Customer Reviews

Paul: The Mind of the Apostle

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

This is a fascinating study of the early Christian world, a period of time in which "Christianity" emerged from the struggles within the early Jewish Jesus-movement. Wilson's writing is effortless and his depiction of Roman and Jewish culture is insightful. Those who believe that Christianity is the religion Jesus founded will not agree with much of what Wilson has to say (or modern scholarship for that matter!), but for those seeking an understanding of how various strands of religious thinking took form following the death of Jesus, this is a book well worth reading.

I would say that the subtitle is a little out of place because the book is not really about "the mind of the apostle." This is something that we can never hope to grasp, and Wilson acknowledges as much in his book. But a coherent picture of who Paul was and what he was all about does emerge from its pages. The book clearly sets him in opposition to James and Peter and the Jerusalem Jesus-movement and clearly details Paul's unique (although unintended) contribution to the birth of Christianity. It is hard to put the book down.

Wilson's book is worth the price, if, and only if, it is part of a larger assemblage of material on Paul. Wilson provides some excellent (and some fatally flawed) insights into the social and political atmosphere of first century Palestine. However, his conclusions and assumptions are not based on a full survey of the available research. As a result he asks the reader to join him in a leap of faith to support his image of Paul as a psychologically unstable, opportunistic businessman, trying to deal with the guilt he felt for his part (yes Wilson says Paul may have been active in the trial of Jesus)in the death of a Jewish prophet. Schweitzer calls this: carrying water a great distance in a leaky bucket to water the garden that sits beside an abundant stream.

Several questions are not answered prehaps intentionally:

Why would Paul, a self declared Pharisee (Shammite) be in the employment of the Temple Guard, a group the Shammites viewed as compromised and corrupt?

Why did Paul speak of his Damascus experience as a resurrection citing, meaning physical body appearance, instead of using language to denote it as the "vision" Wilson suggests? Pharisees would have used language like angel or ghost to descibe a vision, Paul was transformed not because he had a vision of Jesus, but because he saw a resurrected Jesus. Wilson apparently misses the distinction, but it would not be missed by a Pharisee. Visions can happen anytime, resurrection carried a definate implication that YHWH was finally acting through the promised Messiah. This is what changed Paul's life.

I won't go into the other yarns (like Paul may not have even been Jewish) because I don't want to be too harsh on a book that deserves a critical read. Read it, but be sure to read some Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, Meier, Schweitezer, Wenham, Witherington to round out the survey.

Not surprisingly, this book fails to satisfy both rigid historians and fundamentalist Christians. It is neither a rigorous biography nor a parrot of convoluted and contrived Pauline theology. In my opinion, A.N. Wilson's great contribution here is his examination of the Book of Acts and of Paul's New Testament letters through the eyes of someone primarily schooled in literature and not history. Those of us who hunger to know what REALLY happened back in the First Century are bound to be disappointed as no reliable "histories" (at least by modern standards) exist. The best we can do is some inspired detective work and make some educated guesses. Wilson does just that and while I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions-and I would agree with a previous reviewer that some of his passages read like brainstorming-I think his book gets us tantalizingly (sometimes frustratingly) closer to the REAL Saul of Tarsus than anything else I've read (and I do not at all agree with the assertion that the portrait is "derogatory."). Wilson's insights on the division between Paul and the Jesus community in Jerusalem are particularly enlightening as is his rooting of early "Christianity" in the Jewish tradition. I would recommend it both to religious skeptics and to those who are not so insecure in their faith in God and Jesus as to feel threatened by anything that challenges conventional belief.

Having read this book a number of times, I'm always fascinated not so much by who or what the Apostle Paul was or even did, but by what was going on around him that made the spread of Christianity possible (e.g., the expansive Roman road system, the increasing number of Gentile God-fearers, the increased interest Empire-wide for Eastern religions stressing the personalized interior life, the simmering conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Church v. the Antioch Church and their possible disputes over proper interpretation of "the Way", etc.). We perhaps pin too much on Paul's personal ambition and vision such that we tend to forget the strange and even wonderful geo-political calculus and religious synchronicity that made conditions inviting for this one-time Jewish heresy ever to have made it's way out of ancient Palestine.

I read this book years ago, but recently dusted it off and gave it another go. I'm going to Malta for my summer vacation this year and one of the main reasons I want to go there is to see what is on the island to commemorate Paul's visit there on his way to Rome. Wilson has a chapter on Paul's voyage from Caesarea in Jerusalem to Rome on his way to certain death. The whole voyage was marked with one disaster after another along the way. The ship went down near Malta and Paul instructed everyone to jump ship and they ended up making it to Malta. A dramatic tale to say the least. Paul was on Malta for three months before going to Syracusa in Sicily then sailing to Puteoli (modern day Pozzuoli) then making the final journey by foot to Rome. That is a long walk. Pozzuoli to Rome today is a three hour drive on one of the fastest stretches of the Italian Autostrada. Wilson doesn't explain how long it took for him and the other prisoners to walk, but it was probably a couple weeks. Anyway, during Paul's stay on Malta a couple miracles took place and to this day the people of Malta still make it a point to commemorate his stay and that is why I am going there. This is a great book on Paul. Paul is one of the most important figures in Christianity. Without the word of Paul, Jesus would have diminished in history as a fervent Jew. Strong words I know, but until you grasp that idea you can't appreciate Christianity for everything it is. Paul was the key to the development of early Christian thought by traveling everywhere as a missionary and preaching the good word of Jesus and claiming divinity for him. Wilson is not a historian, but this book is written in that style complete with footnotes and source material to back his claims. An excellent book. I was lucky enough to get the hardcover before it went out of print. Paperback is still widely available.

I was rather surprised by the variety of reviews to this engaging book on Paul. Part the problem rests with the title,'Paul, the Mind of the Apostle', which might have led some to assume this was a devotional or theological work. This is, in fact, a historical biography. Wilson brings a historian's detachment from matters of doctrine or faith and focuses on the temporal man, his work and his age. He paints a rich tapestry of the Pax Romana and the various religious 'cults' which populated it. In some cases his 'spin' is decidedly modern and secular. Given both the constraints and potential of this perspective, this book provides a valuable resource for true believers and skeptics alike of a man who's influence on Western thought and society is incalculable.

Since the Catholic church declared "The year of Saint Paul" commencing in July, 2008, a lot of people will be wondering whether to buy this book. I say yes - with some caveats.

Wilson is an engaging writer and makes a lot of illuminating observations. For example, describing the Temple as an "abattoir" sounds disrespectful at first glance, until you consider just what was happening to all those doves, lambs, goats, and heifers people brought in. This is an easily read book that is hard to put down.

But far too often Wilson builds his arguments on decidedly shaky foundations. On one page he will openly speculate and 20 pages later he treats that speculation as proven truth. And this happens again and again. This habit constitutes a major flaw of the book.

Surprisingly, Wilson seems most comfortable analyzing the theology of the "authentic" letters. And, while he is sceptical of Jesus' divinity, he can not help but wonder how a "simple Galilean exorcist and faith healer" exerted such an influence on his countrymen.

Perhaps this is best read from the library or as a used book.

A. N. Wilson proposes in his book that Paul was the founder of Christianity. It was he who argued against the judaizers of the early church. It was he who stated that getting circumcised was like denying Christ. Jesus, Wilson contends, was a Jew who did not foresee an organization coming from his preaching. Jesus did not anticipate that he was starting a religion. Paul, who calls himself a consummate Jew, argues that Jesus the Christ is the fulfillment of the promise and the old covenant is now at an end. Wilson deftly describes the period of the early church when it was not a church at all, but a collection of house congregations. He weaves the elements of the different communities such as Ephesus and Corinth to demonstrate the context in which Paul was writing. He makes very clear and understandable the cultural mileau as well as the political influences that held sway over the people of the Roman Empire. This book is well written. It does not shy away from scholarship, but the literary style seems more narrative. This makes it easy to read and understand without becoming superficial.

This book is a "sequel" to Wilson's earlier work "Jesus: A Life." Both are very much in the tradition of the "Historical Jesus" quest. The scholarship is remarkable. Wilson seriously "brings to life" (to coin a phrase) the world...which is to say, "the context"...in which these Biblical events took place. Wilson also hypothesizes some about what *might* have occured. While some do legitimately criticize him for this, I happen to think his ideas are rather fun, and suggestive of the kinds of theories more traditional scholars *ought* to consider.

It's always been clear to me that there was an early major conflict between the Jerusalem Christians and the church that Paul established in Ephesus. Wilson vividly illustrates what this was all about, and shows (I think accurately) how the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (in 70 A.D.) is what led to Paul's ultimate triumph, and the proliferation of his brand of the Christian religion. In contrast, the earlier "Jesus: A Life" convincingly reveals the pure Jewishness of what Jesus was really trying to accomplish. If you'd like to see this same issue portrayed dramatically, take a look at Scorsese's "The Last Temptation Of Christ," where the older married Jesus confronts Paul about the truth of his religion. This book examines that conflict in exquisite detail, and with fascinating historical detail.

If you have even a little interest in these kinds of things, both these books will completely amaze you. Take it with whatever you want, one or two or three grains of salt, they're both *very* worthy of your time.

The first sign that this was a good book was the fact that it was assigned reading in a religious history course at a private university I attended. Even then, it exceeded my expectations. It made events of the first century seem as vivid and real as if they had been on the five o'clock news. And these were no ordinary happenings, they were among the most consequential events in all of human history (even if you don't believe they were divinely orchestrated).

I think some of the reviewers on Amazon didn't quite get it. As far as I know, A. N. Wilson is not a professional biblical scholar, so he is not presenting his original research. He is merely presenting his interpretation of modern biblical scholarship, which I imagine he follows as a sort of intellectual hobby. He weaves a story around the apostle Paul, which hinges on a certain degree of speculation, but is compellingly plausible. If you already have your mind made up about what happened in the first century and will not tolerate any deviation from that story, you will hate this book -- as some of the reviewers clearly did. But if you have an open mind and are not already immersed in scriptural interpretation, reading this can be a profoundly eye-opening experience.