Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s Unwarranted Attacks on Philosophy
A Critical Review on The Grand Design
Replacing Speculation with Speculation
Most of the discussion centered around Stephen Hawking’s and Leonard Mlodinow’s The Grand Design has to do mostly with both authors’ (especially Hawking’s) explicit conviction that God plays no role in the creation of the universe, and that there is no need to suppose that God exists. There have been responses all over the place on this issue, and this concern has been addressed by many Christian scientists such as Alister McGrath (Richard Dawkins’ famous foe), think-tanks such as The Biologos Forums (see this article), as well as many other philosophers and theologians. I agree with some of what they say, some others I don’t, but fundamentally they are right. In this book, Hawking and Mlodinow replace one speculative proposal (namely God) with another speculative proposal (the multiverse), none of which have scientific value, because they are both beyond the realm of science.
As a matter of fact, the weakest claim of the book is the statement that super-string theory (or "string theory" for short), specifically M-theory, somehow has to be the real thing. Yet, not many scientists are as over-enthusiastic about it as they are, precisely because, even when the proposal "solves" the gap between the realms of gravity and quanta, scientists cannot use it to even begin to make predictions nor design some test to find out if it is correct. In Popperian terms, it is purely metaphysical, it plays no scientific role whatsoever, and it will remain that way until scientists can come up with specific predictions which can be tested in some way. Lee Smolin, one of the most renowned theoretical physicists, has complained about this aspect of string theory, and even protested the way funds are now being diverted from other alternative proposals to finance string theory research (see Smolin, 2006).
I think that there is no one in this world who can express better the irony of all of this than the physicist Peter Woit, of Columbia University, who says: "One thing that is sure to generate sales for a book of this kind is to somehow drag in religion. The book’s rather conventional claim that "God is unnecessary" for explaining physics and early universe cosmology has provided a lot of publicity for the book. I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me."
In this review, though, I wish to be fair. When you read The Grand Design, there is a feeling that it is trying to respond to the belief held by many people that Hawking in some way believes in God. For example, Deepak Chopra has been one of those who have abused Hawking’s statements about getting to "know the mind of God", and others similar to it, to show that somehow Hawking infers from his scientific knowledge that God exists. I will write also on Chopra’s huge misunderstandings on evolution, but that is another article for another time.
My quarrel with Hawking and Mlodinow, though, is not only about the issue of God. I think, after all, that this debate will go on and on in the eternal dialogue between science and religion.
The Grand Design and Philosophy
My big problem with the book began precisely with the first two paragraphs of chapter one, page 5, when I read the following words:
We each exist for but a short time, and in the time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. . . . How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
My jaw almost dropped to the floor when I read this. In a sense I felt that this was one big backstabbing of philosophers. Why did I feel this way? First, because natural science is philosophy’s offspring; in a sense, it is philosophy’s child (all-grown up right now … we philosophers are proud of our baby). Second, because philosophy is one big rationalistic enterprise to find the principles of truth, while natural science uses much of these principles implicitly in the research in order to propose rational theories and explanations about the empirical world which also help us get us closer to truth and reality. Both are rationalistic enterprises and have truth as the goal. As a philosopher of science, though, I felt especially offended, because the statement that "philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics" is demonstrably false.
I don’t know if these authors are aware that practically most, if not all, serious philosophers of science are paying attention to the latest discoveries in science, particularly physics. Since Kant’s time, we are able to see how closely do philosophers follow science and their discoveries, as well as the impact of science on philosophy. The formulation of the general theory of relativity invited philosophers to rethink the epistemological foundations of science since Kant’s time. This led to the rise of logical empiricism, which, as a matter of fact, was paying very close attention to natural sciences and tried to provide their philosophical foundations. Hans Reichenbach’s works on natural science are nice examples of this: The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge (1920), The Philosophy of Space and Time (1928), Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Physics (1944), among others. See also Rudolf Carnap’s works on these subjects such as Space (1922), and The Logical Structure of the World (1928). Even when logical empiricism fell, these works still remain as examples of the kind of clarity that is genuinely and honestly sought by philosophers when they engage in fruitful dialogue with science. Other more recent examples come from Carl G. Hempel, especially those written after the demise of logical empiricism, Adolf Grünbaum’s works (Geometry and Chronometry in Philosophical Perspective (1968) and Philosophical Problems of Space and Time (1963)), Roberto Torretti’s (Philosophy of Geometry from Riemann to Poincaré (1978), Relativity and Geometry (1983), Creative Understanding (1990), and The Philosophy of Physics (1999)), among many other philosophical works.
I wish to add that there are other philosophers of science who work extensively with other areas of natural science. For example, the founder of philosophy of biology, Michael Ruse, cannot be accused of not keeping up with biology. Neither can we accuse E. O. Wilson of that, nor Robert Arp, Alexander Rosenberg, David Hull, and Daniel Dennett. And talking about Dennett, what are we going to do with philosophers of the mind, who usually keep up with the most recent research and discoveries about the brain/mind? Should we just throw them in the trash can too as promotors of a "dead" subject? Should we do the same with Wilfrid Sellars, David Chalmers, Paul Churchland, Karl Popper, and John Searle? My answer is: Hardly!
And what about ethicists? Most of them are paying attention to fields such as nuclear physics, medicine, neurobiology, zoology, botany, and ecology. They must do this, because of the ever-increasing fields in applied ethics such as environmental ethics, and bioethics.
The True Relationship between Philosophy and Science
David Hume established a distinction between relations-of-ideas and matters-of-fact. Propositions of relations-of-ideas are those whose negation imply automatically a contradiction, while the negation of matters-of-fact do not imply a contradiction. For example, if we negate that "2+2" equals 4, we would incur in a contradiction. If we negate that every circle is round we fall in a contradiction too. This is because "2+2" must equal "4", and all circles must be round. However, if we formally negate that the Earth revolves around, we do not automatically fall into a contradiction, since an Earth escaping from orbit is perfectly conceivable and could actually happen.
Much later, Edmund Husserl categorized analytic and synthetic-a priori propositions as relations-of-ideas, and synthetic a posteriori judgments as matters-of-fact. Part of relations-of-ideas is what we can consider formal sciences: formal logic and mathematics. Formal sciences deal with formal abstract relations and objects: conjunction, disjunction, numbers, sets, and so on. They are a priori, that is, their truths are discovered through reason alone, and as relations-of-ideas theyhave necessary and universal validity.
On the other hand, natural sciences (e.g. physics, biology, chemistry) deal with matters-of-fact, that is, everything a posteriori that can be tested empirically.
Philosophy has a bit of both fields, but in a different way. Although certain aspects of philosophy do seem to fall in the realm of relations-of-ideas (e.g. Husserlian phenomenology, metaphysics, transcendentalism, and so on), some aspects of it can refer to matters-of-fact: philosophy of science, applied ethics, etc. We can functionally define philosophy as that field which uses reason as its basic, but not the only, tool to establish those principles with which we can find what is true, good, and beautiful. I say this is a functional definition, because I recognize that there is no formal definition of philosophy, but this is as close as we can get to something like a definition that will let us present our argument the best way possible.
Given the scenario I just showed above, natural science is not "the" bearer of the torch of the quest for knowledge. There are other forms of knowledge, such as those of formal science, whose practice is vastly different from that of natural science. There is not an iota of reference to protons, mass, mental processes, sociological conditions, or molecular interactions in formal sciences. It may be argued (as some have) that non-euclidean geometry was adopted in mathematics thanks to general relativity. However, such statement is superficial, because non-euclidean geometry appeared due to mathematical problems, mostly having to do with the fact that there was no a priori reason why mathematicians should assume that the rejection of the axiom of the parallels was logically inconsistent. Non-euclidean geometry was developed during the nineteenth century by Bernard Riemann, Nicolai Lobachewski, and Janos Bolyai, by exploring many sorts of geometrical spaces. All that Einstein did was to adopt non-euclidean geometry as the mathematical model which would serve as basis for the simplest theory of gravity possible, given Einstein’s own results of special relativity. So, the validity of non-euclidean geometry in mathematics relies solely in mathematics. Whether natural science will use it or not, that is irrelevant to the question of mathematical validity.
Some epistemology in some philosophical fields are not natural-scientific either. Consider, for instance, epistemology of ethics. Many naturalists will argue that ethics can only be explained neurologically as a result of evolution. Yet, we have to distinguish between ethics and morals. Morals have to do with the uses and customs of a society. Ethics has to do with what is objectively good. Science can explain morals, but not ethics. Unfortunately, naturalism has not been all that good trying to provide objective foundations for what is good, only of why society behaves in such and such manner. But there are behaviors that are socially accepted in society which happen to be unethical, and there are some ethical norms which are unacceptable to societies. What is good (ethically speaking) is not subject to popularity contests, nor "selfish genes". Concepts such as "good", "duty", "dignity", and "values" (in the ethical sense) do not appear nor are they used in physics, in biology, in cosmology, nor in chemistry books. They belong only to the realm ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. Of course, branches of ethics, such as bioethics, deal with biological consequences of certain activities in biology as a scientific enterprise, or certain economic enterprises such as the pharmaceutical industry and medicine. Biology can inform ethicists about the problems it deals with, its conceptual framework, and how it operates, BUT bioethical suggestions and recommendations should rest ultimately on ethical principles, not biological. Furthermore, there is even a branch of ethics which is further away from applied ethics and natural science, called metaethics, which provides the objective foundations for ethical norms themselves (i.e. normative ethics).
Epistemological principles (i.e. principles of objective knowledge) are not found in natural science either. As a matter of fact, epistemology of natural science provides the conceptual foundations of natural science, while philosophy of science uses these concepts to fine-tune on the subject on whether a certain field is science or not. Thanks to epistemology and philosophy of science (two separate, yet related fields in philosophy) we are able to know why physics, biology and chemistry qualify as science, while intelligent design, and Dianetics do not.
Last, but not least, fields such as epistemology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, philosophy of the social sciences, philosophy of religion, among many others, have recognized that there is a wide variety of principles of knowledge in fields such as social science, anthropology, history, economy, culture, among others, which are not reducible to biology nor physics. That doesn’t mean that physics and biology are not important regarding these matters, but the reason why there is a market crash in one time period cannot be reduced to quanta or general relativity. Sometimes it is not even reducible to the mere neurological activity of individuals’ brains, but to social structures, ideologies, religious convictions, jurisprudence, political stability, supply and effective demand, etc. Thanks to all of these philosophical fields, we are able to know also why natural science does not have the monopoly of knowledge, because there are other fields that provide knowledge whose objects of study, and the way they work diverge significantly from those of natural science.
Is philosophy really dead? The answer is a resounding "NO!" As the reader is able to see, the enormous amount of questions asked in philosophy are not limited to the questions stated by Hawking and Modlinow in the quote above.
In my next blog post, I will discuss Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s serious foulups regarding the history of philosophy (and science), as well as their serious misunderstandings of some philosophers, particularly Aristotle. I will also discuss the reason why the authors of The Grand Design should apologize to philosophers.
For now, I have said enough to ask the following question: Have Hawking and Mlodinow kept up with modern developments in philosophy? I can say categorically, but with much less arrogance than that displayed by Hawking and Mlodinow: NO!
References
Smolin, L. (2006). The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of science, and what comes next. US: Mariner Books.
(This is the continuation of Part I, Part II)
Did Saint Paul Hate Women?
I consider myself a feminist, but give me a break! Give me a quarter for every time I have had read or heard feminists complaining against St. Paul ad nauseam. Sometimes, it gets to the point of outright demonization of the guy. In the best of cases, they say that St. Paul was "ambiguous" regarding women.
The extreme way of dealing with this is what I call the "tabloid approach": "Was St. Paul gay?!" Yes, "tabloid" because that is the basic question every show-business news-reporter asks about famous artists. "Is Tom Cruise gay? Is Megan Fox lesbian?" I reply: "Who cares? Get a life!" Apparently these people have nothing more intelligent to ask.
Of course, there is an academic version of this, of academics who ask if St. Paul is gay or not. There is also an element that GLBTT communities have asked this question. I have nothing against the GLBTT communities, and I am in favor of gay marriage … but please, to further your cause you don’t have to make everyone famous in history gay. Sometimes, if I show signs that the person in question is more probably not gay, then the answer I receive from some of them is the annoying "you never know". Please, leave that kind of answer to the X-Files and the Twilight Zone, and out of historiography!
Why would he be gay? They argue, because St. Paul was celibate (1 Cor. 7:8), complained about a "thorn on my flesh" constantly bothering him (2 Cor. 12:7-10), and that he supposedly "hated women". Wow! I don’t know if this sort of question will ever help the GLBTT community by spreading the false stereotype that gay men hate women, and that lesbians hate men. Such stereotypes serve little to history or historiographical research about anyone, much less St. Paul, and they definitely do not serve to advance GLBTT causes.
But, where is the evidence that St. Paul hated women? Well, the passages are not difficult to find. Take, for instance, this passage:
But I should like you to understand that
the head of every man is Christ,
the head of woman is man,
and the head of Christ is God.
For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head. And for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head; it is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off. Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she would have her hair cut off too; but if it is a shameful thing for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, then she should wear veil. But for a man it is not right to have his head covered, since he is the image of God and reflects God’s glory, but woman is the reflection of man’s glory. For man did not come from woman; no, woman came from man; nor was man created for the sake of man: and this is why it is right for a woman to wear on her head a sign of the authority over her, because of the angels.
Decide for yourselves: does it seem fitting that a woman should pray to God without a veil? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but when a woman has long hair, it is her glory? After all her hair was given to her to be a covering.
If anyone wants to be contentious, I say that we have no such custom, nor do any of the churches of God. (1 Cor. 11: 3-10; 13-16).
Geez! Now that sounds discouraging and degrades our view of St. Paul. We could show further evidence:
As in all churches of God’s holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part, as the Law itself says. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly. Do you think that you are the source of the word of God? Or that you are the only people to whom it has come? (1 Cor. 14: 33b-36).
Ouch! There is more!
During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by child-bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is constant in faith and love and holiness (1 Tim. 2: 11-15).
And last, but not least:
Wives should be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, since, as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church is subject to Chris , so should wives be to their husbands, in everything. Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words, so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck of wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless (Eph. 5:22-27)
Maybe there is no passage that subordinates women to men than this passage! In this article, though, I wish to make a daring claim: St. Paul did not hate women, had deep respect for them, and he encouraged women leadership. After all the evidence I just presented, is there any possibility to rehabilitate St. Paul in such a way? On trial he should be condemned for misogyny … an open and shut case! Is it?
The Case of the Post-Pauline Letters
There is a problem taking some of these passages as expressing St. Paul’s real opinion on women, especially when some of the letters quoted above were not written by him. This is the case of the post-pauline letters. These are letters in the corpus paulinum which scholars, for different reasons, consider that were not written by St. Paul, but made later by members of the communities he established.
There are different criteria to determine the difference between the post-pauline and genuine letters. The history of how these letters were adopted shows that at the very beginning, when they appeared, they were not considered genuine by Christians in the first-place. For example, during the second century, only ten letters of the corpus paulinum were considered genuine letters, with the exclusion of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. By the end of that century 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were included, but Hebrews was still excluded. It was not until the third century that Hebrews was integrated to the corpus paulinum, first in the Eastern Churches, then in the West. By this history, we should take into consideration the fact that 1 and 2 Timothy were excluded in the first-place, which means that they were not considered genuine Pauline letters by Christians of the first half of the second century.
There are other indicators that 1 and 2 Timothy were not written by St. Paul. First, the style is completely different, and reflects the reality of the end of first century and beginning the second century C.E. For instance, 2 Timothy makes an explicit reference to the Gnostics, a group that did not exist until the second century C.E., which places 1 and 2 Timothy’s composition in that same century:
My dear Timothy, take great care of all that has been entrusted to you. Turn away from the godless philosophical discussions and the contradictions of the ‘knowledge’ [gnóseos: ???????] which is not knowledge at all; by adopting this, some have missed the goal of faith. Grace be with you (1 Tim. 6:20-21).
This means one very important thing: the opinion we find in 1 Timothy about women shutting up is not St. Paul’s opinion, but that of some of his communities long after he died.
The same happens with the Letter to the Ephesians. If we notice the letters to Colossians and Ephesians, which came from one sole source, they deal with a growing problem of the Christian churches at the very end of the first century C.E. There is already a growing influence of proto-gnostic groups, especially the radical dualist views on God and the cosmos, and extreme ascetic practices. Look, for instance at these passages: Col. 2:8, 18, 23. Ephesians builds on the worries of Colossians, and both letters elaborate a conception of the Cosmic Christ that is an alternative theology to these proto-Gnostic groups, but consistent with much of genuine Pauline theology: Col. 2:14-15; 3:2,5-6,9-10; Eph. 2:13-16; 4:9-10,15-16; 5:8,10-11,14. Scholars have also identified an unusual vocabulary compared to the known authentic Pauline letters. This means that Ephesians does not necessarily represent St. Paul’s views either, but instead of that of his communities long after he died.
An Interloper …
Of course, even if we say that 1 Timothy says that women should shut up is not a genuine Pauline letter, there is still a problem within a genuine Pauline letter: a passage where St. Paul seems to say that women should shut up in assemblies (1 Cor. 14: 33b-36). Yet, most scholars have recognized this passage as an interpolation in the genuine text. The problem is, how do we know? Let’s look at the whole passage again, and I’ll highlight the controversial passage:
Let two prophets, or three, speak while the rest weigh their words; and if a revelation comes to someone else who is sitting by, the speaker should stop speaking. You can all prophesy, but one at a time, then all will learn something and all receive encouragement. The prophetic spirit is to be under the prophets’ control, for God is a God not of disorder but peace.
As in all the churches of God’s holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part, as the Law itself says. If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly. Do you really think that you are the source of the word of God? Or that you are the only people to whom it has come?
Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have any spiritual powers must recognise that what I am writing to you is a commandment from the Lord. If anyone does not recognise this, it is because that person is not recognised himself (1 Cor. 14: 29-38).
Don’t you get the distinct feeling that the highlighted passage is actually interrupting the original subject? Let’s read it without it:
Let two prophets, or three, speak while the rest weigh their words; and if a revelation comes to someone else who is sitting by, the speaker should stop speaking. You can all prophesy, but one at a time, then all will learn something and all receive encouragement. The prophetic spirit is to be under the prophets’ control, for God is a God not of disorder but peace. Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have any spiritual powers must recognise that what I am writing to you is a commandment from the Lord. If anyone does not recognise this, it is because that person is not recognised himself (1 Cor. 14: 29-33a,37-38).
And, as we shall see later, this passage is completely inconsistent with St. Paul’s genuine regard for women leadership in Christianity. This shows that the controversial text in 1 Cor. 14 is a later interpolation, most probably by the same guy who wrote 1 Tim. 2:11-15.
Women, Cover Your Heads!
Now, there is also this passage 1 Cor. 11:3-10, 13-16 which was written by St. Paul, no question about it! First it is known that St. Paul was influenced by several Hellenistic philosophies, among them Judeo-Hellenistic philosophies. Remember, he was born in Tarsus, lived in Damascus, and was plenty acquainted of both Jewish and Hellenistic thinking. This controversial passage is a very clear example of one aspect of Judeo-Hellenistic philosophy which conceived a hierarchical authority in the world. This can be seen in passages implying the hierarchy of God-Christ-man (1 Cor. 3:23). Since according to Genesis, women came from men, then the order of authority should be God-Christ-man-woman. Also, the authority he is talking about is only stated within the relationship of wife and husband.
Let’s not be deceived. St. Paul did hold a male-centered conception of man-woman relationship. This is the reason why he advised women to cover their heads. For a former zealous-Jew, this is not surprising at all. Every hard-core Jewish man would hold this male-centered view of women.
What is not expected, though, is that this male-centered view would be so mild. What do I mean? Despite the fact that in a way he sees women inferior to men, he feels uneasy supporting such male-centered view, and he later seems to correct it. Immediately after saying that women should cover their heads because woman came from man, he thinks it over and says:
However, in the Lord, though woman is nothing without man, man is nothing without woman; and though woman came from man, so does every man come from a woman, and everything comes from God (1 Cor. 11:11-12).
Wow! That one is unexpected!
But it gets better than that . . .
St. Paul’s Respect and Deep Love for Women
The New Testament has a Letter to the Ephesians that was not written by St. Paul, and another letter to the Ephesians that is! Of course, it is not called "St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians", but it is attached to one of St. Paul’s genuine letters. I’m talking about Romans 16:1-16;21-23, which itself was an independent letter which a later editor attached to the rest of the Letter to the Romans. How do we know this? If you follow the passages I’ll quote later, you realize that a lot of the people he greets in this passage did not live in Rome, so it is highly unlikely that he would send a letter to the Romans to people who lived too far from it. It’s like sending a letter to a community in Washington D.C. so it sends greetings to friends who live in London.
This letter was written probably in A.D. 54 or 55. He was about to deliver the collected money to the Church of Jerusalem. Phoebe was a deaconess of the Church of Cenchreae, a place in Corinth which serves as port. St. Paul has been staying in her house, and she is about to travel to Ephesus to deliver a letter. How do we know that it is addressed to Ephesus, in Asia Minor? Because much of the people he greets in the letter are from Asia, and some of them were living in Ephesus (e.g Rom. 16:5, see also Acts 18:1-2,18-21,24-26; 20:16-17; 1 Cor. 16:19).
This letter is a gem! It lets us see in all its glory the deep love and affection that he had for women, especially those who served as Church leaders. Let’s take a look at it.
He wants Phebe, a deaconess of the Church of Cenchreae to deliver this specific letter, and says: "give her, in the Lord, a welcome worthy of God’s holy people, and help her in with whatever she needs from you — she herself has come to the help of many people, including myself (Rom 16:2)
Next, he greets "Prisca and Aquila", apparently a married couple. The interesting part about these names is that the woman appears first. At that time, who appears first in the order of names meant a superiority in leadership. It is simply unusual to find the wife mentioned before the husband. This is repeated in another letter of St. Paul (1 Cor. 16:19), and even the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 18:18,26). Apparently St. Paul in this letter is not only respecting her leadership, but also says: "my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks to save my life; to them, thanks not only from me, but from all the churches among the gentiles, and my greetings to the Church at their house (Rom. 16:3b-5).
The next woman who appears is a certain "Mary" who is described as the one "who worked so hard for you" (Rom 16:6).
Then he greets another couple … a very interesting couple: Andronicus and Junia, the latter being the name of a woman. St. Paul describes them as "those outstanding [among] the apostles . . . my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who were in Christ before me" (Rom. 16:7). A woman apostle???!!! Now, THAT is interesting!
He also greets Tryphaena and Triphosa whom he says are very hardworking in the Lord (Rom. 16:12a).
Next he greets Persis, whom he describes as beloved friend and hard-worker for the Lord (Rom. 16:12b).
He even greets Rufus’ mother, whom he loves her as if she were his own mother (Rom. 16:13b).
He also greets a certain "Julia" and also someone who is "Nereus’ sister" (Rom. 16:15).
The evidence is not limited to this brief letter to Ephesus, but in other genuine letters, he expresses loving concern and admiration for other women leaders, such as in the case of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), and about Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3).
Finally, let’s not forget that at one point even St. Paul complained that he was not being allowed to have women missioners with him, and says: "[Have we not] every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas [Peter]?" (1 Cor. 9:5).
If St. Paul is a woman-hater, then Paris is Venezuela’s capital.
P. S. …
- Why was St. Paul celibate? Answer: Because like every Christian at that time, he was waiting for Jesus Christ to arrive soon, and did not want his attention divided between things of the Lord and addressing the needs of a wife and kids. If you don’t believe it, read again the passage where St. Paul talks about his celibacy within context (1 Cor. 7:1-9).
- About the thorn of the flesh that bothered St. Paul (2 Cor. 12:7b-9a), it is most probably an illness of which he asked God to be healed from. It is not a sexual problem. Among the weaknesses he mentions later, he explicitly mentions illnesses and makes no allusions to any temptation of the flesh, such as a sexual problem (2 Cor. 12:10).
- Even when St. Paul supports a mild male-centered view of women, he also implies in his theology that before the eyes of the Lord, men and women are equal (Gal. 3:28).
=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo
(This is the continuation of the first article on this subject)
Saint Paul has been accused of all sorts of things. I have known authors who have blamed him for the Great Fire of Rome, but this is impossible given that recent Bible scholarship has established solid chronology locating his death in the year A.D. 58, long before the Great Fire (A.D. 64). There are others who have accused him of creating a struggle between Judaism and Christianity, which, as we saw in our earlier article, is not the case. Some, like Robert Eisenman, accused him of being "the Teacher of Lies" whom the Dead Sea Scrolls talk about, which is impossible, because the texts in question have been dated all the way before Christ was born using carbon-dating. There are other more outrageous theories which compare him to Simon Magus (and it is something very interesting which I plan to write about in the future), or that he is somehow related to Herod’s family (the Idumean Dinasty). This shows how much St. Paul fires the passions and the imagination of scholars and not-so-scholars.
This does not mean that Bible scholarship is made up of people with outrageous claims. Quite the contrary, it has made significant progress regarding the corpus paulinum, making a critical evaluation of the Acts of the Apostles, and creating a better philosophical and theological profile of St. Paul. I will share only part of the most recent profile in this article.
For purposes of research, I will only take into consideration his genuine letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemo and Philipians. The rest of the letters are post-Pauline, written after St. Paul died, and are not helpful for our task: 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews.
St. Paul: the Anti-Semitic?
One of the most widespread criticisms against St. Paul is that he supposedly hated the Jews, and that he made explicit anti-semitic statements. This is not surprising when we find such passages in the corpus paulinum like these:
[The Jews] put the Lord Jesus to death and the prophets too, and persecuted us also. Their conduct does not please God, and makes them the enemies of the whole human race, because they are hindering us from preaching to the gentiles to save them. Thus all the time they are reaching the full extent of their iniquity, but retribution has finally overtaken them (1 Thes. 2:15-16)
Beware of dogs! Beware of evil workmen! Beware of the castrated! We are the true people of the circumcision since we worship by the Spirit of God and make Christ Jesus our only boast, not relying on physical qualifications, although, I myself could rely on these too. If anyone does claim to rely on them, my claim is better. Circumcised on the eighth day of my life, I was born of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents. In the matter of the Law, I was a Pharisee, as for religious fervour, I was a persecutor of the Church; as for the uprightness embodied in the Law, I was faultless. But what were once my assets, I now through Christ Jesus count as losses. . . . Brothers, be united in imitating me. Keep your eyes fixed on those who act according to the example you have from me. For there are so many people of whom I have often warned you, and now I warn you again with tears in my eyes, who behave like the enemies of Christ’s cross. They are destined to be lost; their god is the stomach; they glory in what they should think shameful, since their minds are set on earthly things. but our homeland is in heaven and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transfigure the wretched body of ours into the mould of his glorious body, through the working of the power which he was, even to bring all things under his mastery. (Phil. 3:2-7,17-21).
Not only that, but we know many episodes in the Acts of the Apostles where St. Paul was victimized by the Jews: Acts 18:12-17, 22:1-29, 23:29-30. And even Saint Paul himself talks about how he was chastised and mistreated by Jews: Gal. 5:11; 2 Cor. 11:24, 26.
He even has some angry discussions with the part of the Church which favors a more Jewish approach to the Law (Gal. 2:1-14). He even refers to them as the false brethren (Gal. 2:4). The reasoning of many people who read these passages is as follows: "Saint Paul was persecuted by the Jews, and hated the most Judaizing sector of Christianity, hence he hated the Jews. He became a rabid anti-semitic."
Is this true?
Conflicts with the Jews: Are They Guilty of Everything?
It is far more complicated than that. Christianity was at first one branch of Judaism. Jesus did not intend his movement to become another religion, since He wanted the conversion of Israel and establish God’s Kingdom (Matt. 10:5-7). This view contemporary Christians have that Judaism persecuted Christianity just because it followed Jesus is a bit exaggerated. There was no doubt that a confrontation between Jesus and Jewish authorities existed, but after Jesus died there were two main branches of Christianity which existed many years before St. Paul converted: one was a Christianity which wanted to preserve the ways of Jewish Law, and a Christianity which did not adhere to many aspects of Jewish Law. The latter established itself outside of Palestine, for example, in places like Damascus or Antioch. This was the sector of Christianity which was most persecuted by Jewish authorities. If you think of the first martyr to die in the hands of the Jews, St. Stephen, shows this is true. The name "Stephen" is not Jewish, it is Greek: ????????. St. Paul himself, as we have discussed in the previous article, was born outside Palestine with a strong Jewish background, but surrounded by gentility. It is highly probable that the reason why he persecuted Christians in Damascus was because they didn’t adhere to Jewish Law. I don’t deny that Jewish authorities also persecuted Jewish Christians, but they were limited to chastisements. In St. Stephen’s case, it went as far as death.
Despite this, Christians, especially those who adhered to the Law, continued assisting to Synagogue meetings, and kept worshiping in Jerusalem’s Temple. All of that changed after A.D. 70, when Christians were banned from Synagogues, and in many cases were persecuted by Jewish authorities. In this case, the relationship between Christians and Jews became very bitter, and this can be seen very clearly in the Gospels of Luke and John, two of the latest Gospels, where Jews are almost always on the losing side, and sometimes refer to them in very strong words (e.g. John 8:44).
The Acts of the Apostles was presumably the same author of Luke’s Gospel, and the antagonism between Jews and Christians is displayed all over that writing. He wants to display St. Paul as a respected and eminent person before Christians and the authorities, but presents the Jews as antagonistic. Hence, we must be critically evaluate what it says.
For instance, in three passages of the Acts, St. Paul seems to remind authorities of his citizenship when he’s about to be whipped: Acts 16:37-38; 22:22-29; 23:27. In the last two of these texts, the problem originated with the Jews and the authorities backed off due to his citizenship. Indeed, any form of whipping or torturing Roman citizens was strictly forbidden by the lex Porcia. Yet of these three occasions only in the first one (Acts 16:37-38) he says he was whipped despite him being a Roman citizen. Saint Paul in his letters revealed he suffered far more than that. Without a doubt he suffered under the hands of the Jews and gentiles alike. Among the sufferings he went through we can mention: five times he was given thirty nine lashes, three times he was beaten with sticks, and once he was stoned (2 Cor. 11:24-26), practically contradicting the claim of the Acts that he was a Roman citizen, or that he constantly recalled it to the authorities.
Also St. Paul reveals in his letters that, unlike the claims of the Acts, much of the suffering Christians endured came from the authorities themselves, not the Jews per-se. For instance, the Acts of the Apostles says that the Jews were planning to kill him in Damascus (Acts 9:23-25), yet St. Paul says that this persecution came from the Damascene ethnarch Arethas, not the Jews (2 Cor. 11:32-33).
What was Saint Paul’s Real Relationship with the Jewish Tendency in the first Christian Church?
St. Paul’s relationship with the Judaizing sector of the Church was not easy, but that does not mean he hated it. On the contrary, he tried his best to recognize the authority of the Jewish Church authorities in Jerusalem, and to have a conciliatory approach with much of his opponents. This is apparent in many of the passages we find in Saint Paul’s letter, where he recognized St. Peter, St. James and St. John as being the pillars of the Church (Gal. 2:9). He even complained because of some of the divisions of leadership that appeared within the Church, which he feared would lead to disparate Churches not joined together in Christ (1 Cor. 3).
However, to understand well the relationship between St. Paul and the Jewish sector, we have to take a look at the Acts of the Apostles. It basically presents the Church as an organization where there are differences, but where the solution could be reached almost with ease. For instance, Acts says that the controversy regarding circumcision was discussed, leading the Church authorities to be convinced of St. Paul’s arguments against it, and submitting a letter to be followed by Antioch’s community and its missions (Acts 15:1-29). Following the meeting, St. Paul returned to his community in Antioch, where they finally received the letter, everyone was very happy and the Jerusalem party went back home (Acts 15:30-35). However, the meeting at Jerusalem and Antioch were far from peaceful.
St. Paul says that he discussed his case against circumcision and other issues in the Jerusalem Council, and then privately with the recognized leaders. However, he refers to the "false brothers" who accused St. Paul of subverting Christianity by saying that gentiles should not fulfill Jewish Law (Gal. 2:1-5). Yet, there is a problem with his account, apparently at the end of that passage he interrupts the sequence of events. For scholars, this silence is a sign that St. Paul lost the argument that day. The Jerusalem Council, contrary to what Acts claimed, was a total failure due to the irreconcilable position of the most fundamentalist Jewish sector within Christianity, which wanted it to require gentiles to follow the Law, and the Antioch community represented by Saint Paul and St. Barnabas. The letter that Acts is talking about was not written that day (Acts 15:23-29). St. Paul was not the one who was being intolerant to the Jewish sector of Christianity, but in this case we find the very extreme fundamentalist Jews in Christianity who were intolerant … the ones he calls "false brothers". This was the reason St. Paul wanted to discuss these issues later privately with the Church authorities.
There, they went into a process of mutual discovery of each other, which St. Paul describes as the recognition of St. Peter as the one in charge of the mission among the Jews in Palestine, and that it was up to St. Paul to be in charge of the mission among the gentiles. They also reached an agreement of solidarity, of Antioch should contribute to the Church in Jerusalem. This is due to the fact that by the years AD 47-48, there was lack of food in Palestine, during the Sabbath year.
Although the conflict seemed to be over, it was not so. St. Paul tells us in Galatians:
However, when Cephas [St. Peter] came to Antioch, then I did oppose him to his face since he was manifestly in the wrong. Before certain people from James came, he used to eat with gentiles; but as soon as these came, he backed out and kept apart from them, out of fear of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews put on the same act as he did, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.
When I saw, through, that their behavior was not true to the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all of them, ‘Since you, though you are a Jew, live like the gentiles and not like the Jews, how can you compel the gentiles to live like the Jews? (Gal 2:11-14)
Apparently the most fundamentalist Judaizing Christians from Jerusalem’s Church (whose head was St. James) went to Antioch, and their show of force was so strong that even St. Peter felt he should Judaize despite his acting like a gentile before they arrived. What was the problem?
If you look at the letter as shown in Acts (15:23-29) it states that gentiles are no longer required to be circumcised, but it says the following: "you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit marriages. Avoid these, and you will do what is right" (Acts 15:29). In other words, "you don’t have to circumcise yourselves, but have a Jewish diet". Before the Jerusalem party arrived, St. Peter participated in the meals with the gentiles. After the Jerusalem party arrived and read the letter, he was forced to not share some of their meal, and required the Antioch community to abide to this Judaizing determination. St. Paul was not happy. The intriguing silence after telling the story reveals again that St. Paul lost this meeting as well.
Despite his anger at the whole situation, especially at the "false brothers", the rest of his missionary life was marked by his allegiance to Jerusalem’s Church, by collecting money which he finally delivered to Jerusalem in A.D. 55, when he was accused, which led in the end to be condemned to death in A.D. 58.
Saint Paul’s Real Views about the Jews
While many authors entertain the idea that Saint Paul hated the Jews, a close look at his attitude shows that this is not the case. For him, Jews should be saved through Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross along with gentiles.
Let us look at the two quotes we mentioned in the first section of this article: 1 Thes. 2:15-16. The letter to the Thessalonians is presumably the first letter written by St. Paul (A.D. 51) and the first Christian writing that we have available. If we take a very good look at this passage, we become aware of two interesting things. First, it interrupts the flow of the text only to say that the Jews were the ones who killed Jesus Christ and the prophets. Secondly, it says that "retribution has finally overtaken them". What does this mean exactly? What kind of retribution? The only thing that comes to mind is the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, yet this happened years after St. Paul died. The interruption of the text, the harsh tone of the passage, and this little detail leads us to believe that 1 Thes. 2:15-16 has the traits of being interpolated in St. Paul’s original letter by a later copyist (presumably from a Pauline school during the last two decades of the first century C.E.). This passage, then, does not reflect St. Paul’s actual opinion about the Jews.
Let’s take a look at Phil. 3:1b-4:1, where St. Paul apparently refers to Jews with extremely harsh words: "dogs", "castrated", etc. But there are some things in this passage that seem too out of character for St. Paul. For instance, nowhere in the genuine letters St. Paul offers himself as a universal ethos or ethical example to be followed universally by Christians. The term "Pharisee", as I explained in our earlier article, is used to mean a pious Jew, which is a meaning developed by Christians after A.D. 70, after they were banned from all Synagogues and excluded by Jews. This long passage also interrupts the flow of the text between Phil. 3:1a and Phil. 4:2. Once again, we are at a piece of text which was not written by St. Paul, but interpolated within the original text of the letter to the Philippians. This interpolation does not count to find out Saint Paul’s views about the Jews.
To look at his real views, I suggest looking at his letter to the Romans. There are some reasons for that. St. Paul’s letter to the Romans is the latest letter he wrote (approximately A.D. 55), which means that he wrote it after having so many conflicts with the Jews, after being chastised and mistreated by them, and after his conflicts with Judaizing Christianity. Let’s see what he has to say:
This is the truth and I am speaking in Christ, without preference, as my conscience testifies for me in the Holy Spirit; there is a great sorrow and unremitting agony in my heart; I could pray that I myself might be accursed and cut off from Christ, if this could benefit the brothers who are my own flesh and blood [the Jews]. They are Israelites; it was they who were adopted as children, the glory was theirs and the covenants; to them were given the Law and the worship of God and the promises. To them belong the fathers and out of them came Christ according to the flesh. God is above all, may He be praised for ever! [Psalms 41:14] Amen (Romans 9:1-5).
So, for St. Paul, the Jews have an extremely important place in the history of salvation, and for that reason they should be respected as children of God. They were the chosen people where Jesus Christ came from.
There is still another very important passage regarding this subject:
What I am saying is this: it is possible that God abandoned his people? Out of the question! I too am an Israelite, descended from Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God never abandoned his own people to whom, ages ago, he had given recognition. . . . What I am saying is this: Was this stumbling [Jews not understanding the Gospel] to lead to their final downfall? Out of the question! On the contrary, their failure brought salvation for the gentiles, in order to stir them to envy. And if their fall has proved a great gain to the world, and their loss has proved a great gain to the gentiles — how much greater a gain will come when all is restored to them!
Let me say then to you gentiles that, as far as I am an apostle to the gentiles, I take pride in this work of service; and I want it to be the means of rousing to envy the people who are my own blood-relations and so of saving some of them. Since their rejection meant the reconciliation of the world, do you know what their re-acceptance will mean. Nothing less than life from the dead!
. . .
As Scripture says:
From Zion will come the Redeemer,
he will remove godlessness from Jacob,
And this will be my covenant with them,
when I take their sins away.
As regards to the Gospel, they are enemies, but for your sake; but as regards those who are God’s choice, they are still well loved for the sake of their ancestors. There is no change of mind on God’s part about the gifts he has made or of his choice. (selections from Rom. 11:1-32)
I invite people to read the whole passage of Rom. 11:1-32, perhaps one of the most beautiful ever written by St. Paul. One thing about it is clear, St. Paul was definitely not anti-semitic in any sense. He may have had harsh encounters with them, but this letter, the latest written by St. Paul, reveals that he feels a very deep love towards the Jews. His belief is that their failure to recognize the Gospel as coming from God prevents them from knowing the truth, but that in the end they will recognize Jesus as the Christ (the Messiah), and that through faith in Him God will forgive all of their sins.
Equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ
According to St. Paul, Jews and Christians should never be distinct from one another in the eyes of God. Immediately after talking about the disagreeable incident in Antioch and his disgust at St. Peter’s actions, he expresses the reasons why he is so angry at the decision reached by the Jerusalem Church:
We who were born Jews and not gentile sinners have nevertheless learnt that sometone is reckoned as upright not by practising the Law but by faith in Jesus Christ; and we too came to believe in Christ Jesus so as to be reckoned as upright by faith in Christ and not by practising the Law; since no human being can be found upright by keeping the Law. (Galatians 2:15-16).
Later, he elaborates:
But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the Law, locked up to wait for the faith which would eventually be revealed to us. So the Law was serving as a slave to look after us. So the Law was serving as a slave to look after us, to lead us to Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. But now that faith has come we are no longer under a slave looking after us; for all of you are the children of God, through faith, in Jesus Christ, since every one of you that has been baptised has been clothed in Christ.
There can be neither Jew nor Greek,
there can be neither slave nor freeman,
there can be neither male nor female
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And simply by being Christ’s, you are that progeny of Abraham, the heirs named in the promise (Gal. 3:23-29).
Are these the words of an anti-semitic?
=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo
