This older book is one I saw referenced in a few texts, so I figured I'd give it a go. I don't know many other books devoted specifically to this subject. Morgan's arguments, even in his time, were a bit criticized, and I can see why the entire idea of Paul traveling to Britain would get dismissed so easily. But the legends are out there, so it was good to read about where they come from and how the argument is made.
Morgan's book is written in overwrought nineteenth-century prose, making its short text seem much longer, more substantive, and more difficult probably than it really is or should be. He discusses a good amount about the Roman relationship/war with Britain during the first century BCE and CE, about which I knew little and realize I need to find out more about. So the material on Paul and Christianity really only makes up maybe half the slim volume.
The gist of the argument about Christianity in Britain preceding even the establishment of that in Rome (a bit dubious) is based on the idea that Joseph of Arimethea first made the trip only a few years after Jesus's death, along with perhaps some other Jerusalem Christians. Sometime later, Paul's companion Aristobolus made the trip. And then, finally, came Paul.
By then, Paul was already in contact with many converts who had come from Britain. Those converts were of the royal household, which had been taken captive and forcibly removed to Rome. We find many of their names in the New Testament--Rufus and Pudens and Claudia. Indeed, when in Rome, Paul was either imprisoned with these captives or lived in their house. The arguments for these come from, of course, names in the New Testament shared with those in some epigraphs by Martial and some British records. The argument is intriguing, but one can also easily start finding all kinds of interesting historical finds if one simply goes by names. When we're talking millions of people, it's also entirely possible that there were more than one Rufus or Claudia. It's easy to start conflating people and events.
While I found that portion of Morgan's writing intriguing, it's clear that he has an ax to grind. One of his main goals is to prove that British Christianity predates Roman and is actually truer to it, never mind that British Protestantism doesn't derive from the ancient British church but from Rome (even if there was a British church that preceded the Roman church's takeover of the faith during Augustine's time). He ties British Christianity to Druidism, which he says had many Christian elements, including a belief in the eternal soul (which, well, isn't actually a Christian idea but one from Greek philosophy--but never mind, this is Morgan's view of what early Christianity was, which was Protestant). Thus, Brits were naturally inclined to take up the Christian faith, more than Romans. A real problem enters when he writes of how Constantine spent time in Britain and became emperor while there (both true--and facts I didn't know) and how it was there that he became familiar with Christianity. As such, his conversion was mitigated by his contact with British Christians. But if this was the case, I had to wonder, why all this fuss about Roman versus British Christianity, since it was obviously British Christians who thus forged the front under which Rome itself was converted; this would mean British Christianity was Roman Christianity. In other words, the argument seemed, well, a bit nonsensical.
Still as a work to become familiar with the possible links of Paul and Christianity to Britain, it's a nice summary, one that traces backward the various historical records insofar as they exist. While I don't think the case for Paul in Britain is definitive, I think it can certainly be made to seem plausible. Such would also explain the lack of other records regarding his supposed trip to Spain make a bit more sense, insofar as he likely would have just touched the southwest sector of Spain on his way toward Britain, where we actually do have at least these legends.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment