(18 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...Here’s an important question I received recently from a blog member:
Someone told me that “I should never listen to you” because you say Paul did not write six letters of the New Testament, even though the letters start with the claim he did: “Paul, an Apostle of Christ to the Church at …..” This person’s main issue was: what is the evidence Paul did not write Ephesians? Your thoughts.
Response
This is an issue I dealt with directly in my book Forged: Why The Biblical Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2012). Here’s what I say there. (If you are interested in the hard-core academic and detailed discussion of the evidence, I have a much fuller discussion in my book Forgery and Counterforgery)
******************************
When I was teaching at Rutgers in the mid 1980s, I regularly offered a course on the life and teachings of Paul. One of the textbooks for the course was a book on Paul by a conservative British scholar named F. F. Bruce.[1] I used the book because I disagreed with just about everything in it, and I thought it would be a good idea for my students to see a different side of the story from the one I told in class. One of the things that F. F. Bruce thought about the writings of Paul was that Ephesians was the most Pauline of all the Pauline letters. Not only did he think Paul wrote it; he thought it encapsulated better than any other letter the heart and soul of Paul’s theology.
That’s what I once thought too, years earlier, when I was just starting out in my studies. Then I took a course on the New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary with a professor named J. Christiaan Beker. Beker was a formidable scholar of Paul. In the late 1970s he wrote a massive and influential study of Paul’s theology, one of the truly great studies ever to be published on the matter. [2] But Beker was thoroughly convinced that Paul had not written Ephesians, that in fact Ephesians represents a serious alteration of Paul’s thought.[3]
At the time, when I took the course, I wasn’t so sure. But the more I studied the matter, carefully comparing what Ephesians says with what Paul himself says in his undisputed letters, I became increasingly convinced. By the time I was teaching at Rutgers, I was sure Paul had not written the letter. Today the majority of biblical scholars agree. Ephesians may sound like Paul, but when you start digging a bit deeper, large differences and discrepancies appear.
The letter of Ephesians is written to Gentile Christians (3:1) to remind them that even though they were once alienated from both God and his people, the Jews, they have now been reconciled: they have been made right with God and the boundary that divided Jew from Gentile – the Jewish Law – has been torn down by the death of Christ. Jews and Gentiles can now live in harmony with one another, in Christ, and in harmony with God. After laying out this theological set of ideas in the first three chapters (especially chapter 2), the author turns to ethical issues and discusses ways that followers of Jesus must live in order to manifest the unity they have in Christ.
The reasons for thinking Paul did not write this letter are numerous and compelling. For one thing, the writing style is not Paul’s. Paul usually writes in short pointed sentences; the sentences in Ephesians are long and complex. In Greek, the opening statement of thanksgiving (1:3-14) – all twelve verses – is one sentence. There’s nothing wrong with extremely long sentences in Greek; it just isn’t the way Paul wrote. It’s like Mark Twain and William Faulkner; they both wrote correctly, but you would never mistake the one for the other. Some scholars have pointed out that in the hundred or so sentences in Ephesians, nine of them are over fifty words in length. Compare this with Paul’s own letters. Philippians for example has 102 sentences, only one of them over fifty words; Galatians has 181 sentences, again with only one over fifty words. The book also has an inordinate number of words that otherwise don’t occur in Paul’s writings, 116 altogether, well higher than average (50% more than Philippians, for example, which is about the same length).[4]
But the main reason for thinking that Paul didn’t write Ephesians is that what the author says in places does not gel with what Paul himself says in his own letters. Ephesians 2:1-10, for example, certainly looks like Paul, but just on the surface. Here, as in the letters that Paul himself definitely wrote, we learn that believers were separated from God because of sin but have been made right with God exclusively through his grace, not as the result of “works.” But here, oddly, Paul includes himself as someone who before coming to Christ, was carried away, by the “passions of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and senses.” This doesn’t sound like the Paul of the undisputed letters, who says that he had been “blameless” with respect to the “righteousness of the law” (Phil. 3:4). In addition, even though he is talking about the relationship of Jew and Gentile in this letter, the author does not speak about salvation apart from the “works of the law”, as Paul does. He speaks instead of salvation apart from doing “good deeds.” That simply was not the issue Paul addressed.
Moreover, this author indicates that believers have already been “saved” by the grace of God. As it turns out, the verb “saved” in Paul himself is always used to refer to the future. Salvation is not something people already have, it’s what they will have when Jesus returns on the clouds of heaven and delivers his followers from the wrath of God.
Relatedly, and most significantly, Paul was emphatic in his own writings that Christians who had been baptized had “died” to the powers of the world that were aligned with the enemies of God. They had “died with Christ.” But they had not yet been “raised” with Christ. That would happen at the end of time, when Jesus returned and all people, living and dead, would be raised up to face judgment. That’s why in Romans 6:1-4 Paul is emphatic: those who are baptized “have died” with Christ and they “will be raised” with him, at Jesus’ second coming.
Paul was extremely insistent on this point, that the resurrection of believers was a future, physical event, not something that had happened yet. One of the reasons he wrote 1 Corinthians was precisely because some of the Christians in that community took an opposing point of view, and maintained that they were already enjoying a resurrected existence with Christ now, that they already were enjoying the benefits of salvation. Paul devotes 1 Corinthians 15 to showing that no, the resurrection is not something that has happened yet. It is a future physical event yet to occur. Christians have not yet been raised with Christ.
But contrast this statement with what Ephesians says: “Even when we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ…and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places” (2:5-6). Here believers have experienced a spiritual resurrection and are enjoying a heavenly existence in the here and now. This is precisely the view that Paul argued against in his letters to the Corinthians!
In point after point, when you look carefully at Ephesians, it stands at odds with Paul himself. This book was apparently written by a later Christian in one of Paul’s churches who wanted to deal with a big issue of his own day: the relation of Jews and Gentiles in the church. He did so by claiming to be Paul, knowing full well that he wasn’t Paul. He accomplished his goal, that is, by producing a forgery.
[1] F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
[2] Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
[3] See his other book, Heirs of Paul: Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
[4] See the discussion of Victor Paul Furnish, “Ephesians, Epistle to,” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2; pp. 535-42.
Apparently, some at Corinth do not believe in the resurrection. 1Cor 15:12-19 and V 32-33. “then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” There is fighting with a beast at Ephesus. Maybe the beast it’s whoever wrote Eph.
Ephesians reads as if new info has been discovered and we are already raised with Christ. Eph 1:3, 2:6-7, 3:3-5, 5:14 Chapter 4 we are told to not be Children tossed to and fro (to and fro interesting) and carried away with every WIND of doctrine..etc. We are also told NOT to walk in the vanity of our mind Eph 4:17.
I have read Paul’s intentions were questionable. Acts 13 6-10. Barjesus is a sorcerer/wizard and Barjesus means “son of Jesus” then we have the name change of Saul to Paul and the deputy with Barjesus named Sergius Paulus (which means Paul). Then to make things even more confusing John is mentioned in the scene as well. I also need to read your book on Peter, Paul, and Mary.
Hey, read my books. 🙂
Apparently Sergius Paulus was an historic character and there is archaeological evidence that links him with Cyprus
(https://www.alamy.es/5679-sergius-paulus-inscripcion-el-proconsul-de-paphos-que-se-habia-convertido-al-cristianismo-image62067273.html)
But I think all Acts 13:5-12 is pure Luke’s invention.
There are two sorcerer/wizard mentioned in Acts:
1) Acts 8:9-24 “a man named SIMON had practiced sorcery in the city” in Samaria.
2) Acts 13:5-12 “Elymas the sorcerer” in CYPRUS.
Then we have Josephus Antiquities XX.7.2
“he sent to her a person whose name was SIMON, one of his friends, a Jew he was, and by birth a CYPRIOT and one who pretended to be a MAGICIAN”
I think Luke made two sorcerer/wizard from one, he was very skilled at inventing fictional characters out of historical ones !!!
I have listened to your videos about the Christmas Story and the Virgin Birth. I don’t see how it was even possible that the writers of the Gospels Matthew and Luke, could even know about the Virgin Birth as there were no eyewitnesses and Mary and Joseph would never have spoken a word of it to anyone for fear that no one would believe them, and Mary would be looked at as adulterous. It has to be a case of a later addition for political or strategic reasons. True?
Right, they couldn’t know. Technically, the only one who *could* know would be Mary’s gynecologist. Even she herself, theoretically, could not have known. My (former) wife assisted at a birth with the mother swearing up and down that she was not pregnant and could not be….
Well, you’ve also got the Talmudic Jesus, very unflattering, but perhaps some truth to it? At least it isn’t invoking anything supernatural, and that alone makes it a more plausible story. But it needn’t have been voluntary intercourse with a Roman soldier. Rape seems more likely, assuming it happened like that at all.
Eph 2:6
“And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus”
This is not only “not Pauline” , it is pure NONSENSE !!! who the ephesian writer thought he was to be exalted by god just as Jesus ?????
Just imagine Paul saying that he could share the “heavenly realms” sitting side by side with God and Jesus !!!!!!!!!!
This is very poor theology, what is amazing is that a scholar not only could think in Paul writing that statement but to say that “Ephesians was the most Pauline of all the Pauline letters”
Not only “The letter of Ephesians is written to Gentile Christians” it was written BY Gentile Christians …
Col 4:11
“These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God”,
Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon were forged in the name of Paul when he was imprisoned in isolation (or maybe just dead) in Ephesus in his final days and the group of Archippus , Aristarchus , Luke, Demas , Tychicus,Mark Justus and others took control of the church.
Bart, would you consider yourself opposed to Roman Catholicism? Or indifferent?
I”m not opposed to any religion per se. I’m certainly opposed to aspects of most religoins (all?); I do not at all like Roman Catholic views (and treatment of) of women, sexuality, gender orientation, and so on; and historically they have done a lot of harm and failed to intervene when they could haved done good. On the other hand, there are amazingly good aspects too. I just got back from visiting the Sistine Chapel. What can one say….
Any thoughts on the restoration of the Sistine Chapel? I once had a conversation with an elderly Italian woman who cried at the sight, because, from her perspective, the restoration covered the true artistic work so you can no longer see the actual work of Michelangelo.
It’s *fantastic*. You can probably get photos online of portions of the work where part of a painting has been restored and the other not. Amazing difference.
Dr. Ehrman: Who do you think wrote the Book of James? James himself since he was the first leader in the Church of Jerusalem?
In my books on forgery, I argue that it was someone (unknown) who wanted his readers to *think* he was James. That is, it’s pseudepigraphic. I don’t think there’s any way James of Jersualem had the educational level to produce a writing of any kind, let alone a book as sophisticated as this (and in a different language from his); there are other reasons for thinking so as well.
This is some excellent analysis, but Paul was a human being and sometimes he does not always agree with himself. Paul had an agenda and he had opposition; he switched modes according to the task. When he wrote to the Corinthians, he had to counter a heretical view of Jesus Christ that had stirred up the Church; but with Ephesians, he had already won the fight and was focused on the ideal of the kingdom of Christ. Recall that the Corinthians had abused his victorious gospel, “freedom in Christ,” as a license to sin. The letters call them back to good behavior, and the language is appropriate to task. To the Ephesians, he was encouraging in them steadfast joy over their victory. For Paul, the kingdom was both already come and soon to arrive.
The proof that Paul wrote Ephesians is the context. Paul is in prison in Rome at the end of his journey. By closely comparing the details of the letters, it is possible to prove an order that reveals a narrative. The narrative provides the context. Paul did write Ephesians, because it fits into a narrative that was hidden; therefore, it could not have been forged.
Literary scholars who study pseudepigrapha call that “verisimilitude.” It’s a very common device when writing a book pretending to be someone else to put in touches to make it look authentic. If you want to read the full argument, check out my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Bart, you mentioned that St. Augustine developed the idea of original sin because he misinterpreted what Paul meant in Romans 5:12. What did Paul mean in that passage?
He is thinking of it in a very different way, based on his Jewish apocalyptic context: the cosmic power of sin entered into existence because of Adam’s act of transgression, and so was enabled to enslave everyone who’s ever lived to force them to violate the will of God. A sinful act led to an irresistable and evil cosmic force that compelled people to engage in sinful acts. This is not at all what Augustine has in mind with his understanding of how a “sin nature” is passed along in the sex act.
In my time in the church Ephesians and Colossians were the best-loved and most-quoted epistles of Paul. What do you think is the main impetus for disciples accepting these epistles as so authentic and authoritative, versus his earlier (authentic) epistles?
The NT scholar and classics F. C. Bruce maintained that Ephesians was the central letter of the Pauline corpus becausee it summarized so well Paul’s theology of salvation. I think espececially Ephesians 2 has always drawn people in, especially Protestants, becuase it emphasizzes salvetion by grace without “good works.”
This article opened my eyes to what Romans 6 really says about being raised to an exalted state. I always thought Romas 6 said you were buried with Jesus in his death and raised to a state of salvation. However, it doesn’t say that. It says we were buried with him in his death so that we, too, can live a new life. Paul reminds the Romans of their death to sin. Verse 5 of Romans 6 says this: “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.” The resurrection part is future! Very good, Dr. Ehrman.
You are near to the kingdom!
Regarding only this point:
Paul includes himself as someone who before coming to Christ, was carried away, by the “passions of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and senses.” This doesn’t sound like the Paul of the undisputed letters, who says that he had been “blameless” with respect to the “righteousness of the law” (Phil. 3:4).
In Rom. 7:24, Paul writes: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” I read this as Paul still afraid of the “passions of the flesh.” Perhaps Paul in Romans means only that he is tormented by them, not that he yielded to them as Ephasians says?
This is an inordinatey complicated topic, becaues, well, it involves Romans 7, probably the most universally misunderstood chapter of Paul’s writings. (Or the NT!). Paul here is not actually writing an auto-biography. In the context of Romans he is explaining what it is like for a person to be enslaved to sin and unable to break free. The only way to break free is by belieiving and being baptized into Christ. That alone can break one from the enslavement to the cosmic force of sin. Paul does indeed believe he was enslaved to sin like everyone else before Christ. BUT, that does not mean that he could not be “righteous before the Law.” That does not mean never ever having committed any sins. It means working diligently to follow the Jewish law (kosher, sabbath, festivals, ethical reqquirements, etc.). Those who DO occasionally blow it are given the opportunity for atonment before God — that’s what the sacrificial system is for. Paul is saying that as far as the Law goes, he was “blameless,” because when he did breach God’s will, he followed the legal requirements for mending the breach. BUT, his main point is that this was not sfufficiaent for him really to be right with God, because no matter what, even if he was righteous with respect to the Law, he wsa still under the power of sin, and the law could not help him with that. Only Christ could. And so that’s why he says that he considere the righteousness before the law to be SCUBALON (“dung”) in comparison with what he now had in Christ.
I see the point – including the complexities! Basically, Paul is saying that a sin offering for a past sin satisfies the law, but does not free him from the power (or, let us say, the lure) of sin. Accurate?
But I’m also looking at this passage as evidence that Paul is promoting an ascetic lifestyle, which I also see him arguing for in the next chapter: “if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom. 8:13) Is that a reasonable reading?
Yup, that’s right. Wish I had put it that succinctly!
The passage, and other passages in Paul, were certainly *used* that way by later interpreters (there’s a great book on this by my Elizabeth Clark, Reading Renunciation). In this particular passage, though, he does not appear to be referring to (non-)ascetic activity so much as activity in direct violation of God’s laws. Paul himself, of course, was not an endulger in pleasure but he never urges a strict ascetic lifestyle; he was more concerned iwth other things.
Still on Paul, but another letter and another subject: Romans 1, 18-32.
I find this passage strange and disturbing.
Is Paul really saying that nonbelievers deep down know that God exists,
and only say otherwise because they want to sin?
Yup, seems to be. I know a lot of people who think that still. Hey — look at the world! How can you not realize taht God is behind it all.
Alternatively, Paul could’ve changed his mind. A more interesting (if off topic) question, IMHO, Is did “Homer” of the Iliad write the Odyssey. I’m the only one who seems to think not. But the two works are as different as Shakespeare and Hollywood. Anyway, back to the Bible.
Oh no, you’re not the only one by a long shot. It’s been a widespread debate among Homeric scholars, especially intense int eh 19th and 20th centuries. The other question is what you indicate with your scare quotes. My brother is a classicist, and his view is that Homer didn’t write the Iliad and the Odyssey; some other guy named Homer did…. disabledupes{fbca4b06eff15d126d3519161ab8e558}disabledupes
Another attribute of Ephesians that makes it seem that it was not written by Paul is the absence of personal greetings and allusions. The non-disputed letters are replete with personal greetings, sometimes in the front matter, and sometimes in the closing. Paul evidently spent a great deal of time in Ephesus – 18 months according to Luke – so he would have had many friends and close acquaintances, but doesn’t greet a single one of them in this letter.
But another glaring clue is the point-by-point correspondence with the outline of Colossians. Outline both letters and you have essentially the same blueprint. Someone took Colossians and rewrote it (and in my view greatly improved it).
As far as the contradictory theology, I am more forgiving. To Paul, there would be a literal end-of-the-world that hadn’t happened yet — it was still future. But the outcome was not in doubt, things were just playing out to give the Gentiles opportunity to enlist, so in a metaphorical sense it was already a present reality. Sort of like when you can just tell the Celtics are going to beat the Warriors, Steph or no Steph.
I think Ephesians-Colossians-Philemon and the undisputed ones were part of the first collection of Paul letters.
Ephesians-Colossians-Philemon were forged by Paul’s companions perhaps during his lifetime or just after his death.
Colossae was decimated by an earthquake in the 60s AD so the letter was probably written in the early 60s or before.
Philippians (an undisputed epistle) was written by Paul when he was imprisoned in Ephesus, he thought he was about to die (Phi 2:17) but was finally liberated as he stated in 2 Cor 8:11 “the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia…God…has delivered us from such a deadly peril”.
During his imprisonment some of his followers in Ephesus started their own business in the Lycus valley near Ephesus (Colossae,Laodicea,Hierapolis) claiming that they were part of Paul’s church and forging letters in his name (Phi 1:15-17 speaks about “rivalry” and “ambition” among brothers).
Many years after Paul’s death when all churches founded by him were requested to send copies of Paul’s letters the Ephesians sent Eph-Col-Phlm … and Romans (intermingled in the end with another Paul epistle from Corinth to Ephesus with greetings to “many friends and close acquaintances” as dfolds expected ).
Bart Ehrman dixit:
“The letter of Ephesians is written to Gentile Christians (3:1) to remind them that even though they were once alienated from both God and his people, the Jews, they have now been reconciled: they have been made right with God and the boundary that divided Jew from Gentile – the Jewish Law – has been torn down by the death of Christ. Jews and Gentiles can now live in harmony with one another, in Christ, and in harmony with God.”
Forgive me, dear Professor, but I have been unable to find anything you say in your post on Ephesians 3.
Especially the statement “the boundary that divided Jew from Gentile – the Jewish Law – has been torn down by the death of Christ” is very important. Can you tell me where to find that statement in Paul’s letters?
Read Eph. 2:11-21.
PART 1:
Thank you very much for your reply.
I was already aware of Ephesians 2:11-21, which is why I asked you the question.
In your comments you say verbatim; “and the boundary that divided Jew from Gentile – the Jewish Law – has been torn down by the death of Christ…”
After analyzing Ephesians in detail and studying biblical theology regarding the (important) differences that most evangelical theologians see between the Law of Moses and the Commandments and Ordinances, I remain convinced that Paul does not specifically say that with the death of Jesus the Law of Moses is abolished, but what has been torn down is the gap of separation, it has ended the hostilities between Jews and Gentiles, which is not the same thing. To close that gap and end hostilities, it was not necessary to totally abolish the Law
It also happens that Paul is not referring to the abolition of the entire Law of Moses, but to the “law of commandments expressed in ordinances”, which according to my knowledge of biblical theology are not the same thing.
I agree: Paul does not think that Jesus did away with the Law. Only those who believe in Jesus are able to *keep* the law. But non-Jews do not need to keep the parts of the law that make Jews Jewish.
I also want to stress, though, that I don’t think Paul wrote Ephesians. (And I agree, the author of Ephesians thinks Christ tore down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles; he does not think the law was abolished.)
PART 2:
These ordinances are the doctrines of men, not the Law of God written by God’s own finger. Paul specifically tells us that he is referring to the commandments, ordinances and doctrines of men, if we simply continue reading to Colossians 2:20-22.
Therefore, I remain convinced that Paul never asserts that the Law of Moses has been abolished with the death of Jesus, but rather the “law of commandments expressed in ordinaces”.
What is the difference between both laws? Paul, like so many other statements of his, does not explain it and therefore, once again, he resorts to the ambiguity of the Hellenistic philosophers Anisthenes, Diogenes and Lucretius from whom he surely learned his hellenism.
I don’t think any Jew at the time would have said some of the Mosaic law contained divine commandments and others merely human commandments; that *is* a view, that developed in some parts of Christianity, though (we have some Gnostic texts that take this line)
Bart, can you please comment on the processes by which pseudepigrapha comes about?
If Ephesians is indeed pseudepigrapha, should that be considered a bold deception by a later follower of Paul? Is it possible that Paul began the letter himself, and followers simply added to the scroll after Paul’s demise? Or could it be the letter was originally anonymous, and some later scribe added the attribution, actually believing it was Paul’s work?
I deal with this at length in my book Forged, and at much greater length in my book Forgery and Counterforgery. To be convinced of one view or another you really need to look at the evidence. And oddly even most NT scholars have never done so (in fact, I don’t think anyone I know has, except for maybe one German scholar). But yes, in teh ancient world anyone who wrote a book claiming to be someone else was considered to have intentinoally engaged in an act of literary deceit and his book was called a “lie.” There is nothing about the book of Ephesians or its manuscript history to suggest either that it was produced by multiple authors or that it was anonymous. It almost certainly was written by someone who wanted his readers to think he really was Paul.
I find such bold deception breathtaking. Wouldn’t fake authors worry that God might punish them for their blatant forgery? Apparently they didn’t see it that way.
What do you think of the “levels of authenticity” as described on Wiki at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha#Authorship_and_pseudepigraphy:_levels_of_authenticity ? I’m guessing Ephesians would fall under the heading of “Honorable pseudepigraphy”..
I deal with that too in my books! In my explanations I deal with ancient views of lying and deception and the qeustion of when they were ever appropriate.
The category of “honorable pseudepigraphy” is a completely modern invention and, I”m afraid, bogus; it didn’t exist in antiquity. A major point of my books is that ancient people did NOT think it was an honorable activity. It was soundly condemned. Interestingly, even in forgeries! It sounds like you’re interested in these issues. If so, check out my book Forged. If REALLY interested, go for Forgery and Counterforgery.
I was (when I was an evangelical) often taught that as believers we are already saved and enjoying our sanctified existence.
“that [we] were already enjoying a resurrected existence with Christ now, that they already [we] were enjoying the benefits of salvation.”
All the time ignoring the teaching of Corinthians.
Evangelical doctrine teaches whatever happens to sound good at the moment.
I understand that debating about the authorship of a text is easy to debate, but a long neglected point to show people is the identity of the text’s intended audience. For example, it can be easily shown (but not easily accepted) that in all of Paul’s letters, his audiences were Jews or non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations, referred to as ‘gentiles’ (ethnos- people, tribes nations) because they had stopped being Torah observant and had stopped practicing circumcision. This immediately excludes the text as being relevant to non-Israelites thousands of years in the future and shows that the New Testament’s redemptive narrative was about the gathering of the elect from Israel in the last days of the old covenant religious system and temple community. This implies that the story ended in AD70. The Christianity that followed AD70 was the product of Hellenized Jews who were inventing a new form of Christianity, after the pre-AD70 authentic Christianity ended.
Yeah it may be (probably is?) a neglected point in scholarship for general readers, but it has been a massively researched issue among scholars, for all the books of the NT.
It is an unusually vexed and thorny issue, in each instance. I’ve directed dissertations, for example, on the “Community of Matthew” (i.e. that he is from and that he is addressing). For the Pauline letters it is an indispensable part of the analysis.
Dr. Ehrman, could you please direct me to the relevant literature where scholars (even one or two would be helpful) admit that the New Testament’s redemptive narrative concerned only the people that Paul, Peter, John, James and others wrote to…which were only Jews and non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations before the end of the age, which was in the first century? Thank you.
I don’t think any of the NT authors believed that redemption was limited to the physical descendants of the Twelve Tribes (if that’s what you’re asking); and off hand I can’t think of any scholars who think that.
Dr. Ehrman, What would first century non-Israelites need redemption from?
All the NT authors knew that redemption was only needed by Israel. Jesus said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat 15:24). According to Gal 4:5, Christ came to redeem those who were under the Law. That was only Jews and their Israelite brethren who were still under the Law’s curse. According to Heb 9:15, redemption was from sin committed under the ‘first covenant’ which was the Mosaic Law. That was only Israelites, which in the first century, were Jews and non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations in several dispersions. The NT is silent about any alleged redemption needed by non-Israelites. Scholars have never asked why.
Scholars haven’t questioned why all of Paul’s letters were to people who were or had been under the Law and its curse, which was only Israelites. They’ve never put the pieces together, that the NT redemptive narrative only concerned OC Israel before the end of the age. The Christianity scholars teach about today is the faux, Hellenized post-AD70 universal version… not the pre-AD70 ‘Israel-only’ version.
Paul himself indicates that most of his readers were not Israelites but gentiles from pagan stock. That’s why he calls himself the apostle to the gentiles and why he indicates that his readers engaged in pagan idol worship before converting to believe in Jesus (e.g. 1 Thess 1:9-10)
So….if Christ came to redeem those under the Law, and only Israelites had and were under the Law….According to the New Testament, what would first century non-Israelites need redemption from?
Breaking the will of God. Paul lays it all out in Romans 1:18-32. Non-Israelites have teh full awareness that there is only one God, but they choose to worship idols instead, and because of that God abandons them to crass immorality. They are condemned for violating what they knew to be the truth and for their licentious lifestyle.
Dr. Ehrman, the fact that Paul’s audience in Thessalonika had been worshiping idols isn’t evidence that they were of pagan stock. Other parts of Paul’s letter shows that they were unfaithful Israelites. Recall that the church in Thessalonica was made up of gentiles who Paul said had been chosen as FIRSTFRUITS (2 Thess 2:13)
Who was this group of “first fruits” made from? John provides the answer in Revelation 14:4…The twelve tribes of Israel. Non-Israelites were never referred to as FIRSTFRUITS. Paul believed his audience in Thessalonica were paganized descendants of the tribes of Israel.
Romans 1 is describing ancient Israel’s history, not all humanity’s history. As such, it is not describing a need for non-Israelites to be redeemed. According to Amos 3:2, God only knew Israel. The people in Romans 1:21 knew God, which means they could only be Israelites. Also, non-Israelites were never under ancient Israel’s Law, so there was never a prohibition for them against worshiping idols or their own gods. Like all scholars, you have been conditioned to believe that all gentiles were non-Israelites, but the context of Romans does not support that. The story, including the need for redemption was not universal. it was Israel Only.
Dr. Ehrman, additionally, Paul’s retelling (in Romans 1) of ancient Israel’s unfaithfulness is a quotation from Stephen’s historical outline that he presented to the Jews in Acts 7. If you compare them, you’ll see that Paul even used some of the same terminology. This is just another line of evidence for the AIO view (Ancient Israel Only), which shows that the entire New Testament’s redemptive narrative involving sin, the Law, judgement, punishment, salvation, redemption…etc.. only concerned first century Jews and their paganized Israelite brethren, referred to as ‘gentiles’ by both Jesus and Paul. This can be verified throughout the New Testament by seeing their association with the Law and its curse, something that only pertained to Israelites before the end of the age of the old covenant religious system. Non-Israelites were never under the Law, weren’t sinners on the way to an end of the age judgement and never needed Jesus, salvation and redemption. Israelite Christianity was culturally and historically insignificant and ended along with the need for the gospel in AD70. It’s only the Hellenized, faux version of Christianity became popular and which endures today in various cults, denominations and fake ‘churches’.
Hi Bart. What would be the difference between Ephesians 2:1-10 and Galatians 4:3? Doesn’t Paul include himself as a former slave to sin in his undisputed letter? Thanks for the post.
-kalif
Yes, absolutely, Paul thought *everyone* was enslaved to the evil powers of the world (including sin and death) prior to being baptized in Christ. Otherwise one would not need Christ at all: one could just keep the law of God. But that does not mean that he claimed was leading a life of wild licentiousness as indicated in Ephesians. He was “righteous” when it came to keeping the law. But he still couldn’t overpower the power of sin. His sins may have been peccadillos, but they were still offenses against God and damnable.
Thanks! That is helpful.