💾 Archived View for tilde.pink › ~eriounious › jesuswordsonly › articles › bookreviewofgrayspaul.gmi captured on 2024-07-09 at 00:06:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Archivist's addition] Library Genesis Download
By: Patrick Gray [2016]
Book Review by Doug (July 10, 2017)
This is a book from the Christian publishing house
that anyone who makes a serious study of Paul must acquire. It purports to be a comprehensive historical review of those critical of Paul throughout the centuries -- a review of "those who regard him as a problem." (Kindle 252,285.) It has found endorsement as a "versatile volume" to be used in the "classroom or for personal reading." (Exploring Church History.) "It is a handy resource for scholars or anyone else who wishes to track down original sources that reflect anti-Paulinism."
(Lutheran Quarterly Vol. 30, No. 4 (Winter 2016).
The author, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College,
appears to aid Paul's defense but he never is too out in the open about doing so. Hence, on the surface it is mostly an objective presentation. Thus, for what it does discuss, it is typically a useful overview.
However, Gray never acknowledges there is a legitimate Bible-based reason to reject the writings of Paul. He instead implies most of the time that only those who "despise Paul" reject Paul or his writings. The criticism of Paul is largely attributed by Gray to a non-stop stream of hateful slander, not recognizing anyone ever having criticised Paul to seriously defend Yahweh / God / Jesus with the sole exception of Kierkegaard.
Shockingly, Gray omits entirely any serious mention of the early orthodox Christian critic of Paul's authority from 207 AD -- Tertullian -- a grand omission. Gray also omits where those critiques can be found in Tertullian's writings, as I discuss below.
Gray also surprisingly omits mention at all of the reputable Reverand Vincent Holmes-Gore who wrote Christ or Paul? (C. Daniels 1946). In it, this well published Christian author said Christ's doctrines are "opposed to the Pauline Gospel as light is opposed to darkness." See link. He said Christ's words in Matt 7:21-23 "fit Paul" because Christ warned that many who called on Him as "Lord" and did miracles and prophecies in His name, Jesus will tell "I never knew you, you workers of Lawlessness."
What is Lawlessness meant in that passage? Well, Paul abrogated the entire Mosaic Law, for both a Jew and a Gentile, in Romans 7:1-11 which section is titled "Free from the Law" in the NKJV. Thus, this passage in Matthew truly "fits Paul," as Holmes-Gore said.
Holmes-Gore could have made the point stronger, but did not elaborate on the translation in Greek of "anomia" as Lawlessness. This word literally means negation of the Mosaic Law. In the Septuagint Greek translation of 247 BC of the Hebrew Bible, anomia translates the Hebrew verb for "apostasy" (turn away) -- from the Law given Moses -- but as a generalized noun form of the word for "turn away" used in Deuteronomy 13:5-10. See Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint (Peeters Publishers 2007) at 173-174.
Thus, Anomia is well-understood in that time as apostasy from the Law -- the proof that the speaker is a "false prophet" under Deut 13:1-10 even if they have true prophecy and signs and wonders. See this link. So Holmes-Gore was correct that Jesus very much had Paul in view in Matt 7:21-23 - a clear paraphrase of Deut 13:1-10. Jesus says He will tell anyone who teaches as Paul does against the Law that "I never knew you" because such teaching works anomia. Nothing surprising is suggested by this deduction as nearly all evangelical Christianity besides post 325 AD Roman Catholicism defend that Paul entirely abrogated God's Law given Moses.
Incidentally, this anti-law position of Paul is quite unlike early predominant Christianity prior to the Nicene council of 325 AD. Pre-Nicene Christianity, with the sole exception of Paul, endorsed Jesus' view in Matt 5:17-19 that the Law would continue until the "heavens and earth pass away." See link. This was in line with the decision of James, bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and 21 who makes clear (1) Gentiles had 4 fundamental rules from the Law they must initially follow (not including circumcision for salvation, as some insisted in Acts 15:1-2, as that law applies only to "sons of Israel" in Lev 12:1-3) and the rest the Gentiles would learn gradually by hearing the Law read weekly at Sabbath congregation meetings; and (2) there is nothing subtracted from the Law applicable to the sons of Israel who became Christians. See Law Applicable to Gentiles.
Bultmann's influential dismissal of any ongoing validity to Jesus' words in the New Covenant Scriptures, putting all the emphasis on Paul's words, proves the danger of two masters as Jesus said: you will love the one and hate the other. (Matthew 6:24.) This is where the church is today--having been wooed from its first love for Christ. To avoid making any apostle a competing master, we must remember the apostles only had one inspired function -- that is when they served to carry Jesus' words (John 14:26), that is, when they serve the role of a "messenger" -- the meaning of the Greek word apostolos. Otherwise, they are at best edifying.
Thus, how can Gray not have searched for this book by Holmes-Gore? It is an especially valuable work as Reverand Holmes-Gore's criticism validly applies our Lord's words to prove Paul's teachings are, by the Bible's standard, as a "false prophet. Vincent Holmes-Gore had a meaningful and thoroughly researched work from a Christian perspective. He was not a hater of Paul, but rather an obedient lover and follower of our Lord Jesus.
How could Gray have overlooked this well-know Christian critic of Paul? Is Gray truly trying to be comprehensive? Or is Gray instead trying to skew how "anti-Paulinists" are perceived so they appear to be simply haters, misfits, sin-defenders, or enemies of Christ, whose views at all times are supposedly unsupported by any legitimate Christian voices?
Gray discusses whether certain works in canon are anti-Pauline, such as James and Jude. But Gray omits from this list any mention that Apostle John's Book of Revelation is a canonical book that is "anti-Pauline." Ernest Renan, a Christian scholar and mostly defender of Paul in St. Paul (G.W. Carleton 1869) at 220 explains why the Book of Revelation is anti-Pauline:
The second and third chapters of the Apocalypse [i.e., Revelation written in 68 AD] are a cry of hatred against Paul and his friends. ...This church of Ephesus... is praised for having tried those who say they are apostles and are not, for having found them liars. [Cf. first, Acts 19 depicts an Ephesian synagogue that was adopting Paul's preaching over several months about Jesus but then suddenly expels him; and second, Renan recognizes Paul's claim to being an apostle of Jesus is a self-serving one, lacking any corroboration] .... "But I have a few things against you," the divine voice says to Pergamos, "because thou has there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam ... to eat things sacrificed to idols."
Renan recognizes that Jesus in Revelation ch. 2 criticizes an uncorroborated claim that one is an apostle, which points right at Paul because he is the only source to prove Paul is an apostle on par with the twelve. Also, Paul multiple times says there is nothing wrong inherently in eating meat sacrificed to idols
and thus Paul is the obvious target of Apostle John (quoting Jesus) in Revelation 2. Jesus tells us about a false teacher at Ephesus who says it is ok to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. The reference is clearly to Paul. In fact, Jesus' comments to the church at Thyatira even quote Paul from 1 Corinthians 2:10, directly disparaging Paul's "deeper" thoughts to justify eating meat sacrificed to idols. See "Revelation & Paul."
Renan attributed the anti-Paul aspect of Revelation to hate by apostle John -- an old smear tactic by defenders of Paul who cannot grapple with the theological issues raised by true Christians or even by Christ himself.
So did Gray inadvertently miss Apostle John's Revelation as an Anti-Pauline work too? Well, Gray says he is cataloguing the "Anti-Paulinism" remarks in history that are critical of Paul, whether by Christians or not. (Kindle 252, 271.)
Had Gray simply searched the word "Anti-Pauline" -- his subject matter, Gray would have found the following: the word "Anti-Pauline" appears on pages 125 and 131 of the work by Christian professor
entitled The Biblical Theology of the New Testament (MacMillan 1900). In Gould's work we read that he accepts the same conclusion as put forth earlier by Renan although Gould claims without proof there must be anti-Paulinist tampering with Revelation. Gould says:
"The Apocalypse [i.e., Revelation written by Apostle John] ... represents an unqualified opposition to Paul....The Apocalypse [is] anti-Pauline." [Page 125.] "[Revelation is] a writing distinctly anti-Pauline." [Page 131.]
Incidentally, it is hard to imagine Revelation was tampered with. Primarily this is because Revelation was written two decades prior to John writing the Gospel of John.
This means John lived as a leader in Ephesus for two decades with everyone there reading Revelation for 20 or more years before John's Gospel. If any manuscript was tampered with to add chapter two, John was right there to set the record straight.
Incidentally, for other proof Revelation is Anti-Pauline, see Jesus destroy the teaching of faith alone without works in Revelation ch 3 at this link [to come].
Thus, did Gray truly know nothing about either Jesus or an apostle of Jesus in Revelation criticizing Paul's claims to being a true apostle as solely self-serving and hence invalid? Or that Jesus is evidently criticizing Paul for repeating the error of the false prophet Balaam in the OT by saying it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols? One must wonder.
Gray did have some minimal notice, even mentioning in his discussion of the 19th century German scholar Baur as anti-Paul that Baur had a theory "that Revelation is one of the earliest documents in the NT and that it was written in part to combat Pauline teaching." (Loc 1896.) Gray gives us no guts of Baur's argument, so we end up never asking ourselves whether Jesus or John truly spoke against Paul in Revelation. If you listen to Renan and Gould, there is no doubt Revelation is anti-Paul. Gray should have done more digging. He would have realized Revelation had to be discussed in the list Gray made of canonical works that are potentially Anti-Pauline.
At minimum, this all shows we cannot entirely rely upon Gray's work as useful to know Christian criticisms of Paul. This includes the most important which are those that appear in canon, and come expressly from our Lord Jesus.
Gray in an extremely odd fashion completely downplays Second Peter -- the most famous of all anti-Paul criticisms in or out of the NT. See Kindle Loc 506.
Gray makes 2 Peter 3:15-17 all about a criticism supposedly coming from the "ignorant and unstable" who fall into their own "destruction" after reading Paul's writings. Gray places no attention or focus upon that it is Peter in Second Peter who is perceived as giving an anti-Paul message. No other scholar except Gray has ever been concerned whether the "ignorant" and "unstable" readers of Paul are Paul's critics in this passage. Gray pays no attention to the significance that Second Peter clearly says Paul's words sometimes are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16) - a significant criticism, especially when the "ignorant" and "unstable" fall thereby into "destruction" due to adopting a "lawless" behavior, according to Second Peter 3:18.
All Gray focuses upon, instead, is the readers of Paul and whether they slander Paul. Here is the entire discussion of 2 Peter 3:15-17 in Gray's work:
Outside Acts and the Pauline writings there is little evidence of animus toward Paul in the pages of the NT. The author of 2 Peter (3:15-16) states that Paul's letters are on occassion "hard to understand," leading the "ignorant and unstable [to] twist [them] to their own destruction." Nothing in this remark necessarily means that these readers are intending to slander Paul. With "friends" who so badly mangle his teachings, the author of 2 Peter might ask, who needs enemies? (Kindle loc. 506).
That's all Gray has to say in his entire book about the most famous and well-known anti-Paul remark in all history. Gray states the source of perceived criticism in this passage comes from the "ignorant and unstable" readers. This becomes a straw-man argument which then Gray easily dismisses because he finds there is no perceived slander by Paul's readers in Peter's remark. True enough. But this means Gray is oblivious, so he seems to portray himself, that the criticism of Paul in Second Peter is by Peter of Paul's writings for being sometimes "hard to understand." This remark is what everyone else has noticed contains a sting of criticism of Paul by Apostle Peter. No one has ever suggested before Gray that the "ignorant and unstable" readers of Paul are the critics of Paul in this passage, allegedly slandering Paul in the process.
Could Gray truly not know Apostle Peter was the perceived source of this most famous criticism of Paul in Church history? Is it merely a faux paus that led Gray to ask the wrong question? Or does Gray have a bias to ignore Christian, even Apostolic, criticism of Paul, even perhaps unconsciously?
Please note again that Gray quotes the passage of 2 Peter 3:15-16, and then observes only that there is "nothing in this remark necessarily" that "means these readers are intending to slander Paul." There is astonishingly no discussion by Gray that the words "difficult to understand" in 2 Peter 3:16 have ever been viewed as a criticism by Peter of Paul in church history.
But where in church history does the anti-Paul perception of this passage truly arise? From Peter? Or from the Paul-readers?
The first reason this passage is recognized as Anti-Paul, as explained below, has to do with the fact Second Peter says Paul's words are sometimes DYSNOETAS in Greek. This is 2 Peter 3:16.
In Greek, DYS as a prefix means "DESTROYING THE GOOD SENSE OF A WORD" that follows (Liddel & Scott quoted at Dictionary.com]. Then the word that follows is NOETAS, and it means SENSIBLE. See Francis E. Peter, Greek Philosophical Terms: An Historical Lexicon (1967) at 130 ("logoi noeton" = "sensible things"); 128 (noeton = "intelligible") Cf. NOETA = thought.
Hence, DYSNOETAS means "nonsensical thoughts" or "unintelligible thoughts" to reflect that the writer lacks any sense to what he or she is writing. The problem is the writer’s words simply don't make any good sense. They defy common sense. Thus, it is clear the problem is Paul's fault by the word DYSNOETAS used by Apostle Peter, according to its traditional authorship. Some of Paul's writings are said to suffer from DYSNOETAS. What does that convey?
In the Latin Vulgate of 2 Peter 3:16 from the early 400s, it is translated as "difficulty in intelligence" -- a Latin expression meaning similar to the Greek that the writer has a deficiency in making intelligent sense. If the reader misunderstands, the mistake began initially with the writer. Hence, Second Peter is a criticism of Paul's content -- his writing is sometimes lacking sense, with grave consequences -- a lawless life and personal destruction of Paul's readers who are unstable in their “steadfastness” to Jesus over Paul.
It is true that Second Peter then blames the readers in part for having an unstable ignorance, obviously of Jesus' more clear words. This weakness then leads them to accept their understanding of Paul's nonsensical words, and adopt "lawless" principles, so says Second Peter, "to their own destruction," and thereby lose their "steadfastness" in Christ. (2 Peter 3:17-18.)
Peter thus lays at Paul's feet PART OF THE BLAME for the loss of stedfastness in Christ and falling into a lawless and destructive life of error.
Second Peter explains this clearly. It says that many construe Paul's DYSNOETAS -- nonsense -- in his writings to support the "error of the lawless" and thereby "fall away from their steadfastness" in Christ. (2 Peter 3:18.) These LISTENERS are criticized for a different fault than Paul's fault; the listeners' fault which leads them away from Christ's teaching when reading Paul's writings is they are "ignorant and unstable," and this results in them "perverting" the truth to support "lawless" teaching to their own "destruction."
Why did these listeners to Paul end up there? What exactly is their contributing fault? For being "unlearned" and "unstable" -- they are not firmly rooted in Jesus' words. For had they been STABLE, and STUDIED Jesus' words -- "stedfast" in Christ, as Peter explains, Paul's nonsensical words would not have thrown them off, causing them to lose their "steadfastness" in Christ. Hence, Paul's words contribute to their loss of salvation, but Peter's message is we can protect ourselves from Paul's "nonsense" by not being "ignorant" or "unstable." Instead, Peter implies we must endeavor with a greater effort than these destroyed brothers to keep "stedfast" in Christ - obviously remaining in Jesus' teachings. This will protect us from Paul's “sometimes” nonsense.
Was this hard for Gray to discover? No.
This analysis was given by Calvin, one of the founders of the Reformation in a famous and blunt way. I have had Calvin's discussion set forth in an online article on 2 Peter 3:16 for over six years. See link. Gray somehow overlooked that Calvin in the 1500s saw Second Peter as highly critical of Paul in saying some of Paul's writings are dysnoetas. (Calvin knew the severity of this Greek word.) Calvin concluded that Second Peter 3:16-17 was an anti-Paul remark and this alone justified rejecting Second Peter as canonical. Calvin explained that Apostle Peter would never speak this way about Paul's writings, i.e., calling them DYSNOETAS. Hence Calvin concluded that Second Peter was not authentically written or reviewed by Apostle Peter.
Gray also overlooked a second aspect of Second Peter that is Anti-Paul. Second Peter contradicts the faith alone doctrine taught by Paul. Could Gray have easily found this out too? It seems so. For Gray also overlooked that Augustine said in 413 AD that Second Peter was part of a systematic effort of the early church to correct Paul's doctrine on faith alone as understood by many in the church. Augustine in 413 AD said the "Apostolic Epistles of [Second] Peter, John, James and Jude direct their aim chiefly against it" [i.e., faith alone doctrine from Paul's "difficult to understand" words] so as to maintain with vehemance that faith without works profits not." (Augustine, Faith and Works (republished 1847) at 57.)
Thus, Second Peter, according to Augustine in 413 AD, was part of a systematic response of two apostles and three bishops of the church -- Peter, John, James and Jude -- to attack the doctrine of faith alone found in Paul's writings. It was a systematic criticism by the leaders of the church on how Paul had been construed. Augustine admitted the meaning of Paul's words on faith alone cannot be disputed by himself. (Augustine, Faith & Works, para. 27, page 62 ("I confess on this point I would rather hear men of more learning and understanding than myself speak.")
Instead, Augustine says all he knows is that Apostle Peter says that Paul says many "obscure" things that are difficult to "understand" which the "ignorant and unstable" misunderstand. This means Apostle Peter directs us to look carefully beyond the words in Paul that we might think support "faith alone" in Paul's writings.
See Augustine, Faith and Works, page 57 ("rather obscure sentences" in Paul led some to believe he meant grace abounds the more we sin, and thus to enjoy more grace we should sin more); page 59 ("hence clearly Peter in his second epistle ...knowing that certain rather obscure sentences of the Apostle Paul certain unrighteous men had taken [advantage of to be] careless about a good life, secure of the salvation which is in faith, made mention that there are certain difficult to understand things in the Epistles [of Paul].....")
Augustine says the "obscure" criticism in 2 Peter 3:16 means that Peter instructs us that Paul's words cannot be taken at face value that faith alone saves permanently. When compared to other passages of Paul which we must read to gain clarity over the "obscure" in Paul, Paul must mean only that faith initiates salvation. Paul's other words require avoiding sin thereafter and having works, or otherwise losing one's salvation. That is, Paul teaches that one can be "justified by faith although the works of the Law have not gone before" (Augustine's paraphrase), but Paul teaches "faith working through love" [Gal. 5:6] must follow; otherwise, Christians who stay in or fall into sin "do not inherit the kingdom," Paul twice clearly says to believers in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal. 5:19-21. Augustine quotes those passages from Paul to prove that obviously Peter intends us to conclude that Paul's "faith alone" passages are obscure -- whose proper sense is hard to find. They only can be cleared up by reading all that Paul writes on salvation.
Augustine then concludes that Second Peter, First John, James and Jude were written to destroy this misunderstanding that Paul's faith alone doctrine means salvation is final and permanent upon faith alone. (Augustine, id. at 57 & 59.)
Hence, Augustine made it appear that a campaign of the early church was to criticize the faith alone doctrine in Paul. Today, Gray would say such teachers that criticize Paul's writing ability as nonsense (or more kindly as "osbcure") that results in believing faith alone saves without obedience ever again to God's law, thereby leading many to fall away from Christ into “lawlessness,” are Anti-Paul. Thus, it was incumbent upon Gray to have included Second Peter's anti-faith alone statements which Augustine famously brought forth to rebuff the "ignorant and unstable" with the aid of the criticism in 2 Peter 3:16.
Please note that the author of Second Peter is also clearly not a Paul-hater. Such an Anti-Paul work in canon does not match the stereotype of Paul critics as haters. Gray's list of critics normally supports that only Paul haters or lawless sinners or anti-Christians dislike Paul's words. Clearly Second Peter does not fit such a stereotype. Second Peter calls Paul a "brother (although not an apostle), and says Paul speaks with "God's wisdom" (although not by inspiration), and thus Second Peter is kindly towards Paul. Hence, Second Peter is Anti-Paul on Biblical-grounds while also being loving and respectful to Paul.
Hence, had Gray found Peter in Second Peter as a Paul-critic, Gray would have had a more rounded perception of what he identifies as Anti-Paul critics. Unfortunately, Peter's critique (as opposed to supposedly criticism by Paul's readers) went right over Gray’s head, entirely unseen. Otherwise Gray would have learned that Christian critics of Paul's writings have no less love for Paul than anyone else. But those Christians, like Peter, serve Christ, not Paul. They are loyal to Christ, but do not love Paul less. Sadly, Gray's missing the issue in Second Peter caused him to miss this important insight into the diversity of individual animus behind what he labels as Anti-Paul critics.
Finally, whatever explains how Gray misidentified that anyone thinks the critique in this passage was coming from Paul-readers, instead of Peter, Gray's treatment of Second Peter underscores a problem. It proves again that Gray's book cannot be relied upon to give us an accurate list of Paul critics who are true Christians. This is especially the case when those criticisms are found in our own New Testament.
In Gray's list of canonical sources of Anti-Paulinism, Gray mentions there are two possible canonical critics of Paul -- namely James and Jude. (Kindle Loc. 506-08.) But as to James, he quickly marshals there is a panoply of interpretations that dismiss James' words that man is not justified by "faith alone" is supposedly not truly about Paul's doctrine. See James 2:14. Thus, Gray raises only doubts whether James is really addressing Paul.
But it is obvious that all of James' epistle addresses Paul, as Augustine pointed out in 413 AD, as discussed above. For James not only takes on Paul's claim of faith alone, and crushes it, but also he takes on Paul's assertion that Abraham was justified by faith alone, and crushes it too. In fact, there are over 11 topic areas that James refutes Paul.
Luther had it right, by looking not just at the verse "faith alone does not justify" in James 2:24, as Gray does. Instead, Luther also compared 2:24 to James 2:21 which likewise contradicted Paul's view that Abraham was supposedly justified by faith alone.
As Luther wrote:
Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul, but unsuccessfully. ‘Faith justifies [Romans 3:28] stands in flat contradiction of ‘faith that does not justify’ [James 2:24.] If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I’ll put my doctor’s cap on him and let him call me a fool....Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it [James] ascribes righteousness to works, and says Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac [James 2:21], though St. Paul, on the contrary teaches in Romans 4 [vv. 2-3], that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15 [v.6]. [Quoted in Jason Von Vliet, Living Waters from Ancient Springs: Essays in Honor of Cornelis Van Dam (Wipf & Stock Publishers 2011) at 103.]
Incidentally, Paul's error in Romans 4:2-3 was to rely upon the ambiguous part of the mistranslation of Genesis 15:6 by the Septuagint Greek translation from 257 BC. See Jesus' Words on Salvation, ch. 26, part 7 at this link. In the original Hebrew, it merely says that Abraham regarded God's promise of a son in old age as justness / righteousness toward Abraham. It had nothing to do with salvific justification by faith, let alone by faith alone.
Hence, Gray's treatment of whether James is truly Anti-Paul gives undue weight to dismissive views that are simply not credible and overlook the wider context of James' epistle. Even Luther recognized the importance of not isolating James 2:24 from 2:21. The latter verse makes James' point in 2:24 unmistakeably a criticism of Paul's doctrine of faith alone.
The same defect applies to Gray's treatment of Jude. Gray again solely focuses upon a single verse in Jude. This isolated verse is about an "ungodly person" who has perverted God's "grace" to open a door for "licentiousness." (Kindle Loc. 544.) But Gray quickly dismisses its importance to proving Jude is aimed at Paul, ignoring the clear evidence that in multiple verses in Jude we can recognize Paul is the obvious target.
For example, Jude equates a "wolf in sheep's" clothing who penetrated Christianity with a lawless doctrine that twists God's "grace" into "licentiousness," and who shares the lessons of Balaam. The latter aspect clearly refers to Paul because Paul taught Balaam's doctrine which Jesus references and then condemned in Rev. 2:14 --- that it was inherently ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols although not expedient when around a brother who thinks it wrong. See 1 Cor. 10:28-29 and 1 Cor. 8:4-12.
Thus, George Reber, a Paul defender, in The Christ of Paul (1876) defensively said: "The Epistle of Jude is nothing but a bolt hurled at the head of Paul."
If you want to see how Jude's proofs apply to Paul and his principles, see this link.
Thus, Gray too quickly dismisses these canonical sources of Jude and James as not truly Anti-Pauline, i.e., criticizing Paul's doctrines.
In fact, as we saw in our discussion above of Second Peter, Augustine in 413 AD said that Second Peter, James and Jude were written systematically to criticize the faith alone doctrine in Paul's writings. This was an error Paul did not intend, Peter says (per Augustine), but due to the lack of intelligibility in Paul's writings, the ignorant and unstable interpret Paul as saying we do not lose salvation once we have faith. What James and Jude intended against Paul's writings in that regard is obvious as well, and many Paulinists blind themselves to it.
Furthermore, Gray omits any serious mention that the most important canonical work of Anti-Paulinism is actually the book of Matthew -- which means either Jesus or Matthew are critics of Paul. It has to be one or the other. Gray tepidly introduces the topic, saying that Matthew's Gospel has "attracted attention" as Anti-Pauline. (Kindle Loc. 544.)
And this could not escape Gray's attention because he actually found the following major scholarly article with the word "Anti-Paulinism" in the title on this topic:
Matthew’s anti-Paulinism: A neglected feature of Matthean studies by David C Sim
School of Theology, Australian Catholic University Research Associate: Department of New Testament Studies University of Pretoria HTS 58(2) 2002.
In this work, Sim concludes: "The presence of anti-Pauline texts in [Matthew's] Gospel, point inevitably towards the conclusion that the evangelist himself [sic: we who trust the inspiration of Matthew would say 'Jesus himself'] was anti-Pauline." HTS 58(2)(2002) at 780.
Gray, however, discusses only one Anti-Paul passage among a long list that Sim found in Matthew. See our list of anti-Pauline passages based upon Sim's article at
Then taking just one passage which Sim identified, and which Gray decided to expand upon, Gray still did not explore it adequately. This is Matthew 5:17-19. For there is a 100% certain critique of Paul in Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus actually uses a Greek word elicthos to identify the Lawless teacher whom Jesus condemns by his personal name, translated as "least" in English. This turns out to be Jesus calling out Paul by name once you are informed elicthos in Greek means the same as Paul's Latin name of Paulus in its non-contracted form of "pauxillulus" meaning "least."
Rather than spot the main issue, Gray simply says the connection between Matthew 5:17-19 and Paul is between Paul's "self-identification" of himself as "least" (elichistos in Greek, adjective in masculine) in 1 Cor. 15:9 and Jesus condemning the Law-negating teacher as being "called" the "least" (elichiston, same adjective in feminine) in Matthew 5:19. (Kindle Loc. 556.)
Gray made it appear just a matter of coincidence between the false law-negator teacher who is called ELICHISTON and the "self-identification" as ELICHISTOS by Paul. Gray did not point his reader to the fact Jesus was calling out Paul by the word-meaning of Paul's Latin name to which Paul was alluding by his self-identification as "least." Thus, Gray leaves us to think Jesus' words are not truly aimed at Paul because the link relies upon a mere self-description of Paul as the "least" among others.
But Gray's link to a so-called self-identification obscures the issue. Rather, Jesus is saying the Law-negating teacher will be "called" -- have the name -- of ELICHISTON meaning least. Thus, the important fact is that Paulus, a Latin name, is a contracton of pauxillulus which in Latin means least.
This was only explained by the Latin church who alone were familiar with Latin enough two or more centuries after Christ to spot the connection. Augustine said in the 300s that Paul was playing on the LATIN meaning of Paul's own name in 1 Cor. 15:9 -- "I am the least of the apostles." As a Latin speaker, Augustine knew the non-contracted form of Paulus is "pauxillulus" -- which in Latin means "least." As a name, "pauxillulus" contracted into Paulus in Latin, like Joseph becomes Joe. Augustine did not take the implication further other than to explain why Paul calls himself "least" in 1 Corinthians 15:9. Paul was playing on the fact his name -- Pauxillulus -- aka Paulus -- means "least." Augustine made nothing more about this.
However, Christian scholars in the early 1900s took it further, and easily connected it to Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus said the Law-negating teacher to avoid would be "called" by the name ELICHISTON -- least in Greek. Then we know PAUXILLULUS in Latin means "least." Then we know this shortens in Latin into Paulus, which we shorten further to Paul. This is what Sim was referencing. This explanation of Sim's references has also all been set forth since 2011, with scholar references, in the online article
Jesus Prophesied of Paulus which in Latin Means Least.
By the way, this is a highly prophetic proof of Jesus' foreknowledge. Only Jesus among His immediate followers could have known Paul's Latin birth-name as a Roman citizen (which Rome mandated to be assigned for children born at Tarsus who automatically are Roman citizens) appears in Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus devised a means of veiling this so that centuries later we can know Jesus identified Paul by name as the Law-negating teacher to avoid, hidden in plain view in Matthew 5:17-19. It was only discoverable when those who spoke Latin began reading the Gospels in Latin in the 200s and 300s. Augustine linked the invisible word pauxillulus as the true word behind the name Paulus, and that explains why Paul calls himself elichiston in 1 Cor 15:9. Then this helped modern Christian scholars go further, and they deduced Augustine meant Paul's true uncontracted name was pauxillulus, which allowed them to perfectly match Matthew 5:19 where Jesus names a law-negating teacher as "least" to a figure matching such a description whose name happens to be Paul -- a contraction of pauxillilus. Paul is thereby called out by Jesus by name -- with the Greek equivalent term for "least." Jesus says this is the name which the saved in heaven will call the law-negator whom we must reject -- in Greek it is elichistos / elichiston.
Thus, Jesus clearly condemned Paul by name -- elichistos, elichiston = pauxillulus -- as the anti-law teacher of Matthew 5:17-19. He did so in a way that Matthew -- Jesus' inspired recorder -- would utterly be oblivious to.
Hence, clearly Gray did not include a meaningful discussion of the most important and certain criticism of Paul by someone we can not ignore -- our Lord Jesus in Matthew.
Gray also omits any mention of one part of the early Christian canon -- the Apocalypse of Peter (AOP) --- even though it had a recognizable negative prophecy by Jesus transparently about Paul. Wikipedia records:
"The Muratorian fragment from the 200s states canon included it, saying 'The Apocalypses also of John and Peter only do we receive, which some among us would not have read in church.'"
("Apocalypse of Peter," Wikipedia.)
This once canonical work has a prophecy by Jesus about Paul that is both obvious and negative:
"And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law." Id.
This passage is at 1:25-26 of the AOP in this scholarly work: Fred Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings (2004) at 116.
Besides AOP being in the Muratorian canon from the 2d century, Wikipedia records:
Clement of Alexandria appears to have considered the Apocalypse of Peter to be holy scripture. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae (VI.14.1), describes a lost work of Clement's, the Hypotyposes (Outlines), that gave "abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting those that are disputed, I mean the book of Jude and the other general epistles. Also the Epistle of Barnabas and that called the Revelation of Peter."[10] So the work must have existed in the first half of the 2nd century, which is also the commonly accepted date of the canonic Second Epistle of Peter. Although the numerous references to it attest to its being once in wide circulation, the Apocalypse of Peter was ultimately not accepted into the Christian canon.
This means that in the next copy of the canon -- the Sinaiticus from about 340 AD -- we for the first time do not see the Apocalypse of Peter included. No one knows why. (The church at Rome under Constantine's influence as of 325 AD did a strong pivot to Paul as his epistles matched Constantine's objective to eradicate Jewish law observance by Christians in particular Sabbath and monotheism.)
So in Gray's review of generally accepted canon as it originally existed, the Apocalypse of Peter should have been mentioned. This writing, even though it did not end up in our present canon, may have helped the early church ignore Paul. This is because it provided a better understanding of apparently the earlier more naive view of Peter about Paul in Second Peter.
For the Apocalypse of Peter closely aligns with 2 Peter 3:18. Each addresses Paul as a person whose words can be described as not only DYSNOETAS but also as CUNNING. If Paul defended using cunning and guile to cloak his views to avoid the ability to clearly refute him, as we shall see below that Paul admits doing so, then Jesus provided another prophecy here to confirm Second Peter's earlier remarks. Jesus attributed deliberateness to the DYSNOETAS, and hence our Lord helps us recognize Paul as a false prophet.
Whether DYSNOETAS or CUNNING was Paul's design, Peter in both Second Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter warns about Paul as someone who leads unknowledgeable and unstable Christians into a "lawless" life. The result is they will "lose their stedfastness" in Christ, because they are now ruled "without law."
Read together with Peter’s Apocalypse, Second Peter teaches the believer to prevent that bad outcome by counteracting their own "ignorance and instability" with the truth (Second Peter 3:17-18). That truth referenced in Second Peter may actually have included this prophecy of Jesus which the early church thought Peter relayed in the Apocalypse of Peter. Thus, any serious review of anti-Paul critiques in canon or early canon necessarily must have included this quote from the Apocalypse of Peter.
How did Gray miss the Apocalypse of Peter? The quotations from it have been on my website for years, and are well-known in the study of the canon's formation. Whatever the explanation, this underscores another example where Gray's book cannot be relied upon by Christians as a reliable review of the most important Christian critiques of Paul that were canonized at the earliest point, or those that remain so.
Gray mentions that Jerome -- the translator of the Vulgate Bible in the late 300s -- translated "thorn" in 2 Cor. 12:7 as "stimulus' in Latin. Gray states this was a "provocative" translation, implying a hateful animus by Jerome toward Paul. (Kindle loc. 273.) For Gray says it now reads that Satan gave Paul a "stimulus of the flesh" -- which Gray seemingly suggests sounds like some kind of sexual sin.
However, Jerome translated the Greek 100% correctly. It did not remotely imply what Gray suggested. In Greek, the word SKOLOPS was not "thorn" (as typically inadvertently mistranslated in English), but simply means a "stinger" as from a scorpion; "anything pointed." See link.
The Douay-Rheims ("sting") and Latin Vulgate ("sting") get this correctly. The word "stimulus" in Latin thus had no sexual or sensual connotation. Hence there was nothing "provocative" about Jerome's translation of SKOLOPS in Greek into "stimulus" in Latin.
Why did Jerome not choose "thorn" to translate SKOLOPS instead, thereby avoiding the use of "stimulus"? It is obvious if you study Greek. The word for "thorn" in Greek is spelled similarly yet is distinctly different: -.
Jerome knew the difference, and did not make the mistake most English translations make today, and thus rendered it correctly as "sting" and not as "thorn."
Hence, a translation error in English of "sting" as "thorn" is seemingly how Gray is judging Jerome's fairness and animus in translating Paul. But Jerome was correct. In Latin, "stimulus" is a "goad," "prick" or "sting."
Yet Gray, apparently unaware that both the Greek and Latin words involved mean "stinger" and "sting," respectively, and thus are synonymous, thought Jerome had a deliberately provocative anti-Paul translation.
Due to Gray's mistake, you already want to hate Jerome as a salascious slanderer when and if you ever found out Jerome's true well-known criticism. But Gray never tells you Jerome's true and well-founded criticism of Paul. So all that results is that you are conditioned to resent Jerome if you ever learn of the true criticism Jerome had.
We will next see that Gray missed one of the best known criticisms of Paul in church history -- the famous one by Jerome. Jerome was the most well-versed man in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin of his day. He spent literally decades translating the Bible into Latin.
Jerome's criticism of Paul revolves primarily around Paul's response to bishop James' inquiry in Acts 21:21 about whether Paul was guilty of "apostasia." James asks Paul to prove the rumours are false that Paul has become an apostate -- which applies if Paul had thrown off the Mosaic Law entirely from God's people. (The law on apostasy is Deut 13:1-5.)
To disprove the rumours, Paul is asked by James to honor a vow from chapter 6 of Numbers in the Mosaic Law. Paul agrees and performs the vow, Luke records. This vow requires Paul to shave his head (Nu 6:15), and was completed after about 7 days of regular Temple appearances by Paul. (See Acts 21:27 "when the seven days were almost completed.") James was trying to make sure Paul's Law-compliant behavior was visible to all Paul's critics, so as to silence them.
But that silence was broken by Jerome three centuries later. For Jerome knows that Paul's Epistles are completely contrary to Paul's actions in Acts 21, e.g., Romans 7:1-11. So Jerome says Paul was clearly a hypocrite, and misleading Bishop James as well as the 12 apostles. Jerome wrote:
"Oh...Paul...why then did you cause Timothy to be circumcised [Acts 16:3] contrary to your own convictions?...I ask you again Paul, why did you shave your head? [Acts 21, nazarite vow; cf. Numbers 6:15, must shave head] ....We have thus seen that for fear of the Jews...Paul pretended that [he] observed the precepts of the Law." (Quoted in Agenor Etienne Gasparin, The Concessions of the Apostle Paul, and the Claims of Truth (1854) at 57.)
As a result, Jerome was stating facts that implied Paul fooled not only James but also Luke by pretense. For Luke is assuming Paul's taking the vow for a week is a good thing to show about Paul, and not an act of hypocrisy. Had Luke known this was a deception by Paul, as Jerome points out is the obvious case in light of Paul’s epistles, Luke would likely not have compounded this deception by recording Paul's equally misleading statement in Court that he endorses all the Law, saying to the judge: "I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets...." (Acts 24:14 NIV.)
Jerome's criticism thereby has very serious repercussions on the entire validity of Paul. It undermines the use of Acts by Paul defenders. For by Jerome putting 2 and 2 together, this means Luke apparently was duped into writing a favorable biography of Paul. Paul cloaked his true views from Luke, and not only from Bishop James.
For example, even Paul's Gospel was "hid" from Luke and the twelve. Luke records that Paul says in his final court appearance in Acts 26:20 (ASV) that he "declared [his message] both to them of Damascus first and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance."
Faith and works? Is that the gospel message of the Paul you and I read consistently in his Epistles?
Absolutely not.
Truly Gray should have included this quote from Jerome that Paul hypocritically misled James and impliedly Luke too. Jerome's remark is one of the most mentioned criticisms of Paul thereafter in theological writings, e.g. Abelard, Aquinas, etc.
As a side-note, Jerome in the same letter says about Galatians 2:14 that if Augustine will not accept Paul was the only one acting as a false hypocrite in that passage, then Galatians 2:14 represents a blasphemy by Paul of Peter -- a ruler among the church, and thereby was wrong for Paul to do. See Jerome on Galatians 2:14 - A Lie or Blasphemy Any Way You Cut It. [Link to Come]
Sometimes Paul says things that are so evil and immoral that sometimes you have to consider whether Paul himself is anti-Paul! In other words, either Paul's Epistles were edited to make him look bad or Paul was indeed incredibly evil, blasphemous, as well as boastful, and his followers so deceived, that they cannot see it. Paul's epistles thereby are evidence of Anti-Pauline statements, either self-destructively (corruption by Satan?) or by tampering to undermine Paul's validity. Here are a few things to consider.
Paul says in 2 Cor. 12:16, which we would be revulsed if Jesus had said it:
But be it so, I did not myself burden you; but, being crafty, I caught you with guile. (2 Cor. 12:16, ASV.)
A similar justification of lying for the gospel is found here:
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” Romans 3:7 KJV.
Paul thus teaches God's truth was spread by "my lie" for his glory, then there can be no sin in that lie. Really?
There is no mistaking it because when others lie for the gospel, Paul sees progress:
“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.” Philippians 1:18.
Paul similarly taught us to act hypocritically -- a false face -- in evangelism to act like Gentiles when around Gentiles and to act like a Jew around Jews -- to make it appear you agree with their morality and laws although you don't.
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22
"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33
But Jesus' words immediately come to mind.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness. (Matt 23:25 WEB.)
These pretensions by Paul extended to eating meat sacrificed to idols. Thus, there is little doubt that either Paul's words are his own and revulsive (reflected in Jesus' condemnation in Revelation), or his words have been tampered with by an Anti-Paul person to make him look worse than he truly was.
For Paul said if you are eating meat sacrificed to idols at a pagan temple, and a Christian brother who thinks doing so is wrong sees you, and will be tempted to go against his "weak" conscience which believes it is wrong to eat such meat, then and only then must you refrain from eating such meat in front of that brother. Otherwise, you will embolden him to violate his conscience even though your brother errs in thinking it is wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Please notice in this quote below, Paul is not concerned about you being at a pagan temple eating; he is only concerned someone sees you doing so who thinks eating such meat is wrong. Here it is in the KJV in 1 Cor. 8:4-12.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world & that there is none other God but one...but meat commendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols: & through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren & wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” KJV
Paul repeats this in 1 Cor. 10:28-29 which reads in KJV:
But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience?
So Paul's conscience is ok eating such meat, but for the sake of the "weak conscience" of your brother who knows you know it is such meat, do not eat in front of him. But Jesus condemns unequivocally eating meat sacrificed to idols in Revelation 3x (see Revelation ch. 2). The 12 Apostles likewise decreed twice the same in Acts 15 as one of the initial minimum rules to teach Gentiles.
More important, Jesus condemns such hypocrisy in Matt 23:25 quoted above. Paul approves what Jesus condemns -- Paul saying it is ok to give an outside righteous appearance to obey Laws that Paul believes are dead and gone so as to gain followers for Christ. The Pharisees to gain pupils likewise put on a false face. The result is this prevented them from revealing their unrighteous beliefs and behaviors - what Jesus called "dead men's bones." They were deceptive teachers, using guile by delaying openly professing their doctrines that "neglected" the Law given Moses other than tithing. (Matt 23:23.).
Paul likewise hid from view his own corrupt beliefs on right and wrong (unless he is being tampered with to make Paul look bad). Jesus warns that such hypocrisy is self-destructive, for it prevents correction of one's errors. It also means your teacher is being deceptive, capable thereby of slyly and slowly introducing false doctrine.
Gasparin in the 1800s said if these principles from Paul are true, and from God, they destroy all of the Bible. Gasparin wrote in 1854 in The Concessions of Apostle Paul:
"If the apostles habitually gave themselves the license of appearing different from what they really were, and if they taught the distinction between those truths which it was necessary to maintain and those which may be sacrificed or disguised, it follows that God Himself sanctions two principles, against which His whole revelation protests, namely, that the claims of truth are not absolute, and that we may do evil that good may come!" Id. at 60.
So who added them? A deranged Paul? or an evil tamperer to sabotage Paul? Unless you deliberately blind yourself from the moral evil in such statements, these principles destroy Paul's validity all by themselves - either his words were extensively tampered with (rendering everything in Paul's writings as unreliable), or he sincerely said these evil things.
But Paul's followers defend this deception. In the Catholic church in the era of Aquinas, it built an entire doctrine called the "pious fraud" doctrine that lies for a pious purpose are no sin -- based upon these verses in Paul! Many Paulinists beginning in the Reformation until now defend the same deceptive principles, citing these verses from Paul. See our article
This is why we need the Law and prophets. Without them, we end up in a pit of hell with no way out.
In Proverbs 12:10 (NIV), it says "the LORD condemns a crafty man."
We read similarly in Psalm 5:6: " deceitful men the LORD abhors."
And finally, “Cursed is he who doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully.” Jeremiah 48:10.
Cf. Rev. 14:5: "And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."
Hence, as Christians, we must consider the possibility that we do not have the original Paul. And that Paul was edited to make his words revulsive to any person of good conscience who has the Holy Spirit. That is, Paul's writings possibly reflect deliberate corruption by an Anti-Paulinist who made Paul appear to be full of guile, hypocrisy, and self-contradiction. The goal would be to destroy Paul's true teachings by mixing them with such toxic passages.
If true, Paul's own writings belong in a list of potentially Anti-Paul works. If true, however, this still does not speak well for Paul's place in canon. We would have to reject Paul's writings anyway as they were deliberately distorted to embarass Paul. At this point, there is no way to repair the situation except to retain Acts as the sole repository of Paul's legitimate teachings. We have found no more original manuscript of Paul's letters than P46 from about 200 AD. They are essentially the same as today. Hence, we cannot use what remains in the epistles to reconstruct them unless they are words consistent with Acts. There we do find that Paul fully endorses the Law (Acts 24:14) and Jesus' Gospel with the same terminology as Jesus used, e.g., Paul says he taught a Gospel of "works worthy of repentance." See Acts 26:20 (ASV).
On the other hand, if such evil immoral principles in his epistles were truly Paul speaking, as the evidence supports as the true case, why did God allow this?
God explains in Deut 13:1-10 that He allows prophets with true prophecy and signs and wonders as a test whether you love the Lord Your God with your whole heart, mind and soul, when they also teach APOSTASIA aka ANOMIA. See Matthew 5:17-19. You must declare them a false prophet and "not listen to them" or otherwise you have failed the test of proving you love God with your whole heart, mind and soul.
Either way, Gray should have presented a synopsis of the case that as Christians we may have to reject Paul's writings because his principles in his epistles are evil, and apostate, or were extensively tampered with by an Anti-Paulinist to deliberately make it look that way.
I am not saying that Gray necessarily should have recognized this issue based upon my articles available online for years in this topic area. However, I do think Gray should have mentioned that Paul's own words are his own worst enemies, and that the criticisms he receives, and will always receive from Holy Spirit filled Christians, are at least, if truly Paul's words, then primarily Paul's own self-inflicted wounds. Paul is thereby a legitimate source of anti-Pauline critiques, either self-inflicted or due to tampering.
Instead of my having to raise this in a review, I wish that Gray had instead found my website, and pointed out that Paul's letters are potential evidence of either (1) tampering to destroy Paul, or (2) tampering by Paul fans to make Paul fit their blasphemous and false doctrine (such as the Marcionites had an opportunity to do) or (3) Paul’s own words and hence a third legitimate basis for true Christians to question whether Paul's works should be treated as inspired. I have had for years several articles on these issues in the following:
Did Paul Have an Enormous Ego?
Paul on women, marriage and Sex;
Paul knocks Marriage; and
"Was Paul Tampered With?"
See also the best case that can be made that the Marcionites tampered with Paul's writings at
Marcionite Tampering with Paul. [Links to Come]
If Gray wanted truly to be a final authority on Anti-Paulinism, he must cover the key developments of the Reformation. However, Gray fails to mention any of the major Anti-Paul developments that all Paulinists have ignored for centuries: the later Anti-Paulinism of the two key founders of the Reformation as they grew out of their initial pro-faith alone, pro-Paul views.
In 1517, Carlstadt and Luther began the Reformation in Germany together, as partners. They posted the 95 Theses on the Church at Wittenberg where Carlstadt served as the parish priest. The 95 Theses sparkled with faith alone principles. The primary thrust, however, was not to preach salvation. It was to attack the Catholic Church's teaching that your salvation can be purchased by your surviving relatives paying indulgences on your behalf to the church. The Catholic church had proven it had become greedy, and was beholden to Mammon, and not God. Luther and Carlstadt rightly exposed this error.
At the beginning, looking at the 95 Theses, Luther and apparently Carlstadt taught faith alone based upon Paul. However, Luther quickly made that view impervious to correction by Jesus and other scripture by becoming an extreme Paulinist. Luther concluded all parts of the Bible had validity only if each were consistent with Paul's teaching. This included the words of Moses and Jesus in the Gospels --- both had to be tested by the words of Paul. See Luther Read Scripture Through Paul [link to come]. For example, in Luther's 1522 Preface to the NT, he writes: "And also the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter are far in advance of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke."
This was because Luther believed Jesus the man was behind Paul on the issue of the Law. Luther elsewhere explained the inferiority of the man Jesus to Paul:
“There is no man living on Earth Who knows how to distinguish between The law and the gospel … even the man Jesus Christ was so wanting in Understanding when he was in the vineyard that an angel had to console him though he was a doctor from heaven he was strengthened by the angel.” (Luther, Luther Works 54, 127.)
Then, Luther in 1530 in his sermon on the book of Galatians said Paul realized the twelve who taught the pre-ascension Jesus' doctrines were now false apostles, and so Paul went to Jerusalem to resist them, and expose they were teaching "another Jesus" -- the one who endorsed the Law and works -- (implyng the pre-Ascended Jesus of the flesh was behind Paul in wisdom when Jesus taught obedience to the Law as a condition of salvation to the rich young man in Matthew 19.) So Luther explained that Paul's Epistle to the Galatians tells us:
"the false apostles also had a gospel, but it was an untrue gospel. ‘In holding out against them,’ says Paul, ‘I conserved the truth of the pure Gospel....The false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.’ (Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535) (trans. Theodore Graebner)(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949) at 48-60.)
For more discussion, see
Defends Paul's Use of Deception to Defend Faith Alone -- topic in this article link.
On this issue of priority of Paul over others, Carlstadt was particularly disturbed that Luther rejected James' epistle because it contradicted Paul on the issue of faith alone.
In response, Carlstadt in 1520 wrote the treatise Canon of Scripture in which he concluded that because the Bible recognizes different levels of inspiration, that Jesus must be on a higher tier than Paul; and both Paul and James are on the same tier of inspiration below Jesus. (Carlstadt applied similar principles to each book in the NT.) Thus, neither James nor Paul can knock out the other's view for or against faith alone. Jesus is the arbiter therefore of any conflict on this point.
One quote makes clear Carlstadt's view that Paul's inspiration is not equal to Christ's authority. Carlstadt in 1520 said:
It is necessary in fact to preserve obedience to the Lord, and as the Spirit of the Apostles is not a guide equal or greater than the Lord, thus also the heart of Paul within his letters does not have as much authority as has Christ. (Link.)
In a furious response, Luther branded his partner Carlstadt the "New Judas" in a pamphlet of the same name, and had Wittenberg banish Carlstadt. As a result, Carlstadt was forced to become penniless. However, in a few years Carlstadt eventually found a living in Switzerland. Hence, Luther's initial reaction was to regard Carlstadt as an Anti-Paul heretic for denigrating the supremacy of Paul above even Jesus the man to define God's truth.
Once again, this shows Gray failed to mention an important and legitimate Christian voice -- Carlstadt, the Reformation's co-founder -- as Anti-Paul, which even Luther himself made clear. It hardly can be ignored. How did Gray miss this? Gray somehow passes over the Reformation as if he is oblivious to this key division over Paul’s authority above and over Christ himself close to the very beginning of the Reformation in Germany.
Regardless, in time - fifteen years later after Carlstadt's book - Luther had a major change of heart. Initially in the 1520s, Luther numerous times said Paul properly abrogated the entire Law, even the moral aspects of the Law, and especially the Ten Commandments. See Link. However, this was something Jesus the Man rejected but whom the young Luther thought was supposedly not as wise as Paul.
But then Luther in 1537 now rejected anyone who taught Christians to abrogate the Law as a "false prophet" even if they "talk alot about grace." This is found in Luther's Antinomian Theses. It is unquestionably designed to point at Paul, evidently relying upon Deut 13:1-5.
Here is a key passage -- to which no Paulinist has ever explained how this is not Luther talking about Paul:
Therefore it must be that those who would rid the Church of the Law are either devils themselves, or siblings of the devil. It doesn't matter that they preach and teach a great deal about God, about Christ, about grace and the Law.
...The confession of those who would rid the Church of the Law is just like when the devil cries out to Christ 'You are the son of the living God.' (Luke 4:34: 8:28) [i.e., profess Christ with the mouth but do not obey God's Law.] It is also like the oath of every false prophet "As the Lord lives!" [what I say is true even though contrary to the Law] as Isaiah [8:20] and Jeremiah show. ***
What those who would eliminate the Law from the church say about God, about Christ, about faith, the Law, grace, and other things is much the same thing as a parrot who says 'Hello,' that is, it is said without understanding. It is simply impossible that one can learn good theology or right living from such persons.
Therefore one should run away from their teaching as the most harmful teaching of libertines, who give permission to all kinds of infamous deeds." (Don't Tell Me That, supra, at 67-69.)
For more background, see
In 1537 Did Luther Condemn Paul as a False Prophet?
Based upon this principle, the Lutheran Smaller and Larger Catechism (written by Luther) focused in that time period upon the Ten Commandments as something believers should follow. Paul is rarely cited in either catechism.
Also, by this juncture of 1537, and up until his death in 1546, Luther used his closest aids -- Melancthon and Bucer -- to change the Lutheran doctrine from faith alone to double justification -- a doctrine previously advanced by Carlstadt, Tyndale, Erasmus and Meno Simons.
Double Justification teaches that you are initially saved by faith alone, but final salvation depends upon a secondary justification by works. The details of this history, and the 1555 change to the Lutheran doctrine to be double justification (but reversed in 1580 by the solafidists after Melancthon died), see Preface to Jesus' Words on Salvation.
Hence, the two initial founders of the Reformation in the end became anti-Paulinist --- one within three years of starting the reformation and the other by at least 20 years thereafter. Their valiant effort to reverse their early positions was a little too late. A new generation drowned out their efforts to reform the reformation itself which, proverbially speaking, shot these men in the foot
This omitted material from Gray's work underscores once again that one cannot rely upon Gray's work to know the complete story of Anti-Paulinism, particulary when it came from Christians who started as pro-Paul lovers. Yet, these two men also unquestionably forever must hold in our memories the highest honors for having reformed major errors out of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not matter that these two men founded modern Protestantism but lost control of the movement as their efforts at correction died out. It’s not their fault for lack of trying that they were superceded by the modern era of the dispensational dismissal of Jesus' teachings on salvation, such as dismissing his heaven-maimed-or hell-whole principle. (Mark 9:42-47.)
Also, had Gray reviewed these two men's lives, and talked about these issues, one could once again see that there is no truth to the stereotype of "Paul haters" that Gray generally applies to Anti-Paulinists. This is especially true of Luther. There was no greater lover of Paul, and all Paul taught than Luther.
But look where Luther ended up by his objectively reading Holy Scripture -- even Scripture he previously rejected as supposedly inferior to Paul? Luther ended up an Anti-Paulinist himself, calling Paul most certainly a false prophet. What greater testimony can one find that Anti-Paulinism is honorable as well as an obviously correct position!
Having ignored or hastily dismissed any canonical source as truly Anti-Paul, Gray next moves onto what is supposedly the only legitimate Christian who ever seriously criticized Paul who was not a hater in Gray's research: Kierkegaard. But then Gray portrays Kierkegaard as someone whose criticisms of Paul's influence are outweighed by his supposedly positive statements about Paul. (Kindle loc. 2169.)
Hence, Gray implies we need not explore too deeply what Kierkegaard's concerns were all about -- what Paul's doctrines did to Jesus' gospel. The way Gray leaves the lone figure of Kierkegaard whom Gray acknowledges was anti-Paul from purely spiritual motives and not from any hatred is such that we have a complete gap of understanding what fuss was raised by Kierkegaard.
But Kierkegaard was scathing against Paulinism if you pay attention. Gray even quotes Kierkegaard saying Protestantism is "completely untenable" because it is "a revolution brought about by proclaiming 'the Apostle' (Paul) at the expense of the Master (Christ)." (Kindle loc 172.) At the same time, Gray does not cite nor quote any of the supposedly positive statements by Kierkegaard about Paul or Paul's influence that "outweigh" such negatives he expressed about Paul or Paulinism. Thus, we are left to simply accept Gray's hand-waive that makes all Kierkegaard's negative comments go away. These positive remarks must be amazing if they do away with Kierkegaard's most radical rejection of Pauline Christianity as not truly Christian at all. (For a thorough collection of Kierkegaard's critique of Paul and Paulinism, see our article Kierkegaard on Paul.) [link to come]
Thus, Gray leaves us, subject to that one primary exception of Kierkegaard, to see the anti-Paul critiques he tracks are supposedly motivated most often by a hate of Paul. These haters are what Gray a couple of times describes as "Paul despisers." (Kindle loc. 5478; see also 1733, 1916.)
Thus, Gray describes the "anti-Paulinist" as someone you "know when you see it" (Kindle 272) -- an implied toxicly foul nature. Such an expression was made famous by a Supreme Court decision that said as to illicit obscenity, "you know it when you see it." The implied foul nature supposedly of all Anti-Paulinism emerges when the list is typically described by Gray as "despisers" of Paul. The names and figures Gray cites leave nothing in doubt: they range from those who either suffered from clinical insanity (Nietzche), or are anti-Semites because Paul was a Jew while giving Jesus a pass (Hitler), or were defending illicit sex from Paul's verses against it, or are women liberationists who despise Paul for his supposed "hatred" of "women in particular" (Kindle 2865), or who are Muslims in al Queda who support Bin Laden who think Paul is licentious, etc. (Kindle 216.)
The lesson Gray leaves without much effort to bury in his academic prose is that anti-Paulinists are a strange bunch of predominantly Paul haters or anti-Christians or sin-defenders. As a Christian reading Gray's work, you would want to run away as far as you can from even a Christian who criticizes Paul or his doctrines as generally taught.
Again, all this makes me wish Gray would give us a clue whether anyone ever had a Bible-based reason to reject Paul's writings as works of a false prophet. Even what Kierkegaard's theological problem was with Paul - Paul is construed typically to support cheap grace without repentance, that is faith-alone -- is not expressly articulated by Gray. (See Kindle Loc. 2164, Gray's closest quote is K.'s soft statement that with Paul "man gets off a litle easier in becoming a Christian.") So we are left starving for knowledge of what Christians who are true Christians have ever thought are substantive Bible-based criticisms about Paul, especially his writings, let alone what our savior thought about Paul.
Gray also has very little effort in his final chapter at finding any meaning in all this hard work. I am sure he had an observation that could have been more helpful than to warn solely about "confirmation bias." That is, he says that those who pit Jesus versus Paul have a confirmation bias potentially that they "know" what Jesus says, and that proves Paul is wrong, when the real problem can be that we don't know what Jesus truly said. Gray at Kindle Loc. 5244 says some unidentied anti-Paul voices rely upon Jesus to criticize Paul who are "oblivious to the effects of confirmation bias" -- a bias "that the existing body of knowledge about Jesus is sufficiently complete as to permit authoritative and incontrovertible repudiation of Pauline teaching."
Please note in this quote of Gray how Paul gets a pass based on probability unless the proof from Jesus is an "incontrovertible repudiation" of Paul. Even in that case, Gray still believes such proof is hardly enough to disprove Paul's validity because supposedly we cannot be iron-clad sure what Jesus means. This represents a fallacy of special pleading -- one low burden of proof for the Pauline defender to push Paul's perceived doctrines, but an extreme and virtually impossible burden for the Jesus defender to push back with Jesus' doctrines, no matter how seemingly clear Jesus' words may be.
Thus, this final point about "confirmation bias" by Gray, as framed, has no value.
The term "confirmation bias" is not an identification of a fallacy, but it means you may distrust the thoroughness of a work if you can see signs that the author sought out only evidence to support the view he or she preferred. The author ignored contrary evidence.
Gray does not identify anyone guilty of confirmation bias in the Anti-Paul camp. Thus, we have no evidence provided for the main conclusion Gray offered.
That said, I do have some criticisms of how Gray explains what Gray admits is anti-Paul in the Christian community. In that respect, I believe Gray's summary of the Ebionites is appallingly shallow. He never quotes the early church's actual summary of the Ebionite words of criticism about Paul despite quoting a snippet at least from everyone else who has something to say negative about Paul or his writings. He also never explains what their conclusion that Paul was "apostate" meant in terms of a Bible-justification.
Why is this important? The Ebionites are the main focal point for Christians to consider after canonical sources are considered like Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19; Revelation 2; Second Peter, James; and Jude. The Ebionites represent the earliest rejection of Paul's writings from within the mainstream Christian church. As Uhlhorn and others note, Ebionites was the name of the earliest Christian church. See link [to come].
The Ebionite criticism of Paul as an "apostate from the Law" as Gray summarizes should have been first linked by Gray to the earliest church's identical concern about Paul in the Book of Acts. James at Jerusalem asks Paul in Acts 21:21 whether rumors that Paul is guilty of "apostasy" -- using that very word in Greek -- are true.
Gray next should have explained what apostasy means. Apostasy means someone who advocates throwing off the Mosaic Law from God's people. How is this term used in the Bible? This word appears in the Greek Septuagint of Deuteronomy 13:1-10 in 247 BC that identifies one as a false prophet if they are guilty of "apostasia." This term in Greek translates the Hebrew of Deut 13:10 when it identifies a false prophet as including one with true signs and wonders and prophecy but who "seduces you from following the Law" and thus "turns you away" from the true Yahweh.
How is this a legitimate Bible-based concern? If you look up the word apostasy, you find it comes from the Greek translation of Deuteronomy 13:1-10. This is why the New King James labels this passage "PUNISHMENT OF APOSTATES." This passage defines a type of false prophet with "signs and wonders" whose prophecies actually "come to pass." Normally, they would be true prophets. However, because they "seduce you from following the Law," they are false.
Jesus warned repeatedly of false prophets coming with signs and wonders to seduce, if possible, the elect, into law-lessness. Thus, Christians are commanded not to add "false prophets" to Holy Scripture which should include Paul's writings when they are clearly apostate as to the Mosaic Law. God's word says in Deut 13:1-10 we must reject such writings by Paul because they reflect a "seduction" against following the Law. God says He allows such prophets to "test" whether we love Him with our whole mind, heart and soul. Deut 13:1-10.
This passage from Deuteronomy is repeated by Jesus in Matt 7:21-23 if one pays close attention to the words "signs and wonders" -- a verbatim parallel to Deut 13:1-10. Jesus says we must ignore such miracles / signs if the ones with such powers also work "ANOMIA" -- a word in Greek meaning negation of law. What Law?
Jesus had in mind the Mosaic law -- always called NOMOS throughout the New Testament. The negative prefix A in Greek means NEGATIVE what follows -- NOMOS. Anomia is a noun substitute for apostasy, each word meaning an anti-Mosaic Law doctrine. (See article on anomia's meaning [to come].) This makes Matthew 7:21-23 a clear parallel of Deut 13:1-10 which says the false prophet has true prophecy and signs and wonders but you know they are a false prophet which God allows to "test" you because they try to "seduce you from following the Law given you here today" -- into Apostasy also called ANOMIA.
That's why Gray should have set forth these early church quotes about the Ebionites with the Bible-context so Christians can see that there is something for us to consider in a review of all the criticisms of Paul. We are the main readers of such Christian-book publisher books. We don't care that much about Neitzche, or Muslim writers, or G.B. Shaw. But we do dearly care about what James, Jude, the Ebionites, Tertullian, Kierkegaard, Vincent Holmes-Gore and apostles John and Matthew, and, of course, Jesus all say. But that's all softened, or not quoted, or hand-waived away, so we don't see how strong is this problem in Christian history.
I have one final criticism. Where is Tertullian's scathing criticism of Paul's authority as an alleged apostle of Jesus in Tertullian's book Against Marcion from 207 AD? Or Tertullian's comment that Paul's words fit what Jesus warned about coming from a false prophet? What about Tertullian's many Biblical proofs that Paul's claim in Galatians to being an apostle of Jesus was an invalid self-serving one -- unconfirmed anywhere in the Gospels and disproved by the events in Acts 15 where Paul had to visit the 12 to approve his doctrine on circumcision? Gray certainly at least should have quoted Tertullian's most blunt conclusion, after laying out those proofs, where Tertullian tells Marcion:
If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... [L]et the apostle [Paul], belong to your other god [i.e the NT God Marcion said justifies a new dispensation of faith alone with no more Law].... (Tertullian, Against Marcion (Oxford University Press, 1972) at 509, 511.)
See also two of our many articles on Tertullian:
Tertullian's Critique of Paul (from JWO ch. 16.)
How could Gray write this book and not know about any of this?
Gray mentions scholarly titles on Marcion seventeen times. Gray has apparently read enough of Tertullian's Against Marcion to cite book 5, paragraph 21 to demonstrate Marcion "esteems Paul above all other authorities...." (Kindle loc. 683.) Yet, no mention is made of Tertullian's scathing criticisms, nor that they are present somewhere in Against Marcion.
At the same time, it is not a secret that Tertullian called Paul in Against Marcion the "apostle of the heretics" -- in Latin haereticorum apostolos. It is not just in my book and on my website. One of the foremost Christian Protestant writers
cites Tertullian from 207 AD, and says about Paul that "the writings of Paul --- the haereticorum apostolos of Tertullian --- were regarded suspiciously at Rome." (Hans Lietzmann,The Lord's Supper (Brill: 1979) at 282.)
Despite Tertullian saying that nothing corroborates Paul was chosen as an apostle of Jesus, and Paul fits a false prophet as predicted by Jesus
quoted in my book at length -- what does Gray have to say?
Gray mentions "wariness" of Paul by Tertullian exists -- but leaves it vague and never explained. Gray then never cites where wariness in its strongest demonstrable form appears in Tertullian's works -- in Against Marcion. Yet, Gray says the "wariness of writers like Tertullian does not reflect any rebuke of Paul." (Gray, loc. 682 in Kindle edition.)
How so?
Gray offers no synopsis of Tertullian's critiques that he knows expressed any level of "wariness" to prove that no rebuke is intended. Gray does not even cite Tertullian’s Against Marcion as a place that a reader could find the most serious expressions of "wariness" that Tertullian had.
Instead, Gray processes for you — the reader — that Tertullian has a wariness about Paul. He provides no explanation for its basis. Gray does so for your benefit so you don't have to read the negative sources, know what they represent, or even know the title of the most relevant work to look up. Yet, we must trust that whatever "wariness" Tertullian expressed is supposedly simply no rebuke at all. Really?
Lietzenmann quoting Against Marcion says Tertullian viewed Paul as the "apostle of the heretics," in line with a negative "suspicion" about Paul at Rome. But Gray knows there is supposedly "no rebuke" of Paul by Tertullian based upon some unexplained means. Amazing!
I urge everyone to buy this book to see what it dares not talk about. If left uncorrected, a book like Gray's will purge from historical attention that Paul is criticized by Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 and 7:21-23, and by Jesus again in Revelation chapter two, and by Apostle Peter in Second Peter, as well as by James and Jude in their epistles, and of course by the Ebionites, Tertullian, Jerome, Kierkegaard, and Reverand Holmes-Gore.
For in Gray's world, these negatives about Paul, especially about his writings, disappear into greyness and oblivion. These critics of Paul's validity from within the Christian camp including by Jesus, Apostle Peter, James, and Jude, apparently don't need to be taken seriously at all. They don't have to be dealt with, or quoted meaningfully, or explained, or rebutted as of any weight by more than broad-brush strokes and hand-waives. And in the case of Jesus' words in Revelation chapter two as well as Reverand Holmes-Gore's book Christ or Paul, you don't have to even make any mention of them at all!
But for the true Christian, they are the primary part of Gray's book which we need to pay attention to. By doing so, we will realize what is being OMITTED or DOWNPLAYED is the most important lesson to take away from Gray's book. Our Christian sources of criticism of Paul are to be marginalized by not being taken seriously or not being mentioned, or barely and weakly so, in a book claiming to be devoted to a summary of all critical statements about Paul in history. This way, the most important points in the history of criticism of Paul from a Christian perspective are simply to be silently overlooked.
If Paul-defenders' history presented as supposedly neutral and comprehensive wins out, then Christian-based criticism of Paul is to be forgotten and never mentioned seriously again.
Jesus, however, cannot be defeated by such means. For Gray's work cannot convince the devoted disciples of Jesus that a true and complete picture was given of Paul critics through all time. This strengthens our confidence even more that Pauline Christianity is crumbling. It cannot face the whole truth. It must hide it or dismiss it, or defame it, or marginalize it, or try to crush it by its academic authority.
In fact, Grey’s work represents our first major victory. Pauline Christianity’s first foray to counter attack the Jesus’ Words Only movement has been an obvious smear of Christian critics. It tries to do so by simply looking away with a blind eye and suggesting a similarity between us and Nietzche, Hitler and Al Queda, and we are supposedly similarly Paul haters or misfits. We are not recognized as having any sensible grounds to defend Jesus by finding Bible-based messages against Paul. If recognized, that would distinguish us from Nietzche, Hitler and Al Queda. But this apparently first effort to counter us was so lame that Pauline Christianity next time will no longer be able to entirely or largely ignore the Christian sources of criticism of Paul. This first effort was too obviously skewed. And there may be no next counter effort to our own.
Instead I anticipate and am praying that the next effort recognizes that the Jesus’ Words Only principle must be addressed seriously. It is a valid viewpoint of a true Christian. Perhaps it is the only valid viewpoint of a Christian. We can also pray that any writer in the future tasked to destroy this movement will look more deeply into all the evidence above and realize in frustration that there is no truth to any further efforts to silence the Jesus’ Words Only movement. Paul and his dysnoetas must be shelved moving forward. Jesus' claim as our sole teacher and pastor must be acknowledged and obeyed.
Thus, Grey’s book proves that true original Jesus-centric Christianity, defended by our Lord's words in Matthew 5:17-19 and the Ebionite finding of apostasy in Paul's writings pursuant to Deut 13:1-10, is rising. Gray’s work did not set the JWO movement backwards.
Instead, Gray’s work showed the inability of Pauline Christianity to face head on all or any of the proofs of the Jesus’ Words Only principle. Our evidence overwhelmingly requires the de-recognition of Paul as inspired moving forward.
Grey’s work thus proves that inevitably one day all serious Christians must resolve personally whether Jesus warned of Paul in Matthew 5:17-19. One day, we must also all resolve personally whether the Ebionite finding to exclude Paul from inspired Holy Scripture as an apostate is justified. If we each take this step — and I believe the outcome is certain among those taught by the Holy Spirit, we can look forward to a joyous personal reconnection with our Lord Jesus Christ, and His words. And we pray, a full commendation as a good and faithful steward.
Blessings, Doug
Gray does mention one other Christian who was a critic of Paul for theological reasons -- William Wrede. However, Gray does not place Wrede in the list of critics of Paul, and does not quote Wrede's major criticisms; he includes only one cryptic critical reference.
Rather, Gray discusses Wrede on the unrelated issue of whether Paul or Jesus was the true founder of Christianity. See Kindle loc 2402. Wrede is narrowly identified as someone who said Paul turned Christianity into a religion of redemption, rather than one based upon Jesus' ethical teachings. Wrede says this makes Paul the "second founder of Christianity." (Kindle loc. 2402.) Gray then drops in a criticial quote of Wrede about Paul that this "second founder of Christianity has even, compared with the first, exercised beyond all doubt the stronger -- not the better -- influence." (Kindle Loc. 2402.)
But the surrounding context in Gray's discussion is all involved in whether Jesus or Paul is the primary influence over the church. So this is a very slight indication of what was a major critique of Paul by Wrede, a Lutheran seminary student.
What was Wrede's critique that Gray never mentions? Wrede's work Paul (1901) said that Paul never quotes Jesus but once or twice, and thus was not a true disciple. If we want to be Christian, we have to return to Christ, so says Wrede. As a result, Wrede's work led to the "back to Jesus from Paul" movement in the decades following.
Rudolf Bultman quashed this movement in 1929 by saying Paul's teachings supercede the teachings of Jesus in the flesh prior to the ascension (i.e., His earthly preaching) because Paul was communicating with the ascended Jesus. Paul teaches us, Bultmann said, that we are no longer to know Christ through Jesus' teachings "in the flesh," citing 2 Corinthians 5:16. See our article discussing this at this link [to come].
Gray refers to Ernest Renan as "unambiguosly anti-Pauline." (Kindle Loc. 2960 in footnote 8.) Yet, Gray never quotes or cites what work is supposedly Anti-Paul -- another omission. Regardless, I strongly disagree with that conclusion. Renan is pro-Paul as an ordinary man (no hate) and the loudest critic of Anti-Paulinism, especially in early Christianity. Renan attacks Revelation as written as "a cry of hatred" (by apostle John) against Paul. Renan also slanders James and all the apostles as "shallow minded" in their epistles against Paul. (Renan, St. Paul (1875) vol. 2 at 220 & 301.) He further accused the apostles of trying to destroy Paul's work by "insult and calumny." (Id., page 221.) This rejection of the anti-Paulinism he recognized from Jewish-Christian leaders of the early church is in line with Renan's view in his prior work, The Life of Jesus, that Jesus "purified himself of Jewish traits," and was "transformed from a Jew into a Christian."
Thus, Renan is a true great Paul defender as a sincere man and Renan is a critic of anti-Paulinism in Jewish Christianity; he is certainly not Anti-Paul.
At the same time, Renan is Jesus-centric without criticizing Paul with any hateful remark. Thus, it is true that Renan believes Paul has been a "hidden rock" and has caused many to fall off the path of following Jesus (Renan, St. Paul (1875) vol. 2, at 330), and Paul had an honest belief he heard revelations from Jesus although Renan said they were truly from Paul’s imagination. Id. at 326. But he does not fault Paul for this error on our part. Rather, Renan said it was always our obligation to follow the clear words of Jesus in the gospels (not including the book of Revelation) that shine brightly and clearly as our guide -- not only in early Christianity but now more than ever. Thus, Renan implies that we are in the wrong by putting attention on Paul's feebly expressed words (the "hidden rock") over the clear message from Jesus. Renan never directly faults Paul for any of our mistakes taking our eyes off Christ's words from the gospels.
Thus, Renan is both a pro-Paul and Jesus-centric Christian. Not only is Renan not "unambiguously anti-Pauline," but also he is not conceivably anti-Pauline. (If Renan is anti-Paul for simply making Jesus' words more important than Paul's words, then by that standard Jesus would be anti-Paul too by merely saying "the apostle is not greater than the one who sends them." (John 13:16.)) I take it in Grey's book, that is not what he means by anti-Pauline.
Lastly, the irony of Ernest Renan is he cites all the anti-Paul remarks in James, Jude, and Revelation, and deflects them as all due to hate. Renan never embraces them as truth. This is simply Renan's honest recognition of obvious canon-source criticisms about Paul, even if Renan's rebuttal relies on an obvious ad hominem smear to deflect such canonical-source criticism of Paul. Renan then endorses Jesus' words in the gospels as our primary focus without criticizing Paul in any significant way except gently saying Paul is a "hidden rock" which we sometimes trip over. This makes Renan unique among all Christian writers -- while he is extremely opposed to Anti-Paulinism, Renan is also still objective enough to be extremely Jesus-centric.
Another extraordinary oversight by Gray is his failure to mention the Clementine Homolies and Recognitions of Clement. For the Ebionites had preserved their opinions about Paul as an apostate by writing the Clementine Homolies and Recognitions of Clement. These works contend Peter realized that Paul - later transparently revised by the Roman Catholic church to read "Simon Magus" -- was the "enemy" of Christ who teaches against the Law, and invites Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as not eaten in front of a Christian who thinks it is wrong. In the same vein, Peter of the Clementines astonishingly alludes to Paul's complaint that Paul suffers an affliction from an "Angel of Satan" (2 Cor. 2:7) which Paul says the "Lord" refused to release him from despite praying three times for relief, but Peter explains to Paul that any such demonic influence is the result of eating meat sacrificed to idols. That has to hurt had Gray felt compelled to mention it! Peter in the Clemetines also challenges how Paul can have had a true experience with Jesus when Paul's words clearly contradict Jesus. That has to likewise sting to have to repeat because there is abundant truth in it, as our
24 Contradictions of Jesus by Paul lays out.
For more on the key quotes on Paul in the Clementine Homolies / Recognitions of Clement, see our article Recognitions of Clement.
Thus, in reviewing a work that has such large omissions, we must ask: why would Gray ever have omitted the most extensive and elaborate -- literally longer than the Book of Acts -- stories about Paul interacting with Peter, and Peter scouring Paul for not teaching the teachings of Jesus? For Paul not wanting to learn from the 12 about Jesus? For Paul contradicting Christ? For Paul eating meat sacrificed to idols in violation of Law and all that is holy, and Paul's defending Christians who do so?
Could it be that Gray's silence is due to a concern that just stating what is attributed to Peter in the Clementines would be embarassing to Paul because they ring so true?
Or is Gray's silence because the Clementines shows the original church -- named Ebionites -- preserved the truth about Paul for every generation?
Or would Gray have also been concerned about including mention of the Clementines because then he would have to explain why the Catholic church in the late 300s tried lamely to suppress these works by republishing them (destroying all traces of the originals), and then Rufinus -- the 'collator' -- replacing the name "Paul" with "Simon Magus" every time Paul's name appeared? What doctrines of Catholicism, Gray would have to address, is supported by Paul?
For all scholars are unanimous that Simon Magus is transparently a name replacement for Paul in Rufinus' rewrite.
Or might Gray have omitted the Clementines in his history because it destroys the myth of some early acceptance of Paul as on the same footing as the 12?
Or did Gray simply make a a blunder?
Whatever the answer, this omission is further proof that Gray's work is the last work to expect to hear any formerly mainstream voices within Christianity relying upon Christ's words or any spiritually-valid points as a means to reject Paul.
Gray also omits that a portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been determined by a pre-eminent DSS Scholar, Robert Eisenman, to reflect the bitter interchange between James and Paul over Paul's doctrine of salvation.
In 2006, we summarized Eisenman's works in this subject area in chapter 12 of our book Jesus' Words Only. Gray ten years later not only missed our work, but also overlooked the underlying work of Eisenman from 1998 who said the DSS reflect writings by the Ebion whom refer to a certain character as the Spouter of Lies - obviously Paul in context. This lying figure is battling the Zaddik - Hebrew for the "Just One" -- over the doctrine of faith alone. Eisenman says this moniker "Just One" is the well-known nick-name of James the Just who wrote the epistle James in our NT. Hence, among the DSS are two documents that reflect what Gray would describe as Anti-Paul writings. This viewpoint belongs to the Ebion -- obviously the Ebionites -- the earliest name known for the Church. Yet, somehow Gray missed these entirely remarkable facts as well.
Remarkably, Gray also makes no mention of the very often cited proofs that Luke's Acts is not what it appears to be. First, rather than a defense of Paul from Christian critics, it is now seen as a defense in a pagan court to the charge of Paul introducing Trophimus to the Jerusalem Temple in an uncircumcised state. (See Acts.) As a result, Luke leaves behind for observant Christians a number of attacks on Paul's validity among us. These were facts to both distance Paul from leadership, as well as facts to point pagans (but not Christians) favorably toward Paul.
For example -- in Acts 1 - the 12th Apostle who replaces Judas is Matthias while never once does Luke say Paul is an apostle appointed by Jesus in the three versions of the Damascus Road account. To make it emphatic, Luke says Jesus and the Holy Spirit decided the 12th. Hence, Luke excluded Paul from any leadership role. Paul had to ask the 12 to make a decision on policy in Acts 15.
Also, Luke records that the pagan-revered Python Priestess in Acts 16 -- while possessed of a demon -- endorses Paul's "way of salvation" for "many days." (She does not endorse Jesus.) This fact would greatly convince pagans to support Paul's innocence while repelling a discerning Christian reader from trusting Paul's demon-endorsed message of salvation.
(See Luke's Gospel is a non-Pauline Gospel.
See also Demon-Possessed Python Priestess Endorses Paul's Gospel.)
The many facts damaging to Paul in Acts -- when criticially examined -- is why scholar John Knox in 1942 claimed that Acts was aimed to undermine the Paul-only-ism of Marcion. See John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (Intervarsity Press, 1942).
Yet, Gray again appears oblivious to this long consensus of many Christian scholars including John Knox who came to the final conclusion that several canonical works were anti-Paul -- in this case the Book of Acts when read as aimed to win over pagans in a pending court case, and not win over Christians to Paul as a true apostle.
Michael C. Legaspi, Associate Professor of Classics at Pennsylvania State University, makes an excellent observation in First Things (October 2016) about what is not covered in Gray's review of Paul critics. Legaspi acknowledges that Gray gives us a long list of Paul haters and anti-Christians whom we can safely ignore -- those who make baseless and libelous attacks on Paul.
However, Legaspi acknowledges there remain others whose criticisms should be addressed with "humility and self-awareness." These others make no substantial appearance in Gray's work. Even though Legaspi believes Paul and Jesus can be reconciled, he recognizes that some Christians make serious Bible-based cases against Paul. Legaspi implies that next time out, the defenders of Paul need to engage the critics who are not libeling Paul but are asking theological questions which deserve being treated with "humility and self-awareness." For after all, truth is the issue. Legaspi writes:
This brings us, finally, to the title of Gray’s book. In what sense is Paul a problem? For many, Paul is a nuisance, an impediment to progress, or a convenient target in a proxy war against traditional Christianity. Many of Paul’s critics—those who wrote baseless and libelous attacks—may be safely ignored. But astute critics remind us that, as Peter admitted, there are in Paul’s letters things that are “hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). We ought to hear and read them with humility and self-awareness, on guard against familiar pitfalls like antinomianism and dogmatic overreach. (Michael C. Legaspi, "All Things to All Men," First Things (October 2016) - link.)