Below is a ChatGPT summary of the interview with John Dominic Crossan about his upcoming book, Paul the Pharisee; the version told by Paul and that in Luke/Acts. Below that is ChatGPT’s side-by-side comparison of Paul’s reference to Nabatean ethnarch and the differing accounts of Paul’s escape from Damascus: Paul’s own narrative (2 Corinthians 11:32–33) and Luke’s version (Acts 9:23–25).
Nabatean – na-be-iteeuhnz(en-us) – How to pronounce here.
Below is a ChatGPT summary of the transcript in his DropBox directory of the Youtube video of an Interview with John Dominic Crossan with specific attention to (a) Crossan’s positions, and (b) the Scriptures he uses to show that “Paul of the letters” (the Pauline Paul) differs sharply from “Paul of Luke/Acts” (the Lukan Paul), with direct citations to the uploaded file.
Summary of Crossan’s Main Positions
1. Start with Paul’s own letters—not Acts
Crossan stresses that priority must always be given to the “Pauline Paul”—the Paul known from the seven undisputed letters. Scholars universally agree that this figure is historically prior to, and more reliable than, the “narrative Paul” created by Luke/Acts. Even though, per Crossan, scholars “usher Luke’s Paul politely out the door, he creeps back in through the cracks” because Luke tells irresistible stories.
Core principle: Recover Paul from his letters first; then evaluate Acts as a secondary, interpretive (and heavily shaped) narrative.
2. Key Agreements Between Luke/Acts and Paul
Crossan affirms genuine overlap:
- Paul was a Jew.
- Paul was a Pharisee.
- Paul was a persecutor.
All affirmed both in the letters and in Acts .
3. The Major Disagreement: Was Paul an Apostle?
This is the central conflict.
A. Paul’s claim in the letters
Paul insists—fiercely—that he is an apostle on par with Peter, grounded in a real appearance of the risen Jesus:
- 1 Corinthians 9:1 — “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”
- 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 — Paul lists resurrection appearances and places himself among them.
Crossan repeatedly emphasizes that this seeing of the risen Jesus is the foundation of Paul’s authority and integrity as an apostle.
B. Luke’s rewriting of Paul’s apostleship
Acts disqualifies Paul from being an apostle through several narrative strategies:
- Acts 1:21–22: A replacement for Judas must be someone who accompanied Jesus “from the baptism of John.”
- This definition excludes Paul outright.
- Crossan: “Kiss your apostleship goodbye, Paul… You don’t fit in” .
- Acts’ portrayal of the Damascus event:
- Paul is blinded by light and does not see Jesus.
- He even asks, “Who are you, Lord?”
- Crossan: If Paul is blinded, “you don’t see when you’re blinded.” Therefore Acts has removed the one thing Paul lives and dies for—having “seen” the Lord .
- Acts presents Paul not as an apostle but as a dependent missionary under Peter and James.
Crossan calls this the deliberate subversion of Paul’s identity, authority, and integrity as an apostle.
4. Scriptural Contradictions Highlighted by Crossan
Below are the main scripture-based contrasts Crossan explicitly points out:
(A) Seeing Jesus: Letters vs. Acts
Paul’s letters
- 1 Corinthians 9:1 — Paul claims he saw Jesus.
- 1 Corinthians 15:8 — He includes his vision among the resurrection appearances.
Acts
- Acts 9; 22; 26 — Paul:
- sees a blinding light,
- but does not see Jesus,
- and must ask “Who are you?”.
Crossan: This destroys Paul’s claim to apostleship because an apostle must have seen the risen Lord.
(B) Paul’s commission: independent or subordinate?
Paul (letters)
In Galatians 1–2, Paul:
- did not receive the gospel from Jerusalem,
- did not consult Peter for years,
- received his commission directly from Christ,
- and is the apostle to the Gentiles.
Acts
- Paul’s mission is revealed only through Ananias (Acts 9).
- His legitimacy is repeatedly validated only through Jerusalem authorities.
- Peter converts Gentiles first (Acts 10–11; 15), not Paul.
Crossan notes that Acts gives Peter three accounts of his revelation (Acts 10, 11, 15), parallel to the three accounts Acts gives for Paul—thereby placing Peter first and higher every time.
(C) The persecution narrative –contradicts Paul’s own testimony
Paul (letters)
- Paul says he persecuted “the church of God” with zeal (Galatians 1:13–14; Philippians 3:6).
- Crossan interprets this as expelling fellow Jews from Damascus synagogues—not killing them.
Rome held the monopoly on executions.
Acts
- Portrays Paul as a violent persecutor in Jerusalem (Acts 7–9).
- Claims he acted under high priestly authority.
Crossan says: - Paul himself says he was unknown in Jerusalem when he first visited (Galatians 1:22).
- Therefore, Acts’ Jerusalem narrative contradicts Paul’s own testimony and exposes Luke’s theological agenda.
(D) Paul’s exit from Damascus
Paul (letters)
- 2 Corinthians 11:32–33 — Paul says the Nabatean ethnarch* was after him.
Acts
- Acts 9:23–25 — says “the Jews” were guarding the city gates to kill him.
Crossan points out:
- Jews did not guard the gates of Arab cities.
- This reflects Luke’s anti-Jewish narrative pattern, not history.
(E) Paul the citizen
Paul (letters)
- Paul never mentions Roman citizenship.
- His treatment in the letters sometimes contradicts the rights of a Roman citizen.
Acts
- Makes Paul a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37–38; 22:25–29),
- uses citizenship as the plot device explaining how Paul reaches Rome.
Crossan sees this as apologetic fiction designed to portray Christianity as safe and Rome as benign.
5. Luke’s Objective: Containing and Taming Paul
Crossan argues that Luke-Acts is an apologetic project to make Christianity appear:
- Safe (asphaleia, Luke 1:4).
- Unhindered (Acts 28:31, last word “unhindered”).
This requires:
- Peter > Paul, always.
- Paul the missionary, not the radical apostle.
- Rome exonerates Paul, and Paul ends his life peacefully in Acts.
Crossan states bluntly: Acts is “the first step toward Roman Christianity” because it tames Paul and removes his radicalism, unlike his authentic letters.
6. Paul’s Actual Death
Crossan thinks:
- Paul did go to Rome.
- He arrived as a condemned troublemaker, not as a protected citizen.
- He was almost certainly executed under Nero, possibly by exposure to wild beasts.
Acts omits this because it would undermine the apologetic project of portraying Rome as safe and Christianity as harmless.
Conclusion
Crossan’s big picture:
- Paul of the letters = radical Jew, Pharisee, independent apostle commissioned directly by the risen Jesus, visionary theologian of Gentile inclusion, and dangerous critic of imperial civilization.
- Paul of Luke/Acts = subordinated missionary who:
- never sees Jesus,
- never becomes an apostle,
- follows Peter’s lead,
- is a loyal Roman citizen,
- and ends his life peacefully in Rome.
Scriptures Crossan consistently uses to demonstrate this difference include:
- Paul’s letters:
- 1 Corinthians 9:1
- 1 Corinthians 15:5–8
- Galatians 1–2
- 2 Corinthians 11:32–33
- Philippians 3:6
- Luke/Acts:
- Acts 1:21–22
- Acts 9; 22; 26 (Damascus narratives)
- Acts 10–11; 15 (Peter’s revelations)
- Acts 16; 22 (Roman citizenship)
- Acts 28:31 (ending: “unhindered”)
All of which Crossan repeatedly contrasts to show that Luke reshapes Paul to fit a safe, Roman-friendly Christianity.
*From ChatGPT – Separate from the Interview.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two accounts of Paul’s escape from Damascus: Paul’s own narrative (2 Corinthians 11:32–33, NRSV) and Luke’s version (Acts 9:23–25, NRSV). The table focuses on what each source says, omits, or frames differently.
Side-by-Side Comparison
1. Political Authority Mentioned
Paul (2 Corinthians 11:32–33, NRSV):
Says that “the ethnarch of King Aretas” was guarding the city of Damascus to arrest him.
→ Paul places a Nabatean official in a central role.
Acts (9:23–25, NRSV):
Says that “the Jews plotted to kill him.”
→ Acts does not mention Aretas IV or any Nabatean authority.
Difference:
Paul emphasizes governmental danger from a Nabatean authority; Acts emphasizes religious opponents (local Jews). The two do not contradict but center on different actors.
2. Reason for the Threat
Paul:
Does not explain why the ethnarch wanted to arrest him—only that the attempt happened.
Acts:
Says Paul’s preaching made Jews in Damascus plot against him (Acts 9:23); the motive is his proclamation of Jesus as Messiah.
Difference:
Paul reports the event as a danger to his life, without narrative cause. Acts gives a theological narrative cause (hostile Jewish reaction to Paul’s preaching).
3. Who is the Primary Opponent?
Paul:
Primary opponent is the Nabatean ethnarch under Aretas.
Acts:
Primary opponents are local Jews; the escape is from their plot.
Difference:
Paul frames the conflict as political-administrative.
Acts frames it as religious/social within the Jewish community.
4. City Being Guarded
Paul:
“the city of Damascus” was placed under guard (likely its gates) to capture him.
Acts:
Says they (the Jews plotting against him) were watching the gates day and night (Acts 9:24).
Difference:
Paul describes a formal governmental lockdown.
Acts describes a hostile group monitoring the gates.
5. Method of Escape
Paul:
Lowered in a basket “through a window in the wall.”
Acts:
Lowered in a basket “through an opening in the wall” (Acts 9:25).
Similarity:
Both agree on the dramatic manner of escape: lowered in a basket from the city wall.
6. Paul’s Purpose in Telling the Story
Paul:
Uses the incident in a boast-in-weakness argument (2 Corinthians 11).
The point is to show humiliation and danger—not heroic triumph.
Acts:
Uses the story in a conversion narrative sequence.
The point is to show Paul’s preaching power and God’s protection.
Difference:
Paul highlights vulnerability.
Acts highlights divine mission and opposition overcome.
7. Chronological Implications
Paul:
His reference to Aretas IV implies this happened before Aretas’s death in 40 CE.
Acts:
Does not mention Aretas, giving no political dating clues.
Summary
Paul’s account:
- Short, autobiographical, politically grounded.
- Main threat: Nabatean ethnarch of Aretas IV.
- Emphasizes humiliation and danger.
Acts’ account:
- Narrative, theological framing.
- Main threat: local Jews angered by Paul’s preaching.
- Skips political details, focusing on religious conflict.
They overlap on the escape method but differ on framing, emphasis, and political context.
