“The Real Paul” article at PBS.org

Categories: Biblical Studies, New Testament, Religion & Theology

Stay Updated

Get notifications of new books, posts, and other media.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Mark Goodacre has posted a link on his blog to an interesting review on the PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly site by Allen Dwight Callahan called “The Real Paul.” It’s an interesting read, with much of it poking holes in the flawed anti-imperialist picture of Paul offered by Crossan and Borg. One especially noteworthy section caught my eye, a section that deals with the image an honest reader of Paul often sees:

John J. Kilgallen, professor of New Testament at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, begins his America magazine essay, “A Complicated Apostle,” by admitting that “when one reads or hears what Paul wrote, one often meets a personality that can seem unpleasant or even antagonizing … appearing pompous, cantankerous, superior, harsh.” Experts agree: Paul can be a difficult fellow. He exhorts love for enemies, yet is not above wishing aloud that his enemies would castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12). He calls his addressees stupid (Galatians 3:1).

Due to their built-in veneration for Paul (and all things apostolic and ancient), many Christians don’t read Paul as though he were an actual person (after all, if the Bible is “God’s Word,” it’s not the writing of a real-life human being) and tend to overlook how these letters would come across if they were being written by a contemporary. Those who do pay attention to the bigger picture and read carefully often come to the conclusions above; I had a friend in college who admitted she struggled reading Paul’s letters because “he’s so arrogant.”

I am convinced that a majority of modern Christians (most of whom venerate Paul) would surely detest the man and reject him as unpleasant, arrogant, and a “poor witness,” were he alive today. For that matter, I wonder how many modern Christians would actually be able to tolerate five minutes with the historical Jesus, who doesn’t come across as the nicest, most polite chap, either (when my Intro to New Testament students—many of them Christians—had to read the Gospel of Mark straight through as though they’d never previously read it and then reflect on their impressions, they nearly universally concluded, with some surprise, “Jesus is a jerk!”). This disconnect between our sanitized and civilized impressions of the leading figures of early Christianity and the actual portrayals of them in the New Testament is worth some reflection for modern Christians, and provides an excellent opportunity for scholars, whose job it is to demonstrate the historical realities at the origins of Christianity.

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Comments. Leave new

  • Hi Jason. Just came across this several years late! Just thinking about the view that ‘Jesus is a jerk.’ Personally I’ve never thought that. I came from a completely non-Christian background and was impressed with him from day one. Just wondering if ‘jerk’ means something different in the US: I’m in the UK. How would you define ‘jerk’?

    • “Jerk” in the USA usually means someone who is mean or disagreeable. Typically, students who say this are referring to Jesus being overbearing, judgmental, and condescending. It’s usually a shock for them to discover that Jesus did not really fit the the accepting, tolerant, welcoming image they had before reading the Gospel of Mark.

  • A bit different then. ‘Jerk’ in the UK is someone who is a bit of an idiot or clumsy. e.g. ‘You jerk, you’ve just spilled your tea on my new shirt!’


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.

The Five Frustrating Books Meme
An Evangelical Dilemma: Wait for Sex AND Wait to Marry?