CTC1 Paul's True Thought

The author says:

“Paul is as much a provocateur in the 20th century as he was in the 1st century. Back then, he was sometimes attacked with stones; now, he is attacked with words. Some still consider Paul to be a hateful and dangerous character. Others believe he is the greatest teacher Christianity has ever had, after the great Master. These two opinions are found both in popular thought and in expert literature.

The Anglican approach to Paul’s character has traditionally been boring and uninspired. We wouldn’t want to be too enthusiastic; that would make us seem too Protestant. Nor would we want to seem condemnatory; that might sound too Catholic. We wouldn’t want to take his words literally; that would make us too conservative. But neither do we want to ignore what he said; that would be too liberal. We analyze a few favorite passages, some ‘isolated texts’ like 1 Corinthians 13, a few preferred themes like ‘being in Christ,’ which can be so vague that it serves to support almost any theological position, and some favorite epistles like Philippians, because it is short, clear, and beautiful. Oh! And two of its chapters deal with money, a rather embarrassing topic.

I have had Saint Paul as a companion for over twenty years, and I have come to the conclusion that all these approaches to his teaching are far from satisfactory. After having written my doctoral thesis on the letter to the Romans, a commentary on the letters to the Colossians and Philemon, and a monograph on the Pauline interpretation of Christ and the Law – not to mention several articles on some passages and themes that appear in Paul’s writings – I still have the impression of being only halfway up a high mountain, with much yet to explore, and more perspectives to glimpse. Often (though not always), when I read what other experts have written about Paul, it seems to me that instead of seeing the mountain peak, I am looking down through a dense fog. Although I am always aware that I myself still have much to climb.

I am aware that there are aspects of Pauline thought that we will not address. In other words, this book is not an exhaustive study of Paul. Nor does it aim to be particularly ‘balanced’. However, it does attempt to focus on some of the key themes of Pauline proclamation and their implications – including some that are often overlooked – in addition to discovering what Paul actually said about these vital issues.

Let’s give some notes on some of these basic themes. There has always been debate about whether the Paul of the letters is the same Paul we find in the Acts of the Apostles. We will not dwell on this question, although my analysis of what Paul said at key moments in his letters may have something to do with this issue. Likewise, many people still question whether he wrote all the letters attributed to him. Almost everything I present in this book focuses on the content of the letters whose authorship is not questioned, namely Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. Furthermore, I maintain that Colossians is also a Pauline writing, and as for Ephesians, I believe it is more likely that he wrote it than an imitator. But my argumentation does not depend on this hypothesis, or any other.

Apart from some essential notes, I do not intend to establish the points on which I base my arguments, or argue against, from colleagues specializing in Pauline thought. The principles and foundations of my argumentation are explained in my other publications. These, along with other works that may be helpful for a deeper study, appear in the bibliography. My colleagues will understand that this book is not intended to be a scholarly monograph; I hope that non-specialized readers will excuse the occasional incursions that in my opinion were necessary complexities and digressions.

When this book was almost finished, a new book by the English journalist, novelist and biographer A.N. Wilson appeared (I received an unrevised draft). This writer revives the old argument that Paul was the true founder of Christianity, disregarding Jesus and inventing a theology in which the figure of ‘Christ’, who has nothing to do with the historical Jesus, becomes the central axis. Since this theory is reappearing, albeit continually under different disguises, and since what I wanted to present in this book from the outset is the basis of the response I believe should be given, I have added a chapter at the end that deals with this whole issue and, in particular, Wilson's book. But many books already deal with this topic in detail, so I will not repeat their arguments.