theology - potholes on the road to damascus
TRANSCRIPT
© Not to be reproduced without permission from the author
Potholes on the Road to Damascus:
A speculative, psychological explanation for the sudden conversion experience of
Paul, the Apostle, as the root of present-day
Christian anti-Semitism
By:
Janice Meighan
Master of Arts
The Department and Centre for the Study of Religion
The University of Toronto
June 2008
2
Paul an apostle – sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus
Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead – and all the members of God’s family who
are with me. ~ Galatians 1:1
Did Paul’s religious “Truth” change dramatically because of his own sudden conversion
experience? Can the results of this conversion be seen as a source for what contemporary Western
culture has come to call Christian anti-Semitism?
To answer these questions, this three-part essay extrapolates from recent psychological theory on
the phenomenon of adult attachment specifically as it relates to sudden religious conversion experiences,
in order to speculate on the possible contemporary implications for the sudden conversion experience of
Saint Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (Paul).
First, I will offer a speculative analysis of Paul’s first-century sudden conversion experience
relying on limited examples found in contemporary literature on the psychology of sudden adult
conversion experiences. Second, I will explore the psychological implications of a sudden conversion
experience and the transformation of the individual’s world-view, particularly as it relates to religious
“Truth.” I suggest Paul’s religious “Truth” changed dramatically with his sudden conversion. However,
unlike several other writers on Paul,1 I contend that the results of Paul’s change of religious “Truth” can
be seen as the root2 for what contemporary Western culture has come to call Christian anti-Semitism.
3 I
1 Richard A. Horsley, ed. Paul and empire: religion and power in Roman imperial society (USA: Trinity Press International,
1997); Mark D. Nanos, ed. The Galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical interpretations, (MA:
Hendrickson Pub., 2002). 2 The term root (n.) meaning: 1) underground base, part of a plant that has no leaves or buds, and usually spreads
underground; 2) ancestor or progenitor, especially one from whom many people are descended. Pl noun – Origins, cultural or
family origins, especially as the basis for a feeling of belonging in a particular place or environment [Christianity]. The
Canadian Oxford Dictionary. 2nd ed., (2001), s.v. “root,” 1253.
3 The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. 2
nd ed., (2001), s.v. “anti-Semite / anti-Semitism,” 54: persons hostile or prejudiced
against Jews. However, the work of scholars Gavin Langmuir, Rosemary Radford Ruether and Barrie Wilson offer insight in
the section on key terms defined.
3
am not suggesting that Paul is the cause4 of present-day Christian anti-Semitism but rather one plausible
source for it.
Finally, I contend that it is the implications of Paul’s historical and theological reinterpretations
of the ancient Judaic covenant, which are often used as the basis for centuries of Christians labeling and
demonizing the Jews and Judaism as enemies of God. Paul’s letter to the Galatians will be advanced as
supporting evidence. Throughout the paper, I will look primarily to such outstanding scholars in the
fields of psychology and religious studies, as Charles B. Strozier, Amy Newman, Gavin Langmuir, Lee
Kirkpatrick, Rosemary Radford Ruether and Barrie Wilson to assist in the development of my argument.
Key Terms Defined
For the purpose of this paper, I will treat the biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus) as an
historical person.5 Similarly, Saint Paul, or Paul, will be treated as an historical person and the founder
of Christianity.6 However, I make the distinction between the historical person known as Jesus of
Nazareth and Paul’s reference to him by using the term Jesus for the former and [the] Christ for the
latter.
I begin by offering brief definitions for two key terms anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism used
throughout this paper. Contemporary religious studies scholars have traced anti-Judaism back to the
Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans prior to the emergence of Christianity.7 Hostility towards Jews
by non-Jews was due not only to Jews “insisting on maintaining their Judaic identity as a separate
4 The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. 2
nd ed., (2001), s.v. “cause,” 227.The term cause (n.) meaning: 1) that which produces an
effect, or gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition; 2) a reason or motive, a ground that may be held to justify
something; 3) a principle, belief or purpose which is advocated or supported 5 Recognizing that there are debates in contemporary literature on whether or not Jesus actually lived and was a historical
figure (e.g. Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ). I accept the dominant scholarly premise that Jesus of Nazareth lived between 6
or 5 BCE. to circa 30 C.E. 6 I do not consider the historical Jesus to be the founder of Christianity. I would consider Jesus to be the founder of The Jesus
Movement, which became the Ebionites and/or then the Nazarenes as a sect within Judaism, and was eventually eliminated
circa fifth century C.E. See Barrie Wilson’s book, How Jesus became Christian (Toronto: Random House, 2008), 65, 95-102,
150-167. 7 Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (USA: WIPE & Stock
Publishers, 1997), 23-63; Gavin I. Langmuir, Toward a definition of anti-Semitism (USA: University of California Press,
1990), 6-7 and Wilson, How, 29-30.
4
people”8 but also to official State tolerance afforded to Jews by allowing them to retain their identity and
religious practises separate from paganism.9 However, Jews were not demonized and dismissed as being
‘inhuman’ by non-Jews of the time.10 As scholar Gavin Langmuir points out, “Persians, Greeks and
Romans … sense of cosmic and social identity had developed independently of Judaism. …” so there
was never any need to “… examine seriously the beliefs of Judaism and try to demonstrate their errors,”
this would be the task of emerging Christian leaders, “…starting with Paul…”.11 According to
Langmuir, Christian anti-Judaism was quite different from non-Christian anti-Judaism, for Christianity
rose from within Judaism. Christians needed to find a sense of their own distinctive and “superior”
identity in order to survive. For Christianity to be right, Judaism would have to be wrong.12 Feminist
scholar Rosemary Radford Ruether often uses the terms anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism
interchangeably. However she sees anti-Judaism as an historical and Christian theological opposition to
beliefs and practises of Judaism and of Jews;13 and I employ this understanding in this paper.
Anti-Semitism, according to Langmuir in Toward a definition of anti-Semitism, is a problematic
term developed by Christians and used by scholars across the centuries, each of whom defined the term
differently.14 In this paper, my use of the term is more akin to its meaning in the twelfth-century, but
more readily understood following Hitler’s “Final Solution”15 during World War II. As Langmuir states,
“Christian anti-Judaism thus seemed an important precondition for European anti-Semitism, a halfway
station between a very common kind of ethnocentric hostility and the peculiarly irrational hostility of
8 Langmuir, Towards, 6-7.
9 Ruether, Faith, 27-28.
10 Ibid.
11 Langmuir, Towards, 6-7.
12 Ibid. 7.
13 Ruether, Faith, The anti-Judaism explanation in Chapter 1 is interchangeable with the author’s term for anti-Semitism, 23-
63. 14 Gavin I. Langmuir, Toward a definition of anti-Semitism (USA: University of California Press, 1990), 2. This confusion is
evident in Ruether’s work noted above. 15 Ibid., 1-5; 10-11.
5
Hitler.”16 Langmuir notes that “as the mentality of Christians changed” over the centuries, the terms
themselves were transformed due to increasing self-doubt on the part of Christians.17 The Jews remained
living witnesses and ‘mirrors’ of the religion from which Christianity had evolved, and they did not
believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah. This fact would lead Christians to devote a great deal of
their time and literary efforts to denouncing and demonizing Jews.18 Scholar Barrie Wilson defines anti-
Semitism as “a view that singles out for selective condemnation the Jewish people, their religion, and/or
their homeland, Israel.”19
Consequently, we move from a relatively benign, non-Christian phenomenon of anti-Jewish and
anti-Judaism sentiments to Christian anti-Judaism, rooted in the Pauline corpus.20 From the twelfth-
century forward, and with the continued Jewish disbelief in Jesus as the long awaited Messiah, Christian
anti-Judaism would be made manifest in the works of many influential Christian leaders and writers
leading to the transmutation of the term into present-day Christian anti-Semitism, with enormously
deadly consequences over the centuries for the Jews.21
Psychological Theories of Attachment and Evolution
The Attachment Systems Theory
Attachment systems theory originated with noted British psychiatrist John Bowlby through his
work with primates and humans.22 Bowlby discovered a continuum of attachment whereby one end
represented readily available physical contact between the infant and caregiver or attachment figure
16 Langmuir, Towards, 7.
17 Ibid., 8-9.
18 Ibid. 11; and Norman Cohn, “The Protocols and the Dialogue aux Enfers,” Warrant for Genocide (London, UK: Serif,
1996), chapter. 3 in totality. 19 Barrie Wilson, How Jesus became Christian (Toronto: Random House, 2008), 275.
20 Ruether, Faith, 93-116.
21 Langmuir, Towards, 11-17; Cohn, Warrant, chapters 3, 7, 8. In addition, I recognize that Hitler was not a Christian and that
he was able to effectively utilize Christian self-doubt and identity issues found in esteemed writers and in the general
population around the world, to carry out his attempt at complete extermination of the Jews and Judaism. 22 Lee A. Kirkpatrick, Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion (New York: The Guilford Press, 2005) 25-51.
Here Kirkpatrick outlines Bowlby’s work: Vol. 1: Attachment; Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger; Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness
and Depression.
6
(usually the mother), and the other end of the continuum represented minimal physical contact between
the infant and caregiver – a situation Bowlby termed as, “out of sight out of mind.”23 A key development
in Bowlby’s theory remains to this day the ‘internal and external’ proximity monitoring of the
attachment figure by the infant, and found to persist throughout an entire lifespan.24
The scope of this paper limits any in-depth analysis of his empirical research, as it is
comprehensive and complex. However, a simple overview of his theory identifies three classes of
stimuli that seem to activate the attachment system of the infant and, in later life, the adolescent and
adult: 1) frightening or alarming environmental events, invoking fear or distress; 2) illness, injury or
fatigue; and 3) separation or threat of separation from attachment figure(s).25 Bowlby’s second volume
shows that the trigger for activating the attachment system changes over the course of development,
shifting from the need for physical contact in childhood, to vocal, [and/or] visual for adolescents, and
then to a phone call or written message (nowadays email) contact that would suffice to satisfy the
internal and external monitoring cues for adults. It is thus a “felt system” that helps to regulate the
“push-pull” of one’s emotional states, first with our primary attachment figures, and then with other
individual attachment figures throughout our lifetime.26
However, Bowlby was clear to point out that attachment is only one kind of psychological bond
and “the attachment bond is formed with a particular individual rather than a class or category of
people.” Attachment thus concerns individual relationships that offer a safe haven and a base of security,
seemingly reciprocal, but most often experienced only from the perspective of the attached person.27
23 John Bowlby, as cited in Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 28-29.
24 Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 39 – Bowlby identified this fact of attachment in his research.
25 Ibid., 61.
26 Ibid. 55-60.
27 Ibid., 57.
7
Beyond Bowlby
Lee A. Kirkpatrick, scholar and key researcher in the field of the Psychology of Religion has
advocated for a modification and expansion of Bowlby’s theory to help explain difficult questions
related to religious phenomena. Kirkpatrick’s seminal work Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology
of Religion convincingly argues that Bowlby’s attachment systems theory is an excellent and robust
theory which can help us “to understand religious motivation,” and “how people conceptualize personal
relationships with deities…”.28 Incorporating the research of other scholars in the field, Kirkpatrick
provides five reasons to import this theory into the study of religion. First, though it is a psychological
theory, it “offers a theoretical context for understanding religion in terms of the same processes and
principles as other domains of motivation, emotion and behaviour,” by linking information and
observations from religion to psychology. Second, as noted, it is a comprehensive theory that has
influenced other sub-disciplines of Psychology. Third, “it is deeply explanatory” and “offers researchers
a portal into explaining the how’s and why’s of human behaviour when it comes to religion.” Fourth, it
is an “unambiguous scientific theory” supported by numerous studies and empirical research over time.
Unlike theories put forward by Freud, Kirkpatrick sees Bowlby’s theory as devoid of judgment
connected to outcomes. Attachment theory does not assume that religious beliefs held by people are
“infantile or regressive.” Finally, Kirkpatrick tells us that this theory works within the larger and more
comprehensive context of the meta-theory of evolutionary psychology.29
It is this last criteria which allows the attachment systems theory to be applied, albeit
speculatively, to Paul’s first-century sudden conversion experience. But first, it is important to ask how
Bowlby’s attachment systems theory applies to religion. Also, what does the meta-theory of
evolutionary psychology add to this equation? It is then helpful to consider a limited review of literature
28 Ibid., 13.
29 Ibid., 18-20.
8
concerning contemporary sudden conversion experiences before doing a speculative analysis of Paul’s
own experience.
Bowlby’s theory imported into the Study of Religion
A couple of decades ago, Kirkpatrick and a number of other researchers adopted Bowlby’s
attachment theory as an alternative approach in conducting their own research. They did this work to
understand attachment in adulthood and, more recently, attachment as it relates to religious phenomena:
God, religious figures, spirits, religious leaders, and so forth.30 Kirkpatrick specifically uses Christianity
as the screen on which to apply this theory, though he recognizes that it is applicable across all religious
traditions.
Researchers have discovered that some people do perceive themselves as having a real and
personal relationship with God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, etc., and often the relationship functions for the
individual in the same manner as his/her relationship with a parent. That is to say, where proximity is
assured because the figure is readily available at any time to assist, love and support the individual,
especially when danger (environment or illness) threatens. 31
Through its worship centres, rituals, sermons, scripture readings, prayer and other means,
religion facilitates the perception for believers that God’s proximity is close and accessible. Believers
are reminded constantly that Jesus (or the Christ) “walks” with them, God “listens” to them, and the
proximity of other anthropomorphic images is reinforced.32 Current research outcomes, on Bowlby’s
original three classes of ‘triggers,’ are found also to apply across cultures.33 However, these classes do
30 Ibid., 39-50. Here Kirkpatrick cites such researchers as: Sroufe and Waters; Aninsworth, Waters, Blehar, Weiss, & Wall;
Hinde; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy; Fox, Kimmerly, & Schafer; Kirkpatrick & Shaver; Fonagy, Steele, & Steele; etc. all of
whom adopted attachment theory in whole or in part for their work on attachment patterns, romantic relationships, parent-
child, personality and love bond relationships, etc. 31 Ibid., 52-73.
32 Ibid., 57-60.
33 Hood, et al. (1996), as cited in Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 61.
9
not apply equally to all individuals and, in-fact, early child-parent attachment plays an important role in
adult religiosity.34
Over the past 20 years of extensive observable research, researchers have determined three
types of patterns in the attachment system that influence us throughout our lifespan:35
Type Description
Secure Mother is secure base for exploration. Physical and
emotional proximity (cues, smiles, comfort)
provided readily. Moderate distress during
separation but regulated by parent upon return.
Mothers are reliable, sensitive and respond
appropriately to infant’s cues.
Avoidant / Insecure Infants seem indifferent to separation from parent,
outwardly appear to ignore mother leaving and
returning. Yet, physiological measurements show
they are in distress, like other children. Mothers
rebuff attempts by infants to gain proximity.
Mothers are often inconsistent, intrusive and
insensitive to infant’s cues. Mothers often try to
avoid physical contact with the infant.
Anxious/Ambivalent Infants display extreme distress when separated and
fail to be confident to explore while mother is
present. Upon mother’s return child is either calm or
clinging and angry. Mothers are unreliable, the
infant is uncertain about the availability of the
mother and is said to be on “hair trigger” due to the
uncertainty of care-giving. Infants experience
constant distress.
Researchers discovered that these models from childhood influence patterns of attachment as the person
matures, not just in romance and peer bonding but also in attachments to God, Jesus and other religious
figures.36 Additionally, many researchers have found that individuals who experience a severe and often
traumatic crisis in their lives, whether environmental or health related (cancer, death of a loved one,
economic ruin, etc.), or who experienced insecure parental attachments in their childhood, are often
candidates for sudden religious conversion experiences. Research shows that this occurs in part because
34 Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 101-126.
35 Ainsworth, et al. (1978), as cited in Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 34-36.
36 Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 104.
10
individuals do not have the ‘internal’ resources with which to regulate their emotional state, and seek to
stabilize themselves by finding a secure haven and a base.37
Sudden Religious Conversion
All study participants who reported having insecure parental attachments “had by far the highest
conversion rates.”38 In addition, individuals who experienced a significant illness/extreme fatigue, or
major life crisis (death of a significant person, economic issues etc), or traumatic event (such as a natural
disaster), often coupled with insecure attachments but not always, had a greater propensity for a sudden
religious conversion, often within a 15-month period of the event or crisis.39 Hence, religion acts as a
haven wherein some individuals are able to gain a sense of control.40
This theory illuminates three attributes (or by-products) which occur following a sudden
conversion experience. First, a marked sense of/and intensely personal and loving relationship with God,
Jesus and/or other religious figures (like “falling in love” for the first time). Second, a sense of
belonging ‘to’ something that provides a secure base and direction. Third, “the convert [being born
again] in effect really does begin, in many ways, a new life, this time on the ‘quality’ rather than the
‘quantity’ track”41–– their new self and life will exponentially provide greater meaning and salvation. As
a result, the individual defends and preserves his/her new “loving” relationship with God, Jesus (Christ)
and others, in the face of adversity.42 Since relationships, particularly formative relationships, have
changed little over the centuries, such contemporary attributes, and their defense found in attachment
37 Ibid. 60-74.
38 Ibid. 129.
39 Ibid., 129-136.
40 Ibid., 131-134. Here Kirkpatrick references work by Granqvist and his colleagues (1999) that provides supporting research
that statistical patterns of sudden religious conversion experiences are rooted in emotional compensation processes. 41 Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 137; 145-148; specifically 206-210.
42 See attitudes expressed in stories of several sudden converts told in the works of, Charles B. Strozier, “The Broken
Narrative,” and “The New Self,” in Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America, (Oregon, USA: Beacon
Press, 1994); Mark Juergensmeyer, “Soldiers for Christ,” in Terror in the Mind of God: The global rise of religious violence
3rd ed. (California, USA: University of California Press, 2003) 19-43.
11
theory, and explained by evolutionary psychology, can be extrapolated to include sudden conversion
experiences occurring in the first-century.
Evolutionary Psychology
Kirkpatrick advances Bowlby’s theory incorporating it into the larger meta-theory of
contemporary evolutionary psychology. Tracking this trajectory from attachment systems theory to
evolutionary psychoanalytic theory is beyond the parameters of this paper. I merely wish to set it within
the context of its plausible application in relation to attachment.
Although evolutionary psychology is complex in its development and applications,
Kirkpatrick’s brief explanation will offer some insight:
In short, evolutionary psychology refers to an approach to psychological science that
begins by acknowledging that the brain – the organ primarily responsible for producing
and organizing all thought and behavior – is, like all other organs and physiological
systems, the product of eons of evolution by natural selection. ... the brain/mind can be
understood as a complex aggregation of evolved functional systems or psychological
mechanisms. The “design” of these systems, then, should reflect the principles of natural
selection as they operated on ancestral humans and prehumans, thus providing a
wellspring of hypotheses for investigating thought and behavior in functional terms.43
Kirkpatrick believes it is necessary to have a truly comprehensive and scientific account of religion and
religious phenomenon, in order to spotlight both the past and the future of religious behaviours and
belief systems, “distributed within and across populations.”44
Therefore, contemporary evolutionary psychology, as a meta-theory, allows us to bridge the gap
of space and time; thus, giving us an opportunity to speculate on plausible psychological beliefs,
behaviours and attachments within the framework of earlier historical periods such as that of the first-
century.
43 Kirkpatrick, Attachment, 20-21.
44 Ibid, 23.
12
Part I: Paul’s Sudden Conversion Experience – Biblical Accounts
How did it come to be that the violent and persecuting Jewish Pharisee known as Saul of Tarsus
(Paul), who approvingly witnessed the murder of Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1), became the most famous of
Christian coverts? From Paul’s own admission, “You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in
Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it; …” (Gal. 1:13) and
“I persecuted this Way up to the point of death by binding both men and women putting them in prison,
as the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me …,” (Acts 22:4-5a).45 Simply put,
Paul experienced a sudden, dramatic and life-altering religious conversion experience that was to change
the course of history.
In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he tells us he received a personal and sudden revelation of “the
Christ,” not taught to him by any human being but given to him by God who had set him apart before his
birth. In Paul’s understanding, he had been specifically chosen by God to receive an appearance of
God’s Son (1:1-2; 11-12). Though Paul never mentions details, the Book of Acts tells us that this event
happened in rather dramatic fashion on the road to Damascus (9:3; 22:6; 26:12). There was a bolt of
lighting, followed by a voice from heaven confronting him about his persecutions, and then he was
temporarily struck blind (9:1-9; 22:4-16 and 29:9-18).46 Paul did not discuss this dramatic experience
with anyone; he required three days to recover from it, and rather than returning to Jerusalem to confer
with the leaders of the Jesus Movement about his experience, Paul instead went to Arabia for a period of
time before returning to Damascus (Gal. 1:12-17). Significantly, it is only after a three-year period that
45 Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical
Books: New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). This version is used for all biblical
quotes in this paper. I note that many contemporary New Testament and Christian Origin scholars (such as Wilson, Ehrman,
Harris, Malone, Ruether, et al.) recognize the difficult historicity and discrepancy with the Book of the Acts of the Apostles,
in comparison to Paul’s seven authentic letters. Nevertheless, I will use it because many subsequent Christian writers have
attributed Paul’s story and conversion experience to elements found in this text. 46 Wilson, How, 110. Further, Wilson notes that the Jesus Movement comprises the earliest followers of Jesus who continued
to follow his teachings after his crucifixion and death. These are the same people mentioned as being the Church of
Jerusalem. Jesus’ brother James led the movement until his death in 62 CE. Then other relatives of Jesus took up leadership
and the movement becomes known as the Ebionities and/or the Nazarenes.
13
Paul journeys to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders of the Jesus Movement (Pillars of the Church
henceforth Pillars), namely Cephas (Peter) and James, “the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:18-19) and John.
The three-year timeline is significant because attachment theory provides us with evidence that within a
first 15-month period following a religious conversion experience individuals have a marked increase in
their religiosity.47 Could the three-year time period have been needed by Paul to solidify his own
thinking and establish support from founding communities and converts in the Greco-Roman world, in
order to begin to formulate his new theology prior to meeting with the Pillars in Jerusalem?
Additionally, Paul tells us that in light of his sudden conversion experience, he died to his old
life as a Jew bound by the Law, and now lives a completely different life: one based on faith in the
Christ, who now lives in him (Gal. 2:15-21).
Therefore, while we have almost no details provided by Paul of what precipitated his sudden
conversion experience, he provides enormous detail about the by-products or results of his experience.
Attachment Theory and Paul
Little is known of Paul’s childhood, although several scholars have speculated on it and on
Paul’s understanding of childhood in general that he expressed in Sitz im Leben.48 Other scholars have
speculated on the psychology of guilt at work in Paul’s conversion experience.49 However, my intention
here is to consider the issue of attachment as related to Paul’s sudden and dramatic conversion
experience.
47 See page 9 of this essay.
48 Reidar Aasgaard, “Paul as a child: children and childhood in the letters of the apostle,” Journal of Biblical Literature 126:
no.1 (2007): 129-159 (many scholars investigating this area of study are quoted in this work). 49 Evan Fales, “The Road to Damascus,” Faith and Philosophy 22 4 (October 2005): 442-460. Fales concludes it is
psychological guilt at work in Paul’s conversion. He extensively quotes and opposes the work of Alan F. Segal who upholds
Paul’s conversion experience as deeply mystical and against scientific understanding. Additionally, Wilson, Ruether and
others conclude that anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism can be attributed to the psychological, in the form of Christian guilt.
14
Earliest leaders and followers of the Jesus Movement each claimed to have experienced a vision
and to some degree received instructions from the risen Jesus (Christ);50 but we know from
contemporary scholarship that these individuals did not break with Judaism over their visions or his
instructions. However, Paul did. Moreover, Paul did not know Jesus. 51 Hence, we can only speculate
that his sudden conversion experience may plausibly be attributed to one of the three classes outlined in
Bowlby’s theory. Either Paul had an insecure parental relationship, or a serious illness/fatigue, or a life
crisis – loss of another attachment figure. From Paul’s own admission and from the author of Acts we
know Paul was troubled, angry, violent, and had some physical impairment (Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:8; 2
Cor. 12:1-10). We cannot know precisely what Paul may have been going through in his life but we do
know he was dealing with some crisis, which may have manifested itself on the road to Damascus.
Nevertheless, regardless of our speculations what we do know is that he had a vision of the
Christ, whom he considered to be Jesus, thus experiencing a sudden conversion which completely
changed his life.
We witness Paul’s own disclosure of a troubled and conflicted life prior to his conversion
experience so, by considering the three attributes (or by-products) of sudden conversion experiences
described earlier in this paper, can we find similar attributes described by individuals from
contemporary literature having sudden conversion experiences? I believe we can.
Intensity towards the new relationship with God or Jesus (Christ) is the first attribute common to
both. Charles B. Strozier, professor of history and a psychoanalyst, interviewed a number of individuals
who had a sudden conversion experience in adolescence or adulthood.52 The first chapter of his book
50 Matt. 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-18, 9-20 (longer ending); Luke 24:1-43, 44-53; John 20:1-29. In addition to a number of texts in
the Nag Hammadi Library, these may be considered “Christianized” late texts, thus representing a break with Judaism. 51 Wilson, How, 107-130. Wilson has made the case in his book that the current canonized Gospels need to be read in light of
Paul’s influence. I recognize that there were many parties or ‘sects’ within a large “common” Judaism, as described by E.P.
Sanders in Jesus and Judaism (esp. pp. 88-198). 52 Strozier, Apocalypse, 43.
15
Apocalypse focuses on these individuals’ ‘broken narratives’ as a conduit to their stories of conversion.
A common element was an intensity described as “finding a personal relationship with the Lord,” that
offered them healing. Each became closer to Christ and realized an inner truth about the Christian
message. Particularly, each felt set apart and saved by God when it came to their individual salvation. In
addition, each felt loved, cared for and accepted. 53 Similarly, in all of Paul’s authentic letters he tells us:
1) that he was set apart by God, thus chosen to have a special relationship with God; 2) that Christ was
revealed to him directly and spoke through him; and 3) that he was given the power to reassure each of
his followers that they were loved and could have a direct personal relationship with the Lord. Paul had
essentially “fallen in love” with God and the Christ because he tells us he was singled out, cared for,
accepted and loved directly by God and the Christ. 54
Second, Strozier shows that the converted individuals became more involved than ever before, in
church communities, mission work, and political and social groups that had ‘faith-minded’ policies. This
occurred for most converts within a 15-month period of experiencing a loss or traumatic life event. They
all claimed a great sense of belonging to something that involved the work in the world by God and
Jesus (Christ).55 History and Paul’s own letters tell us a similar story. Following Paul’s conversion, he
became totally committed to mission work, and founded church communities based on his new message.
We can only speculate on the possibility that his ‘split identity’ as a Jew by birth and a Roman by
citizenship hampered his sense of belonging to either community and may have been an on-going
psychological challenge for him to reconcile. Nevertheless, the Pauline corpus points to Paul’s new-
found sense of belonging to something greater that directly involved God and the Christ’s work in the
world, particularly the message of individual salvation.
53 Ibid., 43-48.
54 See, Gal. 1:1-2, 2:15-21, 3:26-29; 2 Cor. 2:14-3:6; Eph. 1:1-23, 2:1-22, et al. as examples.
55 Strozier, Apocalypse, 29-84.
16
Finally, new converts described their lives in terms of ‘quality’ living. Each ‘died’ to his/her old
way of life and thus had given up what some considered ‘quantity’ living. Each believed that his/her
new life offered new meaning, purpose, and security in the knowledge that they were saved. Each
convert linked his/her new life experience to biblical narratives and other key Christian documents
laying out the promise of salvation. Each convert believes that his/her new life of ‘quality’ was based in
reconciling the battle between good and evil in themselves and being ready for Christ’s second
coming.56
Similarly, in the seven authentic Pauline epistles, Paul repeatedly tells us that he has dedicated
his new life to work done on behalf of Christ who works through him, God having set him apart for the
mission to the Gentiles.57 He tells us he has given up his fairly comfortable position in Judaism, and is
now living the life of suffering for Christ (Gal. 1:11-17, 20); his life has been imbued with a new
purpose and meaning. We witness Paul defending his particular gospel message against non-believers,
defending his apostolic authority against the Pillars, and convincing his hearers that each would be saved
by faith in Christ alone as all await the imminent parousia. Paul’s old life was gone and it was Christ
who loved him, gave himself for Paul, and now lived in him. Judaism for Paul could be considered
‘quantity’ and not ‘quality’ living. Hence, Paul needed to render the Torah-observant practises of
Judaism ‘dead’ (Gal. 19-21).
Part II – Paul’s Conflict
Extensive research in the fields of religion and interdisciplinary studies points to a number of
motivating factors–political, social, religious and even economic– which contributed to Paul’s sudden
56 Strozier, Apocalypse, 27-52; 75-86. See stories of Arlene, Sam, Deborah, Larry and Monroe. Many converts
quote the Pauline corpus. 57 See all salutations and thanksgivings in epistles. Additionally, 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8-10, Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16.
17
conversion experience and subsequent theological development.58 We know that the leadership and
followers of the Jesus Movement did not break with Judaism or create a new theology, but Paul did.59
This leads me to speculate on the plausible psychological underpinnings of Paul’s sudden conversion.
Why did he break with Judaism? What motivated him to create a new theology and a new religious
tradition, Christianity? To my mind, attachment theory, through the meta-theory lens of evolutionary
psychology, may provide a plausible explanation for Paul’s radical departure from Judaism and the
intention behind his creation of a new religion from which would rise Christian anti-Judaism (prevalent
in his letters).
A New Worldview and Religious Truth
Paul was a Jew. He persecuted people who were followers of the Way, that is, followers of
Jesus. The question to be begged then is, When Paul had his vision on the road to Damascus, why did he
not simply continue within Judaism, if he recognized Jesus in his vision to be the long awaited Jewish
Messiah (Greek Christ)? Why did he not go directly to Jerusalem, to the people who knew the historical
Jesus, and join their movement and perhaps play a prominent role within it? Wilson states:
Paul’s Christ Movement differed considerably in origin, beliefs, and practises from the
Jesus Movement and from other Judaisms of the time. It owed its origin, for instance, not
to the historical Jesus who was a teacher and Messiah claimant, but to Paul’s personal
experience of the mystical Christ.60
I suggest that remaining within Judaism and going to the Pillars of the Jesus Movement would not have
satisfied Paul psychologically. Judaism was no longer the answer to Paul’s particular and very personal
experience on the road to Damascus.
58 Horsley, ed. Paul and empire: religion and power in Roman imperial society; Wilson, How Jesus became Christian;
Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (USA:
Augsburg Fortress Pub., 1999); Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (USA:
Yale University Press, 2003). All make relevant and sound arguments. 59 Wilson, How, 113-116.
60 Wilson, How, 113.
18
In addition, the Pauline corpus shows us that Paul knew very little about the historical Jesus and
never directly quotes him, even when he might have the need or opportunity to do so.61 Therefore,
without knowing Jesus, Paul most likely would not have been given a prominent role to play in the Jesus
Movement had he gone directly to Jerusalem. Yet Paul totally and utterly believed in his experience of
the risen Christ, so much so that his worldview changed and so did his interpretation of Judaic religious
truth. The totality of Paul’s experience parallels the sudden conversion experiences related by Strozier in
Apocalypse.
Right verses Wrong
In early Judaism, scholars tell us, one did not have an individual and personal relationship with
Yahweh (God); the relationship was maintained through the priestly class (later Pharisaic/Rabbinic
class). The relationship was reliant upon the community observing the Torah, the covenant between God
and the Jews.62 In the Greco-Roman world, Paganism was an inclusive, polytheistic religion with
numerous gods and goddesses– miracle workers, saviors, and divine heroes. Many of whom had a
special birth and could raise people from the dead. In a sense each person could choose whom they
wished to worship, it was believed that all the gods deserved communal cultic worship.63 Paul was a
Hellenized Jew living in the Diaspora. He practised the “traditions of his fathers,” (Gal. 1:14) that is, the
monotheistic tradition of Judaism, and accepted the polytheistic tradition of the culture in which he
lived, carried out mission work, and spoke. With his conversion, Paul’s radical shift is from the
communal relationship with the God(s), found in both traditions, to an individual’s very personal and
intimate relationship with God and the Christ. This shift also encompassed a radical letting go of praxis
in order to embrace right belief.
61 Ibid., 115.
62 Wilson, 20-47.
63 Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the Study of the New Testament (USA: Oxford University Press, 2003), 14-28.
19
From the outset, Paul is challenged everywhere he goes to proclaim his message.64 We can see
that Paul’s Christ Movement and the Jesus Movement are two completely different religions which do
not overlap in their theological interpretations.65 The conflict between the two movements is explicit in
Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. The Jesus Movement challenged Paul’s authority along with his message
of faith alone; Paul’s response to the challenge was to “emphasize[d] freedom from the Jewish law” and
abrogate Torah observance and practises.66 Paul goes further and insists that “… if you let yourselves be
circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. … You who want to be justified by the law have cut
yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:2b, 4). In abandoning Torah
observance, still practised by the Jesus Movement, Paul “was laying the groundwork for the creation of
an entirely new religion.”67
Thus, the difference between the two movements lay in the emphasis on the individual over the
communal; community praxis verses individual behaviour; God’s blessing and relationship with an
entire community verses God’s blessing and relationship with the individual as a means of salvation. I
surmise that this radical shift by Paul, founded on his personal and sudden conversion experience and
new religious “Truth,” coupled with the conflicts he encountered with the Pillars led him to create a
radical new theology. This new theology would be based on the individual’s relationship with the risen
Christ, as the primary attachment figure, always accessible directly to the individual. In creating this
new theology and religious “Truth,” Paul would need to reject the Jesus Movement and Judaism, view
them as wrong, even as enemies of God.
As the by-products of attachment theory indicate, Paul was unable to return to his old life in
Judaism. Only with its demise would he be able to create a new life and religion founded on his
64 The seven authentic letters show Paul constantly defending his message and his position against a group of
“others,” which include members of the Jesus Movement and others, perhaps early Gnostics. 65 Wilson, How, 114.
66 Ibid, 113-115.
67 Ibid., 115.
20
experience. I suggest Paul had a tremendous psychological reason and yearning to live out his sudden
conversion experience––the shift of attachment from the communal covenant to a personal covenant
with direct access to God, but more importantly, to the Christ. In so doing, Paul would be able to fully
justify and defend his personal experience in the battles he faced with the Jewish Jesus Movement. If
Paul was no longer ‘merely’ part of God’s “chosen people” but was now an individual “chosen by God”
for a special mission outside of Judaism, then Paul could perhaps reconcile his own identity as a Jew by
birth and a Roman citizen. 68 He could accomplish this by splicing together aspects from both known
worlds, thus creating for himself a new identity and a new-found sense of belonging.
To do so, Paul had to create a new religion and a new theology that would support and defend his
individualistic and sudden conversion experience. The construction of a new theology, through the
rewriting of the Judaic covenant would ensure Paul’s personal experience and new identity was right
and valid, thereby rendering the Jesus Movement, Pillars and Judaism wrong. In defense of his new
identity he would need to include Christian anti-Judaism as one of the roots of his new theology. The
anti-Judaic rhetoric found in all of Paul’s epistles would, in the hands of later Christian leaders and
writers, morph into present-day anti-Semitism. Langmuir asserts,
Thus, for Christians, the ability of Jews to maintain their own identity was not only
annoying or hateful in the way ethnic differences so often are; it was an intimate and
enduring threat to their sense of identity, a challenge built into their own religion. The
challenge was difficult, and Christian leaders, starting with Paul, devoted much energy to
meeting it. Their labors produced something new: the first systematically elaborated
rationalization that justified hostility to Jews.69
68 Here I recognize that the Hebrew Prophetic tradition historically discusses individuals that were said to have been
advocates or messengers of God, chosen for a special task based on addressing, in some fashion, issues pertaining to God’s
desire for right relationship with the Israelite community as a whole. See Barry L. Bandstra, Reading the Old Testament: an
introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (USA: Wadsworth Pub. Comp., 1999), 200-225. Paul is not claiming tradition
Prophetic status, and has broken from Judaism. 69 Langmuir, Towards, 7.
21
In order to defend the newly emerging Christian identity, the Judaic covenant would need to be re-
written, and Paul was up for the task.
Part III –Changing history and theology: Paul’s rewriting of the Judaic Covenant
In Faith and Fratricide, scholar Rosemary Radford Ruether provides strong evidence of how
Paul re-writes the Judaic covenant, and the theological and historical implications.70 She states, “Paul
founds his mission to the Gentiles on the belief that salvation in Christ abrogates any distinction between
the circumcised and the uncircumcised.”71 Ruether begins with Paul’s adoption of Hellenistic
philosophic ideas, especially Platonic dualism, and notes how he conflates these ideas with the dualism
of Jewish messianic expectations.72 The key to understanding this conflation and Paul’s need to re-write
Jewish history and theology is found in his letter to the Galatians.
This letter has been referred to as the “Magna Carta of Christian liberty”73 as well as, a
battleground letter.74 Dated late in Paul’s career, the letter lays out the major differences between Paul’s
Gentile Christ Movement and the Jewish Jesus Movement.75 Paul’s primary goal in the first two
chapters of the letter is to convince the Galatians of his true and equal apostleship and to defend his
gospel message against others that were preaching and presenting a “different gospel” from his (Gal.
1:7). Paul tells us that these ‘others’ have “confusing [and] bewitching [members] … and perverting the
gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7, 9; 3:1). He cursed these ‘others’ and wanted them castrated (Gal. 5:12). The
primary issue at stake was whether Gentile converts needed to follow all of the Jewish laws including
circumcision.76 Ruether makes it clear that Paul’s rejection of the praxis of Judaism––circumcision, food
laws, Sabbath observance and other issues––was inextricably linked to his rejection of “the flesh” and
70 Ibid., 95-107.
71 Ruether, Faith, 96-102.
72 Ibid., 95.
73 The Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, 263 NT.
74 Wilson, How, 116.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid, 116.
22
“the old age” (Judaism) which passed away in the coming of Christ. Therefore, “no special rights for
salvation” were afforded to the Jews, through their observance of the law (Gal. 6:13).77 Paul states that
those who would inherit the kingdom of God are not concerned with “the flesh,” but with the attributes
of love, joy, peace, patience etc. “…against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:19-24b). Thus, Paul discredits
the Jews who are circumcised and who observe the Torah, while maintaining that it is these very people
who are twisting the gospel and confusing his converts.
Negation of Abrahamic lineage
Next, not only have we witnessed Paul abolishing Torah observance, which during Paul’s time
had been integral to the Jewish historical and theological tradition for over thirteen hundred years, but
we discover that he strategically claims for Christianity the lineage of Abraham.78 Paul does this in
Galatians, chapter three.79 Paul provides a reinterpretation of the Abrahamic story, which sets out to
prove that Abraham was not the father of those who kept the law, but through his “righteousness by
faith” alone in God, is the rightful parent (father) of Christians. For Paul, the idea of Abraham as the
father “of many nations” (Gen. 17:5) was taken to mean a ‘universal’ fatherhood, not a tribal one, thus
Paul sees Abraham as the father of the Gentiles (Gal. 3:6-18).80 Since the law was given to Moses and
not Abraham, one gets the sense that Paul felt justified in “jumping over Moses” to claim that Christians
were the rightful decendants of Abraham. Paul tells us that Abraham was the father of the “spiritual
Israel;” Isaac was the child of the promise made by God and therefore, Isaac is the Christ. Hence,
77 Ruether, Faith, 97. In addition, Wilson tells us that if Paul had wanted to secure the legitimacy of his movement in the face
of such opposition from “others,” he could have appealed to the decision outlined in Acts, whereby all righteous Gentiles
could share in the salvation of God’s transformation, Kingdom on earth, by keeping the seven Noahide Laws. However, this
provides us with a clear indication that the Book of Acts is not historically reliable, as this decision in Acts seems to have
occurred prior to Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and thus Paul could have settled the matter concerning the need to fully
participate in keeping the entire Torah by appealing to this prior decision. 116-117, and 292 notation #4. 78 Wilson, How, 119-124.
79 Ruether, Faith, 98. She also references Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 4.
80 Ibid.
23
Christians and not the Jews are the true offspring of Abraham.81 This obvious need by Paul to prove
Abraham the Father of the Gentiles may be seen to assuage his issues of belonging, parenthood, lineage,
and rightful heritage, as a mirror of the parent-child expression in attachment theory.
Paul goes further and reinterprets the meaning of Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 21:23, and the
words of the Prophet Habbakkuk (Gal. 3:10-14), and he reduces the Torah to Genesis, chapters 11-25
alone.82 However, it is prudent to recall that Paul’s main audience were most likely Gentile God-fearers
who liked elements of Judaism, but may not have understood the text fully, as many Jews and Christians
do today, nor the full implications of Paul’s reinterpretation and re-writing of the Judaic covenant. In
Wilson’s words, “Paul has developed his own theology of history.”83
Paul’s final blow to the Judaic historic and theological record was to assert that it was now
forbidden under the new covenant, made in Christ, to be circumcised, or to follow the Torah, and that to
do so would jeopardize a person’s salvation when Christ returned (Gal. 5:12). For Paul the law “[wa]s
the equivalent to the reign of demonic powers…” hence, Jews belonged to the fallen world in history
and Christians to the new spiritual promise, a promise that had been given before and separate from the
Mosaic covenant. It was, therefore, only those who believe in the Christ, by faith alone, that could
receive the promise and share in the rightful heritage from Abraham.84 As Ruether states, “Paul’s
position was unquestionably that of anti-Judaism.”85
Historical and theological implications
What are the significant historical and theological implications for Paul’s re-writing and
reinterpretation of the Torah? Wilson writes,
81 Ibid., 98-100.
82 Wilson, How, 120-122.
83 Ibid. and Ruether, Faith, 100-102.
84 Ibid, 102-104.
85 Ibid, 104.
24
The shape of Paul’s new religion offered immense advantages over the Jesus Movement.
It was simpler to join. It encouraged faith in a religious figure who was similar to other
saviors in the ancient Mediterranean world. And it offered immediate rewards: eternal
life through faith in Christ alone, no ‘works’ required.86
Though there was Jewish opposition to Paul’s Christ Movement, it nevertheless gained many converts
and spread dramatically. Ruether provides detailed examples of how, as the centuries unfolded, the
Church Fathers and key Christian figures went about negating and demonizing Jews and Judaism
through letters written and sermons given throughout the Mediterranean world.87 Referring to the
Pauline epistles, these early Christian leaders, systematically denied Jews as brothers and advocated
their exile.88 The canonical texts upheld the demonizing of Judaism and Jewish leaders, especially the
Pharisees, and placed responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion on the Jewish population. The Pauline corpus,
along with the writings of many early Christian figures and church leaders who sought to confiscate the
Jewish heritage would not be lost on other key Christians over the centuries such as Martin Luther.
89
Nevertheless, Paul’s epistles, especially his letter to the Galatians, comprise the earliest material in the
canon and needs to be considered the root of Christian anti-Judaism. The root of Paul’s argument put-
forth in his letter to the Galatians, the abrogation of Torah observance, and his bypassing centuries of
Jewish history and theology, to claim paternal lineage for Christian offspring (children) to Abraham,
supports the idea that for Paul it is an issue of parent-child attachment. Therefore, the root of Pauline
Christian anti-Judaism needs to be considered as based in issues of attachment.
Christian anti-Semitism - the twelfth century and beyond
We discussed earlier how Langmuir traced Christian anti-Judaism to the twelfth century where
the demonizing and targeting of Jews and Judaism becomes Christian anti-Semitism. He tells us that the
86 Wilson, How, 127.
87 Ruether, Faith, 117-181. She gives examples such as a sermon by the Church Father John Chrysostom in which he
‘metaphorically’ suggests Christians use physical violence against Jews, seeing Jews as ‘fit for slaughter’ because they are
demons and diseased. 179. However, all Church Fathers were equally disparaging of Jews and Judaism. 88 Ibid.
89 Wilson, How, 182-229.
25
stereotyping of Jews as moneylenders, and the scapegoating of Jews as killers of Christ, begins to take
hold around 1150 CE.90 Further, Christians claimed that Jews did not understand their own scriptures,
were agents for Satan, engaged in ritual murder and were enemies of the Church and of God, all in an
attempt to quell the new and emerging version of Christian self-doubt; Jews, by their very presence in
the world threatened Christian belief and Christian identity.91 This stereotyping and scapegoating would
continue into the Middle Ages. We find Wilson’s definition of Christian anti-Semitism as “the view that
singles out for selective condemnation the Jewish people, their religion, and/or their homeland, Israel”
taking hold in this period. Along with Langumuir, Wilson provides extensive evidence showing how this
was accomplished.92
By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the radical process of biblical reinterpretation by
leading Christian theologians, specifically Luther, would provide Christianity with re-energized violence
towards Jews and Judaism. Luther’s own dramatic conversion experience has been linked to Paul’s
letters to the Romans and Galatians from which Luther constructed the notion of justification by faith
alone. Luther’s provocative and irrational hatred of the Jews is well documented.93 Amy Newman,
traces the writing, ideas and speeches of prominent German Protestant Christian scholars, theologians
and key philosophers who proclaimed the death of Judaism as a religion from the Reformation period to
the eighteenth century.94
Such influential German Protestant theologians as Friedrich Schleiermacher, fueled mythic
stories about Jews, which portrayed them as inhuman, reinterpreted Jewish history and concocted stories
90 Langmuir, Towards, 7-11; 330-333.
91 Ibid. He includes detailed explanations about the rise in Christian self-doubt as Christianity continued and Jesus did not
return, the centuries unfolded, the first Crusade occurred and Peter the Venerable would write to claim Christian self-doubt
by negating Jews as human beings. 100-133; 197-208. 92 Wilson, How, 150-253.
93 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A history (USA: Penguin Group, 2004), 115-130 for Luther’s conversion and link
to Paul. Amy Newman, “The Death of Judaism in German Protestan Thought from Luther to Hegel,” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion 61, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993) 455-484. http://www.jstor.org February 12, 2008. Specifically, see
pages 456-459 for Luther’s use of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and his irrational statements. 94 Newman, Death, 455-484.
26
about Jewish women in particular, though there is evidence that they had almost no contact with Jews.95
Nevertheless, coupled with the brilliance of philosophers such as Hegel, and in the context of social and
political union of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches of the period, the reinterpretation and recasting
of Hebrew narratives to the determent of Jews, flourished. Hegel was unable to account for the
continuing existence of Judaism. According to Newman,
…Hegel is attempting to do is to provide an account of truth – which he believes to
coincide with Protestant doctrine. Truth, by definition, is what is necessary and universal,
and excludes what is accidental and contingent. The survival of a Jewish remnant, on this
view, only confirms that accidental nature of empirical reality.96
Hegel tells us that Jews and Judaism were about the particular, while Christianity, specifically
Protestantism, was about the universal; Judaism should not survive under the weight of the universal.
That Jesus was a Jew was irrelevant for Hegel; Jesus simply came to negate Judaism, as evident in his
decision to remain celibate.97 In a later lecture, Hegel, like those who have gone before him, attacked
Jews as murderers of Christ and thereby, “advance[d] the view that the death of Jesus in fact
represents[ed] God’s destruction of Judaism.”98 While the writings of previous Christians seemed
somewhat irrational, it was the influential German Protestant theologians, scholars and philosophers,
especially Hegel, that provided seemingly reasoned and rational arguments for the destruction of
Judaism and the Jews; again that would not be lost on key Christian figures over the next two centuries.
A great deal scholarly and non-scholarly documentation of the genocide of Jews during World War II
lay as implicating testament to the labor carried out by previous generations of Christians and some
twentieth century non-Christians who wrote, persecuted Jews and sought the total elimination of Jews
and Judaism as enemies of God and Christ: all beginning with Paul.
95 Ibid., 463.
96 Ibid., 471.
97 Ibid., 474.
98 Ibid. 475.
27
And so we can track the progression of anti-Semitism through the last two-thousand years, from
its beginnings with Paul’s epistles, especially his letter to the Galatians. I suggest that Paul based his
stance predominately on his need to claim the lineage to Abraham for Christians, a need based more on
issues pertaining to parent-child attachment than reality. Therefore, my question is, could this claim be
seen as an issue of attachment, as a result of Paul’s personal, sudden and dramatic conversion
experience? I believe it can.
Conclusion
I end as I began, extrapolating from recent psychological theories of attachment and
evolutionary psychology to speculate on a plausible explanation for the sudden conversion experience of
Paul, an Apostle of Christ. Of course a more thorough investigation is required encompassing both the
study of religion and psychological theory before a definite case can be made that the writings of Paul
can be considered the root of present-day Christian anti-Semitism.
However, in the limited space I had available I began by defining key terms and condensing
outlines of attachment systems theory and its meta-theory evolutionary psychology, relying on the
expanded works of John Bowlby by Lee Kirkpatrick and other writers in the field to create a speculative
bridge between the first and twenty-first centuries.
I then offered a speculative analysis of Paul’s own first-century sudden conversion experience
by applying the by-products of attachment, to Paul by examining limited contemporary literature and
noting experience on the psychology of sudden religious adult converts. Then I assessed some of the
possible psychological implications, as they related to the attributes, for an individual’s change of
worldview related to religious “Truth,” in order to suggest Paul’s religious “Truth” changed dramatically
because of his own sudden conversion experience. This led me to conclude that the results of Paul’s
28
change of religious “Truth” transformed anti-Judaism found in antiquity to Christian anti-Judaism,
developed by Paul.
Finally, I speculated that it was Paul’s new Christian theology and Christology, abrogating the
Judaic covenant, Torah-observance and historical lineage that can rightly place him as the root for what
contemporary Western culture terms Christian anti-Semitism. This topic has been written on extensively
and I have utilized limited works of important scholars, Ruether, Wilson, and Langmuir etc., to support
my arguments. The new factor offered in this essay is that Paul’s sudden conversion experience and
consequent demonizing of the Jews is rooted in attachment systems theory.
If this is so, can a case be made for Christians to consider Paul’s sudden conversion experience
not as a triumph of Christianity, but as a misplaced and unprocessed psychological issue of substitute
(insecure) attachment? I have attempted to demonstrate that, the root of Paul’s sudden conversion
experience, his subsequent Christian anti-Judaic rhetoric and his re-writing of the Judaic covenant, is an
issue of substitute attachment. Additionally, I have briefly attempted to expose to some sunlight the
devastating consequences for Jews, Judaism and Jewish-Christian relations at the hands of the early
Church Fathers, key Christian figures and ordinary Christian converts across the centuries and into
contemporary times with the recognition that it began with Paul. With more study, attachment systems
theory and evolutionary psychology may just be the necessary tools religious studies scholars need to
illuminate the underpinnings of demonizing “the other” as an enemy of God.
29
Works Cited
Aasgaard, Reidar. “Paul as a Child: children and childhood in the letters of the apostle.”
Journal of Biblical Literature. (Spring 2007). 126:1, 129-159.
Bandstra, Barry L. Reading the Old Testament: an introduction to the Hebrew Bible. USA: Wadswroth
Publishing Company, 2nd ed., 1999.
Canadian Oxford Dictionary (The). 2nd ed. (2001), s.v. “anti-Semitism.”
---. 2nd ed. (2001), s.v. “cause.”
---. 2nd ed. (2001), s.v. “root.”
Cohn, Norman. “The Protocols and the Dialogue aux Enfers.” Warrant for Genocide, London, UK:
Serif, 1996.
Ehrman, Bart D. A Brief Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Fales, Evan. “The Road to Damascus.” Faith and Philosophy. (October 2005). 22:4, 442-459.
http://poiesis.nlx.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca May 15, 2008.
Horsely, Richard A., ed. Paul and empire: religion and power in Roman imperial society.
USA: Trinity Press International, 1997.
Juergensmyer, Mark. “Solders for Christ.” Terror in the Mind of God: the global rise of religious
violence. California, USA: University of California Press, 3rd ed. 2003, 19-43.
Kirkpatrick, Lee A. Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion. New York: The Guilford
Press, 2005
Langmuir, Gavin I. Toward a definition of anti-Semitism. USA: University of California Press, 1990.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation: a history. USA: Penguin Group, 2004.
Mark D. Nanos, ed. The Galatians debate: contemporary issues in rhetorical and historical
interpretations. Mass., USA: Hendrickson Pub., 2002.
30
Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. USA: Yale
University Press, 2003.
Metzger, Bruce M. and Murphy, Roland E., eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha
– New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Newman, Amy Newman. “The Death of Judaism in German Protestant Thought from Luther to Hegel.”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion. (Autumn, 1993). 61:3, 455-484.
http://www.jstor.org February 12, 2008
Ruether, Rosemary. Faith and Fratricide: the theological roots of anti-Semitism. Oregon, USA: Wipe &
Stock Publishers, 1997.
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. USA: Fortress Press, 1985.
Stegemann, Ekkehard W. and Wolgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First
Century. USA: Augsburg Fortress Pub., 1999.
Strozier, Charles B. “The Broken Narrative,” and “The New Self.” Apocalypse: On the Psychology of
Fundamentalism in America. Oregon, USA: Beacon Press, 1994. 27-55; 75-97.
Wilson, Barrie. How Jesus became Christian. Toronto, ON: Random House Canada, 2008.