Ashton, John. The Religion of Paul the Apostle. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. http://www.amazon.com/
261 pages with a 6-page bibliography. Odd, dangerous, irreverent, and perhaps "something else.". Not worth 5 pennies, but we’ll continue the review FWIW. It’s difficult to think of Ashton as a Professor of NT at Oxford. This volume deserves barbed and flaming darts of hostility. Another “leaden work of scholarship” that, like others, will “litter the ocean floor of academia.” Jesus and Paul were "shamans."
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction, 1
1. On Comparing Religions, 6
2. Paul the Enigma, 29
Excursus 1: Jesus the Shaman, 62
3. Paul the Convert, 73
Excursus 2: Merkabah Mysticism, 105
4. Paul the Mystic, 113
Excursus 3: Schweitzer’s Mysticism, 143
5. Paul the Apostle, 152
Excursus 4: The Historicity of Acts, 171
6. Paul the Prophet, 179
7. Paul the Charismatic, 198
8. Paul the Possessed, 214
Conclusion
Bibliography
General Index
Index of Bibliographical References
Introduction, 1
A set of 8 lectures delivered by a lecturer of New Testament from Oxford (billed as a "leading NT scholar") regarding natural and comparative religion. We’ll make some notes, but this volume is odd beyond words. If the notes make little sense, it’s because Ashton doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Ashton draws attention to “theology v. religion.” Commentators note Paul had a “theology” but religion? Ashton, whom we shall not call a reverend or a doctor, draws attention to Deissmann’s “comparative method to the study of Paul” (die religiongeschichtliche, “the history of religion school”).
1. On Comparing Religions, 6-29. Deissmann believed Paul was “heavily influenced by pagan mystery religions.” The theology of baptism…a re-enactment of the “dying and rising of pagan gods such as Attis or Adonis.” Historically, these were efforts to cut the ties with previous orthodoxies or confessional Churchmanships. However, Barth, according to Ashton, put the kibosh on Deissmann’s school after WW1. “All human religions are superceded by revelation.” Religion was previously defined as atheism, fetishism, nature worship, shamanism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, animism, totemism, and other isms. Ashton thinks Barth was “arrogant” in his dismissal of these varied religions. But, Ashton is as "arrogant" in his dismissal of "revelation" as he thinks Barth arrogant. It is extremely difficult to imagine Ashton as a Professor of New Testament at Oxford. He’s clearly taken leave of an OT sensibility, systematics and church history. This chapter doesn’t even rise to a level of NT respectability in our estimation. His bibliography is bereft of the bigger names; 6 pages DOES NOT CUT MUSTARD. It’s hard to see why Yale Press published this.
2. Paul the Enigma, 29-61. Ashton notes that he’ll attempt to “dodge the barbed darts of hostile reviewers.” Count us in that community tossing barbed darts. He then hopes he’s not producing a “leaden work of scholarship” that will “litter the ocean floor of academia.” Hah! A forlorn hope on his part, we believe.
Then, the old boy asks an oddballish question: was Paul a sham, showman or shaman? Why kind of question is that? Ashton dismisses the first. Then, jokingly admits perhaps he was a “showman.” At this point, it will be hard to take Ashton seriously. Then…whala…the book will argue that Paul was a “shaman” with “structural resemblances” to shamans in history and other nations. Ashton feels “like a child in a candy shop” with numerous “succulent delicacies.” What kind of analogy is that? There is an evident absence of the fear of the LORD, gravity, and sobriety…for starters.
We then get a brief review of Tungus of Siberia (a shaman), a Japanese shaman, Theodore of Anatolia, and—of all things—Oral Roberts, the Pentecostalist.
These “shamans” undergo a crisis experience, see another world, gain mastery of the spirit world, and obtain a consequential veneration and authority from a community. Throw in altered states of consciousness, trance-like states, and ecstasies. These are "typical of shamans."
Paul was like these shamans, evincing similarity to the “astonishing variety of human societies through the ages.”
Excursus 1: Jesus the Shaman, 62-72. Ashton then argues briefly that Jesus is more of a shaman than Paul. Jesus was an exorcist with crisis experiences in the baptism, temptation and transfiguration.
We hardly know where to begin or end with this analysis. Odd is the least we can say of it. Dangerous is more like it. Putting Paul and Jesus into what appears to be derogatory and occultic categories…strange fire comes to mind. Yes, Ashton will argue that Paul is "possessed." That shoe might fit Ashton's foot. There is something beyond odd here, even paranormal. We’ll continue the review. But this much, this volume is not worth the purchase.
261 pages with a 6-page bibliography. Odd, dangerous, irreverent, and perhaps "something else.". Not worth 5 pennies, but we’ll continue the review FWIW. It’s difficult to think of Ashton as a Professor of NT at Oxford. This volume deserves barbed and flaming darts of hostility. Another “leaden work of scholarship” that, like others, will “litter the ocean floor of academia.” Jesus and Paul were "shamans."
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction, 1
1. On Comparing Religions, 6
2. Paul the Enigma, 29
Excursus 1: Jesus the Shaman, 62
3. Paul the Convert, 73
Excursus 2: Merkabah Mysticism, 105
4. Paul the Mystic, 113
Excursus 3: Schweitzer’s Mysticism, 143
5. Paul the Apostle, 152
Excursus 4: The Historicity of Acts, 171
6. Paul the Prophet, 179
7. Paul the Charismatic, 198
8. Paul the Possessed, 214
Conclusion
Bibliography
General Index
Index of Bibliographical References
Introduction, 1
A set of 8 lectures delivered by a lecturer of New Testament from Oxford (billed as a "leading NT scholar") regarding natural and comparative religion. We’ll make some notes, but this volume is odd beyond words. If the notes make little sense, it’s because Ashton doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Ashton draws attention to “theology v. religion.” Commentators note Paul had a “theology” but religion? Ashton, whom we shall not call a reverend or a doctor, draws attention to Deissmann’s “comparative method to the study of Paul” (die religiongeschichtliche, “the history of religion school”).
1. On Comparing Religions, 6-29. Deissmann believed Paul was “heavily influenced by pagan mystery religions.” The theology of baptism…a re-enactment of the “dying and rising of pagan gods such as Attis or Adonis.” Historically, these were efforts to cut the ties with previous orthodoxies or confessional Churchmanships. However, Barth, according to Ashton, put the kibosh on Deissmann’s school after WW1. “All human religions are superceded by revelation.” Religion was previously defined as atheism, fetishism, nature worship, shamanism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, animism, totemism, and other isms. Ashton thinks Barth was “arrogant” in his dismissal of these varied religions. But, Ashton is as "arrogant" in his dismissal of "revelation" as he thinks Barth arrogant. It is extremely difficult to imagine Ashton as a Professor of New Testament at Oxford. He’s clearly taken leave of an OT sensibility, systematics and church history. This chapter doesn’t even rise to a level of NT respectability in our estimation. His bibliography is bereft of the bigger names; 6 pages DOES NOT CUT MUSTARD. It’s hard to see why Yale Press published this.
2. Paul the Enigma, 29-61. Ashton notes that he’ll attempt to “dodge the barbed darts of hostile reviewers.” Count us in that community tossing barbed darts. He then hopes he’s not producing a “leaden work of scholarship” that will “litter the ocean floor of academia.” Hah! A forlorn hope on his part, we believe.
Then, the old boy asks an oddballish question: was Paul a sham, showman or shaman? Why kind of question is that? Ashton dismisses the first. Then, jokingly admits perhaps he was a “showman.” At this point, it will be hard to take Ashton seriously. Then…whala…the book will argue that Paul was a “shaman” with “structural resemblances” to shamans in history and other nations. Ashton feels “like a child in a candy shop” with numerous “succulent delicacies.” What kind of analogy is that? There is an evident absence of the fear of the LORD, gravity, and sobriety…for starters.
We then get a brief review of Tungus of Siberia (a shaman), a Japanese shaman, Theodore of Anatolia, and—of all things—Oral Roberts, the Pentecostalist.
These “shamans” undergo a crisis experience, see another world, gain mastery of the spirit world, and obtain a consequential veneration and authority from a community. Throw in altered states of consciousness, trance-like states, and ecstasies. These are "typical of shamans."
Paul was like these shamans, evincing similarity to the “astonishing variety of human societies through the ages.”
Excursus 1: Jesus the Shaman, 62-72. Ashton then argues briefly that Jesus is more of a shaman than Paul. Jesus was an exorcist with crisis experiences in the baptism, temptation and transfiguration.
We hardly know where to begin or end with this analysis. Odd is the least we can say of it. Dangerous is more like it. Putting Paul and Jesus into what appears to be derogatory and occultic categories…strange fire comes to mind. Yes, Ashton will argue that Paul is "possessed." That shoe might fit Ashton's foot. There is something beyond odd here, even paranormal. We’ll continue the review. But this much, this volume is not worth the purchase.
My own impression of present-day "religious studies" scholarship (as opposed to theological study by seminarians and their professors--at least in some quarters) is that is is a degenerate and foolish thing.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was much younger, and not long out of seminary, some near and dear to me sent me Elaine Pagels' _Gnostic Gospels_ to set me straight. I was appalled at the shoddiness of the work, Pagels may have known a thing or two about Coptic studies and Gnosticism, but her grasp of ecclesiastical history was a joke; and was her grasp of the canonical Gospel of John. Yet she was an esteemed professor at Hunter, later at Princeton.
I have similar feelings about the Jesus Seminar. Here we have a merry band of ex-Evangelical and Papists together trying to live down their own pasts by reconstructing a non-credible version of someone else's (Jesus).
Peter, interesting. As for the current volume under review, this may well fit into your description, but will wait awhile for the jury verdict, or, perhaps more appropriated, a "directed verdict" by the Judge (that is, me). I am not impressed by this volume. I am surprised that he's attempted to publish this as an Oxford man and surprised Yale published it. As for the larger category--religious studies outside the serious theological realm--e.g. Elaine Pagels, inter alia, your point is noted, filed and will be entertained more largely as the readings continue.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for you thoughts.