Customer Reviews

Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I'm deeply indebted to HarperOne, division of Harper Collins for providing this book, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle, by Pamela Eisenbaum, for review.

Catchy title huh? It surely will cause most Christians to pause and pick it up. And pick it up they should. This is simply a new way (for most laypersons at least) of looking at Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, and commonly thought of as the major force in creating Christianity.

Pamela Eisenbaum, a practicing Jew, has all the credentials in the world, and teaches at a Iliff School of Theology in Denver. She is a biblical scholar with degrees from both Harvard Divinity and Columbia. She claims as mentor the acclaimed biblical expert Krister Stendahl.

Her premise here is a startling one for most Christians: Paul, far from renouncing his Jewish faith and "converting" as we are wont to believe on the road to Damascus, remained throughout his life a staunch Jew, follower of the Law. And, he preached the Lord Jesus Christ as savior. How can this be we ask?

Eisenbaum takes us through a long and detailed and clear explanation. Based on the work of what are known as the "new prospective" scholars and building upon that from the now "radical" new prospective scholars, Dr. Eisenbaum paints a convincing picture of Paul as a man thoroughly embedded in his Jewish heritage, and remaining in it to the end. Much of what has gone wrong in Pauline interpretation comes from reading him through a lens of "conversion," a conversion Eisenbaum claims never happened.

Most all scholars today would agree that Jesus certainly never set out to create a church. He if anything, wished to reform Judaism. Dr. Eisenbaum argues that essentially Paul did the same, and for somewhat the same reasons.

In making her case, reference is made to the authentic letters of Paul, those seven that all scholars agree were written by Paul--Romans, Corinthians I, II, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. The rest are almost universally or substantially agreed upon as not Pauline in authorship and thus not fruitful for this discussion. This is of course nothing new.

She then traces a history of Second Temple Judaism, the time that Paul was alive, and determines what assumptions would have been his based upon the current belief structure of Pharisees of his day. Contrary to public opinion, Pharisees were not so much sticklers for adherence to the Law as they interpreted it, but rather they often interpreted it in ways that were novel and supported present day problems. IN other words they were opportunists of a sort.

Eisenbaum indicates that independent records show that Jews of this period did not consider Gentiles "unclean" or people to be separated from. They were more tolerant that we might suppose. They believed that Gentiles could follow Torah and such people were known as proselytes.

Her argument is that Paul, steeped in Pharisaic belief of the apocalyptic end times, came to see in his Damascus experience, evidence that the end times were upon them. He viewed his experience as his call from God to take the message to the Gentiles, that Jesus by his faithfulness, had justified the Gentiles in the same way that Torah justified Jews in righteousness.

In other words, time was of the essence. Jews had imputed righteousness through the grace of God in giving them Torah, which, even if badly followed, gave them the way to atone for sins. The Gentiles, having no such covenant, and being outside the covenant, had no means of atonement for the sins that they had accumulated. Following Torah was not enough.

Jesus, by his faithful obedience to God, won for Gentiles (the nations of the world as it were), that righteousness, that Jews received by virtue of the covenant. This explains why Paul was so adamant that such things as circumcision and dietary laws need not apply to Gentiles.

What is of critical importance, is Eisenbaum's claim that Augustine, then Luther and so forth misread Paul, thinking he had condemned Torah as the way, and substituted Jesus as the only means of salvation. In this reading, then all Jews must one day convert to Christianity. This of course is the belief of many, (especially conservative) Christians today.

Eisenbaum makes clear that in order to read Paul correctly, one must keep in mind a number of things. First and foremost among them, is that at no time is Paul speaking to Jews. He is speaking only to Gentiles. Secondly Torah is for Jews, but sets a standard for all peoples.

Perhaps what will most alarm Christians is her claim that Paul did not see Jesus as God, but as God's son, the one sent. Moreover, she would claim that Paul did not call Gentiles to worship Jesus, but rather to have faithfulness as Jesus had faithfulness.

She bases this conclusion on a lengthy explanation of the phrase pistis iesou christou. Because Christians have so thoroughly seen Paul as "converting" they have almost always translated this as "faith in Jesus Christ" rather than what she contends is the accurate translation, "faith of Jesus Christ." Her claim is that Jesus expressed a faithfulness to God by his perfect obedience, and that Paul calls Gentiles to be "saved" by also following the lead of Jesus, and trying to imitate Jesus faithfulness.

Dr. Eisenbaum of course admits that even among radical new prospective scholars, there is still much argument. Her opinions and conclusions are not universally accepted. It is a new way of looking at Paul, and given Paul's general difficulties, there will be years of new exploration ahead.

But indeed, this work is a must reading for anyone who wishes to understand that there is much yet to do in unpacking Pauline theology. The test will be, does Eisenbaum's theory explain more satisfactorily than do previous paradigms. There have been, and perhaps always will be passages in Paul that are seemingly contradictory. This is in part the result that he no where sets out to put down his theology in any one place. We have letters, written over a fair stretch of time, often addressed to quite disparate problems. The theory that "solves" the most problems will be the one that finds most favor no doubt.

This is an important book in current biblical studies of Pauline theology. It is one that all, both scholars and laypersons can benefit from.

**As noted, this book was sent to me free of charge for purposes of review. No agreements as to contents of the review were discussed. The opinions here are strictly my own.

This review is for Evangelical readers who want to learn more about the Jewish context of Jesus and of the first generation Church. Prof. Eisenbaum's book is well researched, tightly reasoned, well-written and in places thought-provoking. Her point that Paul did not stop being an observant Jew when he came to believe that Jesus is Messiah is well stated. She also calls to account interpretations of Paul that have led to antisemitism in the Church, and for that Christians should thank her. She dispels the misperception that Judaism is a faith of salvation by works but by the grace of God. I also admire her effort to find a Paul, whom she doesn't like at all points, but whom she can reconcile to as an observant Jew rather than the Paul who's the source of persecution of Jews throughout history.

However, here are just some examples of problems I have with the book:

1) She follows the typical contemporary pattern of choosing which books of the New Testament she allows to be "authentic", hurls around the "majority view" language, while ignoring that there are many fine scholars who would not lop off the Book of Acts and other Pauline epistles as authentic sources for Pauline studies. As has happened since the search for the historical Jesus started, people pick and choose from the canon and come up with a Jesus, and now a Paul, made in their own image rather than an historically convincing portrait.

2) Her impressive effort to deal with Paul's attitude toward Jesus the Lord just doesn't line up with important verses even in her canon within the canon. She says that Paul uses the term "Lord", simply to mean an exalted being rather than an equal with God. Yet, Philippians 2:6 refers to Jesus being in very nature God and equal to Him. She says that Paul is theocentric, but not Christo-centric, but again in Philippians Paul says that for him to live is Christ and that he has given up all to become like Christ. Her concern is to steer Paul away from the dangerous rocks of polytheism that the doctrine of the Trinity creates, but she created a Paul that doesn't line up with his writings. The Trinity continues to be a mysterious doctrine for Christians and an offensive one for Jews and Muslims.

3) She slaughters the true Reformed view of the faith vs. works issue. She says that, according to the Reformers, moral behavior is at least extraneous and even detrimental to salvation. The Reformers taught the entire counsel of Scripture, which clearly teaches repentance from sin as an expression of sincerity and gratitude for the salvation that is theirs through faith in the work of Christ on their behalf. One wonders how she can misread or misrepresent the Reformers so much on this point.

4) She makes a big point that Paul writes to Gentiles and thus all his anti-Torah talk is for them because they were never meant to observe Torah. According to Prof. Eisenbaum, Paul teaches that Jews continue to look to faithfulness to Torah for grace and Gentiles look to Jesus. This is perhaps the weakest point of the book. For example, Paul obviously addresses both communities when he says, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power for God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." (Romans 1:16, NIV) That's hardly a picture of Torah for Jews and Jesus for Gentiles. In the midst of this effort, she tries to strip Paul of the message of salvation from the wrath of God, and so tips her hand that she is driven by the modern ideology of universalism. Like it or not, that universalism is foreign to Paul, and she shouldn't try to use Paul to advocate her modern ideology.

5) I was disappointed that she didn't describe in more detail just what Paul's continued Jewish observances were. She spends her time dissecting Paul's doctrine expressed in seven of his letters so the book is very heavy in theological examination. That's certainly valuable, but I would vey much like to have heard more about what she thinks Paul's ongoing practice of Judaism entailed.

6) Finally, her final sentence makes it clear what her ultimate agenda is: religious pluralism. Unfortunately, her historical research seems to be a tool to advance her ideology rather than to present a truly accurate portrait of Paul.

All that being said, if you are interested in the Hebrew roots of the first generation of Christians, I encourage you to read this book. Prof. Eisenbaum's book is a valuable contribution to the effort to recover the Jewishness of the first century Christians. She reminds us of information that we should already have firmly in mind and she challenges us to think about some other issues. That process is valuable, and, while in the end her portrait of Paul is unconvincing, nevertheless I'm a better student of the New Testament for it. Thanks, Prof. Eisenbaum, for a provocative read.

This is perhaps the best book about Paul from a Jewish perpective that I have ever read. I have always wanted to know Paul from the Jewish perspective, untainted by the theology of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Most Jewish portrayals are critical but fair and are worth reading; ie Daniel Boyarin, Samuel Sandmel, and Alan Segal. I have found only two which are not worthy; Hyam Maccoby's biased account and the absolutely absurd portrayal by Robert Eisenman. Pamela Eisenbaum's book rises above most of the others and is well worth reading.

Eisenbaum focuses solely on the authentic letters of Paul and gives us an understanding of the apostle which is untainted by the doctrines of Augustine and Luther.

Eisenbaum refutes the common notion among many Christians that Judaism is a legalistic religion in which salvation has to be earned. The Mosaic covenant, with its provision of atonement, was never merited by the Israelites who were saved by it. To Paul, salvation was never a problem for Jews who lived under the covenant, but it was a problem for gentiles who lived outside the covenant with no means of atoning for their sins. Thus Paul felt that the Law which was a blessing for Israel, was a curse for gentiles. Paul never condemned the Law as it applied to Jews. Israel was a chosen nation of priests. Therefore, Jewish ritual laws such as circumcision, and food laws only applied to Jews. Paul felt that it was inappropriate for gentiles to abide by Jewish ritual laws. Gentiles had to be included in God's kingdom according to prophecy, but as gentiles, not as Jews. Eisenbaum sresses that Paul's letters were addressed to gentiles and not to Jews.

Paul was proud of his Jewish heritage and his schooling as a Pharisee. His experience of the risen Christ was not a conversion away from Judaism. The resurrection of Jesus convinced Paul that the final judgement was imminent and that the prophecies of gentile nations being gathered into the Kingdom of God had to be fulfilled. Paul felt a prophetic calling to preach the gospel to the gentiles. He never preached a "replacement theology" and chastises gentiles for their idolatry and moral failings. Paul was not obsessed with individual salvation but with gentile nations on a large scale. Eisenbaum places Paul in the mold of a first century apocalyptic Jew, not a Baptist preacher.

Eisenbaum demonstrates that Paul never taught a doctrine of faith without works. This is so blatantly clear in Romans 2:13 which so any of Paul's detractors seem to overlook. Eisenbaum explains how gentile salvation by "faith in Jesus Christ" should be read as salvation by the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ". To Paul, the problem of atonement for gentiles, who lived outside the covenant, was solved by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Gentiles were saved by the faithful obedience of Jesus just as Jews were saved by the faithfulness of Abraham and the Patriarchs. Paul stresses that it was the power of God which raised Jesus and exalted him in Heaven. While Jesus is the heavenly mediator, it is the God of Israel which gentiles must worship.

This book should be required reading for anyone who truly wants to understand the enigma of Paul the Apostle.

This book offers a very accurate and extended portrait of Judaism in the first century-and one of the fullest to be found in a book about Paul. The book is valuable for that reason alone. It also presents a compelling portrait of Paul as a follower of Jesus who considered himself a Jew and who understood his mission to non-Jews as a vocation within his native Judaism, not a convert from one religion (Judaism) to another religion (Christianity). Clearly, Paul's essential theology and ethics are thoroughly Jewish, as is his interpretive approach to Jewish Scripture. For those who have never read a book on Paul before, it is important to know all this, even though it is not exactly breaking news.

When she discusses Jesus, however, Eisenbaum is way off the mark. On the one hand, Eisenbaum is certainly right that Paul's thought is theocentric, that Paul never calls Jesus "God," and that Pauline prayer language is addressed to God though Christ, with Jesus filling the role of mediator. One the other hand, Eisenbaum too facilely claims that Pauline veneration of Jesus in no way infringed on Jewish monotheism. It is very telling that when she discusses the "Christ hymn" in Philippians 2:6-11, she does not discuss verses 6-7, where Paul describes Christ as one who "was in the form of God" and "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, and being found in human form." These lines picture Jesus as the human embodiment of a divine being. One can only conclude that Eisenbaum quietly passes over these verses because they are inconvenient for her Jewish reclamation of Paul.

Even more problematic is Eisenbaum's understanding of what Paul says in his letters about Christ in relation to the Torah and non-Christian Judaism. She is certainly right in emphasizing that Paul wrote his letters to Gentile followers of Jesus, not Jews or Jewish followers of Jesus, and that Paul evidently had no problem with Jews who followed Jesus as messiah and Lord continuing to observe Torah. This is old hat by now but still worth emphasizing. But she is clearly wrong in arguing that Paul envisioned two paths to salvation: Jesus for Gentiles, Torah for Jews. Though claiming to offer a "new" framework for understanding Paul, she is rehashing a view that has been around for decades in the work of scholars like Lloyd Gaston and John Gager.

Eisenbaum has to avoid major chunks of Paul's letters to make her case. She buries in a footnote a reference to 2 Corinthians 3. She writes, "Readers who know Paul's letters may be wondering about a passage in 2 Corinthians in which Paul seemingly [!] compares the `new covenant' to a `written code.' This is the only passage in the undisputed letters in which Paul seems [sic!] to disparage Torah. [Not true]. . . An extended discussion of this text is beyond the scope of this discussion [sic!] . . . . In actuality Paul is contrasting two modes of interpretation" (p. 284, n. 25). In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul speaks of the "old covenant" and calls it "the ministry/service (diakonia) of death" and "the ministry of condemnation." He contrasts "we" with "the people of Israel," who have been "hardened." "Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil [that covered Moses' face "to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside"] is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." Jews who do not recognize Jesus as the inaugurator of a new covenant (not a new mode of Torah interpretation!) need to turn to the Lord--that's Paul.

More tellingly, there is no discussion of Romans 9-11 -- in a book all about Paul's relation to Judaism! In a few sentences at the very end of her monograph, she says in effect, "Gee, reader, I've run out of space to discuss Romans 9-11. Darn! Only another book could do justice to those chapters. Bye for now." I kid you not. Here is what she writes of this extended section of Romans: "One of the reasons I did not treat it in this book is because there are several good discussions of it already. Another is that it would require another book. For the sake of manageability, I have tried to stick with more narrowly defined units of text" (p. 251).

The problem at issue in Romans 9-11 is that Paul and others who follow Jesus have not succeeded in getting most Jews to join them. Paul attributes this to God's temporary "hardening" of Israel. "Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained it, but Israel, which pursued righteousness with respect to the Law did not attain it. . . . Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness. For Christ is the telos (end/goal) of the Law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who has faith. . . . . Israel failed to attain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened. . . . ." Etc.

Eisenbaum's work is a showcase example of the phenomenon known as wishful thinking. She is a Jewish New Testament scholar, and one of her implicit goals (perhaps her chief one) in this book is to make Paul palatable to Jews in our age of religious pluralism. (See the very last sentence of the book.) How I wish she were right about Paul! But it would be more honest to say "I think Paul was wrong" than to dodge every line in Paul letters which indicate that, for him, there is no membership in the covenant people of God, and no eschatological salvation for anyone, Jew or non-Jew, apart from Christ.

Daniel Harlow

A fascinating and well written book. It contains insights into the way Christianity has responded to the Apostle Paul in particular to the influence of St Augustine, Martin Luther and John Wesley in our understanding of the conversion experience. It is worthwhile noting that John Wesley, like St Paul in his letters, hardly ever mentions his conversion experience either in his journals or in his sermons. I would have been interested in the way in which the Eastern Churches have developed the thought of St Paul. I am not sure whether the author is saying that St Paul only believed the the Christ was not the Messiah but only another prophet in the Jewish tradition.

I love this book. It has some great insight. I may not agree 100% yet, but it is certainly worth reading and has opened my eyes and will enable me to read Paul in a different light. Also, this has confirmed my belief as to why the Torah, God's teaching and instruction, is so critical for us today. We as Christians have wandered so far from our Hebrew roots.

The title caught my eye in a bookstore. I asked myself "What could she possibly mean by that?" I browsed through the book trying to answer that question.

Author is a Jewish bible-studies professor at a Christian university, who believes her unusual position has given her unique and radical insight on Paul. Best I can figure, her theme is that Paul was not a Gentile Christian, nor indeed truly a Christian at all, but merely some kind of proto-modern religious pluralist, who helped invent Gentile Christianity so that Gentile Christians and Jewish non-Christians could live together in peace and harmony (or something). She seems to be suggesting (but not quite daring to say outright) that Paul did not care whether his fellow Jews accepted Christ or not.

The first argument I came across was that Paul could not have been a "Christian" because the word "Christian" had not been invented yet. This is like arguing that the woolly mammoth was not really "woolly" because the word "woolly" had not been invented yet. But we know from "Acts of the Apostles" that the word "Christian" (or its Greek equivalent) was invented during Paul's lifetime, in order to apply it to the followers of Christ -- a category that certainly included "Jews" (as that word was then understood) and which certainly included Paul.

The second argument I came across was that Paul could not have been a Christian because he was <gasp> a Jew. He lived a Jew and died a Jew, claims Eisenbaum. He never "converted."

Here Eisenbaum seeks to confuse the reader with a fallacy of ambiguity. The word "Jew" can be, and in modern times often is, defined to exclude "Christian," but it need not be. In Paul's time, especially, Christianity was a Jewish religion, and the radical thing that Paul did, among his fellow Jewish Christians, was to argue that Christianity should be extended to the Gentiles, without requiring that the Gentiles first become circumcised or otherwise be bound by certain narrow aspects of the Jewish law.

Perhaps Eisenbaum would be correct to object that he did not convert FROM Judaism; but hardly that he did not convert TO Christianity. Paul, by his own account, went from being a persecutor of the followers of Jesus, in support of the Jewish authorities, to being a follower of Jesus himself, being himself persecuted by the Jewish authorities. That is a pretty radical shift, and none may reasonably object if we call it a "conversion", regardless of whether Paul remained, in some broad sense, a Jew.

If Eisenbaum had titled her book "Paul was a Jew" perhaps my attitude would have been a bit more tolerant. But nowhere does she define what she means by the word "Christian", or explain what she means when she says Paul was not one. She seems to think it suffices to emphasize Paul's Jewishness, as though Christianity and Judaism were polar opposites. It is as though she imagines Christians do not worship the God of Abraham, nor revere the Hebrew scriptures, nor follow a Jewish messiah.

This 200+ page book offers plenty of information, and often summarizes the conclusions of other authors. Since I am no expert on Paul, much of this was new to me, and some may possibly be of value. Eisenbaum is a professor, and it is fair to guess she is reasonably familiar with her subject. But why trust her? If she starts with what is at worst a lie, and at best a loudly trumpeted irrelevancy, why should you or I waste time on the rest? Life is short. Look elsewhere for information on Paul.

REFERENCE: Eisenbaum, Pamela Michelle, Paul was not a Christian: The original message of a misunderstood Apostle. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009. 336 pages.
TiTLE: A radical new perspective on the apostle Paul
Keywords (TAGS): paul, jews, gentiles, justification, righteousness, law, torah, works, faith, Jesus, Christ, covenant, cross, obedience, command/ments, salvation, jewish roots, Pharisee!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When I first saw Pamela's 336-page book, I was attracted to it by its provocative title, "Paul was NOT a Christian!" [Lesson learned: when you plan to publish a book, any book, make sure you give that book a "catchy" title, although it must truthfully reflect both the thesis and the content of the book].

At that time, I was teaching at a local Christian college part ii of the book of Acts (Chapters 9, 13-28, written by Dr. Luke, the same author as the gospel by the same name), which has also been titled, "the Acts of the apostle Paul." In this course, we examined Paul's birth, his education and pre-conversion activities of persecution against the fledgling Christian church, his so-called [i.e., alleged] conversion "to" Christianity [which, according to Eisenbaum, did not yet exist as such at that time, and which thus is but one of many anachronistic mis-interpretations and mis-readings by later Christian scholars and believers alike back into the historical, cultural, theological, and ecclesiastical context of the first-century church, or better perhaps "community of believers"], and, finally, his extensive ministry of teaching, preaching, traveling, and persecutions until his arrival in Rome (Acts 28).

The second point of attraction was the book's subtitle, "The original message of a misunderstood Apostle." I knew it, I realized at once: Paul has been misunderstood by subsequent generations of Christian believers, theologians, and church authorities, up to the present day. In my reading of the book of Acts, however, I suspected that, for the first century, early, church (AKA "apostolic church"), the day of rest and worship may NOT have been the "first day of the week" (or Sunday as we call it today), but well nigh the "seventh-day Sabbath" (ranging, according to Jewish reckoning of days of the week, from sunset Friday eve to sunset on Saturday eve) as it appears no less than 8 (eight) times [RSV, n = 9 in NRSV (Acts 18:4)] in the book of Acts alone (the "Sabbath" is referenced 60 times in the entire RSV New Testament, one more time in NRSV [Acts 18:4], and occurs 50 times in the four gospels alone). In their defense [apologetics] of Sunday observance, "first day of the week" (i.e., Sunday) advocates often refer to Pauline writings and statements such as, "we have freedom in Christ" (Gal. 2:4; 5:1), "the law has been abolished" (Eph. 2:15), "the bond has been nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:14), "one man esteems one day better than another" (Rom. 14:5), "let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink [...] or a Sabbath" (Col. 2:16), "it is therefore no longer binding," etc. While such popular and memorable catch phrases may appear convincing sound bites for the naïve and hurried believers in search for quick and easy answers to sometimes difficult theological questions and convoluted issues, I just could NOT reconcile them with Luke's narrative about the lives, ministries, beliefs and practices of the post-Ascension apostles as recounted in the book of Acts.

This 336-page scholarly book is a revolutionary (and perhaps life-changing) eye- mouth- and mind-opener on a perspective on the apostle Paul that most Christian believers and/or scholars have taken for granted through the centuries, and more so during the post-reformation era, after Martin Luther allegedly "rediscovered" the "biblical" doctrine of "justification by faith alone" (pp. 49, 2nd and 3rd §).
In her discussion, Pamela to resorts to rhetorical questions, even in the headings of the book's chapters, such as Chapter #1 "Was Paul really Jewish?", and Chapter #6 "Who is and who isn't a Jew?"

I appreciate Pamela's academic courage to give her book the provocative, rather than tentative, title of, "Paul was NOT a Christian[!]." Unlike Jesus who is credited for his Jewish background and legacy, in Christian circles, Paul is typically seen as the "first true Christian" (pp. 2, top paragraph). And this perception (however untrue and incompatible with the "real" Paul, as Eisenbaum endeavors to demonstrate in her book) has colored much of the theological doctrines through the ages.

Pamela's thesis is NOT difficult to grasp: 1) first from the book's provocative title, and 2) from the first sentence of book's first chapter, "Paul lived and died a Jew" (pp. 5). Pamela concludes her first chapter with these words, "[I]n this book, Paul is unambiguously Jewish--ethnically, culturally, morally, and theologically" (pp. 9, second §). Here you have it, upfront, clear, and unmistakable! The only reason for reading on is to discover Pamela's rationale behind her statements.

The "problem with Paul" (Chapter two: pp. 10-31) stems from several sources: 1) the question of evidence: a). the book of Acts vs. the letters of Paul (11-16), and b). the question of Paul's disputed letters (pp.16-22), and 2) the problems of interpretations including a). ambiguity of the letters (pp. 23-26), and b). contradictions in interpretations by different interpreters, and contradictions in Paul's own statements (pp.27-31). In Chapter 3 (pp. 32-54), Pamela describes "how Paul became a Christian," first explaining views derived from ancient texts such as Acts and Paul's letters, than reviewing the contributions of Augustine (pp. 43-48), and, finally, Martin Luther (pp. 48-54). The latter derived the doctrine of "justification by faith" from the writings of Paul, especially Romans 1:17. In subsequent chapters, Pamela introduces Paul as a Jew, especially in the view of modern Jewish interpreters (pp. 55-60), thus gaining a "new perspective on Paul" (pp. 60-66). Obviously, Paul owes much of his Jewishness to his Jewish inheritance, which Pamela describes at some length in Chapter 5 (e.g., God and worship, Torah and election, and redemption). All his life, Paul remained a Pharisee; this is well described in Chapter 6 ("Who is and who isn't a Jew?"), in Chapter 7 ("The flexible Pharisees"), and in Chapter 8 ("Paul the [ex?] Pharisee"). That Paul never renounced his Jewishness is well attested in Pamela's Chapter 9 ("A typical Jew"), Chapter 10 ("A radical Jewish monotheist"), and chapter 12 ("On the contrary, we uphold the law!").

Reading these chapters should provide some food for thought for 21st century theologians who would easily assert that 21st century Christians need not do this or that (e.g., abstaining from blood, or abstaining from working on the seventh day Sabbath), because, according to our good old friend Paul, the "law has been abolished" (Eph. 2:15), or "it has been nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:14), or "by virtue of the freedom we have in Christ" (Gal. 5:1).

Finally, Pamela's book is a treasure trove for the earnest first-century scholar in serious first-century Judaism and, to a lesser extend, first-century Christianity, with a 2-page glossary (pp. 257-258), a 9-page bibliography (pp. 295-303), and a 14-page index (pp. 305-318). A great testimony to Pamela's serious scholarship are nearly 40-pages of notes (pp. 259-294), amounting to no less than 428 or 429 notes and mostly bibliographic references.

For these 36 pages of endnotes, extensive and numerous they are both in quantity and quality, I have little taste, however, as their location at the end of main text makes them, for all practical purposes, seldom accessed, and thus virtually useless for the average reader, who is more eager to get to the final chapter to find out "who killed the banker's wife" (i.e., to see how the story ends) than to fastidiously look up endless endnotes that are semi-hidden half-a-dozen or so chapters later, instead of footnotes conveniently located at the bottom of the page where they first appear. This would be what I would call "practical and easily accessible scholarship!", for the scholar as well as the layman who can decide, at a glance, whether to read the entire footnote or proceed to the next paragraph or to the next page.

Why publishers continue to publish book with this out-dated (and mostly useless) endnote format for bibliographic references is a great mystery to me. My only informed guess would be that those good people who publish books are not the same people as those who read them [or who have to read them such as graduate students in academic programs]! The same principle, alas, is true of technical manuals (the proverbial "owner's instructions manual," which someone I knew long time ago in Vietnam sarcastically called "destruction manuals") for mechanical appliances or pieces of electric and/or electronic equipment such as computers, microwave ovens, TV sets and video recorders. It is generally assumed that the writers of these manuals 1) seldom or never use the products about which they write manuals; or if they use the appliances, they do NOT need to consult the owner's manual, as they know by heart how to operate them. Such is not the case, however, when one reads a book with the provocative title, "Paul was NOT a Christian." I'd rather be convinced from the author's argument in the main text (including footnotes) without having to laboriously turn to the end of the book 428 times to look up the 428 references and/or other comments by the author.

Just imagine the scene for a moment:
1) a reader laying on her back,
2) reading this book with an open mind (at least trying to with all the logistics involved),
3) holding the book in her left hand resting on the lower part of her chest [just above the stomach],
4) with a pen or pencil in her right hand [in order to underline and highlight key sentences, or making notes in the margin],
5) and then, now and then, locating a reference marker (e.g., # "2,"), located in paragraph # 2, on page 11, Chapter 2, titled "Paul the problem")
6) and, putting down the pen or balancing it on your right earlobe, or stuffing the yellow marker into your mouth between your front teeth [how un-sanitary in this time of swine flu epidemics];
7) and then, of course remembering in your mind [where else?] "chapter # 2 and reference # 2,"
8) turning to the end of book,
9) finding the page where notes for chapter # 2 are located (i.e., page 259),
10) then turning to page 260 to find note # 2; she can now let go in her mind of "chapter # 2 and reference # 2," making room for more information contained in the endnote;
11) reading the endnote;
12) finding that is was "not that important" for the comprehension of the author's argument, "There are three separate accounts in Acts of Paul's experience of the risen Jesus: Acts 9:1-31; 22:6-16; [and] 26:12-18,"
13) thus getting a little irritated by this unnecessary "gymnastics" of looking up endnotes when footnotes could have done a much better and much quicker job;
14) returning to page # 11, trying to keep a finger or book mark [which typically falls out] at page # 260, just in case there might be another reference marker soon in her reading of chapter 2;
15) picking up the pen that has nearly fallen off from her ear [important safety note: do NOT ever stick the pen "into" your ear canal, as it can perforate your eardrum, and cause you to become deaf, and plunge you into a world of silence, where reading may be one of your only source of communication with the outside world, in which case you'd really be in trouble], or taking out from her mouth the yellow marker, that has become moist, slippery, and indented with many teeth marks because of her increasing frustration;
16) only to find in the next paragraph on the same page another reference marker (#3);
17) deciding whether it is worth to go through the same ordeal as for marker # 2.

Curious as she is, she decides to try again, only to find out it is only a further expansion on the adventure-filled life of the apostle Paul after his rescue of Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12, culminating in his shipwreck in Acts 27. This is "old stuff," and adds nothing to her understanding of the author's argument that "Paul is not a Christian." And so she decides note #3 was the last reference she was ever to look up again in this book. In doing so, however, she will miss many good references and commentaries from the author as she developing her argument. But so be it, "My time is valuable, and I do NOT have all the time in the world..." and so she comes to the end of Eisenbaum's book, certainly having learned a great deal about Paul the Pharisee and Paul the Torah-abiding Jew, but having missed 426 notes [i.e., no less than 36 pages, representing no less than 12.24% of the main text and the notes, pp. 1-294] of Eisenbaum's thorough scholarship.

NOTE: Should you have any comment(s), question(s), and/or suggestion(s) about this review, I can be reached via email at {[...]}. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
[...]
I first found this book at Barnes & Noble on Thu 2009-12-17; looked it up online at Fr. 2009-12-18; ordered it from Amazon.com and received it on Friday 2010-02-26 (11:00am); I read the book between Friday 2010-02-26 and Tue 2010-03-02 (8:27am); I wrote the book review (in stages) and finished writing it on Sunday, March 28, 2010 (Palm Sunday), and published it online on Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 10:12pm. Word count = 2,116/2,247.

Writing as a Jew who works significantly with Christians (Eisenbaum's "day job" is to teach at a Christian University), Eisenbaum brings new insight for reading Paul. She grounds her work in the "New Perspectives" of other scholars, and presents her entire work in a compelling, thoughtful, creative and very readable text.

If you have not yet met Paul or even if you are a regular reader of the Bible and you would like fresh insight for thinking about Paul's social-religious identity - this book offers a (new) paradigm for thinking about Paul as a faithful Jew who wanted Gentiles to worship God.

The author writes (page 8): Dividing the world between Jews and Gentiles "is certainly not how the Romans divide up the world. Their operative categories were Romans and barbarians." I'm no scholar, but I believe the author here confuses the Romans with the ancient Greeks. The Greeks divided the world between themselves and barbarians. In contrast, the Romans recognized and to an extent envied the superiority of Greek culture. Cultured Romans often spoke Greek and hired Greek tutors to instruct their young. I'm sure the author knows this far better than I and this mistake simply slipped through the cracks as a few mistakes inevitably do.

On page 11, the author writes: "The familiar story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus in which he collapses on the ground at the sight of the risen Jesus comes from Acts." Again, I'm no scholar and haven't read Acts in the original Greek, but all English translations I'm aware of say that Paul saw a literally blinding light, not the risen Jesus. He HEARD a voice and SAW a light so brilliant he was blinded for days. He had to be led away by his companions who also saw the light but for some reason weren't rendered sightless

As I understand it, there are in a sense two Pauls, one a real, historical figure and the other a fictive construct of Christian myth. If I understand the author's argument, the two "Pauls" are quite different. The author focuses on the real Paul. She derives the real Paul from seven letters that scholars generally agree are authentically by Paul. The author generally disregards accounts of Paul described in the often wildly fanciful Acts of the Apostles and the remaining letters formerly attributed to Paul but now known to be bogus.

Even within that narrower constraint, many difficulties arise, owing to Paul's tendency, at least on the surface, to flat out contradict himself, sometimes even within the same letter. The author's main task is to show that the seeming contradictions can, in fact, be reconciled. It's mainly a matter of first stripping away the many false assumptions and habits of mind that the average Christian brings to any reading of Paul.