Dr. Eisenbaum (who is Jewish) asserts that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, believed in a Jewish Messiah, and saw himself as an ambassador to the Gentiles to bring them into Covenant with the Jewish God as prophesied in the Jewish scriptures. I'm not sure I agree with her, but I found her work intriguing and an interesting spin off the "New Perspective on Paul" theologians like NT Wright, Richard Hays, JDG Dunn, and Krister Stendahl (but not yet Ed Sanders). I also like the provocative title.
Perhaps I should've introduced this one in the (thoroughly ridiculous) thread about Christianity not being derived from Judaism.
Eisenbaum, a Jewish New Testament professor teaching at a Christian seminary, argues that later biblical texts, particularly the
Book of Acts and subsequent church traditions, mischaracterized Paul as having broken away from Judaism.
Traditional Christian apologists and some theologians argue that Eisenbaum draws too sharp a line by assuming "Jewish" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive categories in a way that minimizes Paul’s radical Christology.
Some critics suggest she underplays how Paul's reinterpretation of the law and faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ genuinely broke with mainstream Pharisaic Judaism of his day.
If we say that a Christian for Paul would be someone who saw Jesus as the resurrected Messiah and Lord of all, then we could definitely say that Paul was a Christian.
The problem is that Eisenbaum argues throughout that Paul never ceased to be a Jew so he would not have been a Christian, but this makes it be that if one is a Jew, one cannot be a Christian, and vice-versa.
So if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and He is, what could be more in line with being a Jew than believing in the Messiah of the Jews?
Ironically, Eisenbaum, who is arguing that Christianity does not mean opposition to Judaism, has herself created an opposition to Christianity in her work. That one cannot be a Jew and a Christian both would certainly be news to many Messianic Jews today.