Paul and Jesus

How the Apostle Transformed Christianity

Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity

By James D. Tabor
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), xxi + 291 pp. $26 (hardcover)

Reviewed by James D.G. Dunn

This is the latest version of an old story—that Paul is the real founder of Christianity—by the author of The Jesus Dynasty. Like his predecessors, Tabor maintains that “the fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity,” namely that Christ is God “born in the flesh,” that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul, not Jesus (pp. xv–xvi). “Christianity before Paul” was a Jewish version, neither worshiping Jesus nor practicing baptism into Christ (p. 25). We are told that James, its leading figure, has been systematically and deliberately suppressed from the record, though “the lost Christianity of Jesus” is still evident in Q [the supposed text behind Matthew and Luke] and still reflected in the Letter of James and the early Christian treatise called the Didache, the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.

It was Paul’s conversion experience, his vision(s) of Christ, that was the gamechanger. Our book explains that this puts Paul alongside Moses and Elijah—hence Paul’s own journey to the Sinai desert, following their footsteps (p. 96). This gave him his gospel: “The revelation of the hidden mystery that God is creating a family of glorified Spirit-beings” (p. 97). Paul believed he had been given a special role like that of Christ (“a second ‘Christ’”— p. 100), and that the infusion of the Christ-Spirit into the elect group made them also “Christs” (p. 117). Paul invented Christian baptism “into Christ” and the Lord’s Supper as an act of eating the body and blood of Christ (ch. 6). Paul made a complete break with Judaism and replaced the Torah of Moses with the Torah of Christ (ch. 8). And his relationship with the other great apostle of Christianity, Peter, ended in bitter rivalry (ch. 9).

The thesis has the character of a historical novel—drawing on good knowledge of historical conditions and sources, but tweaking the latter to make the specific case. The problems arise with the tweaks. For example, Tabor allows only one conception of Jesus’ resurrection (that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15) but ignores the physical character of resurrection assumed in 2 Maccabees 7:10–11 and implied in the Herodian practice of collecting the bones of the deceased in an ossuary. Tabor’s argument that Peter would have realized why the tomb of Jesus was empty (p. 80)—the initial tomb was temporary and Joseph of Arimathea had returned when the Sabbath was over to remove Jesus’ body and transfer it to a permanent tomb (pp. 76–77)— hardly explains how Peter and the first disciples came to the conclusion that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Again, Tabor makes much of the tension between Paul’s insistence that he had received his gospel directly from Christ (Galatians 1:12), and his assertion that the gospel he preached to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:3) was one he had received (from Christians before him). But he ignores the likelihood that the distinctive feature that Paul attributes specifically to Christ and that caused problems with the Jerusalem believers (Galatians 2:2) was the commission to take the gospel also to gentiles. He is deaf to Paul’s affirmation that he shared his gospel with the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:11). And his overblown assessment of Paul’s evaluation of his commission (“surpassing anything any human being had ever received”—p. 95) likewise ignores the fact that Galatians 1:15–16 is framed precisely in the language of the prophetic call of Jeremiah 1:5. Likewise Tabor’s confidence that following his conversion Paul went to Sinai ignores the more likely scenario implied in Galatians 1:17 that “Arabia” refers to Nabatea (south of Damascus). Tabor’s further argument that Paul invented the ritual act of baptism “into Christ” ignores the evidence that Paul could assume that all believers had been baptized in the name of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13). And his claim that Paul believed the Torah to be obsolete ignores passages like Romans 8:4 and 1 Corinthians 7:19.

So a lively and thoughtprovoking attempt to resolve some of the historical problems that Paul poses—yes. But, sadly, tendentiousness and text-selectivity renders most of the thesis increasingly implausible.

 


 

James D.G. Dunn is Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the department of theology and religion at Durham University in England.

Posted in Reviews.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Add Your Comments

3 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Phil says

    See also James Tabor’s careful response in his blog: http://jamestabor.com/2013/02/17/james-dunn-reviews-paul-and-jesus/

  2. Eric says

    Outrageous that anyone could think that Jesus never claimed to be God, never claimed to be the Savior of the World. Paul did not come up with this. The Gospel of John records all of Jesus’ claims. Jesus told the Pharisees that they would die in their sins if they did not believe that Jesus was who he claimed to be. Jesus told Nicodemus that just as Moses lifted up the bronze snake in the wilderness for the people to look at and be healed, so the Son of Man also must be lifted up so that all who look upon him and believe will receive eternal life.

    GOSPEL OF JOHN (NKJV) CHAPTER 3
    13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
    18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Continuing the Discussion

  1. » James Dunn Reviews Paul and Jesus TaborBlog linked to this post on February 17, 2013

    [...] James D. G. Dunn, who is the Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the department of theology and religion at Durham University in England reviews my new book Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity in the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 2013; 39:2, pp. 60-62). I greatly admire “Jimmy” Dunn, as many of us know him, and I have learned immensely from his work over the years–including his several volumes dealing with the Apostle Paul. I am honored to have his evaluation of my work. You can read the complete review on-line here. [...]


Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.


Enter Your Log In Credentials

Change Password

×