Of the 27 books that comprise the New Testament within the Roman Catholic tradition, 13 are credited to the Apostle Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Paul’s significance within the history of Christianity goes without saying and that very power is part of what makes him a contentious figure. Ehrensperger goes as far to claim that “he is attributed the role of the first Christian theologian and church leader who provided the basis for the subsequent development of Christian doctrine as well as the organization of what emerged as the Christian Church, thus legitimizing among other things, strictly hierarchical structures and the exercise of domination and control by church authorities” [Ehrensperger 1]. Many of the traditions that are seen as Christian can be seen as having ground in Paul’s teachings, even the teachings that were forged in his name. Although Peter was considered the rock of the church, the effectiveness with which Paul spread his message into early communities only further solidified his name. As Bart Ehrman notes: “More than anyone else that we know about from earliest Christianity, Paul emphasized that faith in Jesus as the messiah who died for sins and was raised from the dead was not to be restricted to those who were Jews. The salvation brought by Christ was available to everyone, Jew or Gentile, on an equal basis” [Ehrman 286]. However, this significance came at a cost in that as his name became more associated with the Christian tradition, the desire to further explain his doctrines was only amplified as his voice was treated with reverence. As a result of this, historians have come to the conclusion that six of the thirteen books accredited to him are likely forgeries. This includes: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Tidus. Below I will engage these readings within the broader context of Christianity as well as other apocryphal writings credited to him in the early church as a result of his role in being an authority figure. Paul can then be seen as a fulcrum of Christianity with his beliefs fitting into the broader narrative of Judaism vs. Hellenism within the church. This will help us identify what proto-orthodoxy sought by how it separated itself from the different expressions of Christianity, or simply put, heretics.
The Apostle Paul in the Early Church
Based upon Christian scholarship, Paul is often placed as having written his original letters circa 50 C.E. However, before he had given away his life to the Christian message only to be beheaded by the Romans, he began his career as a devout Jewish Pharisee. “In Acts 26:10, Paul advises Agrippa that he had consistently voted for the death penalty against followers of Jesus” [Pervo 15]. Samuel Sandmel notes that “It comes as a startling fact to many that in Paul’s time there were more Jews living in the Greek world than there were in Palestine” [Sandmel 10]. Well read in his Jewish scriptures, he saw the Christian message as counter to the Torah and it was not until he saw the image of Christ in a vision that he was turned from a devout persecutor of Christians to the eventual figurehead of the Christian message. Whether the accounts of his life are historically accurate is a separate debate, but there are a few basic premises accepted. After his conversion to Christianity, he spread the gospel in Syria, Cilicia, Asian Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia [modern-day Syria, Turkey, and Greece]. While it is uncertain how exactly he went about preaching, one possible solution is that his preaching was something he did in addition to actual labor in these locations. This is what Bart Ehrman suggests was the case for the port city of Thessalonica, the topic of his first letter [1 Thessalonians]. “Paul’s emphasis on the burden of his toil (2:9) makes it reasonably clear that his job involved some kind of manual labor. The Book of Acts indicates that he worked with leather goods (18:3)” [Ehrman 304]. Regardless of the exact details of how he was able to convert followers, these communities he formed later were central to his message of Christianity. An essential detail in the character of Paul and his history is that “In virtually every instance in which the book of Acts can be compared with Paul’s letters in terms of biographical detail, differences emerge” [288]. The Acts paint Paul heavily as a Jewish Christian, yet all of his letters emphasize how salvation belongs to all, Jews and Gentiles. Before even addressing the works accredited to Paul, it becomes clear that his story was a means of validating particular beliefs and the individuals in charge of his voice got to decide what was said. Little emphasis of my research was spent on the book of Acts as I sought his own words or those supposedly claimed by him, but it is worth noting these contradictions between narrative and identity. 1 Thessalonians is typically regarded as his earliest writing and this makes sense when considering the function of the letter. This takes place at a time early in the church and Paul desires to quell fears as well as praise the Thessalonians for their continued faith. His tone seems to be the most ‘naive’ out of his letters in that, “First, it is clear that Paul expects that he and some of the Thessalonians will be alive when this apocalyptic drama comes to be played out. . . . He appears to have no idea that his words would be discussed after his death, let alone read and studied some nineteen centuries later. For him, the end of time was imminent” [314]. The theme of his early letters is that of reinforcement as well as further explanation, as these communities he was responsible were not free of problems. In the words of Richard Pervo; “Paul’s epistles were not discovered, like thousands of ancient letters, through the labors of modern archaeologists, nor were they preserved for the benefit of future historians or theologians. They were edited and copied to meet the needs of early Christians” [Pervo 2]. He was not concerned with how his letters would be read through the larger lens of Christianity, but rather, how these specific communities would take his words to address real issues developing within the early church. This makes it difficult to identify how Paul actually felt about topics: “Paul’s Letters are ‘occasional’ writings. He did not compose them with a view to giving a connected account of his teaching, but expounded his views only as fully as the circumstances which gave rise to the Letters appeared to demand” [Schweitzer 43]. When you compound this fact with the dubious nature of many of his attributed works, the vision of Paul becomes even more blurred. The community addressed in First Corinthians was struggling with issues of hierarchy, with members making prophetic claims in an attempt to prove divine abilities. Paul teaches that Jesus’ death and resurrection were anticipated in the scriptures and reemphasizes that salvation was not yet upon the people: “In his view, the forces of evil were to remain in power in this world until the end came and Christ returned. Until then, life would be a struggle full of pain and suffering, comparable to the pain and suffering experienced by the crucified Christ himself” [Ehrman 320]. The notion of Paul as a sufferer becomes essential imagery in his later letters and supposed writings. Second Corinthians sees the frustration of Paul with the community, but the way in which the letter is arranged leads scholars to suspect that it is multiple letters that have been combined. The frustration is clear in his tone as he threatened to come to them in a third time of judgement. As for his Galatians, Paul was forced to address the role of Judaism in Christianity as missionaries had arrived stating that the Jewish Law needed to be fulfilled. Here we can see a strong emphasis on his apostolic authority: “the gospel that was proclaimed by me in not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” [Gal 1:11-12]. Philippians sees to the trend of Paul’s imprisonment, a significant symbol within Christianity. It reinforces the notion of Paul the sufferer, but also does something more subtle: Creates a way for future writers to explain away “Paul’s” lack of presence. As for Philemon, it serves as the only undisputed epistle of Paul addressed to an individual, and yet again, proclaims that Paul was writing from imprisonment. Finally, the last of the undisputed epistles, Romans addresses a church he had not founded, let alone ever visit. Romans thus served as a means to clarify his understanding of the gospel as God’s act of salvation for everyone, not merely the Jews. Through these seven undisputed epistles, the image of an early Christian tradition rife with complexities of interpretations as well as worship is clear and reinforces the idea that proto-orthodoxy was a gradual process of reconciling the multitude of beliefs into a semi-coherent narrative.
Paul and Pseudepigrapha
While there is not universal consensus on the subject, the other six books deemed canonical supposed penned by Paul are likely dubious. As such, I find it most beneficial to address them as pseudepigrapha instead of attempting to explain away their differences are merely more inconsistencies within the Bible. Of the Deutero-Pauline Epistles [2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians], Second Thessalonians is often regarded as the most dubious. The purpose of which, was to reaffirm the beliefs of the Thessalonians and encourage them with rewards of salvation should they persevere through their ongoing suffering. Colossians can be seen as addressing “heretics” who were attempting to lead good Christians astray with false teachings. Specifically, with regards to the role of Judaism within Christianity: “Moreover, he insists that since Christ has erased the requirements of the Jewish Law for believers through his death, they need not follow regulations concerning what to eat and concerning what special days to keep as religious festivals (2:13-17)” [Ehrman 378]. Paul becomes the perfect author for such a text as it would be in line with his other messages regarding the Jewish Law and the directed nature of the text can lead one to think that this was a legitimate problem of the early church. It also addresses moral code with slavery being the dominant theme in Colossians. Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles makes him the perfect figurehead to exert authority over a community and using the guise of his name, the author can shorter the number of steps needed for said authority. Ephesians carries on with this narrative: “Believers have not only died with Christ, they have also been raised up with him to enjoy the benefits of a heavenly existence (2:1-10). Thus Jew and Gentile are unified with one another and with God” [382]. Turmoil in the early church is clearly evident as the many different followers of Jesus have spread around the region passing on their particular traditions and interpretations. At this point, it is clear that the proto-orthodox position was evolving and the emphasis on the equality between Jews and Gentiles was paramount. It can be derived that Jewish Christians must have been preaching total adherence to the Torah which likely would have caused great confusion and fear among Gentile Christians who were unsure of what was needed for salvation. Additionally, Ephesians addresses the issue of marriage, a theme that occupies twelve of the twenty-two verses. Finally, the Pastoral Epistles [1 and 2 Timothy and Titus], can be seen as further establishment of a proto-orthodoxy, as the role of women became more and more diminished and further rules and expectations were placed upon followers. “Women could participate in his churches as ministers, prophets, and even apostles, but they were to maintain their social status as women and not appear to be like men” [401]. First Timothy calls into question those who lived ascetic lives by lambasting false teachers who forbid marriage and calling Christians to “avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (6:20). This very debate is not far off from the early forms of heresy that appear in the Middle Ages. Notably, Paul draws attention to knowledge, or gnosis, likely indicating that First Timothy served as a response to Gnostic Christians. Second Timothy takes place in prison, Paul’s favorite place, and asks of Timothy to continue to fight false teachers. Through the descriptions the these epistles, it is clear that Christianity fears ‘misinterpretation’ as “. . . the distortion of Paul’s message is explicitly recognized as a problem even within the pages of the New Testament” [368]. Titus, the final Pastoral Epistle, furthers the importance of proper knowledge as it teaches of how various social groups were to behave within the congregation. In concludes with general advice on the needs to engage in moral behavior. At this point, we have covered the writings found in the books of the New Testament that were credited to Paul and it is clear that interpretation is central to the early church as it was a means of control and unity. Having established Paul’s message which would become proto-orthodoxy, it is at this point that we may address the writings that did not make it to canon status and writings which address the role of Paul. Third Corinthians was meant to further the message of Paul while distancing him from incorrect knowledge: “And those who say that there is no resurrection of the flesh shall have no resurrection, for they do not believe him who had thus risen (3 Corin. 3:24-25)” [Fitzgerald and Meeks 146]. Unlike forgeries created by heretics to further advance their own cause, Third Corinthians was created by a ‘defender’ of Paul and sought to root out Gnostic Christians who held contrary beliefs. As noted by Fitzgerald and Meeks, “The enemies of Paul were much less of a problem for the emerging catholic consensus than were some of his friends” [272]. This draws attention to an early Christianity that was fragmented. Jacob Jervell writes about the year 70 as a significant moment in the history of Christianity: “a great number, a majority of scholars, maintain that the fall of Jerusalem meant the destruction of Jewish Christianity–apart from small Jewish sects in the following centuries” [Jervell 27]. What this means is that while issues between Christians and Jewish Christians were still present, the larger area of contention was actually the role of Gentile Christians who had reached improper understandings of Christianity. For example, “Marcion deduced from the Pauline letters of his collection that the God of the Jews was not the same as the God of the Christians” [Mount 175]. This conclusion is not an unreasonable one given the very distinct separation between the so-called ‘Old Testament’ and the writings of Christianity he used. With Luke and Paul as his images of Christianity, a message of independent Gentiles could easily be derived. Paul made an excellent figure of authority given his clear stances on the role of Jewish Law.
Conclusion
It is no coincidence that Paul became the figure we see today through development in the early church. His writings were an early form of super glue, attempting to unite the idea of Christianity into one not of Jews and not of Gentiles, but instead, both. Because of the equal footing placed upon Jews and Gentiles and the invalidation of Jewish Law, the marginalization of Jewish Christians can be seen as the religion shifted to fit the needs of the masses. He view of the role of Judaism within Christianity certainly had detractors [i.e. Ebionites], but his message was predominantly inviting to the unconverted and attracted Hellenistic elements as the idea of Christianity evolved. The value of the prophetic nature of his apostolic reign is difficult to pin down, but the notion of visions of Christ is a tradition taken on by supposed heretics within the Gnostic realm as what could be a better non-explanation for one’s authority than divine visions? The likely incorrectly attributed works of Paul found in New Testament canon only further the complexities in understanding Paul, as his beliefs became further obfuscated and his writings served the larger purpose of establishing orthodoxy within the Christian tradition. In the somewhat convoluted words of Kathy Ehrensperger: “Thus power derives from reciprocal collective action, that is, it is inherently intertwined with action which takes places within a web of relationships with other actors, and its main purpose is to establish and maintain this web of relationship” [Ehrensperger 23].
——————————————————————————————————————–
Bibliography
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
I found this to be the most beneficial reading in my research. Ehrman addresses Paul as an individual, Paul in regards to his writings, and “Paul” as a means for authorial authority.
Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in
the Early Christ-Movement. London: T & T Clark, 2007.
This was a very dense read that in retrospect, may have not been the best source. However, it was a useful tool for looking at the ways in which Pauline authority was asserted and how the Christian message took a progressive evolution from that of a more passive form of authority to a more dictatorial one.
Fitzgerald, John T. and Meeks, Wayne A. The Writings of St. Paul. New York: Norton &
Company Inc., 2007.
This work was useful in that it contained a wide variety of writings by and about Paul and helpful comments used to contextual the works in a greater sense.
Jervell, Jacob. The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early Christian History.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to use this text as much for my research as it focused upon the Paul described in Luke-Acts predominantly, but it was important in framing the complexity of Paul as an individual and the symbolic meaning he took relative to his usage. i.e. Luke portraying him as preaching to the Jews instead of the Paul discussed elsewhere, the apostle of the Gentiles.
Mount, Christopher. Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul. Boston: Brill,
2002.
Mount was helpful in framing the development of a Christian orthodoxy and the role Irenaeus played in connecting a canon of written gospels and collection of Pauline letters.
Pick, Bernhard. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas. Chicago:
The Open Court Publishing Co., 1909.
The age of this work was notable in that religious scholarship has made many strides in the past several decades. It did, however, give meaningful insight into both Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul and Thecla.
Pervo, Richard. The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in the Early Church.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.
I found this to be the second most beneficial resource I used as Pervo’s writing was clear, extensive, and very topically relevant. Whereas some of the other resources may have contained only a few meaningful chapters, his outline covered much of what I hoped to address in regards to Paul and the early church.
Porter, Stanley E. Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P.
Fewster. Boston: Brill, 2013.
Sandmel, Samuel. The Genius of Paul: A Study in History. New York: Schocken Books,
1970.
The tone of this resource was difficult to follow at times as it felt both defensive and aggressive towards other scholarship. It was heavily focused on the distinction between the Jewish tendencies of Paul and his Hellenistic tendencies.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. New York: The Seabury Press,
1968.
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teachings. New
York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of
Christianity? Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1997.
This resource was largely unreadable. Which quotes such as “I sometimes wonder what Paul would say about the treatment he has had in the twentieth century” [Wright 11], his understanding of Paul was fully entrenched within his own personal, religious beliefs. This made it difficult to read the text as its own biases were very present.