Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[SteveII]

Tom Holland, atheist writer and historian has some interesting points about Paul.

"Compacted into Paul's writing is almost everything that explains the modern world"

"International law, human rights...go back to Paul"

"His letters...along with the Gospels, are the most influential, most impactful, most revolutionary writing that has emerged from the ancient world."

"Paul was a depth charge deep beneath the foundations of the classical world. Paul sets up ripple effects of revolution throughout western history... [including] the enlightenment. They spilled out so much now in the 20th century we don't know where these ripple effects came from--we just take them for granted."







I am interested in discussing the complete premise. If you don't listen to the whole 5 minutes, I am not interested in discussing it with you.

The entire interview can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlf_ULB26cU

Special thanks to RR for telling me about this podcast. I really enjoy it.

[Crossless2.0]

The depth charge metaphor strikes me as apt, insofar as the NT generally -- and Paul particularly -- carries on a project of values inversion (I mean that in a non-pejorative way) that was already evident in the Hebrew scriptures, but now geared to a largely Gentile audience -- the last will be first/the younger-born will hold sway over his brothers/the Messiah as Suffering Servant, etc. The influence is obvious in the case of the Reformation. I suppose it can be teased out as an influence on Enlightenment thinking, though I think the influence is a bit more muddled there than it was in earlier movements. After all, it's not hard to find examples of people who were definitely influenced by Paul who spent whole careers railing against the Enlightenment project.

I don't have time at the moment to watch the interview in its entirety but eventually will. I hope he expands on his reasons for including the Enlightenment among the fruits of Paul's influence. As it is, he simply mentions it (to the nods of his interlocutors) without really giving his reasons.

[Mister Agenda]

Contributions of the Greeks thrown under the bus again....

[Angrboda]

Well, I only watched the five minute version. Holland makes a number of claims that are not immediately obvious. Not being sufficiently familiar with Paul or the relevant history, I really have no opinion on the matter aside from the instinct of skepticism, as well as familiarity with how such claims of an inherently Christian basis of society often don't pan out. I'd have to read Paul to even begin to understand what he is claiming. But that being said, one can ask the still relevant question of whether Paul was simply riding a wave of change in society, or whether Paul was the wave. It's always been my belief that original voices are products of their age, rather than true signs of great originality. I note this particularly in science. No great scientific breakthrough occurs in a vacuum. They all are set within a context which uniquely made them possible. Einstein wouldn't have been Einstein if not for Maxwell and so on. One looks at the historic events predating Paul, such as the Hasmonean epoch and the wave of apocalypticism sweeping Judaism prior to Paul, and there seems to be reasonable grounds for at least suspecting that Paul, and Jesus as well, were simply the white caps on a wave that was already cresting. Given the boost to their visibility made possible by the triumph of Christianity, it seems rather unremarkable that in hindsight, his thinking may have shaped things considerably. But at the end of the day, it probably wasn't his thinking per se which had the most effect. Just as the decision to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States, it's questionable whether that change would have occurred if not for larger currents already underway within society. So, even without examining the actual Pauline contributions themselves, I suspect Paul was simply a rider on the wave of change occurring in society, and perhaps, if true, its most visible proponent. But at the same time, we have the preconditions existing in the world at the time, as well as mass movements which were reinforced by, but not originated by Paul, to thank for any supposed positive contributions from Paul. In addition to that, one has to ask what specific things Holland is postulating that were Paul's contributions. Given the rise of Christianity, it seems rather unremarkable that the main currents within Christianity would have a large influence on whatever society resulted. That's just the lottery effect -- somebody had to win, and perhaps in this case, it just happened to be Paul (if true).

I guess furthermore I'm wondering what your overall point is. Are you asking whether we should acknowledge Paul as a great thinker, philosopher and moralist? Are you asking if we think the contributions made by Paul specifically, and Christianity in general, to society have been significant and significantly positive, either absolutely, or relative to other thinkers, philosophers, moralists, people, or movements in history? Are you asking whether Paul's supposed effect upon future generations is evidence of a divine influence on his writings and their eventual wide spread adoption? There are many questions you might be asking, but it doesn't appear you've asked any of them. This seems like a form of "gee whiz" history; gee whiz, look at that, if there hadn't been a Paul, things would have been different. Well, generally if things had been different then, it's a truism that things would have been different. Just what are you trying to say, Steve? At the very least, I think some specific examples of Paul's supposed contributions to Western thought would go a long way to fleshing out Holland's contention and this thread.

So I guess my question, given my ignorance of any specifics about Paul, Holland's claims, and history in general is, was Paul the instigator of change, or just a visible witness to it?

[The Valkyrie]

Contributions of the Greeks thrown under the bus again....

The Greeks, the Sumerians, the Babylonians...

[Graufreud]

Tom Holland, atheist writer and historian has some interesting points about Paul.

"Compacted into Paul's writing is almost everything that explains the modern world"

"International law, human rights...go back to Paul"

"His letters...along with the Gospels, are the most influential, most impactful, most revolutionary writing that has emerged from the ancient world."

"Paul was a depth charge deep beneath the foundations of the classical world. Paul sets up ripple effects of revolution throughout western history... [including] the enlightenment. They spilled out so much now in the 20th century we don't know where these ripple effects came from--we just take them for granted."







I am interested in discussing the complete premise. If you don't listen to the whole 5 minutes, I am not interested in discussing it with you.

The entire interview can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlf_ULB26cU

Special thanks to RR for telling me about this podcast. I really enjoy it.

I wonder why it is important to point out that Tom H is (or was) an atheist writer.

If it was reversed and I would say that John Doe, a Christian writer changed his mind about Intelligent Design... what would it matter that J.D is a Christian?

[Angrboda]

I wonder why it is important to point out that Tom H is (or was) an atheist writer.

If it was reversed and I would say that John Doe, a Christian writer changed his mind about Intelligent Design... what would it matter that J.D is a Christian?

I think the point is that as an atheist, he is more likely to be impartial and not fall prey to ideologically motivated illusions. I don't know whether that's true or not. I suspect, but haven't checked, that this is in support of a book he's selling, or some other self-interested motive which has as much effect in driving his conclusions as anything, so I'm inclined to be skeptical. Given that rather little information aside from the claim has been shared in this thread, I'm inclined to think it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but as a lover of the history of religion, I'd be delighted to be corrected. I don't think Youtube videos, even if I had the patience to watch them, would of their own accord abet such hopes.

[Amarok]

So some Ex Atheist dim wit  fell for some apologist bullshit .Did this really need it own thread ?

[Succubus]

What's an atheist writer? And is he one anyway?

I have to confess that before getting to know Tom, I assumed that he was an atheist - after all, he’s incredibly knowledgeable about ancient texts and he readily admits that the God of the Old Testament is no more “real” than the Greek gods. Yet, when we talk, he makes it clear that he is not an atheist, but most definitely a Christian.

From here.

---

And its a funny sort of historian who would say this: My bold.

Hence the excitement this week surrounding the discovery of a tiny fragment of papyrus on which, for the first time in any ancient Christian manuscript, Jesus is recorded as speaking of "my wife". Although the provenance of this startling find is mysterious, its ultimate place of origin – presuming that it is not, as some scholars suspect, a forgery – can only have been Egypt.

We don't know where it came from but it came from Egypt???

From here.

Eta, I can find no reference to him being an atheist.

[Angrboda]

Sounds like yet another fuckhead walking around clothed in a sandwich board.