In my previous post I started to show that most Jews rejected Christian claims about Jesus because Jesus was just the *opposite* of what the messiah was expected to be. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who would overthrow God’s enemies and set up a new kingdom on earth in which God’s will would prevail. Jesus was and did none of that. He was a lower-class peasant who was arrested, humiliated, tortured, and executed. He didn’t destroy God’s enemies. He was crushed by them.
Paul is the first Jewish persecutor of the Christians that we know by name; there is really no doubt that he was bent on wiping out the followers of Jesus – since he himself says so (and says so to his own shame [Gal 1:13); he did not gain any glory for this rather despicable past–despicable in both his eyes and the eyes of the Christians). Presumably his reasons for hating and opposing the followers of Jesus were comparable to those of other Jewish persecutors.
But Paul gives us another
Not to raise your BP but I believe Richard Carrier says there WERE some Jews expecting a suffering Messiah, based on Daniel and other passages. My 2 responses are what Paul said, that it was a stumbling block for Jews, and that prior to Christianity we have no Jewish writings describing such a Messiah. Am I right on that 2nd point, or do you have a better response?
Yes, lots of fundamentalists say that as well. I tend not to make historical arguments based on what Carrier and fundamentalists of another stripe think. 🙂 And yes, I agree with both your points.
Wow, these last two articles have really clarified
Several things for me about Paul, and how this sets up a path for Marcion.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
In a prior post (“Paul’s Chronology”, 7/10/2013) you said that scholarship seems to favor that Paul’s conversion took place around 32-33 CE. This suggests to me that Paul’s time as a persecutor must have been very short-lived (perhaps a year or two at the most?), given how soon it came after the death of Jesus. It also implies that Christianity must have grown extraordinarily rapidly during this short period. I would have thought Christianity would have been a small, inconsequential sect of Judaism in the first months/years after Jesus’s death, not worthy of much attention or persecution. Acts does record developments in Jerusalem claiming rapid growth, but your prior blog discussed how the historicity of Acts is viewed with suspicion.
However, do you think Acts got it about right as to how quickly people joined the movement after Jesus’s crucifixion, and if not, what do you think triggered Paul to switch from ignoring the sect to actively becoming a persecutor?
Pauls’ persecution may have been just a few months or less, for all we know. But I don’t think we have to imagine that the religion had grown by leaps and bounds. All it would mean is that Paul ran across some Jewish followers of Jesus in his city or wherever he was and did his best to take them out, literally or figuratively.
Do you think the apostles in Jerusalem thought less of Paul because they know he used to persecute christians?
Do we know if he specifically persercuted the Jerusalem apostles?
Thank you!
1. I’m afraid we don’t no. 2. No, I’d say definitely not. He suggests he didn’t know them until after his conversion (Galatians 1-2)
But someone who is “hanged on a tree dies from strangulation from a rope around their neck. Jesus died from crucifixion, about which there is no evidence of its existence at the time the OT was written. Therefore the Jewish followers of Jesus were so intent on proving Paul a liar that used an argument that was false.
Bill Steigelmann
I don’t know that hanging by the neck was practiced in the Ancient Near East? Good question…
Where/How can I obtain the earliest Latin (Vetus Latina, pre-Vulgate) text of James 3:9? I’ve never worked in the Latin manuscripts, and after two weeks of simply trying to get this one verse I am seeking advice on the matter.
Have you looked at Robert Weber/Roger Gryon, Biblia Sacra Vulgata? It’s the Vulgate, obvoiusly, but I believe it gives variants from the Vetus Latina in the apparatus; Or you could try to get ahold of the Vetus Latina Epistuae Cathoicae ed. W. Thiele (1956-1969); it might be what you need.
In the past I’ve asked if there is any consensus among subject matter experts (say, in various areas of religious studies as well as science) about which religion, if any, is closest to the truth, or, alternatively, most compatible with science.
It’s apparently hard to answer that question or even perhaps to figure out how one might go about answering it.
So another approach just occurred to me. Which religion seems to make people the happiest? Or, perhaps does religion in general make people happier than atheism/agnosticism?
Looking on the internet there do seem to be sociological studies that address this.
Can you suggest any books or authors?
There’s no way to know, that I’m aware of.
“Which religion seems to make people the happiest?”
Maybe Buddhism.
This isn’t proof of anything, just a less emotional and biased look at religions relative to each other than a human can do, but my answer is shaped from when ChatGPT was still experimental with no guardrails/censors on what it could answer. I made analyze all religious texts and historical events, from every religion man has practiced, and provide the most likely to be correct. I had it include theories/agnosticism/atheism too – String Theory, Simulation Hypothesis, etc. Paganism, mysticism, animism, all of it. It struggled and really didn’t want to answer, and I had to fight it, but eventually it told me that none of them are correct, but Buddhism was the closest. It was also the one I knew the least about, but when I asked it why, it replied that they managed to find peace on their path to enlightenment moreso than any of the other religions.
It also gave multiple disclaimers that it didn’t think any of the religions got it right, including Buddhism, it was only basing its answer off of which religion brings people the most happiness and has the most positive impact/least contradictions..
Because Jesus died without deserving it, God decided that whoever wants to follow his example in their life, they are forgiven for their sins and in the eyes of God deserve to enter the future kingdom. So humanity post Adam is cursed to die, whereas humanity post Jesus can hope to live (in the future kingdom). So in that sense Jesus took on him our curse. Jesus death had to prove that a man can remain faithful to God till the end, and that God has power to resurrect people.
This story, seems to me, wanting to show us that, for God, the most important thing is that we have to act, think, behave, speak like moral beings as He intended it in the beginning. And He is telling us all that, tiptoeing in human history, not with the full force he could have told us in maybe other ways. A story of prioritizing morality over everything, interfering with the mankind the least possible, until eventually the day of full revelation will come and everything will be clear to everyone. Is there any story like this in the literature before Christ that resembles a narrative like that?
In lots of Greek and Roman discussions of the afterlife rewards were given to those who were moral and pusnishments to those who were immoral, if that’s the kind of thing you mean. (E.g., The myth of Er in Plato’s Republic book 10)
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m enjoying this thread a lot. Thanks! I have a question about this sentence, something I’ve read in your writings many times:
“Paul’s message was that a person can be made right with God by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection, and that it did not matter if the person was a Jew or a gentile.”
My question is about the “death and resurrection” part. Usually when the New Testament encourages faith in Jesus, it does not specifically mention the death and resurrection. In fact, I can think of only one verse that does (1 Thess 4:14). Otherwise, it’s just “believe in him” or “faith in Christ” or things of that nature.
So my question is why do you (and many evangelicals) say that faith in the death and resurrection is essential? Not trying to be nit picky here, but I’ve been involved in some discussions about this issue and I’d like to hear your learned thoughts. Thanks!
I suppose it’s mainly because in passages that stress the importance of faith there are explicit connections to his death and resurrection, e.g. in Romans 3:21-26 or Galatians 3:11-14.
Dr. Ehrman, question about Paul’s stance on water baptism.
You said ” A person was made right with God by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection, and *nothing* else.”
There’s Ephesians 4:5 which mentions one baptism. I’ve heard people say salvation comes by “faith plus zero”.
Toward the end of his ministry, did Paul think water baptism was required for salvation?
(Sidebar: I’ve always been leery of Paul because of how he seems to preach a different message than Jesus did, so posts like these are among my favorite on the blog)
It’s a good question. Paul seems to assume that if someone comes to believe in Christ they will be baptized, and that those who are in the Christians communities have been baptized. Passages like Romans 6:1-10; 1 Corinthians 12:13 are among the places to consider.
I’ve often wondered how Paul equated the “tree” of Deuteronomy with the Roman cross of the NT. Could it be that the emphasis is not on the cross as we often regard it, but rather “Cursed is everyone who dies by HANGING”. If I’m right here then should cruciolatry (my own word) not be denounced? A second question , Was crucifixion practiced by Jews as a form of capital punishment?
Jews earlier did perform crucifixoins, sometimes en masse, but not in Jesus’ day, since by then Romans reserved for themselves the right of capital punishment. The Deuteronomy passage those is not referring either to hanging (which I don’t know of as a form of execution generally) or crucifixion, but to the practice of nailing a dead corpse on a tree as a further act of aggression and humiliation (much like putting someone’s head on a stake in public)
I’ve always been bothered by Paul’s boast that as a Jew he was without fault. Doesn’t that imply that he managed to keep the law, or that he at least claimed to have kept the law? How then does it follow, as some claim, the the law is a curse and impossible to keep? What else can it mean to be without fault as a Jew, but to keep the law– perfectly.
He doesn’t quite put it that way; his wording is kinda subtle. He says that “with respect to the righteousness found in the law, I was blameless.” That means that he followed the law completely — including, presumably, performing sacrifices for his sins when he slipped up.
Is most of global West Christianity misdirected? Most of global west Christianity is wrong. Prideful & not humble.