early views of Christ do not exist as something separate from monotheism but exist within the Jewish monotheistic framework. Early in the chapter (cf. pg. 178) Eisenbaum clearly states that Jesus is presented in Paul’s letters as a unique divine figure which prefigures later Orthodox Christian views about him. Then later in the chapter she argues that for Paul κυριος was a title used for Christ for reasons of expediency not theological import. She further argues that Paul did not have Jesus as an object of worship or posit him as equivalent to God. I think she means that though Christ was a unique divine figure in Paul’s thought, he was always kept distinct from God and not worshipped. This may be arguable based solely on the undisputed letters. She also contends that for Paul there is no faith ‘in’ Christ. Christ is never the object of faith but God is the object of faith through Christ’s faithfulness. This of course is contrary to the majority of Pauline scholarship. Chapter eleven is primarily about Paul’s mission. Eisenbaum focuses on the apocalyptic nature of Paul’s mission. Paul’s Christ encounter led him to believe that the end of the world was very near and the time for mass Gentile inclusion into the people of God was at hand. Therefore he saw his own purpose as an eschatological fulfillment of the purpose of Israel as a light to the nations in general. Abraham’s family is extended through Christ and Paul sees himself as a primary agent of that extension. Eisenbaum posits that the similarity between Gentiles and Abraham lies not so much in their faith but in the way they turn from paganism to aniconic monotheism. She also proposes a new interpretation of Gal. 3:6-9 which emphasizes the faith of Abraham rather than the faith of individual believers, seeing Gentiles as the recipients of Abraham’s merit. Chapter twelve is concerned with Paul’s view of the law. Paul obviously makes some quite negative statements about the law upon which the traditional views have been based, but if Paul did not ‘convert’ from his past Jewish life, why all the negativity about law. The main answer for Eisenbaum is that Paul’s work is directed towards Gentiles and so all of his negative comments are for them. She gives four interpretive points which characterize the ‘radically’ new perspective on Paul: 1) “Paul’s audience is made up of Gentiles, so everything he says about law applies to Gentiles, unless specified otherwise.” 2) “Torah is for Jews but provides a standard for all.” 3) “The law is not meant to condemn humanity; it serves a positive pedagogical function.” 4) “The doing of good works is not the opposite of having faith.” This is a long chapter with many sub points underneath of these main points. Two were especially interesting: 1) Eisenbaum argues against human depravity, stating that Paul does not teach it, and 2) Christ is the solution for the Gentile accumulation of sin only, not Jewish. These two points in particular are extremely difficult to make. Even scholars who do not subscribe to some type of total depravity still usually recognize the low moral ability which Paul ascribes to (at least) people without faith in Christ. Also it is fairly clear that Paul considers Christ the solution for Gentile as well as Jewish sin. Chapter thirteen explains Eisenbaum’s view of justification by faith. Essentially, to be justified by faith is to be included into God’s people based on Jesus’ faithfulness. Just as the merit of Abraham provided grace for Israel’s covenant relationship, Jesus’ merit provides grace for the Gentiles. She also here clarifies her idea that Jesus’ atonement was for Gentiles only and not Jews. In the final chapter Eisenbaum finally admits to the two ways of salvation view. Torah for Jews and Jesus for Gentiles. She provides some brief argument from Romans 9-11 to try and support it. She then finally argues for universalism. The work overall is very interesting and pleasurable to read. Eisenbaum has of course a bias as a practicing Jew which guides her interpretation of Paul. She is motivated to curb anti-semitic tendencies in Pauline scholarship and to present a Paul who is palpable to the Jewish community. This has some good and some bad aspects. One of the main benefits of this is a fresh reading of Paul with new lenses. The lenses represent the ‘radical’ wing of the new perspective, suggesting that the new perspective has not gone far enough. Paul should be understood as more thoroughgoing Jew than is usually thought. The primary point of her book is well made, “Paul was not a Christian.” He was a first century Jew who represented a unique and emerging sect within Judaism that became a separate religion later. It is also very true that Paul needs to be read as a first century Jew and that this context helps to elucidate the meaning of his writings. While there is no such thing as objective neutrality, these aims definitely slant her portrait of Paul. I will also say that many of Eisenbaum’s smaller arguments are not entirely watertight. I cannot recall them all but two from chapter twelve will show my point. Eisenbuam contends that because Paul’s audience is Gentile, everything he says about law applies to Gentiles not Jews. (cf. 217-219) The glaring problem here is that Paul wrote to mixed communities of Gentile and Jewish converts, not purely Gentile. Given that this is the case, would not Paul have said at least once something along the lines of, “But of course none of this applies to my Jewish listeners in the audience,” or something of similar effect? A second example is Eisenbaum’s notion that Christ provides the solution for the accumulated sin of Gentiles, but not of Jews. (cf. 222-224) I think I speak with the majority of NT scholars when I say that Paul rather clearly sees Christ as the solution for both Jew and Gentile. These points are very brief and would need to be argued mush further but I only mention them because quite a few similarly deficient argument appear throughout the work. Eisenbaum may have a defense for these arguments, but often times I was left thinking that a point was still unsubstantiated. On a few occasions Eisenbaum also misportrays Christian doctrines and ideas. One example shows the tendency (though not too common). Luther’s notion of simultaneously justified and sinner is explained as Christians being justified by faith but unchanged in nature without improved moral status. I know of no Christian scholar who would agree with this description. Christians, including Lutherans, see believers as new creations which have been altered and will display a higher level of morality than prior to belief in Christ. Luther was simply pointing out that though one is considered totally righteous by God because of Christ, one never achieves total righteousness in this life, but continues to struggle with sin. He did not think there was no difference. Ultimately Eisenbaum’s interpretation of Paul simply does not take into account many of the things Paul himself says. Even though she excludes Acts and the disputed letters, her picture of Paul is still not what is represented in the undisputed epistles. I think it would have been a much more convincing book if the good arguments were retained while not trying to push Paul somewhere he was not. Someone should be able to say, “Paul thought such and such, but I think he was wrong at this point.” We don't need to twist his arm to say something different. One of the most glaringly obvious distortions is the notion that Jews are now saved apart from Christ. Anyone could take an afternoon and read through the undisputed epistle and see that Paul does not think that. “91 I am speaking truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscious testifying with me in the holy spirit, 2 that my grief is great and unceasing pain is in my heart. 3 For I almost prayed for I myself to be accursed from the Christ on behalf of my brothers, my countrymen according to the flesh; 4 who are Israelites, of whom is the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the service and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, the one being over all God blessed into the ages, amen.” (My translation Romans 9:1-5) This is just one of many examples where Paul does not seem to think that the Jews are fine simply continuing to follow Torah. These negatives are very real but I think that much of the work, and even the main arguments of most chapters, are valid and should be thought through by Pauline students everywhere. There is a lot to be learned here and I commend the work despite the faults in the argument at various points. I still think that it was worth my time and effort as a Pauline student and in some ways provided a helpful corrective to my own understanding.

REFERENCE: Eisenbaum, Pamela Michelle, Paul was not a Christian: The original message of a misunderstood Apostle. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009. 336 pages.TiTLE: A radical new perspective on the apostle PaulKeywords (TAGS): paul, jews, gentiles, justification, righteousness, law, torah, works, faith, Jesus, Christ, covenant, cross, obedience, command/ments, salvation, jewish roots, Pharisee!//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////When I first saw Pamela's 336-page book, I was attracted to it by its provocative title, "Paul was NOT a Christian!" [Lesson learned: when you plan to publish a book, any book, make sure you give that book a "catchy" title, although it must truthfully reflect both the thesis and the content of the book].At that time, I was teaching at a local Christian college part ii of the book of Acts (Chapters 9, 13-28, written by Dr. Luke, the same author as the gospel by the same name), which has also been titled, "the Acts of the apostle Paul." In this course, we examined Paul's birth, his education and pre-conversion activities of persecution against the fledgling Christian church, his so-called [i.e., alleged] conversion "to" Christianity [which, according to Eisenbaum, did not yet exist as such at that time, and which thus is but one of many anachronistic mis-interpretations and mis-readings by later Christian scholars and believers alike back into the historical, cultural, theological, and ecclesiastical context of the first-century church, or better perhaps "community of believers"], and, finally, his extensive ministry of teaching, preaching, traveling, and persecutions until his arrival in Rome (Acts 28).The second point of attraction was the book's subtitle, "The original message of a misunderstood Apostle." I knew it, I realized at once: Paul has been misunderstood by subsequent generations of Christian believers, theologians, and church authorities, up to the present day. In my reading of the book of Acts, however, I suspected that, for the first century, early, church (AKA "apostolic church"), the day of rest and worship may NOT have been the "first day of the week" (or Sunday as we call it today), but well nigh the "seventh-day Sabbath" (ranging, according to Jewish reckoning of days of the week, from sunset Friday eve to sunset on Saturday eve) as it appears no less than 8 (eight) times [RSV, n = 9 in NRSV (Acts 18:4)] in the book of Acts alone (the "Sabbath" is referenced 60 times in the entire RSV New Testament, one more time in NRSV [Acts 18:4], and occurs 50 times in the four gospels alone). In their defense [apologetics] of Sunday observance, "first day of the week" (i.e., Sunday) advocates often refer to Pauline writings and statements such as, "we have freedom in Christ" (Gal. 2:4; 5:1), "the law has been abolished" (Eph. 2:15), "the bond has been nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:14), "one man esteems one day better than another" (Rom. 14:5), "let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink [...] or a Sabbath" (Col. 2:16), "it is therefore no longer binding," etc. While such popular and memorable catch phrases may appear convincing sound bites for the naïve and hurried believers in search for quick and easy answers to sometimes difficult theological questions and convoluted issues, I just could NOT reconcile them with Luke's narrative about the lives, ministries, beliefs and practices of the post-Ascension apostles as recounted in the book of Acts.This 336-page scholarly book is a revolutionary (and perhaps life-changing) eye- mouth- and mind-opener on a perspective on the apostle Paul that most Christian believers and/or scholars have taken for granted through the centuries, and more so during the post-reformation era, after Martin Luther allegedly "rediscovered" the "biblical" doctrine of "justification by faith alone" (pp. 49, 2nd and 3rd §).In her discussion, Pamela to resorts to rhetorical questions, even in the headings of the book's chapters, such as Chapter #1 "Was Paul really Jewish?", and Chapter #6 "Who is and who isn't a Jew?"I appreciate Pamela's academic courage to give her book the provocative, rather than tentative, title of, "Paul was NOT a Christian[!]." Unlike Jesus who is credited for his Jewish background and legacy, in Christian circles, Paul is typically seen as the "first true Christian" (pp. 2, top paragraph). And this perception (however untrue and incompatible with the "real" Paul, as Eisenbaum endeavors to demonstrate in her book) has colored much of the theological doctrines through the ages.Pamela's thesis is NOT difficult to grasp: 1) first from the book's provocative title, and 2) from the first sentence of book's first chapter, "Paul lived and died a Jew" (pp. 5). Pamela concludes her first chapter with these words, "[I]n this book, Paul is unambiguously Jewish--ethnically, culturally, morally, and theologically" (pp. 9, second §). Here you have it, upfront, clear, and unmistakable! The only reason for reading on is to discover Pamela's rationale behind her statements.The "problem with Paul" (Chapter two: pp. 10-31) stems from several sources: 1) the question of evidence: a). the book of Acts vs. the letters of Paul (11-16), and b). the question of Paul's disputed letters (pp.16-22), and 2) the problems of interpretations including a). ambiguity of the letters (pp. 23-26), and b). contradictions in interpretations by different interpreters, and contradictions in Paul's own statements (pp.27-31). In Chapter 3 (pp. 32-54), Pamela describes "how Paul became a Christian," first explaining views derived from ancient texts such as Acts and Paul's letters, than reviewing the contributions of Augustine (pp. 43-48), and, finally, Martin Luther (pp. 48-54). The latter derived the doctrine of "justification by faith" from the writings of Paul, especially Romans 1:17. In subsequent chapters, Pamela introduces Paul as a Jew, especially in the view of modern Jewish interpreters (pp. 55-60), thus gaining a "new perspective on Paul" (pp. 60-66). Obviously, Paul owes much of his Jewishness to his Jewish inheritance, which Pamela describes at some length in Chapter 5 (e.g., God and worship, Torah and election, and redemption). All his life, Paul remained a Pharisee; this is well described in Chapter 6 ("Who is and who isn't a Jew?"), in Chapter 7 ("The flexible Pharisees"), and in Chapter 8 ("Paul the [ex?] Pharisee"). That Paul never renounced his Jewishness is well attested in Pamela's Chapter 9 ("A typical Jew"), Chapter 10 ("A radical Jewish monotheist"), and chapter 12 ("On the contrary, we uphold the law!").Reading these chapters should provide some food for thought for 21st century theologians who would easily assert that 21st century Christians need not do this or that (e.g., abstaining from blood, or abstaining from working on the seventh day Sabbath), because, according to our good old friend Paul, the "law has been abolished" (Eph. 2:15), or "it has been nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:14), or "by virtue of the freedom we have in Christ" (Gal. 5:1).Finally, Pamela's book is a treasure trove for the earnest first-century scholar in serious first-century Judaism and, to a lesser extend, first-century Christianity, with a 2-page glossary (pp. 257-258), a 9-page bibliography (pp. 295-303), and a 14-page index (pp. 305-318). A great testimony to Pamela's serious scholarship are nearly 40-pages of notes (pp. 259-294), amounting to no less than 428 or 429 notes and mostly bibliographic references.For these 36 pages of endnotes, extensive and numerous they are both in quantity and quality, I have little taste, however, as their location at the end of main text makes them, for all practical purposes, seldom accessed, and thus virtually useless for the average reader, who is more eager to get to the final chapter to find out "who killed the banker's wife" (i.e., to see how the story ends) than to fastidiously look up endless endnotes that are semi-hidden half-a-dozen or so chapters later, instead of footnotes conveniently located at the bottom of the page where they first appear. This would be what I would call "practical and easily accessible scholarship!", for the scholar as well as the layman who can decide, at a glance, whether to read the entire footnote or proceed to the next paragraph or to the next page.Why publishers continue to publish book with this out-dated (and mostly useless) endnote format for bibliographic references is a great mystery to me. My only informed guess would be that those good people who publish books are not the same people as those who read them [or who have to read them such as graduate students in academic programs]! The same principle, alas, is true of technical manuals (the proverbial "owner's instructions manual," which someone I knew long time ago in Vietnam sarcastically called "destruction manuals") for mechanical appliances or pieces of electric and/or electronic equipment such as computers, microwave ovens, TV sets and video recorders. It is generally assumed that the writers of these manuals 1) seldom or never use the products about which they write manuals; or if they use the appliances, they do NOT need to consult the owner's manual, as they know by heart how to operate them. Such is not the case, however, when one reads a book with the provocative title, "Paul was NOT a Christian." I'd rather be convinced from the author's argument in the main text (including footnotes) without having to laboriously turn to the end of the book 428 times to look up the 428 references and/or other comments by the author.Just imagine the scene for a moment:1) a reader laying on her back,2) reading this book with an open mind (at least trying to with all the logistics involved),3) holding the book in her left hand resting on the lower part of her chest [just above the stomach],4) with a pen or pencil in her right hand [in order to underline and highlight key sentences, or making notes in the margin],5) and then, now and then, locating a reference marker (e.g., # "2,"), located in paragraph # 2, on page 11, Chapter 2, titled "Paul the problem")6) and, putting down the pen or balancing it on your right earlobe, or stuffing the yellow marker into your mouth between your front teeth [how un-sanitary in this time of swine flu epidemics];7) and then, of course remembering in your mind [where else?] "chapter # 2 and reference # 2,"8) turning to the end of book,9) finding the page where notes for chapter # 2 are located (i.e., page 259),10) then turning to page 260 to find note # 2; she can now let go in her mind of "chapter # 2 and reference # 2," making room for more information contained in the endnote;11) reading the endnote;12) finding that is was "not that important" for the comprehension of the author's argument, "There are three separate accounts in Acts of Paul's experience of the risen Jesus: Acts 9:1-31; 22:6-16; [and] 26:12-18,"13) thus getting a little irritated by this unnecessary "gymnastics" of looking up endnotes when footnotes could have done a much better and much quicker job;14) returning to page # 11, trying to keep a finger or book mark [which typically falls out] at page # 260, just in case there might be another reference marker soon in her reading of chapter 2;15) picking up the pen that has nearly fallen off from her ear [important safety note: do NOT ever stick the pen "into" your ear canal, as it can perforate your eardrum, and cause you to become deaf, and plunge you into a world of silence, where reading may be one of your only source of communication with the outside world, in which case you'd really be in trouble], or taking out from her mouth the yellow marker, that has become moist, slippery, and indented with many teeth marks because of her increasing frustration;16) only to find in the next paragraph on the same page another reference marker (#3);17) deciding whether it is worth to go through the same ordeal as for marker # 2.Curious as she is, she decides to try again, only to find out it is only a further expansion on the adventure-filled life of the apostle Paul after his rescue of Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12, culminating in his shipwreck in Acts 27. This is "old stuff," and adds nothing to her understanding of the author's argument that "Paul is not a Christian." And so she decides note #3 was the last reference she was ever to look up again in this book. In doing so, however, she will miss many good references and commentaries from the author as she developing her argument. But so be it, "My time is valuable, and I do NOT have all the time in the world..." and so she comes to the end of Eisenbaum's book, certainly having learned a great deal about Paul the Pharisee and Paul the Torah-abiding Jew, but having missed 426 notes [i.e., no less than 36 pages, representing no less than 12.24% of the main text and the notes, pp. 1-294] of Eisenbaum's thorough scholarship.NOTE: Should you have any comment(s), question(s), and/or suggestion(s) about this review, I can be reached via email at {[...]}. I look forward to hearing from you soon.////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////[...]I first found this book at Barnes & Noble on Thu 2009-12-17; looked it up online at Fr. 2009-12-18; ordered it from Amazon.com and received it on Friday 2010-02-26 (11:00am); I read the book between Friday 2010-02-26 and Tue 2010-03-02 (8:27am); I wrote the book review (in stages) and finished writing it on Sunday, March 28, 2010 (Palm Sunday), and published it online on Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 10:12pm. Word count = 2,116/2,247.

Excellent in every way. A good introduction into the present-day direction of Pauline studies. Eisenbaum offers a challenging re-direction to the common held beliefs about Paul and the early Jesus movement. Reading this book will give you a good foundation and, hopefully, spark your interest in other books covering this contemporary research into Paul and the early Judeo-Christian era. Once you've read this you'll want to go on to the books by Mark D. Nanos - a true leader in this field.

An interesting and thoughtful book. The argument is based on what the author considers to be those letters definitely written by Paul.Not all scholars would agree regarding this area of authorship as these more conservative scholars would believe that all those letters in the NT bearing his name were indeed his. Her argument then might need to be addressed. I think I also detect within her writing one way of salvation for the Jews and another for the Gentiles.

An excellent book, opened my eyes to certain preconceived notions I had regarding Paul

Obra de grande relevância para os que pretendem compreender o cristianismo em suas origens intelectuais.Paulo não era um cristão no sentido moderno da palavra, poderia ser considerado um cristão em termos ontológicos, mas a autora tem razão quanto à deturpação de sua mensagem. Estivesse aqui hoje, o apóstolo para os gentios ficaria horrorizado com ideias que lhe são atribuídas pela descontextualização de suas palavras.