Loading...QUESTION:
There is no doubt that Paul had visions of Jesus. And as we all agree the gospels (and Acts for that matter) were written AFTER Paul and certainly influenced BY Paul. In one way or another they reflect his way of thinking (to a certain degree).
Wouldn’t it be possible that the story of visions started with Paul only and was incorporated into the gospels because… well, how could it be that Jesus appeared to Paul and not to his disciples?
I find it suspicious that there are such deep discrepancies in the different accounts of Jesus post-resurrection appearances….
In other words: Couldn’t Paul be the sole starting point of this vision thing?
RESPONSE:
This question gets to the heart of a very big issue: what was Paul’s role in the development of early Christianity. Is he responsible for starting it? Was he the first to claim that Jesus had appeared after his death, as the risen Lord of life? Is Paul the real founder of Christianity? Should we call it Paulianity?
Maybe I’ll devote a post or two to that question, as it is completely fundamental to understanding the beginnings of the Christian religion. In this post I’ll deal with the question this reader has asked directly; my answer will, of course, be related to the larger issue.
So my basic view is that Paul could not have been the sole source for the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead. I have a very big reason for thinking that he was not, and a subsidiary reason for it. There are probably lots of other reasons, but these two stand out in my mind.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
One thing that has always puzzled me about Christianity is: why the insistence that Jesus’ physical dead body be the part of him that is resurrected? I mean, Jesus resurrected Lazarus too, and he went on to then live and die like any normal person. It almost seems as if those who became, basically, Pauline Christians felt so compelled to insist the resurrection was that of his physical body, they added a story about Doubting Thomas sticking his fingers into the open wound. I can’t figure out why THAT would be important.
Wouldn’t the more important thing be that Jesus’ soul, or consciousness, or spirit, or whatever you want to label it, continued to exist after his death, and that THIS was the great miracle? I was reading James Tabor’s book on Paul the other day while I was on a plane, and according to him, that was more the Jewish view of resurrection at the time (not including the Sadducees, who thought resurrected was bunk). The person’s dead body doesn’t come back to life. The person–whatever element of that person that is THEM–is clothed in a new form altogether. So, in Paul’s vision, Jesus is a great light. Others see Jesus and at first don’t even recognize him. Etc. In Matthew, Jesus even tells the priests that they misunderstand the Resurrection, that in the Resurrection, there is no marriage and that people are basically genderless.
Bart, any thoughts on why Christians insist on a physical Resurrection of Jesus in the same body? As opposed to a spiritual Resurrection?
Yes, this is what made Jesus’ resurrection different from Lazarus’s. Lazarus’s body was reanimated. Jesus’ body was transformed into an immortal body, as all other bodies will be at the end of time. This was the apocalpytic view, and the Christians held to it because they were apocalypticists.
Google Search: Prophets Who Ascended to Heaven:
According to the Old Testament account, about 850 BC Elijah the Prophet ascended “into heaven.” (see: II Kings 2) Then, about four hundred years later (in about 450 BC) the Prophet Malachi promised that Elijah will return from heaven before the Christ appears.
Correction: Jesus Ascended but Mary, Elijah, and Enoch underwent an Assumption (pulled up by God while Jesus went to God by his own power); everybody else who deserves to go to heaven will experience a rapture assumption
So, if St. Paul’s * * theory * * is correct, Mary, Elijah, and Enoch must have had a transformation to a Pauline resurrection body. Perhaps his theory is not correct and we do not need to apply his theory to past assumptions (Elijah and Enoch) and a post-Jesus ascension: Mary’s assumption.
This may just be a theological question outside of Dr. Ehrman reporting what’s in the Authentic Letters of Paul.
Dr. Ehrman, you say you have friends and/or colleagues who are Josephus-New Testament Scholars. Can you refer any good blogs/websites/books by them? I just bought Steve Mason’s Josephus and the New Testament.
THE IMPORTANT QUESTION is whether or not the two passages on “Religion Taking Advantage of People” following the Testimonium Flavianum * * which gives a nod to a * new * religion were, along with the TF, also missing from early copies of Antiquities of the Jews. (I believe you would get a cover article on some magazines for this.)
Hi Bart, wouldn’t it be more cautious to say that the early followers of Jesus came to believe that somehow he hadn’t died, he was still with them but in what sense they felt this and why exactly, is difficult to ascertain. I accept that it may have involved visions (but other than Paul, we don’t know who else had them or when they had them) but it may also have been dreams, a voice or just a strong feeling of religious fervour. I understand that Paul states that Jesus ‘appeared’ to Peter and James but couldn’t he have interpreted their experience through the lens of his own vision. He also said Jesus went on to appear to over 500 brothers at one time. If we accept Paul’s testimony that he appeared to Peter and James, shouldn’t we accept it in it’s entirety and accept the 500 claim also? Many thanks for all your time on the blog!
“Visions” can be auditory as well as visual; and ancient people did not differentiate, the way we do, between visions while sleeping (dreams) and while awake. With Peter and James we are in different territory than with the 500, since we have other evidence that they both came to believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but the 500 are mentioned nowhere else.
“and ancient people did not differentiate, the way we do, between visions while sleeping (dreams) and while awake.”
How do we know the disciples did not dream independently of one another about a risen Jesus and then later kind of put it together that this was a resurrected appearance to them? Are there any books that you know of that discuss ancient views of visions/dreaming? Thanks, love the blog, just extended for a year!
Yes, I discuss these in my book How Jesus Became God!
So what Paul, Peter and James are calling visions could be dreams that they had while sleeping and they took them to be visions?
Yes, in the ancient world there was not a clear line of demarcation between what we would think of as waking-visions and sleeping-dreams.
I understand that the ancients did not differentiate between waking-visions and sleeping-dreams but doesn’t making life changing decisions based on dreams seem a bit delusional? It makes sense that most of the Jewish people in the first century did not want any thing to do with the Jesus Movement.
I’d say it seems more delusional to us today than it did to most people throughout history.
Would it not seem delusional to most people throughout history due to the ancient people living before the enlightenment and scientific education?
sorry — I’m having trouble following your question!
Now I’m not sure what I was asking! 🙂 I think I may have been asking if most people since the enlightenment would find it delusional or unusual to make life changing decisions based on a dream. I’m sure there have been people all throughout history including now where people believe their dreams are sending them a message though.
Since today we do know the difference between waking-visions and sleeping-dreams, wouldn’t it be clearer if we called the visions that the Bible speaks of as being most likely dreams? I think most people today think of a vision being when a person is awake.
In many instances (most?) it’s not clear if the vision came when the person was awake or asleep.
The question contains an assertion that, if supported, would change my understanding. Do you agree that the Gospels were influenced by Paul? Would the author of Mark been familiar with Paul’s preaching or writings? I guess Acts must be, or at least acknowledges Paul because Paul is a character in Acts, but what little effort I’ve put in to that suggests, if I recall correctly, that the character “Paul” himself doesn’t seem to be influenced, overmuch, by Paul as we know him directly.
I think Mark and Luke were familiar with Paul, though Luke, for whom Paul is a hero, radically changes his theological views.
Would either Mark or Luke have been familiar with Paul’s letters? I’ve been seeing arguments saying Luke took much of his info about Paul from his letters. Mark seems too early but could Luke have known the letters? My impression is that the collection of Paul’s letters would have been after Luke although the books arguing Luke’s knowledge of the letters are also arguing a later dating for Luke.
Luke certainly knew about Paul — but he shows little evidence in my opinion of knowing about his letters. So too, in my judgment, Mark.
Earlier on this site, you said we have no proof that Paul existed. I think someone asked what proof do we have of a historical Paul outside of the Acts (not a good source of History) and the Letters of Paul ( all of which aren’t authentic )? I think your response was, there is no evidence of Paul outside of these sources.
So, if it is questionable that Paul existed and some of his letters were written by others, how do we know for sure that Paul’s letters came before gospels and are not post-dated (the letters were not dated) creations–a head letter writer and unauthentic letter writers who create these letters writing Paul into history–Woody Allen’s Zelig?
No, I did not say that. We have abundant proof Paul existed.
If I come across the post again, I’ll come back with the date. (And, no, it’s not about Paul or Joseph of Arimethea going to Spain.)
I do look forward to the non-Christian abundant sources of people who had first-hand experiences with him. He writes letters but people don’t write back to him?! With your knowledge of 1 century writings, I think you may have at least one return letter to Paul. Written by whom? Which churches wrote back to Paul or initiated correspondence with Paul such that the canonized letter is the second correspondence in the pair?
If Paul was not Josephus, he definitely knew Josephus and Josephus knew him.
Please see Jan 8 – Final Loose Threads on the Zealot Hypothesis
Jan 8 Toddfrederick
I have a question that is not related to the Aslan book (though I think you did a great job with your critique and I do agree that Jesus was not a militant Zealot).
***Question*** a friend asked me if there are any references to the apostle Paul that are NOT in the NT and that are NOT Christian sources….such as Josephus. I don’t know of any. Josephus make two references to Jesus which are probably added to Josephus’ history. Paul created more of a fuss than Jesus in the Greco-Roman world than did Jesus, but I know of no one who mentions him. Do you know of any? A quick answer is OK. thank you.
Jan 9 Dr. Bart D. Ehrman
No Paul is never mentioned outside the New Testament, except in later Christian sources (although 1 Clement, which mentions him, is late first century).
Today (My birthday, 4/25)
Steefen
“Paul is never mentioned outside the New Testament.” I’ll call this “Paul’s Proof Problem.”
But it’s true that Paul is not mentioned outside the NT in the first century, apart from 1 Clement. But I do NOT use that as evidence that Paul didn’t exist!! And I never have.
Prof Ehrman
I guess I’m somewhat confused about the chronology and logistics of Paul’s early experience and conversion. Where was his persecution of the early church taking place? How far afield could the faith in Jesus have spread by the time he was converted?
And lastly, do you think there were gentile converts to faith in Jesus before Paul was converted or do you think the ministry to the Gentiles was purely a function of Paul’s evangelism?
Thanks!
Paul must have converted in 32 or 33 CE. The persecution was before then. *Where* it was is hard to say — I’d assume in a major city in the diaspora with both a large Jewish and Gentile population.
Did Paul take his mission to the Gentiles because the Jews for the most part did not accept the message?
That may have been the *real* reason (or part of it) but in his view it was because he realized that Jesus’ death was teh way God had designed to fill his promises to save the entire human race, not just the Jews.
Okay, so, this might be an asinine question but I still need to ask it. What good purpose might it have served Paul to invent such visions/revelations?
Good question! I don’t really know. I don’t think Paul did invent them.
I used to think he didn’t invent them either; but now I’m not so sure.
But of course, it may just be my ignorance rearing its ugly head again.
Nevertheless, surely he would have heard the stories circulating about the dead and risen Christ/Messiah, prior to his experience/conversion. And as in all other things, when it came to the other Disciples/Apostles, he “had” to present himself as far, far superior, in knowledge, in relationship, in gifts, in experiences, so why not in visions/revelations as well?
Granted, but for some extraordinary experience chances are he wouldn’t have converted; but who’s to say his experience was visions? Who’s to say his revelations weren’t inspired and or contrived by a measure of self-induced competition – say, with the “so called elders”? Paul? Who heralded himself above all others?
Usually, people who think and speak so highly of themselves, as Paul so often did, are hiding behind an alter ego, or something like that. (Simply my opinion). ‘-)
They could have been self-induced, if you mean psychologically. But Paul explicitly says that he “saw Jesus” as the other apostles did, and that Christ “appeared” to him. He may have been lying, but I’m not sure why we should think he was….
I don’t think he was lying. I do think he may have been imagining things, or exaggerating his experience, in his (psychological) need to be equal to or greater than say, James, Peter and John, for whatever reason that was.
Paul was a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, perhaps, as a mean of advancing his stature therein? But, as I understand Pharisaic Judaism, seniority was a function of age and study – not zeal. Purely as conjecture I wonder if Paul didn’t switch sides as a way to advance to the top quickly.
If Paul did “invent” his visions, maybe it was to be at the same level of those who he had heard about having visions. He had to say he had seen the Christ if he was going to successfully claim to be an apostle. Does that make sense?
It’s a coherent idea, yes; but I don’t think he invented the visions intentionally. He led a life of extreme physical misery because he believed he had seen Jesus. I think he really thought he saw him.
Paul pretty much seems to have spent the rest of his life traveling from place to place getting beaten, shipwrecked, and otherwise having a variety of bad things happen to him. It doesn’t seem to me like he had any incentive to make the whole thing up, either.
This is something I’ve thought about Jesus mythicism more generally. If the idea that this was all the product of some sort of conspiracy involving Paul, Peter, and James (it seems like all of them would have to have been involved) then they would have done it… why exactly? It’s not like they gained fame and fortune by the spread of Christianity; on the contrary, all of them ended up dead.
Maybe they *wanted* to make their lives miserable? 🙂 (!)
My thought is not that they wanted to be miserable. They were mostly uneducated (with the exception of Paul) and were apocalyptic. The apocalyptic ideas of the Jews being back to the supposed former glory days took over their thinking and made them what we today think of as delusional. Even though Jesus (Christ) never returned. They could not stop thinking about him ushering in God’s Kingdom until the day they died.
Bart, I’ve always thought Paul’s conversion came on too suddenly. If Jesus died in 30 CE,is it realistic to expect Paul to have persecuted Jewish Christians and had is conversion experience within 3-4 years? I wonder why more scholars don’t place Jesus’ execution closer to 27-28 CE? That would, A) still make Jesus around 30 years old at his death, B) would still fall into the timing window of Pontius Pilate’s governorship and C) would allow Paul more time to learn about, persecute and ultimately to have his life altering conversion experience. What are your thoughts. PS: i enjoyed your Smithsonian lecture the other day.
Good question. I suppose technically Jesus’ death simply has to be sometime between 26-36.
If that range of dates is accepted, is there *any* year where Passover fell on the day before the Sabbath? (I have no idea where to look up something like that.)
I don’t know!
“The point is that different Jews in Jerusalem did not celebrate Passover on different days”? I don’t get it. Did you mean that some of them *did* celebrate Passover on different days? That would explain there being confusion, but *why* would they have celebrated it on different days?
The Essenes at Qumran followed a different calendar for technical … calendrical … reasons (that I’ve never quite gotten my mind around).
“The two most accepted dates are Friday, AD 30 April 7, and Friday AD 33 April 3.”
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/newton.html
“majority of modern scholars favouring the date April 7, 30 AD.” “Another popular date is Friday, April 3, 33 AD.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus
I am *so* not an expert, but I spent an hour or so Googling exactly this on Easter because I was curious, and I get the impression that part of the problem is that during that time period the Jewish calendar was an observational calendar — as in, before agreeing that the new month had started, actual witnesses had to see the new moon and certify that it was indeed a new month. Because at that time the calendar wasn’t based on calculations, there’s actually no way for us to know for sure what days corresponded to Passover in what years… if it was overcast on what would normally be the first day of the month, the month didn’t start until the next day and Passover would have been a day later.
At least that’s what I gathered from my Googling. If someone who actually knows what they’re talking about tells you differently, listen to them, not me!
The point is that different Jews in Jerusalem did not celebrate Passover on different days.
Wow! That’s fascinating – thanks for sharing. It would certainly explain why the conservative scholars who have the greatest concern for everything being literally true haven’t settled on a specific year. Hard to believe there wasn’t one, if we consider Pilate’s entire tenure.
Hi Wilusa,
Handbook of Biblical Chronology is an idea for looking up something like that. I was at Dallas Theological Seminary’s Library about two weeks ago and looked up Death of Jesus in the book. The problem that you will see in the table is two sets of dates: one set factors in intercalation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t include year 35 and year 36 in the tables of dates.
Perhaps, Dr. Ehrman likes this source or can refer another source.
Thanks for the info, Steefen! I suppose there are a lot of things that still have to be researched in actual libraries, rather than online.
Bart, does Paul mention somewhere in his texts what the ‘resurrected Christ’ that he allegedly ‘saw’ looked like? I don’t remember any quote where he does (except him claiming to see a ‘bright light’ during his conversion) … but my memory might be faulty.
And what do you make of Paul’s statement that he didn’t get the good news (= the resurrection and thus the triumph over death) from other humans but from the ‘risen Christ’ himself? If he persecuted the Christians because of a resurrection belief then he would have heard about it before, from other humans, no?
Thank you.
No, no descriptions of Jesus’ physical appearance, by Paul or anyone else. Paul’s own gospel came from Christ — ah, but what does that mean?! I’ll deal with that in a post soon.
I’m looking forward to that post about Paul’s own Gospel!
As for the look of the ‘risen Christ’, what I meant was this, Bart: the Gospels DO describe the post-resurrection Jesus, namely as a humanoid, with hands and feet, someone who can walk (even through doors …), eat, etc. But Paul only describes him, as far as I remember, as a bright light. Shouldn’t that make us think? Doesn’t this indicate that the views of Paul, regarding the ‘resurrection body’, differ from those of the Gospel writers?
No, Paul does not describe him that way. Maybe that’s the root of your problem?
I’m sorry if I’m making this complicated again … Paul does not describe ‘the risen Christ’ in which way? As ‘bright light’? Or as humanoid? Because as far as I remember he claimed seeing ‘a light’ when ‘the Christ’ spoke to him on the way to Damascus, and not a humanoid figure (unlike the Gospel authors)?
No he doesn’t describe his vision at all, and certainly not as a bright light. You’re thinking of the narrative in Acts.
True. Mea culpa.
As you say, Paul flashed his credentials whenever he could. So I think Paul also exaggerated his credential whenever he could. But in any case, how is it that Paul’s writings predate the Bible’s gospels and his writings greatly influenced how the gospels were written, but there is no mention of Paul in the gospels?
Because the Gospels are about Jesus, and do not mention anyone from after his time.
Dear Bart,
Your answer to the questioner is clear, but it does spark further questions. On page 188 you write that Gerd Ludemann argues that Peter and Paul’s visions were psychologically induced. (And I realize that your ultimate concern here is not to explain visions as such, but their *significance* for what other people later came to believe, and how that, in turn, laid the foundations for a new religion).
But, if Peter’s vision was a classic example of a vision caused by bereavement, or caused by a longing to see a beloved and respected religious figure, than how do we explain Paul’s vision? (Since he neither knew Jesus personally, and actively disliked what fellow Jews were saying about him.)
And what reason do you have for saying that we can “take him [Paul] at his word” as you say on page 192? (I personally think we no have reason to not take him at his word, but this question comes up because on page 202 you write that Paul reports that “500 brothers” all saw Jesus at the same time, which is reported in no other Gospels.)
I might be missing something here!
tracy
Yes, the psychology behind Paul’s vision would have to be very different from that behind Peter’s. But I think it’s impossible to psychoanalyze him at this distance — so who knows? Guilt? Shame? Unresolved problems with his father? Something he was deprived of as an infant? 🙂 Who knows!!
I don’t have my books with me (I’m in the mountains just now), so don’t know what I said on p. 192 or 202. But it depends *completely* on what he said in each place.
Well, enjoy those mountains and stop blogging!
But when you get back…
I think I read somewhere among some reviewers that since you mention bereavement and a desire to see religious figures as causes of visions, what about Paul since those don’t apply to him (and therefore does not support your using Ludemann or others as explanations.) (I just think you will get hit with that question in your future debates!)
But yes, of course, who knows, perhaps “…an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato.”
(“There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”)
As a general rule, my view is that no one has ever said it better than Dickens. Or ever will.
Oh that’s right, you are a huge Dickens fan. 😀
Hi Bart,
I’m not trying to be rude here, but I’m not convinced by what you wrote above.
Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it, Paul had some sort of vision of Jesus. Then perhaps 3 years later he met with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. This meeting took place perhaps 3 – 10 years after the crucifixion and there are no records about what was discussed during this meeting.
During the following years we have the “oral tradition” time period. Then some years later, Paul writes his epistles.
After this, we get the Gospel of Mark, and somewhere in this time period, “Q” is written.
Neither Mark nor Q mentions a resurrection. Mark mentions that the tomb was empty, but as you state in your latest book, there could be many reasons why this occurred, if in fact Jesus’s body really was put a tomb.
Then later we get the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, where a resurrection story is written about.
If Paul mentioned his vision to Peter and James and afterward they talked about this with others, isn’t it possible that during the “oral tradition” this vision of Paul’s was embellished into the resurrection story that was written about in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John?
Is there any historical data which indicates that this probably didn’t occur?
John
Mark definitely mentions a resurrection and contains the resurrection. What he does not narrate are appearances of Jesus *after* the resurrection. HUGE difference! As to Q, my view is that we don’t know whether it contained a resurrection appearance or not. All we know is what was *in* Q, not what was *not* in Q. Maybe I’ll expand on both points in a post soon. Good issues to raise!!
Is it possible that Paul’s actions against followers of the way was in the capacity of a Roman agent? That at some point, he came to think he could be more effective by infiltrating the movement, but at some point had a vision and had a genuine conversion.
If I recall, the Ebionites thought Paul had a Roman connection. If he had a conversion and vacated his post as an agent for Rome, it would explain why he might not be able to minister in Jerusalem and changed his name.
It would also explain why Paul was able to play a Roman connection card that saved his hide. It would answer a very nagging question of why Paul was sent to Rome, to explain why he’d vacated his post, and what he’d learned after doing so. The traditional given reason because he was a Roman citizen and deserved trial there never made sense. Trial for what?
It would explain why Josephus never named the follower (if indeed it was Paul) for which he traveled to Rome to speak on behalf of. With the speculation that Josephus was a Roman agent, Paul and Josephus may have been brothers in that corp.
Again, I’m not inferring in any way that Paul did not have a genuine conversion and was not totally enthusiastic to the movement or didn’t have some sorts of visions.
I don’t think there’s anything to tie Paul to Romans. In fact, I think the claim that Paul was a Roman citizen (found only in Acts) is highly dubious. In fact, I don’t buy it! The Ebionites never mention Paul (assuming they wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls; we have no other writeings by them).
I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls were pre-Jesus and the Ebionites (as Jewish-Christians) were post-Jesus. How do the two overlap?
Sorry, my bad. I’m brain dead hear at the end of term. You wrote Ebionites and I was thinking Essenes. Go figure….
So was the claim that Paul was a Roman citizen just part of the campaign to legitimize Christianity in the empire? What does that mean for the traditions about the end of his life and his house arrest/petition of innocence?
Luke wants to make Paul a Roman citizen both to elevate his importance and to make his trip to Rome be voluntary…. I do think much of the last part of Acts is indeed legendary.
With the resurrected Christ, miracles and angels I thought much of the first part of Acts is also considered legendary. Do you think they are legends of the founding of the Hellenistic church and the seven placed in Jerusalem to connect their beliefs and leaders to Peter and later James but which caused literary problems like Paul being sent to Damascus by the Jerusalem church? A selective persecution that scatters the Hellenists while leaving the apostles in Jerusalem. The odd explanation of how the seven were chosen by the apostles. The communities with the baptism of John instead of the baptism of the spirit.
Yes, the trick with Acts is the same trick we have with the Gospels: separating historical information from legendary materials.
Did Paul actually “change his name” at any point? Or did his use of “Saul” or “Paul” just depend on what culture he was living in at the time?
Saul is the Hebrew name used in Acts; Paul is his Greek name, used in both Acts and by Paul himself.
In recently re-reading Acts it occurred to me that the Roman citizenship claim was apparently invented by the Lucan redactor (or so it seems reasonable to me to conclude) for the purpose of scenes like that before King Agrippa in Chapt. 26. And of course it seems as if none of this (Roman citizenship and an audience of Roman officials sympathetic to the Christian movement in the 4th decade or so of the 1st Cent.), on a theory of internal coherence and is far too fanciful. (Of course, the only rational view is that the speeches were invented, but the whole scenario is only slightly more probable than the healing powers of Paul’s handkerchief.)
My point is that in my view the Roman citizenship claim is the anonymous author’s plot device to illustrate a comparatively sympathetic Roman/Gentile audience. For Luke, this is a major theme that Christ represented the fulfillment of the Jewish scripture and teachings of the prophets. Luke’s Pilate wants to let Jesus of light- with a flogging.
Yes, I don’t think Paul was a Roman citizen either.
Dr. Bart Ehrman:
I don’t think there’s anything to tie Paul to Romans. In fact, I think the claim that Paul was a Roman citizen (found only in Acts) is highly dubious.
Steefen:
How does Paul get himself carted off to Rome, then? The Authentic Letters of Paul do not sync with him getting himself carted off to Rome?
How do you know Paul was carted off to Rome? It’s only in Acts. And Acts is the only book that claims he was a Roman citizen.
Dr. Erhman
How do you know Paul was carted off to Rome?
Steefen
You disagree that Paul went to prison in Rome? You disagree with what seems to be a majority of scholars who say there are Prison Epistles? (See below from Western Reformed Seminary–Tacoma, WA–John A. Battle, Th.D.)
There are three major suggestions for the identity of the place from which Paul wrote the Prison Epistles.
1) Ephesus, A.D. 51-53
There is no explicit mention in the NT of an imprisonment in Ephesus, although he was often in prison (2 Cor 11:23). Some passages in his epistles suggest that he had serious troubles during his time in Ephesus (1 Cor 4:9-13; 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:7-12; 6:4-5). The closer proximity of Ephesus to the recipients of the Prison Epistles is an argument in its favor. However, this view lacks substantial historical evidence (it is mentioned in the Marcionite prologue to Colossians). Kümmel (Introduction to the NT, pp. 324-32) maintains that Paul probably wrote Philippians from Ephesus, but not the other epistles.
2) Caesarea, A.D. 54-56
Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea for two years, during the rule of Felix (Acts 23-26). However, Paul does not mention Philip in his greetings (Acts 21:8; cf. Col 4:10-11), and it is unlikely that Onesimus the slave would have sought refuge there. Also the great degree of freedom Paul had in preaching during that imprisonment (Acts 28:30-31; Phil 1:12-13) does not correspond with the limited audience in Caesarea (Acts 24:23).
3) Rome, A.D. 57-59
This is the traditional view, as noted by the subscripts in MSS K and L (9th and 8th centuries). The circumstances in the epistles match best with the conditions of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, as described in Acts. This is especially true for the list of Paul’s companions. Most scholars favor this solution.
Steefen:
You’re not placing Paul ever in prison in Rome?
Given Paul’s dedication to Judaism lite, there was no social contract for him not to cross over to Roman citizenship as Josephus did.
I have no trouble believing he was in prison in Rome. I just don’t know that he was “carted” there from somewhere else (as Acts relates).
Still, without Paul, there probably would be no Christianity would there? He seems to have been the glue that kept them all together on the same page. But your argument about his buying into Christianity later makes sense, and is logical given his outcry against it at first until he had his own “vision.”
See today’s post.
I’m curious-do you think Paul is given disproportionate credit as an apostolic father above others who appear as bit players in Acts (like Aninias or Apollos) simply because his letters survived? Or did his letters survive augustly because he was so important to the early churches that they felt such a strong compulsion to copy his epistles above all others?
See today’s post.
Were the terms heretical and orthodox in vogue in early Christianity or were these terms developed later as in the middle ages? Obviously the wrong view was considered to be “something” but did they consider it to be heretical then…the term had to be some Latin or Greek phrase, right?
They developed in the third and fourth centuries especially. Orthodoxy means “right belief” and heresy means “choice” — and came to mean “choice to believe the wrong belief”!
” Paul found this view blasphemous. And so he persecuted them.” Not entirely convincing. This supposedly took place in the Jewish communities in Damascus, and Paul, in order to violently persecute the first followers of Jesus there, would have to have support from important and many members of theses communities. So it would have to be a common view there that the Jesus-followers violated some traditional rules of religious conduct. Could it be more than just believing in a “ridiculous” Messiah concept? Common meals with gentiles?
I’m not sure it was in Damascus. And Paul hints in Galatians that it was because they were worshiping a man who was crucified, when the Law explicitly says “cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree”
Do you think the vision Paul describes in 2 Cor. 12 is related to the vision story told in Acts 9? In both cases they say only that Paul “heard” something, not that he “saw” something (other than a bright light, in Acts). (As a doctor I would point out that auditory hallucinations are much more common than visual ones.)
I’ve never htought so — but others have! 2 Cor. 12 seems to be about a post-conversion ecstatic experience where he learned additional divine truths that he is not allowed to discuss.
great stuff Bart. It is so encouraging to see that in light or further research and study of your own your ideas are evolving. just a quick question. Do you think early christianity exalted jesus to emulate what was happening in Rome to their imperial leadership. You may cover this in your book but I pre-ordered on Amazon UK and its not due till May 1st.
Can you have a word 🙂
PS When are you thinking of a face to face debate and who would be a good interlocutor to create most heat and *light*?
Thanks
I don’t think they exalted Jesus *in order* to make him a competitor with the emperor, but I strongly think that it was no accident that at the same time Romans had started more widely calling the emperor God is precisely when Christians started calling Jesus God. It was indeed a competition, but it was not cynically invented in order to be that. I do deal with it in the book.
A question like “why didn’t someone living 2K years ago do something” seems unanswerable, so I suppose this is more of a comment. I find it somewhat surprising that Paul doesn’t track down Jesus’ mother Mary to talk to her about Jesus’ (earthly) life.
Paul didn’t have an aversion to travel and he did go to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James. If Mary still lived in Nazareth (rather than Jerusalem) at the time, it’s somewhat on the way to Damascus. Maybe Paul had a personal diary or other writings that do mention him meeting Mary and that haven’t survived, who knows.
So your point that it’s unlikely that Paul invented the resurrection is well taken. However it seems from Paul’s letters that he is mainly interested in the Jesus of his own vision(s). It also seems that the Jerusalem disciples were likely more interested in the Jesus of their own visions. It’s a bit like a song from a while ago, everyone had their own personal Jesus, with Paul’s becoming the more famous.
I would love a post on Paul’s role. In particular if you think he was the one who invented the idea that gentiles could become Christians without embracing Judaism.
Something I’ve always wondered about: Was Paul motivated by guilt over his persecution of the church? Was he a tortured soul? Is that what gave rise to his vision of Christ?
As you point out, Paul doesn’t tell us much about his prior life, but he tells us that he was a zealous persecutor of Christians. Whenever I read Philippians 3 in particular, I’m haunted by a vision of Paul being weighed down by his guilt, fervently looking to Christ to relieve it.
We know that Paul was deeply religious, deeply concerned with right and wrong. That seems to be what prompted him to persecute followers of Jesus in the first place. But did he then start feeling shame, a sense of disgrace and dishonor—maybe because he enjoyed the jolt of self-righteousness he got (from persecution) just a bit too much? Did that set him up for a guilt-induced vision?
Is he mocking and regretting his former self in this passage from Philippians (KJV translation):
3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
He says something similar (I think) in Galatians (KJV):
1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
I wish we knew!
What’s the feeling about what Paul’s persecution of Christians consisted of?
I’ve read arguments that Paul would have been very unlikely to have the authority to arrest people, and Luke’s claim in Acts that he was going around arresting people in Jerusalem certainly seems to be contradicted by Paul himself when he claimed that the Christians in Jerusalem didn’t know him.
I read one suggestion that we don’t know what Paul did to people he disagreed with before his conversion, but we DO know what he did to people who disagreed with him after his conversion. He wrote them scathing letters — and presumably, talked and argued with them in person. The suggestion was that Paul’s greatest weapon seems to have been words and that there was no reason to think his modus operandi was any different before his conversion.
I wish we knew! My guess is that he went around beating people up, but it’s just a guess. (You’re right, I don’t see how he could have arrested anyone; he had no civil authority.) But I think it must have involved something more than saying nasty things about them. That doesn’t sound like “trying to destroy the church,” as Paul refers to it.
I’ve been hoping for a while you would address the issue of his authority to arrest people in Damascus. Even the apologists I’ve read don’t deal satisfactorily with this issue. I think i got from a previous post that you don’t think he was headed to Damascus to arrest anybody, though Luke believed this? Though I don’t know much about the political structure of his day, I don’t understand how Paul would have any authority to arrest anybody, especially in Damascus, or that the Damascus/Roman authorities would have any interest in “extraditing” people for apostasy against Judaism. Would Jewish authorities have any power outside of Judea? It seems absurd from my modern way of thinking, but Luke, who lived at that time didn’t seem incredulous about it.
Paul doesn’t say he was en route to Damascus, per se. And he never indicates that he arrested anyone or had received authorization from other (officials?) to persecute anyone.
How Paul had the authority to arrest people:
Paul is Josephus, not just Josephus’ friend who had simliar life experiences.
Josephus was at odds with Jesus in Galilee (you can read this in Josephus’ autobiography).
Josephus-Paul was a Jewish commander in Galilee. He had authority to arrest people.
Paul changed allegiance from Jerusalem to Rome.
I’m not sure if Jesus changed his allegiance from Jerusalem to Rome. I say that because if the Jesus of Galilee is Jesus of Gamala [Gamla] , that Jesus gave a speech against the Rebels. I’ve recited it on youtube. Google: youtube, Steefen, Jerusalem -Stephen -Steffen “Jesus Christ Wanted Jewish Independence.”
BUT ALSO LOOK AT THIS:
Initially loyal to the Romans, Gamla turned rebellious under the influence of refugees from other locations.[3] It was one of only five cities in the Galilee and Golan who stood against Vespasian’s legions, reflecting the cooperation between the local population and the rebels.[8] At the time of the revolt, the town minted its own coins, probably more as a means of propaganda than as currency. Bearing the inscription “For the redemption of Jerusalem the H(oly)” in a mixture of paleo-Hebrew (biblical) and Aramaic, only 6 of these coins have ever been found.[3] (Wikipedia entry for Gamla) So, Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s would have been reasonable to Pro-Roman Galileans in Gamla.
As for Paul being Josephus, see site under construction: http://www.waterbearingfish.com/SaulJosephus_ben_Matiyahu.html. Hopefully, I will be able to finish this piece and move it to a blog where I can make available reader comments.
It’s a little odd that Paul would claim authority from Jerusalem when the disicples were in the Temple. Rev. Marcum of Highland Park United Methodist Church said in his sermon on Acts that the disciples, after Jesus’ ascencion, met in the Temple on a regular basis.
Now, that leaves open the possibility that Paul could not have been persecuting Christians with Temple backing until after the Christians stopped meeting AT THE TEMPLE. This would put Paul’s persecution after the death of James and after the Christians left the Temple at the breakout of the Jewish Revolt. And how convenient: that’s when Paul-Josephus was grabbing commander control in Galilee.
Finally, he saw the light and converted when he took his Jesus tableaux of three men crucified down from their crosses by permission of Titus.
Good explanation to explain why Paul was not the first to have a vision of Jesus: If so, Paul would have had no one to persecute if Christians had not become convinced of the Resurrection prior to Paul being convinced..
Bart quote … “Moreover, it is perfectly clear that when he heard about the Christian movement, he was incensed by it, and that he actively engaged in violent persecutions against it. Paul does not tell us what exactly he found to be so blasphemous about the claims that the followers of Jesus were making about him, after his death; but it is not too hard to infer at least one key point. ”
I am surprised that no one seems to have connected the item noted in Acts when Paul is bragging to James on how many Gentiles have converted and James replies … ‘see how many Priests are numbered among us”. Who were these priests? It certainly was not Christian priests. It was undoubtedly the Temple priests. We can take this lead and follow it in Josephus where he tells of the ‘Temple wall affair”.
For those unfamiliar .. and this appears to be MOST Christian theologians and even a good number of Bible historians … the Jewish rulers had built palaces against the Temple wall and had balconies overlooking the Temple altar. They used to entertain guests eating on these balconies and the entertainment was provided by the priests offering the sacrifices on the altar fire. The Temple priests were incensed by what they saw as desecration of the Temple and built a wall inside the Temple grounds to block their view. The rulers told the High Priest to have the wall torn down. Recognizing the number of priests who had built the wall the High priest felt there would be a riot if he had the wall torn down and thus sent a delegation to Nero to get his permission. The priests not to be outdone also sent a delegation to Nero’s wife Popea. Popea succeeded in persuading Nero to side with the priests and thus the wall was to remain. The rulers were so upset that they deposed the High priest and his replacement was ordered to get the wall removed. The next part of the story is interesting in that it reveals how important James was to these priests. The High priests asked James to address all the priests and arranged for James to stand on the Temple wall. However, instead of asking the priests to tear down the wall he presented his apocalyptic message that the son of man was poised to return on the clouds to overthrow all the powers of evil. The High priest ordered the Temple guards to remove James from the wall and a riot ensued. In the resulting melee James broke his legs as he fell or was pushed down the steps. It is suggested that Saul was present at this riot. The story is garbled in Acts, there is no mention of James or the wall and the riot being about a fictitious character named Stephen.
Now this post is a little long but it also reveals why Saul was persecuting the Christians and why he had letters from the High priest. Saul was NOT persecuting Brother and Sister Finklestein et al. but rather these priest who were members of the Jesus movement.
We find from the scrolls at Qumran that the occupants called their encampment ‘The Land of Damascus’. Many of the recalcitrant priests had fled to this encampment to l live lives of exceptional purity to prepare for this apocalyptic message. These were the ones over which the High priest did have authority and thus Saul was on his way to Qumran and NOT the Damascus in Syria.
Now just a few words on why Saul was so incensed with these priestly followers of the Jesus movement. They were directly challenging the secular authority of Rome. We really find out about how Paul later viewed Roman authority … God had placed them in authority to punish wrongdoers. Paul even in his later ministry never saw that establishment of God’s kingdom as the replacement of Rome … his kingdom of God was definitely other worldly.
I do think that Paul was a natural Roman citizen and even as a follower of the Jesus movement, he never turned his back on this heritage.
I don’t understand your point.
The priests didn’t want the onlookers like people who can see a baseball game from outside the stadium.
The rulers who built near the Temple said: Look at this View, entertaining isn’t it.
Somewhere, I’ve heard the Romans did not like the priests blocking the view for security reasons.
For integrity purposes, I guess James would not have wanted people looking in on the Temple from their homes/palaces.
QUESTION: Did Josephus go to Nero with the priests? It seems Paul goes to Nero, also. Both Josephus and Paul get shipwrecked on the way to Rome. Do you agree?
Sorry, I really have no idea what you’re talking about.
I was asking Kidron.
Please clarify your point. Paul did not want the wall up? He wanted Temple neighbors to look in on scenes of sacrifice not intended for their eyes? Because the Priests won, Paul was on his way to “The Land of Damascus” to persecute?
I don’t understand your question.
Some rulers desecrated the secrecy of the Temple by building palaces/homes high enough to look in on priests making sacrifices. The question is: what side would Paul take? Would Paul support the priests for building a wall to block the view or would Paul support the rulers? Kidron is saying, Paul would have not wanted the priests to maintain secrecy. Kidron is saying James would have wanted the holiness reserved for priests not exposed to onlookers. Therefore, Paul would have been against James and the priests who went to Qumran [The Land of Damascus], the priests who would have preserved the integrity of the sacrificial ceremony by obstructing the view of the rulers.
Really? I hadn’t heard that. Where is that mentioned in an ancient source?
The objection of the priests was that the inner courts of the Temple was Off limits to non Jews yet the rulers were entertaining non Jews on their balconies overlooking the sacred rites of the sacrifices. In effect they were profaning the Temple. I have no idea if Paul did or did not want the wall. I do think that Paul was sympathetic with the Roman authorized High Priest and thus since these recalcitrant priests were refusing to obey the High Priest, then this was enough for Paul to persecute them.
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman:
Where is that mentioned in an ancient source?
Josephus:
…King Agrippa built himself a very large dining room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico.
Now, this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneius and was situated upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could like down, eat, and then observe what was done in the temple
which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw, they were very displeased t it; for, it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west;
Which wall, when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals.
At these doings, both king Agrippa, and principally Festus, the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down …; but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished.;
And when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael, the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure.
And when Nero, had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. THIS WAS GRANTED THEM IN ORDER TO GRATIFY POPPEA, NERO’S WIFE, who was a religious woman and had requested these favors of Nero and who have order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ishmael as hostages with herself.
As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest.
Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 8, Section 11, 189-192
… I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea, Caesar’s wife; and took car, as soon as possible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set at liberty; and when besides this favor, I had obtained many presents from Poppea, I returned home again.
Josephus Life Section 3, 16
Steefen:
Nero got mad at Josephus for knowing his wife a little too well, burned down part of Rome, and blamed it on the followers of Paul, Josephus’ friend or alter ego. (Before you object, note that Paul and Josephus were on the way to Rome and got shipwrecked in about the same year.)
To Kidron:
Okay, I see your point. Why wouldn’t James have to go to Rome to defend the wall? Just as James was no friend of Paul, James was no friend of Josephus? What you say about the high priest is likely right because after the decision was to support the wall, we get a new high priest.
Interesting! Thanks.
I am not sure James cared about going anywhere. I don’t even know if he cared about the wall. I do know that the new High Priest asked him to address the recalcitrant priest and James took the opportunity to preach the imminent return of the son of man as per his brother Jesus’s message.
The primary thing that I am interested in is that there apparently was a significant number of the Temple priests who were followers of James and thus part of the Jesus movement. I am surprised that Bart does not seem to be aware of this connection between James and the Temple priests.
No, I’m not aware of that. What evidence are you referring to?
Please excuse my enthusiasm for this topic
Hershal Shanks notes how a small coterie of orthodox biblical scholars gained control over the Scrolls, allowing access to no outsiders and issuing a strict “consensus” interpretation that the material predated Christian origins with most likely ties to the Maccabean period. Father DeVaux fancied himself as an archeologist and upon finding an inkwell and a large table announced the it was a scrollery where those at Qumran copied and wrote large quantities of material found in the caves. However more recent exploration of the Qumran site large quantities of plates were found which indicated that the large table was more likely the dining room. With the help of independent scholars, historical research, and careful analysis of available texts, it is now felt that the material was most likely part of a Temple library from Jerusalem brought out to the desert to preserve it from impending destruction.1 In this respect, it does indeed include scrolls from the Maccabean period, but it also includes material written at Qumran in the period up to the destruction of the community at the time of the Roman assault on Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple in 70 C.E.
During the period of secrecy, the Roman Catholic priest, DeVaux, who controlled access to the scrolls made a conscious effort to distance the scrolls and the community at Qumran from any contact with the origins of Christianity. However, with the later dissemination to other scholars there are other interpretations of possible events. For some of the scholars now studying the available texts, the Scrolls present startling insights into early Christianity. One item of interest is that the War Scrolls of the community indicates that they saw themselves as preparing to join with angelic armies who would soon appear to fight the kittim or Romans. This reflects the message of Zechariah and the suggested apocalyptic message of Jesus concerning the imminent coming of the kingdom of God.2 Also, within their literature, it repeatedly speaks of a past Teacher of Righteousness who was killed by a wicked priest. Eisenman, one of the most prolific researchers into the scrolls and the one most instrumental in breaking the bonds of secrecy around the scroll materials suggests that this speaks of James and Ananus.3 Perhaps more disturbing to present Christians, is the reference to a ‘Spouter of lies’ who advocates that it was not necessary to keep the Mosaic Laws. It is hard not to see a possible connection in this respect to Paul and those who followed his teachings.
What do you think of tying the War Scroll to either Paul-Josephus in Galilee or Jesus in Galilee at the same time as Josephus in Galilee?
Josephus was born in 37 CE. Jesus died around 30 CE. Paul became a follower of Jesus around 32 CE.
Response to Bart’s question re the tie between James and the Temple priests.
The first tie is in recognizing that Jame is the Head of the Jerusalem followers and the statement in Acts 6:7 ” And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.”
The second reference is from Heggesipius via Eusebius who notes that James was accepted by the priests in the temple as the authentic High Priest rather than the one appointed by the rulers. Eusebius provides this information in his History of the Church. G.A.Williams, trans. “Eusebius, The History of the Church”. Dorset Press, New York, 1965, p.99.
There is additional information by Josephus who speaks of James death via the High Priest Ananus.
I know that in previous posts you have questioned Eisenman’s qualifications as an early church historian, but I find that Eisenman meticulously footnotes all his material and in his book James the Brother of Jesus, he traces the involvement of James with the Temple priests as well as his possible connections to Qumran. The book is rather tedious read, but well worth it for its research references.
Acts 6:7 doesn’t say anything about priests becoming devoted to James; and Hegessipus has to be taken with a pound of salt. Josephus’s account shows that priests were, well, not especially keen on James. So, I’m not sure what hard evidence there is. (None in the NT that I know of. Later sources — apart from Josephus — are legends)
Dr. Ehrman replied
Acts 6:7 doesn’t say anything about priests becoming devoted to James
Are you relying upon some peculiar wording in the Greek, because a clear reading of the KJV translation would suggest that they were indeed following James. “and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” How do you interpret this statement as meaning they were not devoted to James the undisputed leader of the faith
Secondly
You state : “Josephus’s account shows that priests were, well, not especially keen on James.”
What is you reference in Josephus for this statement?
It says they were obedient to the faith, not to James. I’m referring to the same Josephus account you referred to. Ananus had James executed!
I think the comment of being devoted to James is in reference to the choosing of Stephen in acts 6:5-6. Eisenman makes a case that commentary of Stephen in the bible is actually in reference to James the brother of Jesus (I have not looked into this deep enough to have an opinion of whether this is a plausible argument).
Love this blog Dr. Ehrman, thank you
It can’t be James, since he is still active after the stoning of Stephen.
Coming late to this discussion but I wonder why we have no reports (oral or written) about what happened to Paul on his last journey to Rome where its ‘assumed’ he was crucified by the Romans as Peter was also alluded to and yet nothing? Zilch either Christian writings and especially non Christian being Peter and Paul were assumed to be leaders of this new sect infiltrating Rome itself. We know there was a Christian Church in Rome and so presumably Paul went there first and so why didn’t some other Christian or Converted Jew see what happened eg that he was captured and taken away etc. Are we serious in thinking nobody else could write in Rome and thus inform other Christian Churches they must have known existed at Corinth and Ephesus etc? I have often wondered about this?
Personally I would have liked to know what Jesus and Paul looked like, how tall they were, what colour eyes and what they wore etc. What happened to Mary Magdalene and Joseph and Mary etc. Who they were all married to or had a girlfriend etc. Someone quite rightly asked what was Jesus up to in the previous ten years and why he didn’t write the Gospels then for all posterity? Surely not just sawing wood? 🙂
The tradition is that Paul was beheaded, not crucified. The book of Acts probalby doesn’t mention it because for Acts Paul is the hero who cannot be *stopped* by any earthly power. But obviously getting executed stopped him! The earliest reference to his martyrdom is in 1 Clement, around 95 CE.
How do we know that Paul did not persecute ”God’s people” already before Jesus’ crucifixion? Pharisees found Jesus’ message offensive already during Jesus’ lifetime. Why should Paul have waited until Jesus’ death? The movie “The Last Temptation” had a bit similar plot. Wasn’t it Paul’s own converts the first to be called Christians? How could Paul have persecuted Christians before he converting them? Maybe Paul saw Jesus been Crucified and that caused a posttraumatic stress that caused Paul’s vision and hence Paul converted.
Part of the problem is that Paul lived outside of Palestine, whereas Jesus’ followers during his life were entirely within Palestine; and there is no record of any persecutions of Jesus’ followers prior to his death.
Bart, above, mini1071 wrote “Paul was a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christians.” A common view but one which.increasingly baffles me, a non-religious Jew. I don’t think the original Apostles could correctly be called “Christians.” In the discussion above about whether Paul invented the Resurrection, you gave and explained your view that he did not and that the Apostles (and maybe other followers of Jesus) must have had post-resurrection experiences of Jesus. In my view, believing that Jesus was the messiah, that he was crucified, and would return is not enough to make someone what we mean by “Christian.” If that were so, then, hypothetically, if there had been followers of Judas the Galilean who believed that, even though he had been crucified, he was the messiah and that he would return, we’d be justified in calling them Christian too. In other words, believing that Jesus was the crucified messiah who rose and would return is not in itself enough to get to Christianity. Such followers of Jesus, if all they believed was that Jesus would return and finish the job that had been expected of a Jewish messiah could not even be called “Jewish Christians” much less “Christians.” With such views, I found James Tabors’ Jesus and Paul extremely frustrating. Tabor went to great lengths to explain the limited scope of the beliefs of James and the others and how Jews who believed Jesus would return to do what a messiah was expected to do are the very people Paul vied against as false teachers. If they did not believe that Jesus was the Lamb of God, that his suffering, death, and resurrection–or more precisely the belief in them–could cleanse one of one’s sins, then why on earth, over and over again, does he keep referring to them as “early Christians” or the earliest Christians? I’ve marked in the book all the times he does this and haven’t got around to posing my question to him. He’s a colleague, isn’t he? Have you ever asked such a question of him? But my question is more general, not just in regard to Tabor.
It completely depends on how you define “Christian.” I should stress, there is not one right answer to that question. I myself define it as someone who believes that the death and resurrection of Jesus bring about salvation. By that definition, the earliest followers of Jesus soon after his resurrection were already Christians, since that’s what they believed.
I also define it that way but have long thought that believing that belief in the messiah could bring salvation (not to Israel but to individuals) was just as much beyond the pale of Jewish notions of the messiah as believing he;d he’d suffer and die. Where and how would Galilean Jews come up with such a belief?
Once they came to believe in the resurrection, it started the ball rolling, and it rolled very fast. You may want to look at my book How Jesus Became God.
Of course Paul was a great liar for the cause. We read:
1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”
And, to solidify his position, Paul told the outrageous lie about the risen Jesus that: “After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time (1 Cor 15:6),” as if that many people hallucinated Jesus at the same time!
And like a true liar, Paul had to reassure his listeners that he was not lying:
“I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.… (Rom 9:1).”
“I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Gal 1:20).”
As Shakespeare wrote, methinks he doth protest too much!
To understand Paul as a liar, we need to understand that lying was permitted in the Hebrew tradition if it was done in the name of God. Consider this comparison about the permission of lying in the bible: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/lie.html
Bart, I’ve been re-reading this old discussion. I think we go too far in saying with such assurance that those who believed Jesus was the messiah were the first Christians and were the ones Paul persecuted. He only calls them the Church of God and, as you have said, 1. even believing Jesus was the messiah would have been enough for Paul to persecute them and 2. he never spells out just why he persecuted them. To assume and insist that they were Christians, it seems to me, goes beyond the evidence. If you disagree (and I presume you do), please tell me what I’m forgetting.
Beyond the question of whether Jesus was the messiah, I agree that it is very telling, especially given Paul’s ego, that he said that Christ first appeared to the others. That, of course, is a big step beyond simply believing he was the messiah. But the problem of appealing to the Gospels for attestations of the Apostles had pre-Pauline visions is that they weren’t composed until 40 to 60/65 years after Jesus died and, as you have said, NOT by Apostles (as far as we know). They were anonymous. Maybe their authors wanted to mute Paul’s influence (you emphasized this about Matthew) and therefore made sure to write that Christ appeared to the Apostles (and some others) before he did to Paul. So, multiple attestation or not it seems Paul’s saying Christ appeared first to them is much stronger evidence because it was earlier. We talk about the first days and weeks after Jesus as if we know what happened and that the Gospels are just doing their best to write about the events but, as you’ve stressed, “the writings are all we have.”
It completely depends on what you mean by the term “Christian.” I myself don’t like definitions that are too narrow, that a person has to believe x y and z and do a b and c or they’r not *really* a Christian. I knew a fellow once who genuinely thought you were not baptized in his own church — not his denomination, but in his church — you were not really a Christian! Hardly anyone is like *that* of course, but plenty of people say: If you believe *this* think you’re not a Xn, or if you don’t believer *that* thing you’re not. I think a more satisfactory definition is broad. Mine is that anyone who thinks that it is Christ who provides the way of salvation is a Christian. The people Paul persecuted and his own earliest converts certainly thought that.