(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his gospel, that by Christ’s death and resurrection a person is put into a restored relationship with God. He had several ways of explaining how it worked (the “judicial” model; the “participationist” model; and the other models I described). But in all of these ways, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that mattered. It was not keeping the Jewish law. It was not knowing or following Jesus’ teaching. It was not Jesus’ miracles. It was not … anything else. It was Jesus’ death and resurrection.
I then summarized in my previous post, the teaching of Jesus himself, about the coming Son of Man and the need to prepare by keeping the Law of God, as revealed in the Torah, as summarized in the commandments to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
Do these represent the same religion?
I see this as one of the most fundamental and important questions in all of early Christianity. I’m not asking if Paul invented Christianity, for reasons that I have explained: he inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors. But I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different.
The way I used to try to get to this in my undergraduate class was by having my students write a short paper with some specific instructions.
Their assignment was a very interesting exercise. If you’d like to see how it works, and think about it yourself, join the blog! Click here for membership options
1. Was Jesus’ conversation with the “Rich Young Ruler” historical?
2. “…he inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors…”
Would say it was likely that Paul developed his belief for Gentiles with others help or developed on his own?
1. It’s hard to say, but the sentiment found in the story certainly coincides with Jesus’ teachings about wealth elswhere. 2. I think Paul’s innovation was that gentiles could be saved through the Jewish messiah Jesus without becoming Jews.
What this really suggests to me is that pretty much nobody in the aftermath has an explanation for the crucifixion therefore an entire movement springs up just to explain it. The trauma grief and guilt causing them to ironically forget the initial instruction. Like there seems to have been not a single early follower who could explain how that was supposed to happen.
Despite growing up a devout Catholic, I have always found this dichotomy troubling (as a young person) and interesting (now). It seems to me that most modern Christians have taken up Paul’s message and essentially eschewed Jesus’. When talking about it, I also like to point to Matthew 25:31 et al. In that passage Jesus also gives a very direct description of how salvation will be meted out or withheld, and he never once mentions or hints at the importance of a particular belief system, let alone a belief in his resurrection. If anything, it seems as if those who do not “know” him are more likely to be saved. Christians attempt to harmonize this with Paul by asserting that only the believers even get to that point (i.e. both the sheep and the goats are Christians, everyone else is already roasting). But nothing in the text supports that, IMHO.
Although the Didache was likely written around the end of the first century, would you agree that it teaches a version of Christianity that is a slightly matured version of the original “Way”? To me, it represents a most striking counter-view of Christianity when compared to Paul’s teaching, as you laid it out in this blog entry. Would the Jewish Christians of Paul’s time (40-65 CE) have been practicing according to the principles and practices found in the later Didache text? Or something related?
I’d agree that it is a later form of Christiany from Paul’s, yup! Christians in his day would not have been practicing their faith like this.
I think the same discrepancy shows up in the sheep/goats parable in Matthew. There, Jesus describes the qualifications for eternal life as being kind to people – not believing in him.
Yes, Matthew 25 31-46. Supposedly straight from the lips of Jesus. If you can believe anything as factual history in the Bible, this would be it IMO. Not much ambiguity in those verses.
Yes, Jesus does appear to emphasize works for salvation. That seems to be in conflict with Pauline Christianity.
I get that Jesus’s followers believed they saw him alive after the crucifixion, but given what we have about Jesus’s teachings while alive, and given that the disciples were not theologically clever or learned (as indicated in Christian writings), who came up with the complex (and wholly new) theology that Paul inherited? Wouldn’t the disciples have continued with the apocalyptic message Jesus gave them even if they thought they had seen him? Why conclude that Jesus was the expected messiah, especially since he never seems to have called himself that. Could it be that some Jewish or Gentile scholar was convinced by a disciple’s conviction that Jesus yet lived and figured out what that must mean in terms of Jewish beliefs, the (probably illiterate) disciples accepted the explanation and later writers, such as whoever wrote Mark, furthered the story? Even if that happened, it is a remarkable turn for the disciples to go from teaching “love one another, the end is nigh” to “accept the risen Jesus as the expected messiah, the end is nigh.”
My sense is that at the outset it wasn’t all that sophisticated. The disciples realized God’s messiah had died; they couldn’t make sense of it; then they realized he must have been a sacrifice. They were Jews who knew about animal sacrifices. His death was a sacrifice planned by God. God raised him because he had remained faithful to the end. Paul picked up that ball and ran with it.
Bart I’ve been mulling over Philo and Jewish views of divine mortals or ex mortals.
What troubles me is this-James being the literal brother and Peter being the literal companion were both illiterate and impoverished Israelite jews in the backwaters of nowhere. As far as I can tell they would have a fairly traditional understanding of who Yahweh is and what happens to glorious dead Jews when they die (no being raised to partial divinity.) Why in this case would they cross pollinate the hellenistic or hellenistic inspired view of some divine continuum from earth to heaven and start attributing it to Jesus? Especially since, being unhellenized illiterate and poor traditional jews, they wouldn’t really have the more philosophical ideas of other jews like Philo regarding wisdom, the word, mortals being exalted to godhood or the “forms of god” etc.
Does it seem to you there is a bit of a philosophical leap they’d both have to take? Its not just for me that they’re jews but that they’re too poor for any philosophy! Hope my question makes sense
There were certainly Jewish traditions of humans being taken to heaven and becoming divine, not just, say, in Philo, but in popular literature, such as that about Enoch.
Thank you! That makes sense. Looks like there was some fertile groundwork for things to click at the precise moment.
Is this a fair summary: The disciples’ Jewish beliefs were sufficient to rationalize the unexpected death of their leader and the reports that he had been seen after the crucifixion. They likely concluded he was the “Lamb of God”, a human sacrifice like Isaac, and that Jesus’s own faith was sufficient for God to elevate him to a place in heaven (and perhaps going further, that believers could still see Jesus if they converted, or at least experience the “spirit of God” made accessible by his sacrifice).
Like a few others on the blog, I have difficulty understanding what sparked conversions after Jesus’s death sufficient for Jews such as Paul to see the new sect as a threat.
I suppose the notion Jesus had been seen (by whomever) was compelling enough for the followers still in communication with each other to justify their having followed a man who ended up crucified.
They had not been wrong, they had simply misunderstood (a theme in the Gospels, of course).
What sparked conversions was almost certainly what is reported in all our sources. Some of his followers believed they saw him alive afterward based on visions they had (in their view, these were not hallucinations!); once people became convinced (all the disciples? some of them?) they preached it with fervor and the crucified messiah became the resurrected and returning messiah. I lay out the evidence and logic more fully in my book How Jesus Became God.
I still have a problem with the rate of conversions, even after reading your book (which is very well argued) as well as books by others (such as Rodney Stark). There were so many other claimants to the role of messiah at the time, why didn’t their followers see them after they died? Why didn’t they share the same notion of a sacrificial messiah? Why just those who followed Jesus? It is easy to understand why the conspiratorially minded make up fantasies about the resurrection, Passover plots, and even Christianity itself being a Roman hoax. I look forward to watching your debate with Mike Licona.
I don’t really know the answer, but it does seem to be a question that could be asked of lots of historical phenomena outside of Christianity. WHy this instead of that? Why this person in stead of that one? Etc.
Where did the 500 witnesses to Jesus’ alleged Resurrection come from? Is it mentioned in Acts or one of Paul’s letters?
It’s Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-8; that’s teh only place.
“Why didn’t they share the same notion of a sacrificial messiah? Why just those who followed Jesus?”
marks ending existed for how many decades until it troubled christianity? why didnt none of the 11 produce jesus’ body and make him ride on two animals again? why did mark give the impression in his writing that peter was not willing to die for a “sacrificed” messiah ?
Sorry – I’m having trouble understanding your questions. WHy don’t you try asking one at a time and fill it out with a bit nore detail?
The man asks him about *eternal* life.
Jesus says to enter life you must keep 6 commandments.
But in Matthew 19:29 he says – “those who have left homes, brothers, sisters … for the sake of my name will inherit *eternal* life.”
Isn’t he saying those who believe he has the name of the lord will inherit eternal life?
In the Synoptics its obedience to what God demands; in Paul it’s faith in Jesus death and resurrection. I don’t see those as the same, no.
If the kingdom of God is to be brought about by the Son of Man, how do we explain the fact that the phrase meaning “kingdom of God” never occurs together with the phrase meaning “Son of Man”?
It does though. Mark 8:38 is followed immediately by Mark 9:1 (there were not any chapter and verse divisions of course!)
I thought the point of the passage was that Jesus was challenging his idea of being good to get eternal life. He asks what good can he do and Jesus basically says that question does not make sense. Jesus challenges him with the commandments and giving up his riches, but his whole point is that the man is not good.
It sounds to me like Paul is saying both that you are good if you obey the law and that no one can obey the law perfectly in Romans 2 and 3.
I don’t see anything in the passage to suggest that Jesus didn’t think that obeying God was insufficient. But I agree that figuring out the relationship of Romans 2 and 3 is a key for understanding Paul. THe ultimate point he makes is that no one can be justified by the law. Jesus, on the other hand, indicates that precisely is how a person is justified.
“If Jesus really thought that a person could have eternal life by following the law and could have treasures in heaven by giving away all his property, why would *he* think it was necessary for him to die? People could just be law-abiding Jews, and that would be more than enough.”
Not sure why it needs to be either/or. Jesus precedes his treasure in heaven comments to the young man in Mark 10 with his prediction in Mark 8 that he must suffer, die, and rise again. Or maybe I’m making naive assumptions that the gospel narratives represent a “package deal” of the way to salvation.
I think the problem is that you’re talking about Mark’s view of JEsus and I’m talking about Jesus’ view of Jesus.
Surely, the distinction is between Mark’s view of Jesus and Mark’s view of Jesus’ view of Jesus, which shouldn’t be all that different, right?
Yes, those are different. And so was the historical Jesus’ own view of Jesus forty years before Mark.
Belief is an odd criterion for salvation. People are capable of believing all sorts of crazy things. Most people’s religious beliefs are adopted from their family and culture rather than through careful consideration. And belief systems tend to promote conflict rather than love. It seems to me that caring for others makes a much better criterion.
beliefs & obedience, otherwise beliefs lack merit
I am not sure what Jesus would even mean if he said “believe in me” for eternal life. What would “belief in Jesus” mean during his lifetime? Belief that he was divine? Prof Ehrman has laid out the argument that Jesus probably didn’t believe that he was divine. Belief that what he said about ethics was true? That belief would require some kind of works (maybe even following the Torah) and certainly not what Paul meant. Belief that the Son of Man was coming soon, whether Jesus or someone else? Does not seem that this belief alone would work for salvation (as one would have to prepare for the coming by doing something) and might be better formulated “Believe me” rather than “Believe in me.” Paul articulated a fundamental change in salvation (as used in this post) – a salvation based on belief in a particular divine being who did a particular act for a particular purpose. The Rich Young(ish) Ruler(ish) certainly did not get that message from Jesus.
The differences between the Synoptics and Paul are pretty clear, but John’s message of salvation through faith in Christ (e.g. John 14:1-14) is much closer to Paul. Perhaps the author(s) of John were familiar with Paul’s letters?
As someone who was raised in the Southern Baptist Church, I am not at all amazed that an 18 year old with a background similar to mine would enter your class with no idea of the differences. The church message (salvation through faith) is clear, and all scripture is read through the lens of the message. I lost whatever belief I had decades ago, but I still have to make an effort to read the various authors in context for what they actually said, disregarding the overarching theology I was taught as a child.
Do you follow others who think that the historical Jesus baptised new followers, as in John3:22? “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized” The usual argument is that this passes the criterion of dissimilarity so it probably happened. If so, did Jesus believe that his followers should repent from their sins, abide by the Torah, love God and others, *and* be baptised in order to be saved?
The reason I ask is perhaps the baptisms performed by Jesus could represent a pre-easter answer to what Paul provides later where he argues that in order to be saved one must be baptised in the death and resurrection of Christ? Paul also argues that a Christian should live by the Spirit and thus fulfill the law in doing so. So for Paul, baptism (albeit through the cross and empty tomb) and law obedience (albeit through the Spirit) is still taught, but are reconfigured in the post-easter world where the New Covenant is in force.
Yes, I suspect, but obviously don’t know, that Jesus did practice baptism; but I don’t think he had Paul’s theology for doing so. It would have been more like John the Baptist’s theology. Comprae the preaching of John in the Synoptics with the teaching of Paul in Romans 6 and the differences are stark.
Yes, I agree – Jesus did owe a lot to John the Baptist (JBap) and continued his ministry. My proposal is that all three figures (JBap, Jesus, and Paul) maintained the same pattern of teaching, but Paul repackaged it for Gentile inclusion under the New Covenant:
JBap & Jesus: i) Repent of your sins, ii) adopt a life of piety and Torah obedience, iii) be baptised in living water, and iv) believe in the coming one (JBap) / Son of Man (Jesus).
Paul: i) Repent of your sins, ii) adopt a life of piety and obedience to the Spirit, iv) be baptised in the death and resurrection of Jesus by iv) confessing with your lips he is your Lord.
Step i) is unchanged
Step ii) changes from Torah to Spirit obedience
Step iii) Although gentiles were baptised in water, Paul claims they were also baptised in the death and resurrection of Christ. (Rom6:3-4)
Step iv) JBap and Jesus urged others to place their faith in either the ‘coming one’ or the Son of Man. Paul pointed backwards to Jesus, and claimed those who believed in their hearts that he rose from the dead, and confessed with their lips he was Lord, would be saved. (Rom10:9)
“If Jesus really thought that a person could … have treasures in heaven by giving away all his property, why would *he* think it was necessary for him to die?”
Perhaps because he knew that few people were going to give away all their property.
“Paul insists that if a person could be made right with God by keeping God’s laws, then there would have been no reason for Christ to have died (as he explicitly states in Gal. 2:21)”
But Gal 2:21 concerns circumcision, not renunciation of possessions or giving to the poor. Paul was a high context writer in a high context culture.
“Perhaps because he knew that few people were going to give away all their property.”
so are you sayiing those few people didnt require jesus die for them because they didn’t “lack one thing” like jesus said ?
paul would never say “you only lack one thing”
if jesus thought like paul , he would never have said “you only lack one thing”
My argument all along has been that the whole idea of belief in Jesus as necessary for salvation is something the disciples invented in order to explain Jesus’s death, which they weren’t expecting.
Also, telling someone to give away all their property only makes sense if you believe that there will shortly be no further need for property – in other words, the kingdom is coming now.
It’s funny really! Jesus tells people to give away all they have so they can have rewards in heaven. What about the recipients of all the riches? Then they get no rewards? So you say “Here, you can have all my stuff, but you get no rewards in heaven unless you also give it away.” Very strange. A spiritual game of hot potato.
Hi Bart, I have a tangent question. What is the best commentary on Matthew published in the last 10 to 20 years? I ask because we cannot hold our breath for the completion of the Anchor Bible on Matthew in progress. And I’m sure that the current Anchor Bible on Matthew is the best scholarship on Matthew from the early 1970s.
–James
No, the original Anchor commentary on Matthew is not where you want to go. The best by far, in my opinion, is the one by W. D. Davies and Dale Allison (2 vols.) in the ICC.
Jesus vs Paul; This is my take.
The possessed man who was both blind and mute in (Matt 12; 22-27), (Mark 3; 22-26) and (Luke 11;14-19), express an interesting hampering. Seems, the man had these handicaps, because he was possessed and the Pharisees staple that concept with, “This man does not cast out ‘devils’ except by Beelsebub, the prince of devils.”, (Matt 22; vrs 24). The same is echoed in the Man Born Blind in (John 9; 1-34). Note verse 2 and verse 34 in that episode! The rulers back then, had no intentions of granting anyone passage to Heaven, unless they were clean, without any obvious or visible signs.
Jesus was trying to fix a seriously deranged religious practice that was leaving the poor innocent ones out to fry for eternity, brought on by their own leaders. How do you relay that to another people who have no idea what that means??? The Gentiles were from a pagan belief. Jesus was preaching to the Jews, about their own derailed issues. I’m not against Paul. I’m merely stating, he was preaching to a totally different audience. I feel that needs to be understood.
Luke 13.10-17 shows that the woman with infirmity was included in her jewish community and present in synagogue, not ejected. Same applies to the man with withered hand luke 6.1-6 and demon possessed guy luke 4.33-36
All in synagogue when jesus encountered them and not ejected.
You need to revise your take.
“Jesus was trying to fix a seriously deranged religious practice that was leaving the poor innocent ones out to fry for eternity, brought on by their own leaders.”
Dr ehrman, i quoted verses from luke above to show that disabled people werent ejected out of synagogues when jesus encountered them, do you think the jews disagreed with the torah about clean and unclean ?????
I’m not sure if you’re referring to events in Jesus day or things that Luke says decades later. I’m not familiar with the exclusion of anyone from a synagoge for a disability. Do we have some record of that in Jesus’ day?
“Jesus was trying to fix a seriously deranged religious practice that was leaving the poor innocent ones out to fry for eternity,”
I was talking about this anti jewish claim . There is evidence within the new testament that poor, innocent, disabled were not chucked out from jewish religious places, on the other hand, we do see in mark that jesus speaks in coded language and reveals the true meaning ONLY when he is in private with 12 of his disciples.
So it is jesus who does not want outsiders to know the secrets of the kingdom of god.
In Mark Jesus explicitly says he tells parables to exclude people from the kingdom (Mark 4:11-12). But I thought you were saying Jews excluded those with disabilities from teh Synagogue; that’s what I was responding to.
“But I thought you were saying Jews excluded those with disabilities from teh Synagogue; that’s what I was responding to.”
quote:
The rulers back then, had no intentions of granting anyone passage to Heaven, unless they were clean, without any obvious or visible signs.
i do not see evidence that “unclean” did not have passage to heaven even in nt according to the jewish leaders
I don’t think “unclean” relates to physical disabilities. And Jewish teachers at the time did not believe in “heaven” as a place for people to go when they die.
Have you ever heard the following explanation?
I think it might be a common Evangelical rationalization.
When Jesus tells the young man to follow The Law, he’s giving him an impossible task… because, after all, no one can follow the law 100% of the time. (Matthew 19:26 is used to support this idea. Cf. James 2:10) Jesus was only speaking hypothetically. One could *hypothetically* earn eternal life by following the law *perfectly*, although no one really has that ability. Jesus was essentially “meeting this young man on his own level”–because the young man mistakenly thought he could earn his way to God.
When Jesus tells him ONE THING YOU LACK, (sell your possessions and give the proceeds to the poor), this explanation suggests that Jesus is merely showing the young man that he really doesn’t follow the law FULLY–by giving him just one example in which he is insufficient.
Among other problems, this explanation essentially tries to read Jesus’ mind. “This is what Jesus *says*–but he was *thinking* something completely different then what he says.”
Yup, that’s the explanation I grew up on. It has the wonderful merit of having nothing to do with what is actually said in the text, but tries to make sense of the text by importing ideas into it that hte text itself never suggests.
When Jesus refers to eternal life and “riches in heaven”–do you think he’s talking about an afterlife? Or is he referring to the “kingdom of God” that he talks about elsewhere?
Jesus himself would have been referring to life here on earth for eternity. With the Gospel writers living decades later, we start getting a shift to eternal life in heaven above.
Is that eternal life in heaven, or life in heaven until the Second Coming, followed by eternal life on earth?
Life on earth for eternity means here on earth, not in heaven. He didn’t talk about souls going to heaven termporarily before the kingdom. But Paul appears to have *come* to think some such tihng. I talke about that in my book on Heaven and Hell.
Can’t help but to recall the Gilda Radner SNL character Emily Litella…Oh, that’s very different…Nevermind!
Dr bart wE do have evidence that Masoratic text were corrupted for Example THe age are different from septuagint and their Slavery year is doesnt add up tO THe math, so some christian just start tO lean towards septuagint, but do you have some knowledge about THe mistake in septuagint too, that you can give me, because they are translations so i anticipate more error in their transmission since They are greek just Like NT
The text of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls is more like the Septuagint version than the Masoritic, and it is 15% longer….
I really want tO debunk old testament part of christianity, and i want THe septuagint part, do you have information about this part, because Masoratic is Completly corrupt and different, the year just doesnt perfectly fit tO THe math, THe slavery year in Masoratic is 430 but that doesnt fit THe calculation of THe age of THe people, only septuagint does, what do you think about this ?
This blot is not really about debunking any religion, including Christianity.
If Jesus is just human, where do the numerous references to the Son of Man in the Gospels fit in? Matthew 20.28 “even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”… they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; 24:31 he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from one end of heaven to the other… two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. ” ..
Similarly, we have Paul describing Jesus’ apocalyptic arrival in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven and with the trumpet of God, the dead in Christ will rise first. 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.” From John 3:15 … whoever believes in [the Son of Man] may have eternal life.”
I agree: The Gospel writers certainly thought Jesus was the Son of Man and a divine being. But my question here is about somethng else: what did Jesus himself preach (as opposed to what his followers claimed decades later).
Aren’t those “Son of Man” words allegedly from *Jesus himself*? and wouldn’t these then be part of Jesus’ *teachings*, in fact, the ultimate one? Paul seems to echo this final *teaching* and for him what mattered the most in his own message. Otherwise, his letters dwell mainly on *subsequent* issues – the big circumcision “Judaizer” fight as part of his mission to take the Salvation message to non-Jews, just when and how the Resurrection is supposed to happen, and other topical early church issues. On the side I do wonder how Paul and Luke manage to contain such similar wording describing the Last Supper scene, and I do like the part about marriage relations in 1 Cor. where Paul distinguishes between what “the Lord says”, and he says himself *as Paul*. I’m not disagreeing that Jesus taught as a rabbi might with his own special emphases esp around poverty, a big OT prophet tradition. The poverty story seems considerably absent with Paul though there are some moments – how to eat the communion meal, the gift to the poor in Jerusalem. Slavery? Jesus says nothing we know of. Paul accepts it and provides protocols.
They certainly are *reported* as being Jesus’ own teachings of teh Son of Man, yes. As I commented to someone else just now: the probelm with the Son of man sayings in Jesus’ teaching is highly complicated. He clearly speaks of himself in this way in the Gospels. But there are some passages where he talks about the Son of Man and gives no indicate e is talking abbout himself. Those are the sayings where he refers to a coming judge of the earth (Mark 8:38, e.g.). My view is that these are the ones he really said. After his death his followers thought that HE was the coming judge of the earth, that he himself was the Son of Man, and so when they later reported his conversations they have him identify himself the way they identified him
As to Paul and Luke: Luke was from a Pauline community years later, and those are probably simply the words they said during their weekly communiion meal.
Mark 8:38 can just as easily be taken as an emphatic self-reference. It fits very nicely with the previous and later uses of Son of Man. Mark 8.29ff “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 8.30And he charged them to tell no one about him. 8.31And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, … be killed, and after three days rise again … 9.9And as they were coming down the mountain [the transfiguration], he charged them to tell no one … until the Son of man should have risen from the dead. 9.10So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant. … and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? ” Why would Mark jump Jesus *out of character* in 8.38 leaving so many others as mere backfills? Weren’t the gospels themselves written later than Paul who seems to take his stance from the 30s, the closest self-witness we know of, if written later?
Is your interpretation widely shared/debated?
It’s one of the common views. I’d say it fits as an emphatic self-reference if and only if you already thing Jesus is the Son of Man (which Mark does of course). But if the saying goes back to Jesus, there’s nothing in it to make you think it’s a self-reference — only the other references in Mark make you htink so. And if you’re asking why a Gospel writer would not be rigorously consistent…. (But my point actually is NOT that he’s inconsistent; within Mark’s narrative the statement makes sense as self-refernce)
Concerning the “son of man” discussion, self-reference using third person vocabulary does seem to have been common in the ancient world. Josephus and Polybius do it. I believe Luke does it, and perhaps the beloved disciple too. It is not enough to point out that Jesus does not indicate that he is talking about himself at Mark 8:38. Are you making the mistake of casting the ancients as low-context, plain speaking, Americans? At Mark 8:38 Jesus refers to himself with first person singular pronouns and then switches to “son of man”. As I mentioned in the earlier discussion of Cephas-Peter, this kind of switching was common and is no indication that different people are in view.
You are assuming that the handful of sayings which might be referencing a cosmic judge Son of Man instead of an exalted Jesus, simply came from a collection of isolated sayings, from which Mark and the other gospels derived their narrative, then back filled all the others. It’s equally possible sayings sources could have included the more obvious self-references, and from these Mark built his narrative. We could just take Mark at his word. What strikes me is how plentiful are the Son of Man self-references, exclusively spoken by Jesus himself. The Gospel of John, which generally runs its own special narrative, also makes numerous Son of Man self-references.
John5.26 “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son[Jesus] also to have life in himself, 5.27 and has given him authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of man. 5.28 Do not marvel … the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 5.29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”
I’m not assuming either way. But yes, it could have been in a collection that made obvious self-refernces. Equally, though, it coudl have been found in a collection that made obviously cleear distinctions between Jesus and the Son of Man. I can’t think of any evidence one way or the other. So all we have is what we have.
Thanks for the conversation Dr. Ehrman.
Do the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of John with regard to salvation come closer to those of Paul than they do in the other Gospels? Throughout John he stresses belief in him rather than compliance with the Law as the requirement for eternal life. His teachings there seem to me to align somewhat with the “participationist” model as in John 12:32, “And I, when I be lifted up from the earth will draw all people to myself.”
I’d say they were closer to Paul, yes; but its more like an orange coming closer to an apple than to a banana. (Pardon the analogy!)
I suspect that the kingdom expectations of Paul and Jesus were not that different for Jews. Paula Fredriksen (if I understand her competently) argues however that Paul’s expectations for Gentile followers were different because they could not really be Jews. We have relatively little concerning Jesus’ expectation for Gentiles, and what we have isn’t particularly encouraging.
Is there a scholarly consensus on this issue: Did any early Church Father meet/know Paul, Peter, or another member of the Twelve?
None of the ones who has left us any writings, no. Not even any of the authors of the New Testament, apparently!
Sorry to be persistent, but is there a scholarly consensus on this issue or are you simply stating your personal position? Is there a scholarly consensus that none of the Early Church Fathers knew or met Paul, Peter, or any member of the Twelve?
Thanks! I’m currently involved in a debate on the existence of a scholarly consensus on this issue.
It’s a consensus. If you read the earliest authors you’ll see why (1 Clement; Ignatius; Papias — who is explicit about the point 00 etc.(
Could both Jesus and Paul be reasonably understood to say that salvation is a free, unearned gift? Don’t Paul/Luther/most Protestants teach that good works are a result of belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection-which bring forgiveness of sin. Of course Jesus insists that salvation comes from obedience to the law and he said this prior to his death and resurrection. But Jesus also rather freely forgave sin. After he heals people or forgives them, he often says to go and sin no more. Even if the gospels do teach some kind of connection between forgiveness and grace to perform good works, it is nowhere near as explicit as in Paul/Luther/most Protestantism. But do you think there is any significant connection in the historically trustworthy parts of the gospels between forgiveness and ability to perform good works?
I ask because it’s a very attractive idea that salvation is a free, unearned gift that empowers us to do good.
I’m not sure that Jesus himself talked much about a free gift; his emphasis was rather on repentance from sins, and doesn’t say much of anything about God himself making that possible. Not sure if that addresses your question or not.
Are you familiar with Nietzsche’s take on the on the teachings of Jesus as N expresses them in “The Anti-Christ” (or The Anti-Christian)? Do you think they overlap to any significant degree with Jesus’s message as understood by the historical-critical method?
Ultimately N is critical of Jesus. N thinks Jesus is childish, decadent. afraid of reality. But N also gives what I think is a very attractive interpretation of the gospels and Jesus for whom he seems to have some respect. Here are a couple of N’s statements.
“What are the glad tidings? True life is found–it is not promised, it is here, it is within you: as life lived in love, in love without deduction or exclusion, without distance. Everyone is a child of God…as a child of God everyone is equal to everyone else.
And just prior to that: “Precisely the opposite of all contending, of all feeling of oneself in struggle has here become instinct: the incapacity for resistance has here become morality (resist not evil!: the profoundest saying of the gospel, its key in a certain sense) blessedness in peace, in gentleness, in the “inability” for enmity.”
No I don’t think that Nietzsche’s views were actually those of Jesus or of historical scholarship. BUt I don’t think that would be grounds for dismissing them.
Professor Ehrman,
Somewhat related questions for you! When you were a believer, did you believe in eternal security? Do you think the Bible teaches clearly for or against that view? Also, you have mentioned baptism. My evangelical/fundamentalist church was emphatic that baptism was not needed for salvation, as I think many (most) do today. Do you think Paul’s teaching on baptism and salvation was clear regarding its necessity?
Thanks!
Yes, I was a four-point Calvinist who believed, in colloquial terms, “once saved always saved.” A fellow I once new professionally years ago has just sent me a book review of my Heaven and Hell which concludes by saying that since I was once born again I will still be in heaven even though I seem to have become an apostate. Now that’s the kind of review I like!
The two are clearly different. I believe Paul had a classic NDE (near-death experience) on the Road to Damascus (possibly struck — or nearly struck) by lightning, his consciousness/spirit met and conversed with the consciousness/spirit of Jesus in the different realm we call Heaven, and his consciousness then returned to his body,, back on earth. (There are more than a thousand reports of similar “round trips” to heaven and back, so he is just one of a multitude.) I think this experience resulted in Paul believing that he should preach that belief in the “resurrected Jesus” is essential for one getting to heaven after their bodies die.
Bill Steigelmann
I’m curious about if Jesus and Paul were on the same page about Gentiles (Pagans) keeping the 7 so-called Noahide Laws? My guess is they would although Jesus probably wasn’t thinking a whole lot about Pagan salvation and emphasized more Torah observances. Paul obsesses about Gentile salvation a lot and obviously it is extremely central to him. But I think they would perhaps agree on pagans keeping these Noahide laws. Am I off track here? What do you think?
I’m not sure. It’s one of those things that’s a bit frustrating that no one in the NT explicitly appeals to the Noahide Laws per se.
Does Acts 15 (The Council of Jerusalem) and the outcome of the council shed any light on this question? It seems like the agreement or compromise is pagans need to keep some of the Torah which seems to parallel these Noahide laws? It seems like these Noahide parallels were the common ground at least in Acts? Or do you see this council and/or the outcome as historically implausible or problematic?
Yes, that’s commonly argued, but I don’t think the requirements in Acts 15 line up exactly with the Noahide laws do they? IN any event, I think Galatians 2 problematizes Acts version of the Council.
I kind of understand how an 18 year old is unable see the obvious contradiction. But how is it possible that Evangelical *scholars* don’t see that Jesus taught that one essentially earns eternal life? I mean… I remember being a 21 year old kid without any real Bible training, and just by casually reading Matthew, it quickly became obvious that Jesus (and/or Matthew) taught the exact opposite of what I heard every single week at church.
I know you’ve debated some pretty well-known Evangelical Scholars about Bible contradictions. But have you ever asked them how they reconcile those *infinitely* more important contradictions found in “salvation passages?”
I think all of us don’t see things that are right in front of our face, especially when we have good personal/psychological/emotional reasons not to see them…. But I know, it can be frustrating some times for outsiders to see it happen.
Yes it’s frustrating! Do you know how evangelical *scholars* (good ones like Craig Evans, Peter J. Williams, etc.) would handle these passages from Jesus, that at minimum seem to contradict Paul?
They typically say they aren’t that different.
In the last century prosperity evangelists and televangelists instinctively knew you need some rich people, and you need some people to hate and blame. So Jesus’ actual message is a big problem, and very seldom preached. It’s hard to give a thunderous sermon shouting Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself! Help The Poor! So maybe anyone who wanted a following – from Paul on – started changing or ignoring Jesus’ peaceful, sharing approach to a more prescriptive one? The numbers of their followers has always been important to people who walk the streets shouting The End Is Nigh!
Hi Dr. Ehrman. Do you know of any examples of literature around the time of the gospels that deals with miracle workers and/or exorcists? I’m wondering if there are examples or similarities to Jesus spitting on someone to heal them or putting his fingers in their ears (that Matthew and Luke did not seem to like I gather).
You might check out the book that I use with my undergraduates, Documents for the Study of the Gospels by Cartlidge and Dungan; in one section they give extraccts of ancient accounts of ancient miracle workers. I’m not familiar with others using these techniques, but it is often thought that they were typically parts of magical practices (magic in the sense of manipulating the natural world through supernatural means, not in the sense of doing tricks)
Actually, Paul claims that he complied with “the law” perfectly. As a Jew he was faultless. That should easily shoot down the idea that no one could comply, unless you assume that Paul was merely boasting and in effect telling a lie. But if he can be nailed on that score, most of what he said and taught is questionable. Can’t have it both ways. And it isn’t clear that Jesus expected to be crucified, or saw himself as some sort of sacrificial animal. Again, the gospel writers were injecting so much post facto theology and rationalization into their accounts, the issue is clouded. But he WAS crucified and perhaps Jesus saw it coming and rationalized by thinking, well, God will intervene, the son of man will appear, and I’ll be vindicated. Which would explain the account Mark gives, in which Jesus cries out in despair, assuming anyone could actually cry out anything while slowly suffocating. Even that is unlikely! The truth is buried in so much fantasy, it seems pretty hopeless.
Dr. Ehrman: Do you think that if Jesus read Paul’s letters that he would rebuke him?
I’m sure he would have found them completely bizarre.
I’ve had the same question for many years. Another good comparison also comes from Matthew in the Sheep and the Goats parable (25:31-36). I’ve asked a former pastor how he can reconcile Jesus’ message in that parable with Paul in Romans (Romans 10:9 for example). It seems to me that if one were to ask Jesus how to enter the kingdom of heaven, and then ask Paul, you would simply get different answers. I have not received a single satisfactory response from a Christian about this and to me it seems the modern American Evangelical church aligns more with what Paul has to say about salvation than Jesus.
Yup, I pretty much agree!
Wouldn’t John 3:16 be more aligned with the views of Paul? Also, what are your thoughts on the Marcus Borg’s Pre Easter/ Post Easter way of looking at Christianity?
The big issue would be what each of them thought one was to “believe in”; in John it appears to be Jesus’ message about his comign to earth to deliver the truth about himself that brings eternal life; in Paul it’s not about Jesus’ self-teaching but his death and resurrection. It’s not clear if those are very similar or radicatlly different. Neither, of course, is what Jesus himself taught…
Prof Ehrman,
Please, when would you date 2 Esdras and would you say it was influenced in some shape and form by Christianity?
2 Esdras is made up of three earlier workds, 4 Ezra, 5 Ezra, and 6 Ezra. 4 Ezra is the earliest and is a Jewish book written in relation to teh destruction of the temple in 70 CE; the other two portoins are Christian works, probably from the third Christian century.
Pauline passages that tie salvation to things other than Christ’s death or resurrection:
Romans 2:6-7, 10-13 (RSV) For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing …, he will give eternal life; … [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, … [13] For it is … the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 3:31 … we uphold the law.
1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
2 Corinthians 5:10 … so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
Philippians 2:12 … work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.
(cf. verses about “obedience”: Rom 6:17; 10:16; 16:26; Gal 5:7; 2 Thess 1:8; 2 Tim 2:15, 21; Titus 1:16; 3:8, 14; and also on a faithful “working”: 1 Cor 15:10; Gal 5:6; Phil 2:13; Col 3:23-25)
See the full list of 18 passages, all written out:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/03/ehrman-errors-3-jesus-vs-paul-on-salvation.html
Jesus did not refrain from highlighting (just as Paul did) that salvation came from belief in Him, and His death and resurrection on behalf of all mankind:
Matthew 10:22; 16:25; Mark 10:29-30; Matthew 19:29; Luke 18:30; 19:10; 24:25-27; John 3:36; 5:24; 6:27-29; 6:35-36, 40, 47; 7:38; 8:24; 11:25; 12:32; 12:46-47; 14:6
You are presenting only one side of Paul’s soteriological views and one side of Jesus’ views. That hardly gives us the whole picture. Both teach about faith as a prerequisite of salvation and both teach about the necessity of good works for salvation. God’s grace is behind all of it.
You make Paul out to be a “faith alone” zealot: as if he were no longer Jewish at all, and Jesus to be so “Jewish” in outlook that He offers no new developments in soteriology. Neither thing is true. They are quite consistent with each other. The two sets of teachings do indeed represent “the same religion”: with no contradiction whatsoever.
It’s not true that it is a universal requirement for everyone to give all their money to the poor in order to be saved. That was required of the rich young ruler, because riches were his idol cf., e.g., Mk 10:23, 25).
Thanks. But I don’t think so. I’m not talking about Jesus as presented in the Gospel of John, but the historical Jesus — who never speaks about believing in his death and resurretion for salvation. And Paul certainly does not think that keeping the law will contribute to earning salvation — otherwise, as he says, “Christ died in vain.”