(21 votes, average: 4.81 out of 5)
Loading...To this point I have enumerated everything that Paul explicitly says about what Jesus said, did, and experienced during his earthly life. The driving question is the one that I turn to now and in the next post. Why didn’t Paul tell us *more*? I’ve long been fascinated by this question, and even though I’ve thought about it for well over thirty years, I’ve never decided on what I really think. There are just too many counter-arguments for every perspective that I’ve heard or thought of! In these two posts I want to lay out three of the main options. If you think of others that need to be aired, feel free to make a comment.
I have taken the following from my textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
******************************
Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven. But in terms of historical information, what I’ve listed above [i.e., in the previous posts] is about all that we can glean from his letters. Imagine what we wouldn’t know about Jesus if these letters were our only sources of information. We hear nothing here of the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc. The historian who wants to know about the traditions concerning Jesus — or indeed, about the historical Jesus himself — will not be much helped by the surviving letters of Paul.
But what are we to make of this? Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did? Does he think that these things are unimportant? Does he think that they are irrelevant? Does he assume that his readers already know them? Does he know them? How could he not know? Regrettably, the questions are easier to ask than to answer. Let me explore three of the options that scholars have pursued over the years, simply as a way to stimulate your own thinking.
Option One: Paul knew a large number of traditions about Jesus but never spoke of them in his surviving letters because he had no occasion to do so. This is perhaps the easiest way to explain why Paul scarcely ever mentions the events of Jesus’ life. Someone who takes this line could point out that Paul evidently knew other apostles (cf. Gal 1-2) who must have told him stories about Jesus; moreover, it would make sense that when he founded his churches he must have told them something about the man whom he proclaimed as the Son of God who died and was raised from the dead. Who exactly was he? What did he do? What did he teach? How did he die? Surely questions such as these must have occurred to Paul’s converts, and surely he must have answered them. If so, then we might conclude that Paul never mentioned these traditions in his letters because he knew that his converts already knew them.
You may, however, detect a flaw in this reasoning. Paul spends a good amount of time in his letters
To keep seeing these reflections on what is one of the greatest mysteries of the New Testament, you’ll need to be a blog member. It’s easy to join. And cheap. And every penny you pay goes to charity. Hey, why not?? Click here for membership options
“If he had taught them about the historical Jesus, why would he not remind them of these stories also?”
Mythicists smell blood…
They smell blood under every rock.
It’s probably their best argument: the earliest Christian writings speak of Jesus in almost mythical terms with specifics filled in a generation later.
What is the scholarly community’s best guess at how many letters Paul might have actually written? It seems to me that he had to have written more than six or seven letters, especially considering the length of time he was active and the sprawling geography he was tending to.
Isn’t it likely that we just don’t have access to the majority of Paul’s ideas and knowledge? We may never know what details he was aware of or what he thought about the historical Jesus.
I”ve never seen any estimates except for my own, so far as I can recall. The way I do it: suppose Paul had 20 or 25 churches that he established over his long ministry, or that he was in close connection with for one reason or another. Suppose he wrote each of them a couple of times a year. It’s not unreasonable: he mentioned an earlier letter in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that we don’t have, and 2 Corinthians is composed of at least two letters and more likely five, all stitched together. That would mean that in a short period he had written the Corinthians seven letters. So let’s say he writes two letters a year to the 20-25 churches he was closely connected with. His ministry lasted some 30 years. Crunch the numbers. Yikes!
Please can you explain the title of your book ‘Jesus Interrupted’?
I”ve never been quite sure what it means! (My publisher chose it). I guess it’s that the words taken as divinely inspired in Scripture get interrupted by the findings of scholarship?
So many of the stories told about Jesus are not historical, his birth, temptation in the wilderness, actual healings, casting out demons, raising the dead, the transfiguration, the triumphal entry, the interrogation by the Sanhedrin, the trial before Pilate, his being rejected in favor of Barabbas…
If these stories are not historical, maybe Paul did not hear the stories. If the stories are not historical, Jesus’ followers would not have told Paul these stories. These stories were not written down until after Paul’s death. Maybe he was never in a place to hear them being told.
In addition, Paul was not concerned about Jesus as a human. He wanted to stress his “vision” of the risen Jesus as the Christ. And what the Christ taught Paul was much more important to him that what the human Jesus taught his disciples. Does this make sense?
Yup, these are a couple of the options!
Do you lean toward one of these or have a different one?
I tend to think he didn’t know much and wasn’t that interested. It’s weird, I know. I do think he must have known *some* more than he has occasion to say, but I doubt veyr much if he could have wirtten a Gospel, e.g.
Would you recommend any books on this?
I like the little book by Victor Paul Furnish, Jesus according to Paul
Furnish’s book is quite interesting. He lists everything Paul tells us about Jesus on pp19-10.
Jesus was:
1-Born under the law (Gal 4:4), of David’s line (Rom 1:3)
2-Had brothers (1 Cor 9:5), one named James (Gal 1:19, 2:9, 12; 1 Cor 15:7)
3-Had 12 “special associates,” including Cephas (Gal 2:1-14 etc), a/k/a Peter (Gal 2:7-8), and John (Gal 2:9) [I add 1 Cor 15:5]
4-Taught: Preachers should be provided a living (1 Cor 9:14), neither spouse should seek a divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11).
5-Told closest followers at dinner about his death and something beneficial for them (1 Cor 11:23-25). Then said they should break bread and drink wine in his memory. Loaf was a token of his body, the cup a token of “the new covenant” in his blood.
6-Betrayed that night (1 Cor 11:23)
7-Obedient to God’s will (Phil 2:8) and per Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3), willingly gave himself up to death for the sins of his followers (1 Cor 15:3, Gal 1:4).
8-Executed on a cross (1 Cor 1:17-2:5; Gal 3:1 etc.), for which “the rulers of this age” were responsible (1 Cor 2:8; 1 Thess 2:14-16, if authentic, implicates “the Jews”).
9-Buried in a tomb [I add: and resurrected] (1 Cor 15:4, Rom 6:4)
{Sorry, above I meant Furnish pp19-20, not -10}
Prof Bart – On point 8, Furnish says some scholars doubt whether Paul wrote 1 Thess 2:14-16, implicating “the Jews” in Jesus’s death. What’s your view of its authenticity?
(14) … the Jews, (15) who killed both the Lord Jesus and the {Or: their own} prophets, and drove us out … [NRSV]
(14 … ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, 15τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων …
I think it goes back to Paul; but it’s important to note that he is talking about teh compatriots of the followers of Jesus in Judea; that is, he is not referring to worldwide Jews but to Jews in Judea. (I think he’s explicit on the point)
One counter argument to the reasoning flaw that you mention above is that either the Jesus saying that could be used to buttress Paul’s arguments did not exist at the time that Paul was writing his letters or did exist but was not circulated widely in the region that Paul was traveling. As for Jesus’ passion, anyone in the Roman Empire would already know that crucifixion is a horrible way to die. Do you think that this is a reasonable counter argument?
I think anyone would know that, absolutely. I”m not sure what it is a counter argument against though?
Paul claimed that he was taught by the risen Jesus directly.
How plausible is it that Jesus didn’t teach Paul the stories in the gospels?
Maybe the Jesus vignettes were excluded to give himself more credibility by only writing essential teaching?
Paul doesn’t actually say that Jesus taught him anything. He says that God gave him a revelation, which was apparently a vision of Jesus. He got his “gospel” from this revelation. It appears to have been a relatively brief and once-only experience.
I think anyone would know that, absolutely. I”m not sure what it is a counter argument against though?
I think anyone would know that, absolutely. I”m not sure what argument it counters though?
Last night, I watched on Amazon Prime a movie entitled “Marketing the Messiah.” Cameron Reilly the creator of the movie is not a trained scholar, but he interviews several scholars whom Dr. Ehrman often quotes including Mark Goodacre, Michael Bird, Amy-Jill Levine, and Robert Price. Overall, I think the movie provides a good introductory summary of early Christianity that readers of this blog might find interesting and I saw no obvious flaws with the history presented.
Thanks Ronald. I love watching these sorts of shows. And its good to listen to some other scholars after reading Bart for the last 3 years. ( Not that there’s anything wrong with that….)
More on Marketing the Messiah (on Prime Amazon) – it summarises a lot of the scholarly opinions that Bart reveals. But it’s not quite so respectful of believers. There’s an attempt to include humour that I feel almost ridicules people who do believe. Love to hear other people’s opinions.
I enjoyed it and it got me thinking about what I’ve read in Bart’s books (read all of his for non-scholars). It was like Cameron had read Bart’s books, but couldn’t get Bart in the cast. At 37:00 Cameron Reilly uses Rapheal Lataster PhD., to ask the same question in this article. Cameron goes on at 38:50 to give 3-4 reasons why Paul didn’t use more of Jesus’ sayings or miracles to make his point. Cameron goes on to interview other scholars and writers more of the Mythicist persuasion (like Richard Carrier PhD and David Fitzgerald). Since it’s Cameron who wrote, directed and edited the film, I attribute the mocking to him. I found all those interviewed very respectful in tone. I watched it twice, and there are contradictions that Cameron created for himself to get to a big ending focus regarding the question if Jesus even existed historically. Overall, I found it interesting and entertaining (he made me laugh), but I kept asking myself: which favorite scholar inspired him to weave the script to the film’s final point? There is more to say, but I am at 200 words.
Jesus was a man born of a woman, even though he was also the Son of God. This was a central dogma in Christianity, also for Paul. I simply do not understand how Carrier can deny this.
Jesus had to be born of a woman, because He was to save people from the sin that had once come through a woman.
Christ was to restore the entry of sin into this world by hanging it back on the tree.
Adam used his immortality so badly that man was sentenced to death, while Christ used his mortality so well that man was restored to life.
Man fell through Pride, Christ restored man through Humility.
The question should not be whether Paul believed in the human aspect of Christ (in addition to a Divine aspect, and a spiritual aspect that could take up residence in man), but rather why he had to remind the Galatians of this. Had anyone taught them the opposite?
I don’t think he’s remonidning them this because they think otherwise. His point is the entire statement, X was born of a woman under the law — he’s just saying, Look, Jesus was a Jewish man.
Not convinced by this one. Looking forward to hearing the next two options!
It is worth mentioning that Paul was not the only founder of his churches. He was accompanied by Barnabas, Silvanus/Silas, Titus/Timothy, Luke, and the “brother” who was famous in the gospel in all the churches (2 Cor 8:18) (probably Luke). All these men could have taught Paul’s congregations what they knew about Jesus. Barnabas and Silas had certainly spent a lot of time with people who had known Jesus. Luke may have too, and he knew a lot. Relative to such people, Paul was not the expert. Now, men with ego tend to downplay the importance of subjects about which they cannot claim to be the expert. Was Paul such a person, and is that why he does not write about Jesus much?
The question isn’t so much whether they could have heard more, but whether Paul knew more. One would have to ask the same of his companions, of course.
Wondering if Paul had known Jesus as a human on Earth, if that would have made a difference. According to the story… Paul only met him through a dream and then through other people’s stories… kind of like the stories what we have 2000 years later. Makes me wonder if my perception of Jesus would be different if my understanding wasn’t just based on stories passed down through time. Was Jesus even “real” to Paul… or just a character in a really great story? (and 2000 years later, I don’t expect an answer to that question)
Is the current conscience on Paul that he was practicing some kind of mysticism?
There are certainly some mystical aspects to his views and experience, but I wouldn’t say they are the dominating feature.
Is there any reason to think that the current surviving letters of Paul are the only ones he wrote? Do scholars think that there are other letters (where hypothetically other information could have been mentioned) written by Paul and lost? Also, just out of curiosity, is there a correlation between mentioning something about Jesus in a certain letter and that letter being a Pauline or a Deutero-Pauline product?
Thank you!
He certainly wrote more, and probably ltots and lots more. He mentions one lost one in 1 Cor. 5:7. And no, the Deutero-Pauline letters (both those in the NT and the surviving ones outside) do not say much about the historical Jesus. then again, none of the early Christian letters from the period does.
He certainly wrote more, and probably ltots and lots more. He mentions one lost one in 1 Cor. 5:7. And no, the Deutero-Pauline letters (both those in the NT and the surviving ones outside) do not say much about the historical Jesus. then again, none of the early Christian letters from the period does.
Dear Bart.
You may be interested to learn that British archaeologists have discovered the remains of a victim of a Roman crucifixion near a Cambridgeshire village. The skeleton is well preserved, still has a nail in the heel bone (like the 1968 Jerusalem example), and is thought to have been buried in the cemetery sometime in the 3rd or 4th century: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59569629
Yeah, I heard that. Amazing. Thanks.
I just read the BBC article. Fascinating stuff!! 😯
Great post series. I started reading a book I stumbled onto by Richard Miller “Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity”. I don’t know anything about Miller, but he got into this in the book saying “[the lack of Jesus stories and quotes by Paul] reflects a basic lack of relevance for the historical person…demonstrates that for the region of societies receiving…his letters, such a historical person was equally irrelevant.”
He seems to be saying that you should read the New Testament as being produced by conflicting early christian groups and the the Pauline group didn’t care about mundane human Jesus. Do you know or have an opinion on his work? Or a Burton L Mack who he mentions?
Burton Mack was a very serious and learned scholar, but with controversial views. I would say that what anauthor writes about is not necessarily a good indication of his/her readers main interests. I don’t see how one can say that if Paul’s letters don’t say much about the life of Jesus his hearers therefore weren’t interested.
Hello Professor! I was wondering about the discourse of 1 Enoch and I have read some literature suggesting that it suggests a pre-creed of the resurrection. How does this fit into the jewish discussion who reject the resurrection and the idea that the resurrection is a blatantly new idea (as supported by apologists who use this as evidence)? Thank you again! 👍
1 Enoch actually doesn’t say much about resurrecton; it does talk a lot about death and judgment.
In chapter 51, we have this:
And in those days shall the earth also give back that which has been entrusted to it,
And Sheol also shall give back that which it has received,
And hell shall give back that which it owes.
[What follows is the appearance of the Messiah, the selection of the righteous, the enthronement and glorification of the Messiah, and much rejoicing!]
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe054.htm
Not much, but it is there.
Yup, thanks. For some reason I was thinking about the Book of the Watchers only; I haven’t studied a much the otehr bits.
The first time I read the Iliad, I was stunned to learn that it said nothing about the three things I thought I knew of the story: (1) the kidnapping of Helen, (2) the Achilles heel, and (3) the Trojan horse. Why weren’t they in there?? I asked my classics friend and he laughed at me. Of course the Greeks knew all about those things already, even 1000 years after they occurred. They didn’t need Homer to tell them about it. I think something similar is happening here.
The Iliad is about a very short period (an important one) in the history of a ten-year war, and makes no pretense about telling everyovything connecged to the war. I suppose the difference with Paul is that it is a narrative and Paul is writing letters, so expectaons might be different.
Paul did not know Jesus.
Plain and simple.
He invented his own gospel.
A gospel that was easy to accept.
Jesus did not teach shunning.
Paul, a Pharisee, taught shunning.
Paul’s “shunning” practices were to the liking of those who came afterward.
If historical Jesus was a Jewish eccentric delusional anti-Roman teacher, then all of these teachings didn’t exist at writing time of paul’s letters. Most of these sayings would be put on Jesus lips later from ProRoman camp highly influenced by Pauline perspective of reality. Greek speaking converts who condemn only some details of the GrecoRoman daily life not all of it.
This post seems to stop mid-sentence: “Paul spends a good amount of time in his letters” ?
That usually means your subscription needs to be renewed! Glick on Help and send a note to Support, and they’ll help you out.
Dr. Ehrman I’ve been reading and listening to a lot of your material and I’m starting to understand Paul wasn’t preaching the same message Jesus did as far as how to be saved, baptism, and the last supper (maybe more but I’m still learning). Paul consistently says “my gospel” and that Christ revealed these things to him. Why were his writings looked upon as authoritative? Right now I am currently reading James Tabor, Paul and Jesus How the Apostle Changed Christianity. Is this a reading you would recommend? Can you recommend one your publications that would help me understand the differences between the teaching of Paul and Jesus?
I think I’ll post on that! Probably a small thread. Paul’s letters ended up being considered authrotiative becausee CHristian leaders thought that he expressed the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus in important ways, which they themselves agreed with.
Curious..
One possibility is Paul was a fan more than a follower. He doesn’t bother inquiring more of the details when he’s busy persecuting Christians and likewise when he comes to Jesus he pretty much has his own mind on what its all about. Kind of like a convert in a religion today who was bad before but still not about to listen to you upon converting. It’s likely he considered the other stuff insignificant-the whole point now is to get people to ethically behave in the short time we have left, not get all the details of the Lords life when its his death and our coming ascension which is what matters. The other stuff was the prologue! I Paul now realize what its all about, what Jesus’s death really means!
I a muslim would have more *questions* for Peter and James, people who ACTUALLY SAW HIM even if our religion differs. I mean literally Jesus’s right hand man and BROTHER. But Paul is not so curious. Neither are his congregants. They joined for the same reason he did-meeting God tomorrow. So he doesn’t expect any backlash for not inquiring more. They simply don’t care.
I know you can’t answer this definitively but when Paul says Jesus is descended from David in the flesh (Romans 1:3) can you help me make sense of how this is to be understood? I wish you could definitively say Oh by the Greek he uses he born of means Joseph or of Mary, but I know you can’t … right?
So, how would a poor Galilean day worker/carpenter’s son prove descent from David? Why would people believe him?
I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away!
It’s a short hand for saying that he is the messiah from David’s line. Paul almost certainly would never have thought to look for a genealogy — they just didn’t exist. Jesus was the son of David/son of God, both the earthly messiah “according to the flesh” and made a divine son of God “by the Spirit.”
I think Paul didn’t know much of Jesus. It’s curious to notice that he mentions visiting with cephas and James and even confronting Peter but he never mention asking them all about the life of Jesus and telling us about him. Like if he knew others would later write about him.
I will sound nonsense but I will say it. Paul it’s another invention of the church, yeah history may prove me wrong but who makes history if not the ones who write something down even if it’s false mostly everyone believes it was real. Just like the stories of Jesus. Never happened but it was written and a vast majority of ppl believe it happened. So history is not necessary truth. Look at all the archeology being found and how archeologists make a lot of claims to support their beliefs and benefit their sponsors. We seem to live in a big lie!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59569629.amp
Dr Ehrman. This might interest you. The BBC are reporting on an archaeological find in Cambridgeshire which appears to be of a crucified man. As you know, there has only previously been one other such verified find and that was in Israel.
Yup, so I”ve read!
Yup, so I”ve read!
Yup, so I”ve read!
Hi Dr Ehrman!
So from what I have gathered, you, Harry Gamble and Dr Metzger all corroborate in what you say about the formation of the NT canon. Are there any reputable scholars out there that you know of, who would disagree?
Thank you!!
I”d say we all disagree on some points. So it depends what you mean by their views and mine (which aspect of the problem). In general terms, yes, most scholars agree with these broad assessments.
Hi Bart,
Your third example is very weak. Paul clearly referred to the crucifixion of Jesus in 2 Cor 13:4, along with Gal 2:19, 3:1, 5:24, 6:14, Romans 6:6, I Cor 1:23, 2:1, 2:2. 2:8, 11:26, and you ask why Paul did not include more details about the sufferings of Christ in 2 Cor 4:7-18 and 11:23-29. By no means does this suggest that Paul was unaware of how Jesus suffered during the crucifixion.
Also, Paul encouraging Christians to love their neighbor as themselves (Gal 5:13-14 and also Rom 13:8-10), a primary premise of Christianity as quoted from Lev 19:18, to suggest that this premise was somehow not assumed to have been encouraged by Jesus seems odd to me.
I admit that Paul not mentioning that Jesus taught to give to the Emporer what belongs to the Emporer seems like a lost opportunity to me.
Anyway, I see only one out of three examples look like a serious consideration.
To some of the folks above looking for more info. I found Bart’s Great Courses..4 DVD set online and must say it provides a fantastic foundation and groundwork for anyone who hasn’t taken any formal course before. And there are a number of lectures regarding what Paul knew which are fascinating.
The obvious answer is that Paul knew very few details about, and the only things he did know or care about were: 1) he was a wandering “holy man” who had died and went to another realm (e.g., heaven) where Paul’s consciousness also went briefly and was “set-straight” by being admonished by the consciousness of Jesus, and 2) while on earth, Jesus had preached the key traditional Hebrew/Jewish principles, such as “Love your neighbors,” which Paul also strongly believed. This is because a) he had never read any biographical information and only knew what other followers had told him.
Bill Steigelmann
With the proviso that I am not any sort of expert in this field, what it looks like to me is that Paul was selectively choosing to emphasize certain things that Jesus was supposed to have done and said that would serve to bolster a point he was making to the individual communities in his letters. Since Paul’s interest wasn’t in the historical life and death of Jesus beyond a particular salient point he was trying to convey, any unnecessary (to Paul’s mind) historical details were mere “fluff”. Sort of reminds me of a traveling preacher whose reputation far precedes him trying to balance the mundane exigencies of “roadie” life with the pressing crunch of the cosmic end-time at Jesus’ return.
Why would Paul retell stories about Jesus that people already heard or knew ? Paul’s more interested in preaching not giving us another long exhaustive history lesson about Jesus parables again and son of man sayings. He didn’t walk and talk with Jesus anyway. He was not an eyewitness. He knew of the pillars of the church though and mentions that and meets them on a few occasions. I’m sure he read or heard these teachings of Jesus from Jesus own followers and thays why he was out to slaughter the Christians in the first place because he felt this superstition needed to be stopped. Then his road to Damascus occurred.
I guess the question would be how his recipients would know the stories, if Paul himself is the one who converted and trained them and the ydidn’t have other reading materials (no gospels yet) or disciples of Jesus to come and fill them in.
You wrote, “I guess the question would be how his recipients would know the stories, if Paul himself is the one who converted and trained them and the ydidn’t have other reading materials (no gospels yet) or disciples of Jesus to come and fill them in.”
The recipients could have learned a lot about Jesus from Barnabas, Silas, Luke, and Titus-Timothy.
Yup, or they could have learned from other traveling missionaries. None of these was one of Jesus’ followers, of course, and we don’t have any writings from any of them; as a result we don’t know whether they knew anything much about Jesus either. Or if they spent much time in Paul’s churches apart from Paul. But the main thing is that this certaily could have happened. But there’s no evidence for it that I’m aware of. And even if the recipients did learn a lot about Jesus from others, it still doesn’t show that Paul did. I think it’s a big conundrum.
You wrote, “we don’t have any writings from any of them; as a result we don’t know whether they knew anything much about Jesus either. ”
The author of Luke-Acts had a lot to say about Jesus, and would surely have talked to Paul about Jesus. He was a companion of Paul because he says so, and because Paul mentions him by name at the right time and place (Rom 16:21) (“Luke” is just a short form of Lucius). Lucius is mentioned second only to Timothy, so he was very prominent. He is likely named ahead of a “brother” who was “famous among all the churches” (2 Cor 8:18), unless he WAS that famous brother. Either way he was very prominent. If he was not the author of Acts, who was he? Acts mentions all of Paul’s prominent companions.
It seems likely that the author of Acts knew more about Jesus than Paul did. If Paul did not want to play second fiddle to Lucius/Luke, this might explain why Paul under-valued the importance of knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus. It could have been an ego thing.
As you know, I don’t think the author of Luke was Paul’s companion, and that nothing in Paul’s references suggest he wrote a Gospel. Either does anything in the Gospel.
“I don’t think the author of Luke was Paul’s companion, and that nothing in Paul’s references suggest he wrote a Gospel. ”
If Luke-Acts was written after Paul’s letters, it is not surprising that Paul’s references to Luke/Lucius do not indicate that he wrote a gospel. I’ll press you on Lucius, if I may. If he was not the author of Acts, you must choose at least one of the following.
1. Lucius was not a prominent co-worker of Paul.
2. Prominent co-workers of Paul (other than the author of Acts) could be omitted from Acts.
3. Lucius IS mentioned in Acts.
Which do you choose?
Lucius is mentioned in Acts 13:1. So are other people Paul mentions in his letters. He’s not a prominent figure in Acts. Paul does mention Lucius in Romans 16:21. He mentions Loukas in Phlm 24. He gives no indication that it is the same person. So yes, both Lucius and Lukas are Paul’s co-workers. If Lucius is the author of Acts it’s a bit odd that he doesn’t give any indication of it, or why he speaks of himself in the 3rd person in 13:1 but in the 1st person in the We passages. So I don’t think they are the same person and I don’t think either of them claims to be teh author of Acts or that either of them was the author of Acts. Does that explain my view?
That helps. So you equate the Lucius of Rom 16:21 with the Lucius of Acts 13:1. So, he was in the east at an early date and was with Paul and Timothy in Corinth when Paul was about to sail to Judea. The same can be said only of the (claimed) author of Acts. We therefore have independent confirmation of the tradition that the author of Acts was a Luke (independent because Lucius is a different form of the name).
Lucius, was “famous among all the churches” (2 Cor 8:18) or he was even more prominent, for he is named immediately after Timothy in Rom 16:21, so why is he not named in Acts after 13:1, unless he is the “I” of the “we passages”?
Gospel authors were anonymous so did not identify themselves, but the genre did not prevent them from naming themselves, for Matthew and John were ascribed (wrongly?) to people named there. The author of Luke-Acts intrudes himself into his text minimally and prefers the unobtrusive “we”, which, like other authors, he adopts when setting sail. He uses the same style of self-reference (switching from third person to first person) as others did, but with greater humility.
Any problems?
Oh, I didn’t mean to equate them. I thought I said (or meant to say!) that Lucius is mentiond in both places. I don’t know if it’s the same Lucius or not — and don’t see how we would be able to know. Where are you finding Lucius named in 2 Corinthians?
Then, I must press you on the Lucius of Rom 16:21. If he was not the author of Acts, at least one of the following MUST be true:
1. The Lucius of Rom 16:21 was not a prominent co-worker of Paul.
2. Acts does not mention all prominent co-workers of Paul.
3. The Lucius of Rom 16:21 IS mentioned in Acts.
Which of these three options do you prefer?
“Where are you finding Lucius named in 2 Corinthians?” The “brother” of 2 Cor 8:18-19 is going to Corinth and will accompany Paul to Judea. He was therefore almost certainly in Corinth when Paul wrote Romans. It is highly likely that Paul sent greetings from this famous brother, since he sends greetings from all the other prominent believers who we have reason to believe were in Corinth at the time (I can substantiate this claim if you like). So who in Rom 16:21-23 was the delegate mentioned in 2 Cor 8:18-19? He cannot have been Timothy because Timothy was Titus, who is mentioned at 2 Cor 18:16. Either Lucius was the famous brother, or the famous brother is likely one of those named after Lucius, which would make Lucius even more important (name order mattered).
My view is that we can’t connect all the dots (names of humans) we know from our scant sources and think that one of them must be an unnamed person referred to in a text. Just imagine how few of the people we would know about who were companions with ahd helpful to Paul if he had not written Romans 16. If Paul had referred to a foremost apostle that he knew, we never would have guessed Junia or Andronicus. Paul mentions Lucius jsut once in passing, and I don’t think there’s a persuasive argument that he likely th unnamed person of 2 Cor. 8. s
I think the problem here is that we are assuming Luke or the writer of Luke actually is who he claims to be. My belief is that he is not what he claims to be and retells us the stories of Jesus reasoning on other theological perspectives to overthrow other theologies being brought up by other Christians. I don’t think the writer ever knew Paul. I believe he did had access to Paul’s letter and earlier gospels
I don’t think Luke knew Paul either.
Option One (if I recall it correctly). Other than His death and resurrection, the events of Jesus’ life were not relevant to Paul’s mission. For example, Saul, the prosecutor, learned about Jesus, that he was a crucified criminal, and then prosecuted Jews who believed him to be the messiah. Paul, the Apostle, met the Risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1); believed that God had indeed chosen Jesus to be the promised Messiah, and that He would soon return. Paul believed he was appointed to preach the death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus among the gentiles so that believers could be justified by their faith in Jesus, who still lives and is capable of rescuing believers at the Final Judgment.
Why doesn’t Paul say more about the historical Jesus? Maybe because he never met him in person.