In response to Paula Fredriksen’s Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions and the Retrospective Self
Conversion stories bring
with them an establishment problem, that of retrospection. Conversions come in an instant;
it’s that eureka moment where the light bulb goes off. One is not usually
writing about the experience as it happens, instead he/she writes about it
after it happens, in retrospect. Retrospection is always 20/20 because we read
into our past the information we need to explain our present: to ourselves, to
others, to the ones angered by our change of opinion. Paul and Augustine are no
different. Augustine takes this a step further though, as he attempts to
redefine Paul’s conversion to match his own. He looks for credibility by
incorporating Paul into his own conversion and circularly, recreating Paul’s
own conversion to match.
Augustine |
Paul has to explain himself to those that disagree or do
not understand his new philosophy. His conversion story becomes rhetoric. We
cannot know the moment of his conversion, nor do we have a vast
autobiographical retrospective account like Augustine, but we can pull what
Paul feels convicted about via his rhetorical writings to the churches. But
even there, the past gets in the way. We cannot see clearly the present and
present theology or philosophy without reviewing the past, where our minds
automatically make assumptions to make the past match the present and vice versa. But it’s a past and present that we want to see. We cannot review the
past without introducing our own bias, which is the problem of conversion
narratives, Paul’s included.
Paul |
Written for my Birth of Christianity class on 2/14/12
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would love to hear your comments and critiques. The only thing I ask is that you be respectful to me and others. Thank you!