Review of J. Albert Harrill, Paul The Apostle: His Life and Legacy in Their Roman Context

J. Albert Harrill, Paul The Apostle: His Life and Legacy in Their Roman Context Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, (pb), ISBN 9780521757805.

Harrill’s book, Paul the Apostle, discusses Paul in his Roman context. He has as his counter argument discussions which couch the historical Paul with the historical Jesus and suggest both are politically revolutionary. Harrill presents this book about Paul and the way Paul was interpreted throughout early Christianity as completely Roman (and in fact more Roman than the Romans themselves). This main thesis of this book is convincing and deserves to be read. However, there are also several asides in the book which wander from the thesis. Some of these asides are well done (e.g. Harrill writes a brief biographical sketch of Paul informed from the New Perspective on Paul). Others, however, while perhaps being accurate only confuse the reader (most notably the conversation about Augustine and how the West understood Paul incorrectly).

This book bridges the gap between biography and an academic argument. In the preface Harrill points out that modern biographies take the life of a person and map it on a plot sequence used in literature. Instead, he chooses to write an antibiography which abandons the literary narrative of a biography and also does not attempt to find the fixed form of a person’s identity – Paul even says that he is many things to many people.[1] Rather, he spends time going through what is known about Paul and critically uses sources.

The most interesting element of the first two chapters for those who are already familiar with Pauline studies is that Harrill proves to be interested in the “New Perspective” of Paul. The “New Perspective” is the trend in scholarship which argues that Paul was fully Jewish, never felt that the relationship God had with the Jews had been abandoned, and that his statements about Torah and Israel are relevant to gentiles but not Jews. This idea developed when Krister Stendahl, almost 50 years ago, noticed that much of what the West considered to be true for Paul was not true for Judaism. Luther’s experience of a failure of the law (trying to keep it and simply not being able) is not found in Paul’s writing – he says that opposite – “In regard to observation of the Torah, I was blameless.”[2] Question then began to arise as to what was it that Paul was saying if it was not a law vs. gospel dichotomy? Several authors have proposed the view that Harrill espouses. It can be supported by comments found in Romans 9-11. For instance, after going through a long process of discussing why the Gentiles were saved, he then points out that “all Israel will be saved.” It is not clear how Paul considers this to happen – do they need to be Christian? Can they be saved as is? Is this only a portion of Israel? The New Perspective, then, would argue that Paul’s primary argument was not a new religious movement, but rather a new way for Gentiles to join a rather old religious movement called Judaism (as he argues they did not have to become proselyte Jews but could remain gentiles while being in relation with God). It is clear from looking at the text more critically than a traditional Protestant lens is necessary.

The view of the New Perspective in regard to the question of Judaism has not been persuasive to all scholars. The largest piece of evidence holding this back is that the book of Galatians seems to tend toward a problem with Judaism. The conversation about the New Perspective has been continuing for half a century and Harrill does not provide new information about the New Perspective as much as presents it in a new format. He presents a reconstruction of the life of Paul given the New Perspective framework. This life then avoids the biographical genre not just because of critiques of the genres as a whole but because he does not see a “climax” in Paul’s conversion (where biographies usually center). Second, he does not argue that there is only one Pauline thought – he is happy to admit that Galatians and Romans might be slightly different (after all, a person can change one’s mind slightly to suit different periods of their life). The first two chapters of the book create a compelling portrait of the reconstructed life of Paul. It does a good job explaining where he gets the information he uses for his conclusions and that alone makes it worth reading. If one does not agree with his reconstruction (as I found his discussion of Paul’s death somewhat suspect), it is very easy to consider his sources and analyze their value.

The book then moves into its primary argument in chapter three which focuses on Paul’s Roman identity. Harrill argues, correctly, that Paul was not primarily an anti-Roman revolutionary and that he used Roman systems of authority and patronage in a rather standard way.[3] Paul further used the type of rhetoric to establish his authority the same way as notable politicians. For the best example of this, Harrill sets Paul’s discussion of his “humble acceptance of authority” (“We have not made use of this right (of authority over you), but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ”)[4] with that of the Emperor Augustus who famously would never take on the official term emperor (even though of course he had all of the power).

The second portion of the book is tradition about Paul after he died. Harrill considers several books attributed to Paul but not written by him. He considers the ones in the New Testament (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastoral Epistles) as well as some that are not (Dialogue between Paul and Seneca, 3 Corinthians, Prayer of the Apostle Paul). He further considers works that are written about Paul – such as the Acts of the Apostles, the Acts of Paul, and the Martyrdom of Paul. He convincingly argues in chapter 5 that all of the works about Paul consider him as more rather than less Roman. In fact, in most of the cases, he is a better Roman than the Romans who are charging him.

The argument that Harrill presents about Paul’s Roman identity over against the idea that Paul was an anti-Roman revolutionary is the best part of the book and the heart of Harrill’s research and argument. His last two chapters seem an almost aside from that thesis. Because he was discussing tradition about Paul up until the fourth century, in the view of fairness, he has a chapter on Patristic interpretation of Paul up to the same time period. He goes through a number of figures in early Christian history who interpreted Paul’s works and may have even made a few comments about the man himself. The best portion of this chapters is Harrill’s fantastic job discussing Origen’s understanding (and frustration) with Paul. Harrill points out that Origen’s insights sound remarkably close to modern scholarship (not something usually said about any of the Father’s interpretation of scripture).

The final chapter, “How the west got Paul wrong” focuses on Augustine’s reading of Paul and the doctrine of original sin developed from Paul. He argues that Augustine had a poor translation of Romans 5:12 which led him to believe that in Adam’s sin, all sinned. This he sees as a watershed moment for Augustine because the idea of Sin versus Grace was introduced in a way that had not been previously. He does correctly point out that Augustine is not exactly Luther on this point, but the dichotomy between the two, as found in Paul, did originate in Augustine.

    

Merits and question for the main argument of the book

There is much that is laudable in this book. My main critiques that do not focus on the last chapter (see below for my critiques on that) are only questions I wish Harrill had discussed further so that his logic could be applied to differing ideas. Therefore, for this section, I will present what I thought was well done in the book and then supply a further study that could have made his point more convincing. 

The avoidance of writing a biography is a wise choice on the part of Harrill. This criticism of biography is quite apt. Most biographies force a person’s life into a plot sequence that has a climax. This is often not how the lives of people function – very few have a single moment when they “peaked.” For example, Walter Isaacson in his otherwise very good biography of Steve Jobs forces Jobs into having some internal change in personality between his periods of working at Apple, NeXt, Pixar, and then Apple again (with the Pixar/Apple job being the climax of the book). The problem is that any one reading the book will recognize that Jobs was the same challenging person throughout his life. When this same pattern is applied to Paul, his “call” becomes the climax of the narrative with his missionary journeys becoming the falling action and denouement. This emphasis forces the call to be far more than it is and to become the kind of conversion where he changes names (even though, as Harrill points out, there is no evidence that his name ever changed at any point). Harrill’s book is far better by describing what we know of Paul without falling into the genre of biography.

The major piece missing from his life of Paul was only his discussion of Paul’s mission. He does mention that Paul had such urgency in converting Gentiles to the Jesus movement because he felt the world was going to end so soon. However, this presents Paul as a philanthropist – he could sit quietly and his own salvation would be secure but instead he spends his time trying to help others. Rather, Romans 11:25 clearly states that the end has not yet come “until the full number of Gentiles has come in.” Paul’s motivation is completely selfish. He wants the reign of God to come as soon as possible. His missionary activity is attempting to hasten that day. The more gentiles he converts, the closer the coming of the kingdom of God is and his salvation is actualized.

The discussion of Paul’s Romanness is very well done as I intimated earlier. The idea that Paul uses Roman authority structures is convincing and clear. The one element that Harrill could have used was the idea of a Patron that Paul employs. Paul considers himself a Patron to all those he has converted as displayed in Philemon 11 and 17. Paul suggest that he has become Onesimus’s “father” in prison. The meaning of this is that Paul has converted Onesimus and now has authority over him. This was in full keeping with Greco-Roman patronage structures. The lower class would often adopt a “father” to take care of them (given that the state had almost no civic service whatsoever). This patron would then provide the subsidiary basic human needs in return for loyalty (which could well involve voting for that patron).

The only problem with the idea of Paul’s Romanness occurs that Harrill does not directly address the political implication of Paul’s language of “reign of God.” This is precisely the language that made Jesus’ message politically subversive. I do not think that Paul’s language is as politically challenging to the Romans as Jesus’ seemed to be for a few reasons. First, Jesus was implying (or at least the Romans felt he was) that he would be the king of the kingdom to come (though it is an interesting factoid that nowhere in the gospels does Jesus explicitly say this in this type of political language). However, more importantly, the precise nature of the reign of God might have a slight nuance between Paul and Jesus which made all the difference. Jesus’ discussion of the coming Kingdom was a kingdom on earth that would replace the “kingdom” that was already there (while Jesus was speaking globally, the Romans had no problem taking it personally). Paul, however, sees the reign of God slightly differently. The coming reign of God is the coming wrath upon the earth that will put an end to all the divergence among people. The earth will be under wrath while the righteous will be happily rescued and in communion “in the clouds.”[5] While it is possible that Paul then suggested a return to the earth, it is not quite explicit in that manner. While in some ways Paul’s view would be more bleak for the Romans, it also provided a way that did not suggest a replacement of one kingdom with another – thereby sounding politically dangerous. This conversation is missing from Harrill’s book and really is necessary if, as he suggests, he wants to show that the ideas of scholars such as Crossan, who hold that Paul was an anti-Roman social reformer, to be incorrect.

The final tremendous merit to Harrill’s book is how he uses the book of Acts. It is clear that Acts does not hold completely historical information about Paul – Harrill is hardly the first to note this issue. However, in discussion of Acts’ presentation of Paul, he shows some of the tension in Acts. He shows that in the flight from Damascus, Paul says that he left due to persecution from the state. Acts does not mention anything about the state and instead puts the persecution in the hands of the Jews. This shows one of the challenges of Luke-Acts. It wants to present the Jesus movement as being in full continuity with the Roman empire and Judaism. Here is an example when those ideas are in competition. Acts is willing to abandon its ties to Judaism for a moment in order to avoid its competing interest in continuity with the Roman state (similar to the way that in the parable of the good Samaritan Luke is willing to abandon continuity with Judaism in order to emphasize one of its other themes – care for the poor).

Critique of the final chapter of the book

As shown above, the book on the whole is a triumph. However, the last chapter can be critiqued primarily because it is so tangential. The last chapter, “How the West got Paul wrong” focuses on Augustine’s understanding of original sin. He argues that it was a misreading of Romans 5:12 from “Therefore, just as Sin came into the world through one man, and Death came through Sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” to “Therefore, just as Sin came into the world through one man, and Death came through Sin, and so death spread to all in which all have sinned.” The reading then would suggest that Augustine read that Adam’s sin was collective.[6]

While I do not disagree that Augustine probably did read this line in this way, Harrill does not mention why this reading would not have been surprising to Augustine. One thing that is missing in his entire book (as it really has little to do with the Romanness of Paul either way) is the platonic concept of  “in Christ” throughout his work. He believed that those who were part of the movement participated in the eternal form of Christ (who happens to be the actual Christ who came on earth). Therefore, when one became part of the movement, then they joined a new humanity in Christ rather than the old one “in Adam” (“As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive”) This idea is developed in Romans 5 and not only is “Adam” a heavenly type that can be participated in, so is Sin and Death. He believed Sin and Death were cosmic forces that could enslave humans (and in fact had). He argues in the very passage Harrill accuses Augustine of misreading – that all participate in the cosmic power of Sin because all “have sinned” (note the difference between the capital and small letters here). The idea is that since everyone has erred at some point, then they are participating in the concept of Sin. This Sin is the thing that is connected with Death and therefore people will die (here it is fair to think this is spiritual rather than physical).

To be fair to Harrill, Augustine does make an error in the point – that is that Augustine considered original sin in many ways to be one of guilt – things a person actually had done (even though of course it was done before one was born) whereas Paul sees it more as a cosmic force to which one is enslaved (guilt is not a major factor in reading Paul). Harrill’s not bringing this point up makes Augustine look ridiculous. I agree that Augustine – much like all Patristic authors – used scripture creatively to meet his own ends (though in his case he does it openly with a laid out presentation in On Christian Teaching). However, the nuance is far more subtle when this “participatory model” is presented.

Harrill’s lack of presenting the participatory model shows why tangents are troubling. I do not think Harrill wanted to slander Augustine (though to be fair I have never met him). Had this chapter been at the end of a book discussing the participatory model, all of the material I felt needed to be supplied would have been supplied. The problem is that he presents this at the end of a book on Paul’s Romanness. However one considers Augustine’s presentation of Paul, I do not think any of the doctrine of original sin has anything to do with whether Augustine saw Paul as a good Roman or not. This is the real reason why this chapter stood out and was unclear – it simply did not flow with the argument of the book and as such, could confuse a reader.

Conclusion

This book is one well worth reading. It provides a very good reconstructed life of Paul and makes an important argument – that Paul was very much a good Roman. Further, the discussion of the tradition about Paul provides a new angle to a standard survey of Paul and has much interesting material. Further, Harrill writes the book so accessibly that anyone interested in the subject could understand it quite clearly (no matter how much they knew about Paul already). With the caveats listed above, this book is quite valuable and should be read.   

---

[1] Harrill, Paul the Apostle, 3.

[2] Phil. 3:2.

[3] Harrill, Paul the Apostle, 80-88.

[4] I Corinthians 9:4.

[5] I Thessalonians 4:17.

[6] Harrill, Paul the Apostle, 143-144.