N.T. Wright, Paul: A Biography. Aff. (New York: Harper One, 2018). 464 pages.
N.T. Wright is one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world today. He teaches at Oxford and has written prolifically. When I saw he had published an extensive, accessible work on the life of Paul, I knew I should read it. It is thorough, as its page count suggests. But it is also easy to follow.
Wright notes that “History is always a matter of trying to think into the minds of people who think differently from ourselves” (7). Much has been speculated about the apostle Paul. But as Wright observes, it’s best to develop a picture of him based on the available evidence. Wright argues that Paul was greatly influenced by growing up in Tarsus. He notes, “In the ancient world there was virtually no such thing as a private life” (14). As a tentmaker, Paul probably made all manner of leather goods (15). Wright concludes, “We can safely assume, then, that Saul grew up in a cheerfully strict, observant Jewish home, on the one hand, and in a polyglot, multicultural, multiethnic working environment on the other” (15).
There were two defining moments in the Old Testament: when God’s glory occupied the tabernacle and when it occupied the temple (21). The Jews of Paul’s day longed for God’s manifest presence to return to Israel. Wright notes that Jewish life “was and is centered on the rhythm of prayer” (27). Jews longed for God’s blessing and liberation of his people. When Paul described himself as being “zealous” for God, he probably looked to the famed zeal of Phinehas and Elijah (33). He was zealous to eradicate anything that stood in the way of fulfilling God’s law.
Wright mentions that after Saul’s conversion, he went to Sinai, much as Elijah had (63). This assertion seems to be conjecture on the author’s part, though we know he was in Arabia. From 36-46 AD, there is largely silence concerning Paul’s life. Wright suggests that Saul, who was probably working as a tentmaker, worked out his theology (68-69). Wright speculates whether Paul was married. He posits he may have been betrothed, but his dramatic conversion might have brought his anticipated wedding to an end (88).
Wright suggests that when Paul was brought to Antioch, he road tested much of his theology (92). Wright notes, “He was inventing, and must have known that he was inventing, a new way of being human” (109). Paul seemed to have a method to his missionary work, targeting the major Roman cities.
The book unpacks Paul’s view of circumcision and the law (140). As Wright theorizes, “Perhaps, indeed, that is what “holy Scripture” really is—not a calm, serene list of truths to be learned or commands to be obeyed, but a jagged book that forces you to grow up in your thinking as you grapple with it” (142-143). Wright also suggests, “Paul has acquired over time a reputation for being a cantankerous and controversial figure, and no doubt there was that element in his makeup” (146).
Paul was seeking to build a new form of community. Wright states, “The challenge facing Paul and the others was how to live as an extended family without ties of kinship or ancestral symbols, without the geographical focus of Jerusalem and the temple, and without the central authority like that of Caesar” (103).
Wright speculates that Paul endured a difficult time after he wrote 1 Corinthians. He argues that 2 Corinthians “feels as if it is being dragged out of Paul through a filter of darkness and pain” (237). Wright suggests Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus and suffered severely from it. After he was released, he might have experienced painful disappointment at Corinth (237-240). These claims are conjecture, since Scripture is silent on these details, but Wright makes a compelling case. He notes that these events might also explain why Paul later bypassed Ephesus and had the elders come meet him instead (240). Wright notes, “This is where the biographer enters a dark tunnel, the tunnel between the cheerful Paul; of First Corinthians and the crushed, battered Paul of Second Corinthians” (263).
Wright claims Paul may have believed that much of the opposition he faced was the result of the “revenge of the powers into whose world he had been making inroads” (266). Wright does a good job of highlighting the challenges Paul faced as he sought to spread the gospel across the Roman world. Wright also examines Paul’s approach to slavery. While wishing Paul had condemned the practice outright, Wright acknowledges the difficulty of using a twenty-first century perspective to condemn someone in the first century. He points out that “[d]enouncing slavery would have been like denouncing electricity and the internal combustion engine,” because the first-century economy and society was so dependent on it (281).
Wright also takes a conservative view of the Pauline authorship of New Testament books. He notes that the two books most dissimilar are First and Second Corinthians, and they are generally attributed to Paul (285). He claims, “Once we place the letters in Ephesus, where I think they belong, these problems begin to look as though they are generated by ideology rather than historical study” (285-286).
Concerning the book of Romans, Wright observes, “Romans has a quality of literary artistry attempted nowhere else by Paul, or, one might add, by any of his contemporaries” (318). He adds, “Romans eight is the richest, deepest, and most powerfully sustained climax anywhere in the literature of the early Christian movement, and perhaps anywhere else as well” (331).
Wright clarifies that Paul was not starting a new religion. Paul viewed Christianity as the fulfilment of the Old Testament. Wright states, “It is not, and never can be, a story cut loose from the story of Israel” (332). He continues, “He is saying that Jews are always to be a part of God’s faithful family and that God can and will bring ‘some of them’ to that faith” (335).
Wright also examines the evidence of whether Paul traveled to Spain or was released from his original Roman imprisonment. In examining the Pastoral Letters, he finds indications that he did enjoy an extended ministry, and though it’s complex, it’s possible to harmonize the various epistles to allow for him traveling both west and east before being re-imprisoned.
Wright concludes, “His honesty shines out. With Paul, what you see is what you get, even if it isn’t what you wanted” (418).
I enjoyed how Wright brought together the various Pauline letters, Acts, and scholarly research to give the reader a comprehensive picture of the famous apostle. He does a good job of delving into Paul’s struggles. He must speculate at times. On several occasions, Wright suggests that because Paul faced so much opposition, misunderstanding, and persecution, he must have regularly faced the question, “Is it worth it?” Yet Paul had a masterful mind that was able to comprehend the enormous issues facing the church. He could articulate theology in a way that has stood the test of time over two millennia.
Wright doesn’t glamorize Paul. He points out the painful moments in his life, such as his disagreement with Barnabas. He also draws attention to low points such as when he was in Ephesus. Wright avoids psychoanalyzing the apostle, yet he tries to tease out the many struggles he must have endured throughout his ministry.
I encourage you to read this book by a preeminent Bible scholar. It is too easy to assume we already know about Paul, since we have heard about him all our Christian lives. Yet Paul has often been misunderstood and even villainized. He must be considered within his Jewish context. He is a complex, nuanced individual who has exerted enormous influence on history and particularly the church. I believe this book does him justice.
Rating: 4
