Loading...I have been talking about Paul’s knowledge of the historical Jesus, and yesterday began a discussion of what Paul clearly knew about Jesus’ teachings. That’s where I will pick up here. Again, I have taken the discussion from my book Did Jesus Exist?, so the orientation of what I have to say is toward showing that Paul provides solid (and for my mind, virtually incontrovertible) evidence that Jesus was not simply “made up” but was an actual historical figure – an issue that, for most people in the universe of intelligent humans, is not much of an issue, but which is disputed by that tiny yet oh-so-vocal group of “mythicists” about which I have said some things before. In any event, there are a few more interesting aspects of the question of Paul’s use of Jesus’ teachings, as follows:
******************************
There are no other obvious places where Paul quotes Jesus, although scholars have often found traces of Jesus’ teachings in Paul. The big question is why Paul does not quote Jesus more often. That is a thorny issue, which will require more sustained reflection at the end of this chapter. For now I need simply to stress the most important point. Paul obviously thought Jesus existed. He quotes his teachings on occasion.
There are several other instances in which Paul indicates that he is echoing a “word” or “commandment of the Lord.” This happens in
This is an intriguing topic. Want to learn more? Joining the blog is cheap and easy, and every nickel of your small membership fee goes to help the hungry and homeless. So why not? Click here for membership options
1st Thessalonians 4:13-18 reminds me of Matthew 27:50-54 where holy people rose from the dead and walked into Jerusalem and were seen by many. Is the same reasoning behind both passages?
(I would also love to know how the apologists who argue that this is historical explains that *no one mentioned it*, not even the other Gospel writers. They didn’t think it was important?)
What about Paul’s visits to Jerusalem? Those would presumably have offered opportunities to hear Jesus-sayings from first-hand sources. (Or close-to-first-hand.)
That’s right. He spent two weeks with Cephas and Peter, and you’d think the topci would have come up.
Paul was a biblical ignoramus. Put that in a search at YouTube – with Rabbi Singer. I must say what makes most sense is Paul was an ignorant liar and self-deluded. Look at 2 Timoth 4:16. If Paul was rejected by all at his first defense, and early Christians rejected his writings, it was Rome who resurrected Paul to replace the resurrected Jesus. onediscipletoanother.org
Thanks. But really? He seems to have pretty sophisticated understanding of the OT to me. And as you probably know, 2 Timothy is widely considered pseudepigraphical (i.e., not actually writeen by Paul)
The fact that Paul had visionary experiences in which a visionary Jesus appeared, and “spoke” to him, complicates things, doesn’t it? When Paul says he got something from Jesus, it could be from his imaginary friend. And that’s a bit crazy by any standard, no matter how one tries to gloss it over. Adults with imaginary friends are nut cases, to be blunt about it. I liken Paul to the character James Stewart portrayed, with the imaginary giant rabbit companion, Harvey. The only option I can see, if Paul was not in fact that sort of nut case: he was a congenital liar. Another kind of nut case. I suppose a third option would be temporal lobe epilepsy. And his Jesus was the product of a medical condition.
It’s not surprising that Paul isn’t knowledgeable about Jesus teaching( particularly about the Kingdom) because he wasn’t a disciple. When Jesus was teaching his disciples, Paul was on the other team-persecuting his followers.
My question is, do we know the historical chronological order of Paul’s letters. This would help with understanding his evolving thinking. I am told the reason the letter to the Romans is first is because it was the longest one which doesn’t seem like a justifiable reason for it to be first.
There are lots of debates about the chronology. These days there are a few things that most scholars agree on: 1 Thessalonians was probably first; Romans was probably last. 1 Corinthians came before 2 Corinthians. After that it can get difficult. And yes, the letters in the canon are arranged according to length, except: the 2nd letter to the same congregation is always given after the first, even if it is not the next longest.
Do you believe that there was a historical John the son of Zebedee? What is the evidence?
Yes. He’s multiply attested in numerous independent sources and there’s nothing to suggest there’d be a reason to make him up.
In Romans 16:25-30, Galatians 1:11-12 and elsewhere, Paul says that Jesus revealed a secret to him which was not taught by any other man, so therefore not known by the disciples. What was this secret that Paul believed Jesus had revealed to him alone?
That gentiles could be saved by believing in his death and resurrectoin WITHOUT having to become Jews. That changed everything. Without this “revelation,” Christianity would never have taken over the world.
An off-topic question please Dr Ehrman. Can we assume that the claims in Luke and other early Christian traditions, that Jesus and John the Baptist were related, are fictitious or could they possibly be true?
The other traditions all get it from Luke, and it is almost certainly legendary. If they were related, other sources would have mentioned it surely.
” either Paul knew of a tradition in which the historical Jesus allegedly did discuss this matter”
” either Paul knew of a tradition in which the MYTHOLOGICAL Jesus allegedly did discuss this matter”
IF Jesus is myth, then the traditions about the mythological Jesus are the same traditions used by both Paul and Mark. Actually they could just as easily be used by M, L, Q, and however many J sources there might be. Since Paul says he knows what he knows from the “scripture” and his own visions, we have no idea where he got which messages from. If there is overlap between Paul and another source, it seems likely this was a written tradition “scripture”, If its original, It seems a good guess it was a vision of Paul’s, though it could still be from a tradition no other source has used.
If Paul overlaps Q, this is not evidence of historicity. Its evidence Paul either knew Q or Q and Paul used the same tradition. A mythicist myself, I don’t see how this argument helps or hurts either mythicism or historicity.
Excellent seminar! Thank you – I learned so much. I was a devout Christian for over 23 years and became an atheist 2 years ago. Since then, I’ve been trying to deconstruct from toxic or inaccurate theologies. I recently learned that in Judaism, there are 2 Messiahs in the OT – the Messiah of Joseph (Messiah ben Joseph) & the Messiah of David. The Messiah of Joseph was meant to be a sacrificial lamb who ultimately saved their people. In Messianic Judaism, they believe Jesus was the Messiah of Joseph the first time he came and will be the Messiah of David when he returns. Are you familiar with prophecies about the Messiah of Joseph? Were there any fulfilled in the gospels? What is the historical perspective in regards to the Messiah of Joseph? Does it impact the Christmas narrative or what the expectations they might’ve had surrounding his birth? I’m curious about this from a cultural and historical perspective along with how Christians might have misinterpreted the prophecies. Is there any merit to this theory? Historically, has there only been one Messiah in the Bible? Thanks, once again.
Yes, there’s only one messiah ni the Bible. Which Messiah of Joseph are you referring to (from which sources)?
Thanks for responding, Dr. Ehrman. I don’t know how well known the concept is. It’s something I’ve been learning about from people who practice Messianic Judaism. I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe there is a god, but I’m culturally Jewish. I still like learning about concepts within Judaism now that I’m not using a Christian lens anymore. Here are my sources outside of the people I’ve been speaking with:
https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/two-messiahs-in-judaism-ben-david-and-ben-joseph/
Obviously, Wikipedia is not a very credible source, but they have sources listed below and I don’t want to copy them all here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph
I’m just curious how this would theoretically impact the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, if some might be about the Son of Joseph, not the Son of David, yet Christians contribute them to the Jesus in the New Testament because they don’t realize there’s more than one.
Thank you so much for your time. Rabbi Tovia Singer says there is no Messiah of Joseph in the Hebrew Bible though, which is significant to me as well.
No, there is no messih of Joseph in the Old Testament. It doesn’t start showing up in Jewish sources until the Talmud, I believe.
KaRAYgeous: “Are you familiar with prophecies about the Messiah of Joseph? Were there any fulfilled in the gospels? What is the historical perspective in regards to the Messiah of Joseph?”
Some mythicists (eg, Richard Carrier) make strange bed-fellows with those so-called Messianic Jews who consider the Messiah, son of Joseph traditions (cf b Sukkah 52a) to be pre-Christian traditions. These, and other related themes found in the Talmud, are much more likely to be traces of rabbinic debates with Jewish Christians. There’s an interesting discussion about this in the Readers Forum here.
There is a third option. Perhaps Paul is having ongoing experiences which he is interpreting as Jesus appearing to him and giving him instructions.
Yes, that’s possible. But it wouldn’t explain why he doesn’t know about events from the life of Jesus, which is what we’ve been trying to figure out.
Hi Bart. I am new to the blog but have listened to you for years and read many of your books. Thank you for what you do. My question is this; in the Gospels Jesus has his disciples believe that he will come back soon…”some of you standing here will not taste death…..”. What was Paul’s stance on this time frame?
He too thought it was coming right away, while he was still alive — as he indicates in both 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor. 15, when he talks about beling alive when it happens. He wouldn’t have known that Jesus tuaght this necessarily though…
I really enjoyed the lectures you gave about Jesus’ birth narrative! At the end, I asked if you saw a documentary that covers Jesus’ birth and life called “Peter Jennings Reporting: The Search for Jesus”. In hindsight, I should’ve included another question in case you haven’t seen it yet. So here’s a question: The feature touches on the virgin birth by interviewing John Dominic Crossan who proposed an explanation for why it was included in Luke. He thought that it was used as a challenge to Roman authority since it’s similar to Augustus’ biography that told of his mother falling asleep in the temple of Apollo where she was impregnated by Apollo disguised as a snake. Thus, Augustus was seen as divine. He was also successful in bringing peace to the Roman Empire and was given titles such as Lord, Son of God, and Peacemaker. According to Crossan, Luke’s virgin story seems to centered around this question: “Where do you find your God? Do you find God in pomp and power with Augustus or do you find God in a Jewish child so poor that he didn’t have a home to be born in?” Do you find this plausible?
I think it’s a stretch, since there aren’t that many direct similarities. I”d say that both stories are borrowing from large themes found throughout the culture at the time.
Did Paul Quote the “Bacchae” by Euripides in Acts 26:14?
Doesn’t Acts 26:13-15 absolutely oppose Matthew 24:23-26?
Jesus states not to believe anyone who said he returned, no doubt to give a new gospel for you and me, or we’d be deceived. Benny Hinn and Steve Quayle both claimed Jesus came to them just as did Saul.
I think I answered these already, no?
Bart, why isn’t it possible that Jesus’ statement in 1 Thessalonians about the second coming was what Paul believed the Lord was telling him through the Holy Spirit?
Yup.
What does “Your question is waiting moderation” mean?
It means I haven’t approved it yet! It always takes me a day to get to them all and sometimes longer, I hate to say.
Many Bible Scholars suggest we have multiple sources for events/accounts in the synoptics .
4 source hypothesis = Mark, Q, M, L.
Events/Accounts only in Matthew – Source = M
Events/Accounts only in Luke – Source = L
Events/Accounts in Matthew and Luke – Source = Q
Events/Accounts in Matthew , Mark and Luke – Source = Mark
This method seems to suggest that, although we may have a total of 4 sources , events/accounts clearly identified using the above method gives us only one source for each of these events/accounts ……
or am I missing something ?
I’m not sure what you’re asking? Yes, these would be the four sources, and yes any one event found in the Synoptics comes from one of those four sources. Is that what you mean? (Some events are doublets: we have slightly different accounts in Q and Mark, for example)
Dr. Ehrman,
I have trouble understanding this: (though see Matthew 24:3-44)
Do you think that these verses are controversial? If so, which part?
YOu will need to quote the verses and then ask the qeustion so others on the blog will understand what you’re asking.
Mr. Ehrman, I know that he exhausts you, and the prospect of him arguing back for the rest of eternity (always starting too swiftly with the line “that’s false”, accompanied with a self-adoring smile) horrifies you to the bitter end, BUT, I believe that you should debate Richard Carrier. I think that would be your Magnum Opus in the anthology of your legendary debate battles – with this particular one being, of course, the grandest of all.
I know that you really don’t want to, because you see it as giving them too much attention; I know that you squashed Mr. Price and you feel you proved your point convicingly; BUT, for the audience, it would surely be most enlightening. Because, honestly it looks a bit childish to see you two taking jabs at each other (OK, he is wayyy more fixated on you, granted) in interviews, posts etc. , and lots of people can’t make up their mind in regard to this matter, because Mr. Carrier is extremely intelligent and confident, and that affects people’s disposition towards the issue of Jesus’s status (historic or mythical).
Sorry if I’m overreaching. Just a suggestion with much love and respect as always.
I actually do not at all think it would be my magnum opus of debates. He holds a position that no reputable scholar holds. I don’t want to give him a platform that makes it sound like he has a viable view. But the main reason I won’t debate him is because he thinks ridicule is a form of intellectual discourse, and I refuse to share a stage with him until he repents and is born again. I debated Robert Price, who, by the way, knows tons more than Carrier, even if he’s not as charismatic, because he’s a good guy and amenable to discussion.
OK, that’s understandable and you do have a solid reasoning! And I agree with you!
You’ve said that the Epistle of Barnabas almost made it into the New Testament. What do you think tipped the scales against it? (I think we should all be grateful that it didn’t, although I don’t know how much worse the persecution of Jews could have been.)
It wasn’t widely used enough and people probably doubted it was written by an apostle.
Paul bluntly declared to the Galations that the his gospel was revealed directly to him and did not come from human sources. After preaching it for 14 years, he went to Jerusalem and sought validation, to make sure he was not running “in vain”, but those he talked to added nothing. When he relays commandments “from the Lord” to the Corinthians, he doesn’t seem to be relying on hearsay. If Mark was indeed a companion of Paul on the first journey (and authored the Gospel of Mark), I wonder if part of Mark actually came from Paul’s revelation. The fourth gospel seems to deliberately correct Mark on matters of chronology. Mark crowds a lot of stuff into “holy week”, whereas John distributes it across the previous 2 years. The cleansing of the Temple happened two years prior, and the talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood happened one year prior. John has Jesus washing his disciples’ feet before he was crucified, not eating the Passover on the wrong night as Mark does. So I wonder whether a principal “source” for Mark was Paul. Mark’s timeline was wrong; consequently, so were Matthew’s and Luke’s. Your opinion, Professor?
I don’t think there’s any evidence of any direct connection. Mark’s ultimate interests are very different from Paul’s and vice versa. The do share some things, including the doctrine of the cross as salvation, but nothing suggests that one was the immediate source of the other. Lots of people thought very similar things.
Not applicable to topic: How historically accurate do you think the movie ” The Last Days of Jesus” depicts the key players during the Herodian Dynasty, such as Herod Antipas, the Jewish Governor of Galilea and son of Herod the Great, Lucius Aelius Sejanus, head of the the Praetorian Guard, plus the story of John the Baptist, and the money flowing to Jesus from Antipas?
I haven’t seen it, I’m afraid.
If Jesus had not been crucified what would be the major differences in his faith mandate for his followers as opposed to the Pauline influence we live under today?
His followers would have been remained a small sect within Judaism and probably would have died out with most of the other sects.
Dr Ehrman –
How early do we begin to see quotations of Paul by the church fathers? And when did his letters become seen as authoritative scripture?
It’s a very long and conmplicated story. His letters are seen authoitative already by the author of 2 Peter (3:16), so early second century. They are mentioned as important in Ignatius and POlycarp, early third century. But oddly they aren’t mentioned at all by Justin, a major figure in Rome in 150. By the end of the 2nd century proto-orthodox and GNostic writers and Marcion are all using his letters extensviely and claiming them as authoritative, though interpreting in incredibly different ways.
“At the end of the day I think it is impossible to decide between these two options. ”
Isn’t this easy to know since Jesus did not plan to die, go to heaven and return? If this was not Jesus’ plan, then he would not have said anything about his return, right? There was no return to say anything about!
He absolutely did not say anything about his return, in my opinion.
Yes. I agree. So Paul cannot be quoting something that the historical Jesus said. He has to be quoting someone who claimed to be quoting Jesus.
Dr. Ehrman, Do you think any of the authors of the Christian Bible, from a historian’s point of view, were Trinitarians? I am asking because of Mark 13:32:
‘But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.’
Note: I think I was too late with this question on a previous post, so I am asking it here.
No I definitely don’t. To be a Trinitarian means holding a *particular* view of the relationship of the FAther, Son, and Spirit, that they are all *equally* God, *equally* eternal, of the “same substance,” three distinct persons, yet comprising only one God. That doctrine does not come about till much later. Lots of Christians believe in the Father, Son , and Spirit without being Trinitarian (ie not holding the view that emerged about the Trinity)
Did Paul Quote the “Bacchae” by Euripides in Acts 9 and 26?
Doesn’t Acts 26:13-15 absolutely oppose Matthew 24:23-26?
Jesus states not to believe anyone who said he returned, no doubt to give a new gospel for you and me, or we’d be deceived. Benny Hinn and Steve Quayle both claimed Jesus came to them just as did Saul.
It would help if you would uote the verses in Acts 9 and 26 so readers of the blog knew what you were referring to. Also with Acts and Matthew: I don’t see the discrepance between the two passages. Jesus is talking about an event happening during the catastrophes on earth at the end of time and Paul was not living in that period.
Ok. Thanks.
Jesus states not to believe anyone who claimed he returned. If we believed it, we’d be deceived. He would not return until we see him returning in the clouds, vs 27.
Paul claims he returned to him in the desert using the words out of the “Bacchae” it’s hard to kick against the pricks.
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2016/01/pauls-pagan-quotations-iv.html?m=1
According to Acts, did Paul Quote the “Bacchae” by Euripides in Acts 26:14?
Doesn’t Acts 26:13-15 absolutely oppose Matthew 24:23-26 as Jesus did return before the end of time?
Thank you.
Ah, got it. Yes, that is in the Bacchae. (Of course it would be Luke saying Paul quoted it); no, Matthew 24 is talking about false Christ’s arising at the end of time, not Jesus himself coming back from teh dead and appearing to people.
Do you think that one of the reason why certain sayings of Jesus were recorded and others weren’t is that he repeated them over and over when going from village to village? The individual sayings were eventually associated with specific locations in the gospels but they were part of a standard spiel that he used with certain modifications from time to time depending on his audience. When I did political canvassing for a friend of mine I did something like that.
It certainly could be, but I dn’t think there’s any reason to think the places he says things in the Gospels is where he really said things. You might be interestied in looking into how oral traditions work and circulate; that’s what my book Jesus Before the Gospels is about.
Greetings, Dr. Ehrman!
How do *you* pronounce “omicron”?
o sounds like aw as in awful. I is short as in it. And the word is accented on the first syllable. aw’-mi-cron
What exactly is Paul talking about when he repeatedly refers to “my gospel”? For instance, in Romans 16:25, Paul writes, “Now to God, who is able to strengthen you, according to my gospel, and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages.” It appears that Paul thinks his gospel trumped everything else.
His “gospel” is the message he preached that he claimed her received straight from Jesus — that Jesus’ death and resurrection is the only thing that can make a person right with God through faith, and that is true not just for Jews but also for gentiles who therefore do not need to become Jews.
Coming back to Paul as an adult agnostic, reading him makes Christian origins feel more mysterious than I ever used to imagine. It used to seem so matter-of-fact to me.
In Corinthians 3:1-2 when Paul refers to the Corinthians as having been “infants in Christ…I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it.” Do you believe he is speaking of esoteric knowledge? If not I wonder what the levels of Christian knowledge could be?
Yes, he does appear to think there is layered truth and the more mature can handle the deeper elements of it.
Dr. Ehrman, do you think that Paul was eventually rejected by the Jamesian movement in his final meeting described in Acts? Or do think that the dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem based movement is overblown?
I don’t thnk Acts accurately describes their meetings. But Acts certainly doesn’t portray or want to portray a blow up. The only issue at stake according to Paul himself between his views and those of the Jerusalem apostles had to do with whether gentiles were on completely equal footing with Jews in Christ. Paul insisted YES.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I have a question not directly related to this post, but I just watched your interview with Genetically Modified Sceptic and it reminded me of something I’ve been wondering about. In the interview, you touch on Gehenna as a place that was considered in Jesus’ day to be a god-forsaken place because child sacrifice had been performed there. My question is a general one: Do you think that child sacrifice was really widely practiced anywhere or by anyone in the ancient world? What historical information do we have? Or was this mostly an accusation leveled against people whose reputation one wished to tarnish? Jews accused Canaanites of child sacrifice, Romans accused Christians, and so on… Are there any records where people actually owned up to child sacrifice being part of their culture?
Of course in the OT we have Abraham and Isaac (where Abraham didn’t go through with it) and Jephtha’s daughter (where the sacrifice was performed), and in both cases the (willingness to perform the) sacrifice is lauded. Should one conclude that in the days of the patriarchs and later, judges, child sacrifice was accepted or even common among Israelites?
There are certainly references to child sacrifice, and archaeological evidence of it; but I think it’s very hard to know how common it was. Certainly common enough to be considered horrendous. But it’s not clear if the accusations of it are always evidence of it actually happening or, sometimes (often), charges to make the “enemy” look reprehensible.
From your previous reply, did the disciples accept that Jesus had revealed to an outsider like Paul that gentiles could be saved WITHOUT becoming Jews but had not told them this secret?
All we really know is what Paul says, and ye says yes.
Prof Bart – I was just wondering exactly what we have pre-Synoptics about the historical Jesus, and here you’ve laid it out. It’s a miracle!
Off-topic:
-I think you’ve said you think John didn’t know the Synoptics. Harold Attridge (whom you described – in jest, I think – as “one of the few people on the planet who still scares the bejeebers out of me”) believes John knew and sought to supplant the Synoptics. What evidence do scholars adduce for each view on that question?
-Who/what on earth is the παράκλητος – the Paraclete, NRSV: Advocate/Helper (also Comforter, Intercessor, Counselor, Strengthener, Standby, Companion, Friend)? I get that the word means someone standing by you, like an advocate in court, and that it refers to the Holy Spirit. But what is going on here? Did John just dream this idea up? What purpose would positing the Paraclete serve? Seems to have something to do with John’s community processing that Jesus isn’t coming back soon, but the Paraclete is still described as a stopgap until Jesus returns. Is this a progression toward the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is a place we go after we die, rather than a reinstated earthly kingdom?
Thanks!
Yes, there is a strong move to think of John as dependent on the Synoptics. I just haven’t been convinced. I have higher bar for what counts as evidence of dependence.
Dr. Ehrman. What do you think about the idea that the Church is the body of Christ?
This is a form of Christology we find in
Ephesians 1: 22-23 and 1 Corinthians 12:27
Augustine puts it this way:
«His body, then, which has many members, and all performing different functions, He holds together in the bond of unity and love, which is its true health.»
This body of Christ, the Church, will be resurrected when all her members are born again.
According to Augustine, being born again «is a kind of death of the soul, which consists in putting away former habits and former ways of life, and which comes through repentance.»
Thus the Christian idea of being born again can be seen as a form of resurrection, in which the Church, His resurrected body, consists of members who are born again through faith and virtue.
I mean, when we read what Paul writes, we can not be selective in what we interpret allegorically and what we interpret literally.
Paul actually has a different idea from Ephesians (which I take to be non-Pauline). Paul thinks that in some sense all baptized believers make up Christ’s body in a mystical but also highly physical sense: it is Christ’s body here on earth. (He has his own body, of course, up in heaven) . Ephesians sees Christ as the *head* of the body, not the body itself.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Harry Gamble states that:
“It has been the extraordinary result of modern historical study to show that among the canonical texts there is a wide range of theological orientations which are not only diverse but to some extent also incompatible and mutually contradictory. Within the scope of the traditional canon, Jewish Christianity, various forms of Hellenistic Christianity, apocalyptic Christianity, and early catholic Christianity each finds its literary representations.”
How can there be such diversity in the canon if the whole aim of canonization was to develop a body of literature that supports one particular orthodoxy?
Thank you!!
Canonization tried to harmonize what was quite disparate. That’s why most Christians read the Gospels as if they are all saying the same thing, even though if looked at historically, they are all quite different and even contradictory.
Thank you!!
While Metzger states that “As long as the chief doctrines and patterns of Christian life and thought within the New Testament at least point in the same direction, and not away from one another, they can coexist in the same canon. The homogeneity of the canon is not
jeopardized even in the face of tensions that exist within the New Testament”
Gamble states: “the NT incorporates various independent and to some extent heterogenous conceptions of the very meaning of Christianity”
What is your take on this Dr Ehrman?
By homogeneity does Metzger mean that at least all of the variations are contained within an orthodox view?
Yes, that is his view. I think that he did not take early Christian diversity as seriously as many of us do today.
If 1 Corinthians 14:34-37 was a later addition from scribes, How are we to know what actually Paul said?
Truly I believe that condemnation was invented to bring forth a salvation invention to profit from man! As the gospel says that Jesus was making fishers of men! Now in these days churches spring just anywhere to profit and poverty keeps growing faster!
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Do you mean in 14:34-37 or in Pau’s letters generally? Scholars devote a good bit of time in detailed literary, linguisti, and historical analysis to determine what Paul said, word for word.
This is a great topic. What do you think about the theory that Paul taught a radically spiritualized version of Christianity to legitimize himself to make up for the fact that he didn’t know Jesus personally? I.e. while the original apostles who knew Jesus could talk about what he did and what he said, and probably leaned towards a “let’s do what he said” approach, Paul resorted to asserting that he was in a spiritual relationship with Jesus, so he could speak for Jesus even though he hadn’t known him personally. It’s a short step from thinking this to thinking that what “saves” us is being in a close spiritual relationship with Jesus, when Jesus undoubtedly taught it was compassion.
I really don’t think there was anything calculated in Paul’s views or approach. I think it makes best sense that he had a genuine conversion and really believed what he sias; my sense is that he realized from an outward position his “career cahnge” made no sense, to him personally, since it led to far more hardship than he would have had otherwise, so he wasn’t manufacturing something in order to make life more misearable….
Paul wanted everyone to think that the disciples agreed with him, but if so, why were they so concerned about gentile converts being uncircumcised?
Why did all the disciples not welcome Paul unreservedly when he visited them?
Why did no disciple except Peter travel anywhere with Paul?
Why would the disciples have accepted a claim by Paul that he had received a secret message from Jesus when he had never even met him before?
There are many ways in which Paul describes being treated like an imposter by the disciples.
Is this not evidence that they disagreed with his claim that he had received a secret message from Jesus?
Jesus’ earthly followers and their original converts understood that Jesus was the Jewish messiah sent to the Jews; for someone to be right with the God of Israel, they had to become one of chosen people, the Jews — which meant converting.
We do not have a record of Peter traveling with Paul; Paul insistedtat he had seen the resurrected Jesus, and the other apostles accepted is word for it. He certainly must have been sincere and insistent on the point.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you concur with the Prof. here?
Me: Would a reasonable way to argue that something remarkable happened in the physical sense be to point out that 1 Corinthians 15:44 shows that Paul’s use of “it” refers to the same body being raised, (albeit transformed) and not two different entities?
Prof.: “You are indeed, correct. Εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν. Literally: If it is a natural body, it is also a spiritual. Hence, in context, it is the same body.”
The trick is knowing what ψυχικον means in this context, a “psychic” body. But I don’ t know that you need anything very sophistictaed to understand that Paul thinks Jesus was bodily raised. It’s the assumption of the entire passage.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for your attentive reply as always. This is why it’s important: Because some (i.e. a UNC colleague) try to argue that Paul indicates no physical continuity between the dead body and the body that is raised. He says that you can just as easily read Paul as implying that even after resurrection, there’s still a corpse in the grave. Is there a verse or two that you can cite that would show his view to be unlikely?
I’d say that’s completely wrong. The buried body is *glorified*. With ihs analogy of the seed: it goes into the ground and then becomes a great plant. Think of an acorn: becomes an oak tree. Related to the acorn, but the acorn in the ground doesn’t grown into an enormous acorn. It become a tree. The acorn, after that, is no longer an acorn. It has been transformed.
Is Paul the one who really made it all about Jesus’ death? Or does 1 Cor 15 imply that his death was already at the center? Or maybe Paul’s the one who was most determined to work out a theology around Jesus’ death?
No, Paul didn’t make it all up. He was persecuting the Christains for holding these views before he himself held them. He may have developed a deepter theological understanding of them, but he inherited them from others.
By what authority would Paul – as a self-described “Pharisee” – have been acting under to persecute Christian’s 1) by order of a Sadducee, and 2) in Damascus, a completely different country?
Secondly, Jesus is very resolute in his belief that the Law is sacrosanct, yet Paul tosses it out the window? Wold Jesus have been ok with that?
1. Right — he wouldn’t. the high priest had no authority over Damascus. The story is not historical 2. I wouldn’t say Paul tossed it out the window. He still thought it should be followed. But gentiles were not to follow the parts that were discintive to Jews (e.g., circumcision, kosher, etc.) That is, gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism, and shouldn’t. But Paul still thinks the law is “holy, righteous, and good”
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman. Another point that seems to complicate this whole question of Paul’s lack of information on Jesus is the fact that the gospels don’t ever seem to mention Paul at all either. Even Luke, traditionally thought to have been written by an ”acquaintance” of Paul’s never mentioned him at all? I can believe that perhaps Paul really didn’t know anything about Jesus since he had his “revelation” after Jesus had been executed. Another reason I find it hard to believe that he was a Pharisee, trained by Gamaliel – a giant among Judaic scholars of the day – and hadn’t spent years & years pursuing that in Jerusalem where, presumably, he would have learned about Jesus?