Watched the ABC Peter Jennings special on Jesus and Paul tonight, mostly because a friend of mine had raised the issue. I'd made a few predictions as to what Jenning's special would contain, and wanted see if I was right, and also be able to answer any questions about it.

My theory was that Jennings was going to pit Paul against Jesus and attempt to portray Paul as one who created a belief system which was different than Jesus "intended". In this, I was not disappointed. Nor was I suprised to see the point "sold" to the viewer primarily by omitting important, contradictory data.

Part I: Jesus

The special broke rather neatly, it seemed to me, into two parts. The first hour covered the life of Jesus. I was suprised, in this section, that they did what I'd consider a decent job of covering several different views on many major points. For example, they'd intereview someone who suggested that perhaps Jesus wasn't resurrected, and then also interview a supporter who would point out that it's hard to explain the disciples 180-degree turnaround any other way.

This was suprising to me, as I'd never seen a secular program even allow that argument to be presented. True, they didn't go as far as to mention that all the disciples but one (John) actually were martyred rather than simply say they hadn't seen the risen Jesus, but, well, it was more than I expected.

But I noticed a curious omission in the first part: They played up the "love the sinner" aspects of Jesus' ministry, pointing out the truly controversial way in which he loved the unlovely, the sinners, the outcasts from society. But they totally buried the other half of that equation, how he "hated the sin".

For example, Jennings mentioned that Jesus "shocked people by defending a woman accused of sexual misconduct." Well, sort of. While Jesus did save her life, the scholars Jennings cites fail to mention that rather than implying her sin was no big deal, Jesus instead sternly warned her to "go and sin no more." Jennings also included absolutely no references to the many times Jesus warned sternly about God's coming judgement and hell, and the importance he placed on repenting (turning away) from sin.

I found this omission curious, but it made more sense in the second half, when the more dour-sounding anti-sin quotes from Paul are then contrasted against this half-picture of Jesus's teachings about sin, to lend credibility to the idea Paul is changing Christianity. This probably won't work on an educated Christian, but to others, unaware of Jesus's many condemnations of sinful behavior, it might sound as though Paul took a different tone.

Hit and Run Attacks

Even though Jennings allowed the standard Christian view to be presented, refreshingly, at a number of points, there were many others times when extreme, defamatory, or just plain inaccurate allegations were presented as fact (by Jennings or a radical Jesus Seminar scholar) after which Jennings changed the topic without presenting the "other side" or contradictory evidence before moving on.

For example, Jennings stated that "historians believe" Jesus was originally one of John the Baptist's followers. Really? What historians? And how does that square with John's testimony that he wasn't familliar with Jesus?

At another point, Jennings asks if Jesus believed he was the messiah. He implies this is somehow unclear, saying, "In the bible he [Jesus] never says it directly."

He then only presents weak-sounding arguments, like Jesus using the term "the son of man", to show Jesus might have thought he was the Messiah. Yet he omits the many out-of-the-ballpark slams like:

The woman said, "I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he." (John 4:25-26)

Jesus never declared himself to be the messiah? Is this really poor "investigative" journalism or willful deception? Your call.

Part II: Paul

In the second and third hours of the program, Jennings paints a picture of Paul as an egotist who unintentionally creates a new religion, one which many of his fellow believers, and perhaps even Jesus, might not have approved.

Again, the general technique used here is to allow the orthodox scholars to speak when we're filling in the uncontested parts of Paul's life, but then to focus exclusively on radical fringe voices when making the points Jennings wants to drive home.

Did Paul come up with the idea of including Gentiles?

One thing Jennings clearly wants us to believe is that it was Paul who "changed" Christianity to include non-Jews. He shows one radical scholar claiming that Paul came up with the idea after seeing Gentiles in the synagogue who were interested in Judaism but not all the hard rituals. Jennings then depicts Paul as being rejected by the Jews and deciding to reach ("work on", he puts it) Gentiles because of that.

But what Jennings doesn't tell us is that hundreds of years before Jesus was born, the book of Isaiah clearly depicted the Messiah as one who will bring even the Gentiles to salvation. (Isaiah 49:6-7) The disciples knew this, and cited such verses. Nor does Jennings mention it is Jesus, not Paul, who explicitly commands the disciples to preach the gospel to all nations, not just the Jews (Matt 28:19). Nor does Jennings tell us it is Annaias, and not Paul who is first told, immediately after Paul's conversion, that Paul will be sent to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), rather than it being an idea Paul developed after noticing synagogue attendance demographics. Nor does Jennings present evidence that it is Peter, not Paul, who is recorded as receiving a vision from God which includes the Gentiles in God's salvation and nullifies the Kosher laws. (Acts 10:9-16)

None of these points are conducive to Jennings' argument that Paul is creating a new religion, alone, in rebellion against the "other" Christians. Instead, it shows a picture of unity of purpose; of God explaining his intent to many disciples, not just one lone ranger spouting heretical doctrines.

Did Paul fight with Peter and James over circumcision and other Jewish laws?

Another point that Jennings tries to make over and over is that there is a "bitter rivalry" and disagreement between Paul and most of his predecessors like Peter and James over the issue of Jewish laws. He makes much of Paul's rebuke to Peter for refusing, at one point, to eat with Gentiles, depicting it as the start of a major rift which will eventually separate the Jewish and Gentile believers. Jennings also depicts Paul's teachings as novel, and edits together quotes to imply Peter and James wouldn't have approved of some of Paul's teachings, such as not circumcising Gentile believers, and implies perhaps even Jesus wouldn't have recognized or approved of Paul's allegedly "new" version of the faith.

Again, Jennings makes his case primarily by omitting data. Concerning Paul's rebuke to Peter for refusing to eat with Gentiles, Jennings doesn't show it was, in fact, Peter (and not Paul!) who had laid down the rule that Paul was calling him on:

[Peter] said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
(Acts 10:27)

Further, Jennings does not allow us to learn that, contrary to the big rift and fight he portrays, Peter actually quite well knew and approved of Paul's writings and actually called them "scripture"!

In fact, Peter wrote, rather warmly:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

Jennings repeatedly implies that James, brother of Jesus, wouldn't have approved of what Paul was doing. He depicts those who harass and spy on Paul as being representatives of James. He also depicts the council in Jerusalem, at which they met to discuss the issue, as a major falling out, sayings things "went downhill from there."

But, once again, the best available evidence couldn't be further from Jennings' narrative: Peter actually acted as Paul's representative before the council, arguing passionately for the rightness of what Paul was doing, and -- contrary to what Jennings implied -- James and the others quite agreed! (Acts 15)

In fact, even further, James and "the brothers" went as far as to write a letter endorsing Paul, stating that the people who argued with Paul were not at all representing their views, and stated in no uncertain terms that the Gentiles did not need to conform to Jewish law, including circumcision!

They wrote:

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul -- men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
(Acts 15:24-29, emphasis added)

Note the lack of requirement for circumcision. No conflict at all. James agrees quite readily to what Paul is doing, and even quotes scriptures which show it to be a part of the change brought by the messiah.

How irresponsible for Jennings to omit such obvious contradictory evidence! Is he afraid of letting the viewers see both sides of the argument and make up their own minds?

Paul first turned Jesus' death into a victory

A third major argument that Jennings tries to make is that it is Paul who came up with the idea of viewing Jesus's death as a good thing.

Once again, the view is, quite to the contrary, rooted in prophecies about the messiah written hundreds of years before Jesus, which state that the messiah had to suffer and die so that we could be forgiven of sin and thus "saved" from punishment:

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed...
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
(Isaiah 53:5,8b, circa 600BC)

The disciples knew these passages and are shown quoting them about Jesus quite a long time before Paul enters the picture. Jennings also omits evidence that it was Jesus, not Paul, who first said his whole purpose was to suffer and die on our behalf -- which would, again, be quite a positive thing for us.

Indeed, if it was Paul who "invented" the idea that the death of Jesus was a good thing, then how do we explain the disciples' transformation after Jesus's death -- from weeping about it to rejoicing and preaching it boldly? Did Paul also invent time travel to go back to before his own conversion to explain it to them?

Remember, it was the disciples' bold preaching which caused Paul (named "Saul" then) to persecute them in the first place! Chronologically, Paul simply cannot have been the origin of the disciples' enthusiasm for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Paul added charitable giving to Christianity?

Perhaps in order to contribute further to the idea that Paul introduced "innovations" to what was previously done, Jennings and the radical fringe want to credit Paul also with the idea of adding charitable giving to Christianity, designed, in some cynical way, perhaps, to attract people.

They even go as far as to portray Paul as using the church's donations to the very poor members of the church of Jerusalem as being a kind of suck-up Paul uses for his own personal gain! They allege Paul took a collection which he carried to Jerusalem in order to "mend fences" and carried the cash along to use as a "sweetener". Not only does this allege Paul was using money to buy influence, but it also portrays James and Peter, allegedly Paul's enemies in this version of the story, as people whose moral judgements could be swayed by large cash donations!

But once again, Jennings omits evidence that charitable giving was already a standard part of Judaism: Jesus spoke many times about the importance, and correct way to perform charitable giving. He also omits evidence of a clear precedent of charitable giving among believers ("They gave to anyone as he had need", Acts 2:45) long before Paul enters the picture.

And the argument that Paul encouraging churches to give to Jerusalem is a suck-up to the leaders there is utterly inconsistent with the plentiful evidence, which the show even cited bits of, showing Paul didn't care one whit how other leaders judged him.

Last, the narrative Jennings presents implies that it is Paul who came up with the idea of taking a collection to use as a bribe to "mend fences" with the leaders in Jerusalem. Yet to the contrary, it seems that the idea for this charity originated in Jerusalem, and not only from Paul:

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also... Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek... James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
(Galatians 2:1-10, excerpted)

If so, it was James, Peter, and John -- and not Paul -- who first voiced the idea of remembering the poor of Jerusalem before the Gentiles, and did so in a context of agreement, not bitter rivalry. (Also note further evidence that neither James, Peter, nor John believed non-Jews needed to be circumcised.)

Again, what is Jennings afraid of, that he refused to present such evidence?

Paul didn't mean to be taken seriously

Another impression that we're clearly meant to be left with is that Paul never meant for his writings to be taken as some kind of basis for living: they were "dashed off" on the run; Karen Armstrong says Paul wasn't "setting up a new church with bishops and priests and liturgy", he didn't expect his writings to be the basis of doctrine by which people would live; he didn't anticipate that 20th-century Americans would be reading his words as scripture.

Much is made of the last charge. And, indeed, though Paul knew this world was "quickly" passing away, he also seems to understand, in many passages, that "quickly" in God's time is not necessarily quickly in man's time. True: he didn't forsee the discovery of the new world, etc. But the truth of this point doesn't prove Paul didn't mean for his writings to a foundation for Christian living.

To the contrary, Paul gives plenty of advice on Christian living, and it's clear that he's basing such advice on principles which transcend the intended audience's contemporary culture. He indeed instructs people on how to worship (1 Corinthians 11) and, completely contrary to Armstrong's assertion, Paul does indeed give instructions for setting up churches and appointing bishops, such as these:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer [or "bishop"] he desires a noble task. Now the overseer ["bishop"] must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...
(1 Timothy 3:1-2)

Are we trying to argue Paul didn't mean for these instructions to be followed for very long? Or that Paul thought these qualities were somehow just a temporary set of criteria to look for in overseers ("bishops") to be replaced by better qualities later?

Last, concerning the charge the Paul merely "dashed off" letters: First, let's note that even if we somehow charge Paul with hasty writing, we cannot charge him with hasty, careless thought. Remember that Paul spent decades studying and contemplating the bible, under Gamamiel -- one of the top Jewish authorities of the time -- before he began his ministry.

Next, we don't really know the details of each circumstance under which Paul wrote letters. Time lapses in the bible are often depicted in chunks of years -- Paul might spent quite a long time with one group before visiting another. During such a stay, he would write to another group and say he hoped to come visit them -- such a situation would provide ample time for reflection, and, indeed, Paul speaks of spending much time in prayer for the people he hopes to visit.

Further, other letters were written during long times of confinement -- again when Paul would have had ample time to reflect, pray, study scripture, and write -- contrary to the impression Jennings' more radical scholars leave us, that he only or primarily wrote aboard ships or during transit.

But, last, even if he did, so what? Most of the bible was purportedly written by people in the midst of living life. David composed Psalms while fleeing his enemies. Jeremiah wrote prophecy while Jehoiakim was attempting to take his life. Moses wrote while wandering in the desert. Even if these allegations are true, how would they make Paul's writings different than other accepted scriptures?

No, while it's true Paul admits he has no exact idea when Jesus will return (indeed, Jesus said no one would), and might have been suprised at certain twentieth-century developments (or perhaps even the length of time which elapsed before Jesus' return), he clearly intended people to live by his writings, and would not at all be shocked, in my opinion, to find out that later Christians considered his writings "scripture", just as Peter did during his own time. In fact, they were preserved simply because he first wrote them in a manner which had universal appeal. I find it hard to believe that Paul fashioned them this way by accident.

Other miscellaneous lame arguments

At points, it seems like Jennings is attempting to show Paul as an egotist. He quotes Paul's description of his own former hyper-Pharasitism as though Paul thought it was a good thing, and omits the ending verses where Paul says that such credentials are simply garbage and not worthwhile.

At another point, a verse from Paul is quoted to show he believes Christ is working in him -- apparently, to add to the appearance of a man with a messiah complex. Jennings shows Pagels alleging that Paul "saw himself as Christ on earth, in a way." But they don't mention that Paul also believes Christ works in every believer in this same way. Even the originally-mocking term "Christ-ian", which means "little Christ", demonstrates clearly how Christians in general, not just Paul, believed they were God's ambassadors here on earth, with Christ working in and through them. Thus Paul is hardly unique in this belief.

At another point, Jennings includes some apparently-random sounding quotes from "The Secret Gospel of Thomas", which he only calls "Thomas" or "The Gospel of Thomas" (perhaps to make it sound more like a genuine scripture). He doesn't tell his audience the document is believed to have been written hundreds of years later, in Egypt, not Israel, and is not seriously argued to have been authored by Thomas. Instead, it's described as though it were just another gospel. Again, no rebuttal.

There were many more such incidents, but I think these are sufficient to give the reader an understanding of how much data was omitted to make the points Jennings was trying to sell.

Conclusion

While Jennings did a fair job at presenting both sides of some more minor points -- which occupied much of the first part and some of the second -- when it came to presenting what seem to be his key, pet theories, Peter Jennings appears to stop being impartial and starts playing fast and loose with the evidence, showing only that which suits his conclusions, and quoting only the radical scholars on those points.

Even a light inspection of the New Testament documents, from which the points are allegedly made, refute the various contentions that Paul invented a new religion, had any kind of serious falling out with other disciples like James or Peter, was teaching things of which they did not approve, or invented the view of Jesus's death as a positive thing.

Instead, most of Paul's beliefs reflected the disciples' earlier understanding of Jewish scripture (the messiah must die and would bring the Gentiles to God), Jesus's own teachings (his death was his mission, his disciples must preach about him in all nations), and revelations given to other disciples.

Given this, two things are clear. One is that Jennings must either seem to be an extremely poor investigative journalist, or is not acting as an impartial investigator, but rather had a specific story he wanted to sell. (I believe the latter.) Second, if so, it seems clear that he's hoping that his audience won't ever had read, or won't go read, any of the documents he is citing, such as the book of Acts (particularly chapters 12-15), and will instead simply trust him as an unbiased presenter of the truth, as he appears to be when he listens so respectfully to each person he interviews.

Sadly, it appears he is not, and the reader who wants to learn about Paul would do well to simply read the book of Acts for him or herself, to see what it has to say about Paul's beliefs and how well they were or were not accepted, according to that document.

Christianity is one of the world's few major religions. It teaches that unity with God can only be found by having one's sins forgiven through accepting the death of Jesus in place of the punishment we deserve, not through being "good enough" or performing rituals such as circumcision or dietary laws. Is this true or not? Did these ideas originate with Paul?

The book of Acts is about 30 pages long. It is a sad commentary that so many of us, who easily digest hundreds of pages of romance novels and Harry Potter, will not read even thirty pages to determine if such important charges, made by a prominent journalist, hold any water. Is finding the truth about God, or at least these charges, not worth examining 30 pages of text? If we died and God asked us how hard we searched for him, what would that say about how determined we were to find the truth of the matter?

It's true that Paul was instrumental in spreading Christianity. But it is Paul's effort level, not some unique doctrine which he created which is responsible. Indeed, from the beginning God indicates Paul will be an example of suffering, and he will use Paul to bring the Gentiles to God.

But in terms of the cited doctrines, what Paul believes is not unique; he is not a heretic. Instead, the best available evidence from the bible paints an overwhelming picture of doctrinal unity on these important points among James, John, Peter and Paul. Given this, the only way Jennings can sustain this thesis is to omit the contradictory evidence. Which he does.