"Paul's Message: What the Apostle Means to Me"

copyright Ó 2014, Paul K Davis, Fremont CA

[Introduction]

Have any women spoken in this service? Also, what gender is our congregational president? Have we ever had a woman minister? The answers are "yes", "female" and "yes". Yet I read here "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." This is in a book included in the Christian New Testament of the Bible. This book begins "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope, unto Timothy, my own son in the faith."

This is one of many passages in the Bible which have caused considerable controversy within Christianity, and to which different branches of Christianity have reacted differently. Many problematic passages in the Bible are simply ignored by some or all Christians, but it's difficult to ignore the apostle Paul. In rankings of the most influential people in all of history he is commonly placed in the top ten, along with such as Mohammad, Jesus, Cai Lun, Shakespeare and Confucius. (Cai Lun, by the way, invented paper.)

Today I wish to explain, to the extent possible in twenty minutes, who this guy Paul was, after whom I am named, what modern research says concerning which are his genuine writings and what they mean, what his genuine message may have been, and what he means to me in my life. I'll give you a bit of a hint about my conclusions - I believe he is much more in tune with out Unitarian Universalist principles and values than appears at first, and I believe we have neglected him as a source.

[Who Paul Was]

First, who was Paul? His birth name was Saul. He was of the Israelite tribe of Benjamin. Technically, he was not a Jew, that word being derived from the name, Judah, of one of the other tribes, but the word "Jew" was already coming to mean any Israelite, and even non-Israelites who adopted the Israelite religion. King Herod was an example of the latter. Paul's native city was Tarsus, apparently founded by the ancient Hittites, within the modern nation of Turkey. At Paul's era it was part of the Greek cultural sphere. It had come into the Roman empire on amicable terms, so its citizens were also entitled to Roman citizenship.

Like many Jews then and now, and people of many cultures living within another culture, Saul also had a Roman name, selected apparently because of similar sound to his birth name. This other name was "Paul". This man, Saul or Paul, was in fact tri-cultural: Jewish, Greek and Roman. He had been a student of the most respected Rabbi Gamaliel, son of the legendary Hillel. He was also fluent in Greek. He eagerly went into synagogues to present his message to fellow Jews, he went to the famous agora in Athens, haunt of the great Greek philosophers, to explain his views, and he claimed the legal privileges of a Roman citizen so he could go there with his message.

Saul's profession was tent-making, and he associated with other tent makers, sometimes staying as a guest in their home when he was travelling.

Saul never met Jesus in person. His first encounter with Christians was apparently as a member of the jury which convicted Stephen of blasphemy. Stephen was executed - the first Christian martyr. Then Paul had a vision of Jesus asking why. Paul was stunned. He became a Christian and an apostle. "Apostle" is a Greek word meaning someone who is sent out to convey a message.

There is also much we do not know about Paul. He made several references to his infirmity. Some have concluded this was epilepsy, and that his vision of Jesus was an epileptic fit, but it seems unlikely to me he would refer to what he considered the greatest event in his life as an infirmity. He says that his handwriting is large, so others have suggested his infirmity was poor vision. Maybe he was simply getting old when he wrote the epistles. We do not know for sure when, where or how he died, though there was a strong tradition he was martyred in Rome. We don't know whether he fulfilled his dream of travelling all the way to Spain.

[Genuine Writings of Paul]

Paul wrote a number of letters, or epistles. Epistle means a letter intended for publication, as opposed to a private letter. The cover of our Order of Service today shows Paul, writing an epistle, probably painted by Valentin de Boulogne, who lived from 1591 to 1632.

Paul's letters are the first known Christian writings; for Jesus, like Socrates, taught only by conversation and example. Thirteen letters are included in the Christian New Testament beginning, as I quoted earlier, with a statement that they were written by Paul. They make reference to yet other letters probably lost, and there are a few other known letters not included in the Bible which claim to be his. There were enough fraudulent letters attributed to famous authors that, even in ancient times, it was realized this was a problem. For instance, the Christian bishop Eusebius, who lived in the early fourth century when church leaders were trying to agree on a list of books to be considered the Bible, wrote "One Epistle of Peter, called his first Epistle, is recognized as authentic ... But with regard to the so-called second Epistle, we have learned that it is not." Many other discussions must have occurred concerning the genuineness and value of various writings, but only a very few of these explanations have come down to us.

We also know that, before 1455, when Johann Gutenberg invented a practical and efficient printing press, it was common for copies of a work to vary. A small example that has been demonstrated by archeology is the mention of the city of Athens in the Iliad. Actually, Athens was not founded until after the Trojan War, and a copyist in Athens must have felt he should correct the omission of his great city from the most important poem of his culture. There are probably many other changes that occurred in the transmission of the Iliad which we cannot so easily detect, and this must apply to ancient documents in general. The only cases I know where we actually have the original documents are some records recorded on clay tablets and proclamations engraved in stone.

It has long been realized that there are many apparent contradictions in what we have received as Paul's writings. I read you a restriction on women teaching, having authority over men, or even speaking. We also have received, in First Corinthians chapter 14, verse 34, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." Yet, earlier in this same epistle, in chapter 11 verses 5 and 10, we read "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" and "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head". Efforts to harmonize these have included the concepts that women should "prophecy" but not "preach", that they should prophecy outside of church, that they should indeed have authority, but only over other women, etc. There has been the further suggestion that Paul simply changed his mind on some subjects, being egalitarian at the beginning of his Christian ministry, but becoming misogynistic as he grew older. I find these explanations unsatisfactory.

Instead, I have concluded we must accept the fact that the same vicissitudes of transmission have affected the epistles attributed to Paul as have affected the Iliad, and most documents from ancient times. We are not without specific clues. For example, the verses about women being silent and submissive occur in different places in different early manuscripts. This is likely an indication that these comments were originally a marginal note, written by someone who disagreed with Paul. Later copyists were unsure, but wished to be careful to preserve everything in their source. They copied it into the text, some at the location where the marginal note began, others at the location where it ended.

This explanation is further confirmed by reading the whole chapter. The verses in question interrupt the line of reasoning. If you study Paul's writings, one of the first things you notice is he has long, carefully constructed, explanations and lines of reasoning. A couple of verses inserted on another subject is simply not the way he wrote. This also points to a more general criterion for understanding any document we may have, namely, don't pay so much attention to isolated quotations, instead read and interpret the whole.

Another powerful technique in determining authorship of a document is linguistic analysis. This can include such techniques as comparing word usage with other information on when a word came into a language, and statistical analysis of incidental word usage, such as frequency of different choices among synonyms. Similar also is variation in grammatical construction, usage of images and analogies, and extent of vocabulary.

An early example of the use of linguistic analysis is the work of the fifteenth century Italian scholar Lorenzo Valla. He was a remarkable man, having published a treatise comparing Stoicism with Epicureanism, in which he favored the latter, and a treatise on Latin style. He concluded that the so-called "Apostle's Creed" was not actually written by the apostles, and that the "Donation of Constantine", which gave the western half of the Roman Empire to the pope, was a forgery. Miraculously, though the Catholic church strongly disagreed, he escaped punishment, and went on to correct the accepted text of Livy's "Foundation of Rome", into which had been inserted many marginal notes Petrarch had made in his personal copy.

A recent modern example of the use of linguistic analysis concerns the detective novel "The Cuckoo's Calling", published early last year as the first work of "Robert Galbraith". The analytical results indicated similarities with the "Harry Potter" books, and J. K. Rowling has now admitted that "Galbraith" is indeed a pseudonym of hers.

Such analyses have led most scholars to conclude that the seven epistles called "Romans", "First" and "Second Corinthians", "Galatians", "Philippians", "First Thessalonians" and "Philemon" are genuinely by Paul. They are all by the same author, stylistically, and they are quoted very early. Four other Biblical epistles, "Second Thessalonians", "First" and "Second Timothy", and "Titus" are not by Paul, nor are the non-Biblical epistles "Laodiceans" and "Third Corinthians". The two Biblical epistles "Ephesians" and "Colossians" are still of uncertain authorship, possibly Paul, possibly not.

It will be noted that my very first quotation, against women teaching or gaining authority, is from one of the fraudulent epistles. Let me quote some more about women, this time sticking to the genuine epistles. In Romans, chapter sixteen, the first three verses, we read, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me". If actions speak louder than words, this action of Paul, commending a woman who held authority in a church, is a further indication of the fraudulent nature of contradictory passages.

[What Paul's Words Mean]

Having made progress in determining what Paul actually wrote, we must next consider what he meant. I remind you that the fourth Unitarian Universalist principle is "A free and responsible search", not only "for truth", but also for "meaning".

Even in personal conversations I find that I may easily misunderstand another, and they me. I'm sure we all encounter this frustration frequently. We rely on context, which may be unclear. We assume we understand words the same way, and often take it as implicit which meaning of a word we are using, when we've actually left some ambiguity. We leave unstated what is obvious from the culture within which we live, which may leave a future reader clueless.

All these problems are even worse when we try to understand what was written millennia ago by an individual in a different culture, writing in a language which must be translated for most. I'll give only a few examples, together with my own conclusions.

First, the Pauline writings have been used to justify slavery. In Colossians, chapter 3, the 22nd verse, we read, "Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Furthermore, the entire epistle to Philemon is a letter of transmittal, sending an escaped slave back to his master. Nevertheless, if a person simply reads the text of Philemon, they find that, since the escape of the slave Onesimus, his owner Philemon has become a Christian. Paul clearly expects Philemon, as a result, to free Onesimus. Paul even explains that the only reason he is not telling Philemon to free Onesimus is so that Philemon can have to his own credit the good deed of freeing Onesimus.

As for the passage in Colossians, which may or may not be genuinely by Paul, it is in keeping with several of Paul's instructions to women, which, in the historical context, I conclude are warnings about how far you can safely go against your society's norms, rather than any sort of statement of Paul's ideals. I think there's a clue in First Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 32, where we read, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God."

Second, I think it's worth commenting on references to homosexuality in the Pauline epistles. I'll take just one example, from First Corinthians chapter 6, verses 9 and 10, "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." This translation, a modernization of the King James Version, perpetuates a pattern of misinterpretation and mistranslation when there is any hint of a reference to homosexuality. The Greek text contains no word derived from "Sodom". Anyway, the account in Genesis of Sodom at most condemns rape, not all homosexuality. One of the words Paul actually did use is very rare, and both of the words here translated as "homosexuals" and "sodomites" have been variously translated. I have studied the careful linguistic analysis by reverend Justin Russell Cannon, and I agree with him that the words probably actually mean male prostitutes, and customers of male prostitutes, respectively. The word translated "fornicators", further, really means female prostitutes. In the final analysis, Paul is condemning prostitution, female and male, including the customers, not homosexuality. I would also point out that, in Paul's times, prostitutes were in general not those willing to sell their bodies, but slaves who had no choice. In fact, the general meaning of the Greek word "pornoi", used with the apparent meaning of female prostitute, and translated "fornicator" in the text quoted, is a female slave.

[What Paul's Message Was]

I've now spent some time identifying what Paul did not write, and criticizing common misinterpretations of what he did write. However, when I was president of my Union local I adopted a motto which goes, "It's not enough to know what's wrong, we also need to have an idea what would be right instead."

In the case just discussed, we see that misinterpretation of the passage has caused two problems, not one. Not only has a condemnation of homosexuality been unfairly found, but a genuine condemnation of slavery, especially of sexual mistreatment of slaves, has been ignored.

For the attitude of the genuine Paul on human genders we can turn to chapter 7 of First Corinthians, verse 3, where Paul writes "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband", and he continues, treating the genders equally.

But these are only parts of a larger message of the apostle's. In discerning this larger message a good place to begin is the passage we read earlier as our invocation. This is probably Paul's best known passage, and is also the basis of the lyrics of the hymn we just sung, and the inspiration of our closing hymn. It is from the 13th chapter of First Corinthians, one of the epistles generally agreed to be genuine. It is an entire chapter, unlikely to have been just a marginal note by someone else. It is clearly part of the larger topic of this section of the epistle, which is spiritual gifts. Paul says the greatest of spiritual gifts is love, surpassing both faith and hope.

Certainly also a key part of Paul's message was the resurrection of Jesus, which he states many times, and which he says is the basis of hope for all. A very important point here is that Paul believed Jesus was a messiah for all. The common concept at the time of a messiah, or saviour, was someone who would save one group of people from oppression by another. Paul's concept of a messiah was someone who would save all people from oppression by their sins and errors. Paul had argued this point with others of the apostles, and they all apparently came to agree with Paul's concept, letting Peter be the chief apostle to Jews and Paul be the chief apostle to Gentiles. But, again, he has said love surpasses hope.

Another well-known part of Paul's message is justification by faith. Much of the genuine epistle to the Romans is about the superiority of faith to adherence to the law. I would comment that the word translated "faith" actually had a broader meaning than our modern English word. It included faithfulness. I see it as including self-consistency, the opposite of hypocrisy, which Paul condemns. But, again, he has said both hope and love surpass faith.

So, then, we have faith replacing adherence to the law, and faith itself being surpassed by hope, and ultimately love. Is this not the value based morality we Unitarian Universalists are seeking to follow? If so, what are the love values which Paul espoused? Certainly one can be found in Galatians, an epistle Paul wrote to a Celtic people who had immigrated to Asia Minor. In chapter 3, verse 28, Paul wrote: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Is this not our first Unitarian Universalist principle, "to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person"?

[What Paul Means to Me]

When I was a teenager I began to reject what my father said. Then I had a thought. I don't know where this thought came from, but I'm glad it came to me. The thought was that wholesale rejection of my father's beliefs and instructions would be just as wrong as uncritical acceptance. I set about doing my best to discern which was good and which was not. I apply the same criterion to all sources, including Paul the Apostle.

It seems Paul was mistaken in believing Jesus would soon return and set the world straight, but this does not mean that Paul's message of a better morality and a better world were wrong. I accept his message that all people are one, and that love is the greatest spiritual gift.

I disagree with Paul in believing his revelation of Jesus was more solid evidence than the personal experience of the other apostles, but I still agree with Paul's understanding of the message of Jesus as being a message for poor people as well as wealthy, for women as well as for men, for Samaritans as well as for Jews, and Jesus's attitude that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath".

Paul threw all his energy into spreading this message. I keep reminding myself of the words in Colossians, chapter 3, verse 23, "Whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men." We should each have our own internal standard, and not rely on the approval of others.

In First Corinthians chapter 7, verse 7, Paul expresses another sentiment dear to me, that "Each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." I feel fortunate to have the gift of ability in science, but every individual has some ability with which things of value can be accomplished.

[Conclusion]

I hope I have now shined some new light on a highly influential historical individual. I also hope I've shown how scientific analysis, such as historical and linguistic study, can be important to understanding religious issues.

Paul wrote nearly two thousand years ago, but his message is still highly relevant today. True morality is based on values, not inflexible rules. True values apply to all people. This is not just Paul's message, he received it from Jesus. Jesus received it from such prophets as Hosea, who said, in chapter 6, verse 6, of his book, "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings". And it has been transmitted to us, for Unitarian Universalism is a value-based religion whose first value is the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Again, as Paul wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And, "now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love."

Thank you all.