That is the eye-catching title of a brief article by Drew Billings in the Winter 2025 issue of BAR magazine. Although I enjoy reading that magazine for reports of archaeological finds and great illustrations, I must admit that they often pad each issue with one or more article from a liberal university professor taking potshots at those who are so ignorant that they still take the biblical accounts at their face value.
Thus, the gist of this particular article is that Luke (or whoever really wrote the book of Acts) practically deified the figure of Paul by turning him into an invulnerable superman who is unfazed by any sort of physical abuse. Billings points out that this one-sided characterization is at odds with Paul's first-hand accounts in his letters where he often boasts of his weakness.
Next Billings elaborates on this superhuman apostle being able to perform “signs and wonders” in Acts. But if you look at the facts a little more closely, you will find out that of the eight times that particular phrase or similar formulations are mentioned, only one applies to Paul. And that one (Acts 14:3) (1) includes Barnabas as well as Paul and (2) does not give them the primary credit for these miracles since it describes the Lord “granting signs and wonders through them.” This is hardly a description of Supermen.
We get the same picture in Paul's letters, which actually contain three mentions of “signs (and wonders)” in which he was involved. They are found in Romans 15:19; I Corinthians 1:22; and II Corinthians 12:12. And in I Cor. 1:22 Paul actually criticizes those among the Jews who demand signs.
Nevertheless, Billings sticks to his unproven thesis that “the Book of Acts represents an ambitious attempt at constructing a literary monument of apostolic memorialization whereby Paul is recast [i.e. portrayed in a way not consistent with reality] as a courageous hero who prevails against hostile forces in the face of life-threatening dangers...” He also states, “After all, the presentation of him as an embodied vessel of divine charisma recasts Paul's body as invulnerable to the very types of injury and pain to which he so frequently refers in his own letters...”
My own impression of Billings' very short essay is that he himself is the one who is recasting what the Book of Acts says concerning Paul by carefully selecting only those incidents which fit his preconceived notions. For example, Paul in his letters says nothing regarding his embarrassing part in the stoning of Stephen, but it is described in Acts. And in Acts 14:5-6, Paul and Barnabas are said to flee for their lives. “Then there are the points brought out by Fitzmyer: “Luke cannot bring himself to depict Paul as one of the apostles” and “Paul did not want to become a Christian or a missionary, but Christ has made him such. It was not a decision of a human being, but an act of God.”
As one example, take the incident related in Acts 15 soon after Paul's conversion. He finds himself trapped in the walled city of Damascus with enemies out to get him. Does he simply yank the city gates out of the ground and walk out carrying them on his back as the superhero Samson did in Judges 16? No, instead he has to be ignominiously lowered over the wall in a basket by others. Hardly a Samson!
Another possibility to take into account concerning the differences between Acts and Paul's letters is that many scholars feel, and with good reason, Luke served during Paul's lifetime as his personal physician who often traveled with him to help take care of Paul's many physical maladies, including eye troubles and malaria as well as the abuse his body had suffered through mistreatment by others. And in that confidential capacity, Luke was really not free to openly divulge to the world the great extent of Paul's injuries and physical suffering. Aside from that conjecture, here is what more knowledgeable commentators than myself have to say on the general subject.
Neil: “It has often been said by writers about the book of Acts that Luke made Paul his hero...Clearly, it is not, as might at one time been thought, the uncritical hero-worship of a simple medical missionary; not only does Luke paint his picture of Paul with 'warts and all', but...our author is a man of independent judgment with a theological point of his own...he honored him because he had brought the message of salvation from Jerusalem to Rome. This was why Luke made Paul his hero, if we like to put it that way.”
Bruce is a little more sympathetic with Billings' view when he states: “For Paul no doubt is Luke's hero. What an ineffaceable picture he gives us of the apostle! And in giving us this picture, what a contribution he has made to the record of Christian expansion!” It is this latter theme that most commentators feel constitutes the primary reason for Luke writing Acts, certainly not to deify the person of Paul. And Bruce represents a sizable number of other scholars who feel that “On the theological side, the dominating theme of Acts is the activity of the Holy Spirit.”
Similarly, John Stott subtitles his commentary on Acts “The Spirit, the Church, and the World” as well as describing that book as a “political apology” stressing three major points:
1. Roman officials were friendly to Christianity;
2. There was no reason for the Roman State to convict them of any crimes; and
3. Christianity was not a forbidden new religion since it was based on Judaism.
Note that not one of those three themes includes any attempt to exalt the portrait of Paul from that of God's obedient servant to the status of a superhero.
Acts 14:19-20
One of the events Billings cites to show the supposed total invulnerability of Paul to pain is described in Acts 14 where he is stoned by a hostile crowd and left for dead. Verse 20 reads: “But when the disciples surrounded him, he got up and went into the city.” C.R. Matthews cautiously labels this event as “perhaps a miraculous recovery.” Ogilvie attributes it to the concerted prayers of the disciples who were said to have surrounded him.” Assuming this latter is closer to the true events in the episode, we might better ascribe superhuman properties to those praying disciples rather than to the unconscious Paul who certainly did not exhibit his total physical mastery over his abuse.
Trenchard has this to say: “He [Paul] was not dead, as many supposed, but was miraculously helped to overcome utter prostration and dangerous wounds so as to set out on his journey to Derbe the next day.”
Acts 28:1-6
The other “miraculous” event Billings harps on in his article is Paul's utter immunity to a deadly snake bite while on Malta. But for a closer account of a superhuman Christian pitted against snakes while on an island, you would be much better served by considering the legend of St. Patrick casting out all the serpents in Ireland. By contrast, Paul in Acts 28 is seen in a totally passive role carrying out the duties of a menial servant by rounding up wood for the fire. He does not cast out even one serpent, but just shakes it out on the ground to slither away harmlessly. However, after Paul does not swell up and die as the superstitious inhabitants of the island supposed he would, they switch from considering him a murderer getting his just punishment to worshiping him as a god. That certainly sounds like Billings' definition of a super hero, but is it really?
Perhaps the most logical explanation of the incident was suggested by Ramsay years ago. It involves a snake of the genus Coronella austriaca, which “is known to be rather irritable, and to fix its small teeth so firmly into the human skin as to hang on and need a little force to pull it off, though the teeth are too short to do anay real injury to the skin.”
Bruce's cautious comment regarding this possible explanation is that “we must leave the accurate identification of the reptile to the few scholars who combine expert knowledge of this branch of natural history with expert knowledge of the Greek terms used here by Luke.”
And Fitzmyer adds: “Echidna was the same term used for many forms of snakes thought to be poisonous...The superstitious natives think that Paul has fallen under the scrutiny of this goddess [i.e. Dike, 'Justice'].”
Conclusion
If you are really interested in pursuing this issue of Acts vs. Paul's letters in more detail, I would suggest purchasing A Harmony of the Life of St. Paul by Frank Goodwin, which represents one attempt to place these two sources side-by-side so you can note for yourself where the two complement and reinforce one another and where they might disagree in relative emphases.
Another valuable resource in that regard is found in pages 129-141in the much more liberal and critical scholar Joseph Fitzmyer's important commentary on Acts. He also has no trouble at all dovetailing the details of Paul's life as portrayed in Acts together with those gleaned from Paul's letters.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments