The Ambiguous Saint Paul
December 22, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Firstly, we recognize the fact that there is no verifiable evidence to suggest that Saint Paul wrote anything, let alone long and involved letters to nascent churches. The size, that is, the total number of words in the epistle to the Romans is that of a book, not that of a letter. This example of extensive writing is evidence of a time when writing materials were affordable in sufficient quantity to write a considerable number of large books.
We do not dispute the fact that there are seven canonical epistles attributed to a writer named Paul, and aside from ecclesiastical tradition, there is no evidence indicating who is author of these epistles. We observe that ecclesiastical tradition must originate in either the Greek or Roman churches. If protestants choose among a buffet of traditions to accept, then they are only accepting the traditions that they approve. Needless to say, any criteria for selection is arbitrary; the acceptance of Sunday as the new Sabbath, but the refusal to venerate saints; neither of these practices are found or authorized in the Bible, but in church tradition.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, Saul persecuted the early church and following the encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, he subsequently began calling himself Paul. The word “Paul” derives from the Latin language meaning “small”. If Paul originally wrote in Greek, then his name would be “Atomos”. Therefore, it seems that Paul originally wrote his letters in Latin, and the epistles were later translated into Greek. As with all things Pauline, this conclusion regarding the original language of the epistles is probable, not certain.
The uncertainty surrounding the alleged writings of Saint Paul are not limited to which specific epistles he wrote, but extends to the correct application of his commandments and suggestions.
The idea of inerrant scripture is unlikely to be dated to any time previous to the 1520s, when Erasmus corrected the grammar found in the Pauline epistles, so, as he wrote, Saint Paul would be addressing the Romans in better Latin. We are fortunate to have four subsequent editions of Erasmus’ “New Teachings”, so that we have documentation demonstrating the exact evolution of the early New Testament and its transformation into the textus receptus.
Edwin Johnson suggested that the various contradictions found in the Pauline epistles are due entirely to both the protestants and the Roman Catholics writing under the recognized authority of Saint Paul, and the subsequent acceptance of both opinions into the Biblical canon. The explicit contradictory statements regarding marriage should be satisfactory evidence for Johnson’s conclusion. If Johnson's conclusion regarding the origins of the New Testament is correct, then the current Greek lectionary can not predate the early 16th century, at the earliest, and possibly from the 17th century. The Orthodox Church maintains the tradition of the New Testament writings, although they do not claim to know the exact age of this tradition. Therefore, it seems that the church existed for approximately 1,500 years without a universally recognized Bible and the novel idea of basing one’s beliefs solely what is found therein.
We do not dispute the fact that there are seven canonical epistles attributed to a writer named Paul, and aside from ecclesiastical tradition, there is no evidence indicating who is author of these epistles. We observe that ecclesiastical tradition must originate in either the Greek or Roman churches. If protestants choose among a buffet of traditions to accept, then they are only accepting the traditions that they approve. Needless to say, any criteria for selection is arbitrary; the acceptance of Sunday as the new Sabbath, but the refusal to venerate saints; neither of these practices are found or authorized in the Bible, but in church tradition.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, Saul persecuted the early church and following the encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, he subsequently began calling himself Paul. The word “Paul” derives from the Latin language meaning “small”. If Paul originally wrote in Greek, then his name would be “Atomos”. Therefore, it seems that Paul originally wrote his letters in Latin, and the epistles were later translated into Greek. As with all things Pauline, this conclusion regarding the original language of the epistles is probable, not certain.
The uncertainty surrounding the alleged writings of Saint Paul are not limited to which specific epistles he wrote, but extends to the correct application of his commandments and suggestions.
The idea of inerrant scripture is unlikely to be dated to any time previous to the 1520s, when Erasmus corrected the grammar found in the Pauline epistles, so, as he wrote, Saint Paul would be addressing the Romans in better Latin. We are fortunate to have four subsequent editions of Erasmus’ “New Teachings”, so that we have documentation demonstrating the exact evolution of the early New Testament and its transformation into the textus receptus.
Edwin Johnson suggested that the various contradictions found in the Pauline epistles are due entirely to both the protestants and the Roman Catholics writing under the recognized authority of Saint Paul, and the subsequent acceptance of both opinions into the Biblical canon. The explicit contradictory statements regarding marriage should be satisfactory evidence for Johnson’s conclusion. If Johnson's conclusion regarding the origins of the New Testament is correct, then the current Greek lectionary can not predate the early 16th century, at the earliest, and possibly from the 17th century. The Orthodox Church maintains the tradition of the New Testament writings, although they do not claim to know the exact age of this tradition. Therefore, it seems that the church existed for approximately 1,500 years without a universally recognized Bible and the novel idea of basing one’s beliefs solely what is found therein.
The poor Latin of the Pauline epistles is accompanied by the poor Greek of the Gospels.
Although the Pauline epistles can be generally and correctly described as ambiguous, there are multiple examples of clear writing in the modern style. We find it unnecessary to cite specific examples of explicit statements, since these are apparent to the most casual or careless reader. However, as in the example of marriage, clear statements are generally contradicted, either in the same epistle, or another epistle. If clearly written statements are not contradicted, then the remainder are wholly in the domain of conventional wisdom; one such example is the repetition of the commandment: do not commit murder. Few readers would be troubled by this and similar advice, yet we wonder why these commandments needed to be conveyed to recent converts to Christianity, as though the Gentiles were without God, the law and morality. We would expect the epistles to be devoid of generalities applicable to all people and, instead, be focused on the true beliefs and correct practices of the new religion. Although we can not describe clear appeals to morality as ambiguous, yet we remain perplexed as the reasons these commandments need to be reiterated. As Saint Paul observed, God is not the author of confusion.
From the epistles alone, we are uncertain if Saint Paul knew anything about Jesus’ earthly mission. Saint Paul wrote that he only desired to know Christ crucified and this limited knowledge is apparent in the epistles. Saint Paul's explicit statement is contradicted when he relates Jesus’ words from the last supper. Judging by the sheer number of references in the Pauline epistles, it seems that communion is of less important than the resurrection. We can not make a definitive conclusion to this observation, therefore, we remain uncertain as to the importance, if any, of communion in Saint Paul's understanding of Christ’s mission.
Biblical commentators believe that the phrasing of “under the law” alludes to the Jews, but this opinion can not be correct, as Paul clearly writes that he became as one under the law, and he also became a Jew to the Jews. “Under the law” is either an ambiguous phrase, or it refers to another well known religion whose followers also value written commandments: the adherents of Islam. Therefore, we suggest there are three distinct groups that are targeted for conversion in this epistle: those without the law, Gentiles; those under the law, Moslems; and Jews. If the final redactors of the epistles lived during the 16th century, then a reference to Islam would not be an anachronism. Of course, scholars know that these writings predate Islam’s foundation by several centuries, hence, our exegesis of this passage will be met with justified incredulity. If we are incorrect, then the passage has needless repetition. Regardless of our supposition, the passage remains ambiguous.
The Pauline corpus that we currently have available (early 21st century) can be described in one word: ambiguous. Concerning the present state of the Pauline epistles, it can be stated that what is clear is unnecessary and what is uncertain needs clarification.
In conclusion, we must agree with Saint Paul’s well reasoned observation and subsequent commentary:
Although the Pauline epistles can be generally and correctly described as ambiguous, there are multiple examples of clear writing in the modern style. We find it unnecessary to cite specific examples of explicit statements, since these are apparent to the most casual or careless reader. However, as in the example of marriage, clear statements are generally contradicted, either in the same epistle, or another epistle. If clearly written statements are not contradicted, then the remainder are wholly in the domain of conventional wisdom; one such example is the repetition of the commandment: do not commit murder. Few readers would be troubled by this and similar advice, yet we wonder why these commandments needed to be conveyed to recent converts to Christianity, as though the Gentiles were without God, the law and morality. We would expect the epistles to be devoid of generalities applicable to all people and, instead, be focused on the true beliefs and correct practices of the new religion. Although we can not describe clear appeals to morality as ambiguous, yet we remain perplexed as the reasons these commandments need to be reiterated. As Saint Paul observed, God is not the author of confusion.
From the epistles alone, we are uncertain if Saint Paul knew anything about Jesus’ earthly mission. Saint Paul wrote that he only desired to know Christ crucified and this limited knowledge is apparent in the epistles. Saint Paul's explicit statement is contradicted when he relates Jesus’ words from the last supper. Judging by the sheer number of references in the Pauline epistles, it seems that communion is of less important than the resurrection. We can not make a definitive conclusion to this observation, therefore, we remain uncertain as to the importance, if any, of communion in Saint Paul's understanding of Christ’s mission.
Biblical commentators believe that the phrasing of “under the law” alludes to the Jews, but this opinion can not be correct, as Paul clearly writes that he became as one under the law, and he also became a Jew to the Jews. “Under the law” is either an ambiguous phrase, or it refers to another well known religion whose followers also value written commandments: the adherents of Islam. Therefore, we suggest there are three distinct groups that are targeted for conversion in this epistle: those without the law, Gentiles; those under the law, Moslems; and Jews. If the final redactors of the epistles lived during the 16th century, then a reference to Islam would not be an anachronism. Of course, scholars know that these writings predate Islam’s foundation by several centuries, hence, our exegesis of this passage will be met with justified incredulity. If we are incorrect, then the passage has needless repetition. Regardless of our supposition, the passage remains ambiguous.
The Pauline corpus that we currently have available (early 21st century) can be described in one word: ambiguous. Concerning the present state of the Pauline epistles, it can be stated that what is clear is unnecessary and what is uncertain needs clarification.
In conclusion, we must agree with Saint Paul’s well reasoned observation and subsequent commentary:
If our Gospel is hid, then it is hid to them who are lost.
For the God of this world has blinded the minds of those who believe not.
For the God of this world has blinded the minds of those who believe not.