I’m in the middle of a thread on the class debates that I assign for my Introduction to the New Testament. This started by my remarking on the debate I did with myself in front of the class, on whether the book of Acts is historically reliable; I haven’t yet gotten to what it is I argued (both affirmative and negative), but will do so! First I need to set the broader context.
As I’ve indicated, every student is required to participate in one of three debates in their 20-person recitation. The first debate will be next week, after Spring break. This resolution strikes me as a particularly important one:
RESOLVED: Paul and Jesus Advocated Fundamentally Different Religions.
For my money, this gets to the very heart of the formation of early Christianity. Did the religion that emerged after Jesus’ death correspond closely to the religion that he himself followed and proclaimed? Or not?
I could obviously devote a large number of posts to just this question. Here let me point out that as will be the case with the other debates, this one hinges to a great extent on the wording of the resolution. In particular, what does the word “fundamentally” mean? Clearly Paul’s views were different from Jesus’. But were they *fundamentally* different? It depends how you understand the word.
That they were different should …
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, you (literally!) don’t know what you’re missing. JOIN!!! It doesn’t cost much, and every dime goes to important charities helping the needy.
I’ve long hoped that you would cover this topic in a series of posts. I’d like to make a table showing contrasts and similarities between what Jesus and Paul preached based on how you view their POV’s.
I’d like to see that!
The first time I ever saw this question posed was in Bernard Shaw’s typically lengthy preface to his play Androcles and The Lion (it’s much much longer than the play, and much more intellectually sophisticated, and not nearly as much fun). For those who are curious–
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4004/4004-h/4004-h.htm#link2H_4_0071
I was a bit shocked (I started reading Shaw in my teens), but fascinated–was Paul, as Shaw insisted (without any great technical expertise, but with highly persuasive rhetorical skills), basically a man who had appropriated Jesus for his own ends? Had he twisted the teachings of Jesus, that he probably never even heard himself? Was he the serpent in the garden, who had corrupted the ideas of a true visionary?
Even Shaw had to acknowledge that Christianity couldn’t have survived as a religion, in practical terms, if it had remained entirely faithful to Jesus’ ideas (whatever they were). It didn’t remain entirely faithful to Paul’s either, but Paul actually left these very sophisticated and powerfully written epistles behind him, with the germs of a working theology in them, and a message that could resonate with many who were not Jews, that could work even if the great transformation both Jesus and Paul expected never came. So it may be rather beside the point–without Paul, there might not have been any such thing as Christianity, and nobody would have heard of Jesus after his early followers died out and left nothing behind them–we can’t even know if we’d have the gospels, if we hadn’t had the epistles first.
I absolutely believe Paul changed Jesus’ teachings, and I’m inclined to think not mainly for the better. But it’s very hard to say how much, given that we have no writings of Jesus to compare those of Paul with. Both were very original thinkers, but Paul had a natural systematizer, and Jesus probably wasn’t. Jesus believed the system was already there, and he was merely perceiving it better than others. It’s as if Confucius had interpreted Lao Tzu.
So yeah, it’s a tough question, that we can never quite answer in full. But my favorite answer is probably this–
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176219
WAS a natural systematizer, dammit. Too late to edit. Oh well.
Yeah, it’s a great essay by Shaw. I have my students read it.
Thank you, godspell, for “The Airy Christ”.
Good one. Hadn’t read that.
Great Comment!
Finished reading your book – it’s excellent! But I think the title is somewhat misleading, when a significant portion of it deals with the Gospels, and even apocryphal Gospels written later than the canonical ones.
A question… We know the four Gospels that made it into the Canon were the ones most in use. But by that time (mid-2nd century), did most Christian communities know of and have copies of all four? Were there still communities that recognized how different John is (all Jesus’s claims about himself), and were insistent that it should be either accepted or rejected, not lumped with the others?
There were certainly other Gospels in wide use in the second century
Should Mark 12:28-34 where Jesus quotes the Jewish Shema (and Deut 6:4) not be the end to any literal reading of the bible for Trinitarians and other believers in an inerrant bible?
What reason could there be to doubt Jesus’s perfectly clear declaration and/or the scriptures he relied on?
Not all trinitarians hold to inerrancy; and individual verses seem to have little effect on large theological views.
Dr. Ehrman, I have my own personal hypothesis on this matter (alas, I call it a hypothesis because as it stands now it’s merely conjecture and speculation), and this hypothesis is based on what I see as the two fundamentally different eschatological views of Jesus and Paul. Specifically, I think Jesus thought that he was a prophet and that he had correctly predicted the arrival of Judgment Day — that being the year 30CE, some time during the harvest festivals (passover to succoth), the “harvest” in this case not just being the literal reaping and separating of the corn from the weeds, but also the metaphorical culling of the wicked from the righteous. That’s why Jesus and his disciples went to Jerusalem for the Passover, because Jesus had convinced them that Judgment Day was arriving during the coming “harvest” (both literal and metaphorical). (And then, of course, Jesus was executed instead, so plans had to be revised.)
Now Paul has a very different belief. Paul didn’t know when Judgment Day was coming, but as a Pharisee Paul certainly believed it was coming, as was the mass resurrection of the dead. But Paul thought that that day must be brought about. That is to say, certain conditions needed to be met for the apocalypse to happen, and one of those things was that the “righteous amongst the nations” needed to be brought into the fold. In the other words, the God-fearing Gentiles needed to be separated from the wicked, so they will be spared during the End Times culling. That’s the mission Paul was given by the Jerusalem church in the book of Acts (the Jewish Christians themselves probably came to conclude this mission to the gentiles was necessary as a result of Judgment Day stubbornly refusing to arrive). So that’s why Paul was so doggedly spreading the “good news”, even up to his dying day, so that all righteous gentiles could be brought in in order to bring about Judgment Day. I imagine it kind of like a donation drive with a monetary goal, say, one million dollars. The sooner that drive reaches the million dollar goal the sooner it can end. Paul (and likely the later Jerusalem church) probably thought that the faster they could convert the righteous amongst the nations, the sooner Jesus would return and bring about the End Times.
And these different goals (Jesus vs Paul) were brought about, essentially, by necessity after Jesus was executed.
(I’m a newbie to the site but a long-time adherent of Dr. Erhman. I hope not to commit any forum faux pas).
Mr. talmore, I think your hypothesis is well-reasoned and generally in the right direction. However, I think there was more conflict between Paul (in the hinterlands) and James and the church in Jerusalem than your post implies.
Regards,
Another question suggested by the book… So you think it’s most likely Jesus *wasn’t* being called a miracle worker while he was still alive? I’d thought your opinion was the reverse. Have you changed your mind about it recently, one way or the other?
Yes, I’ve changed my mind — I’m not convinced that he was, any more, as I try to explain in the book.
( Should a person follow the Jewish Law or not? Jesus thought the answer was yes – this was the core of his teaching. Paul thought the answer was no – doing so would not allow one to be saved. )
Paul’s Judaism is an extremely important subject-what kind of a Jew was he, and can we find any similarities between his beliefs and that of other Hellenized Jews or Jewish Apocalaptycs.
My question is what would Paul be saying happens to those who refuse his version of salvation? When the son of man comes down and sets things right on earth, where do the bad guys go? The righteous live forever in this new kingdom but what about the unrightious?
I assume they’ll either be annihilated or tormented!
Here’s another question I just thought of. I know early Christians used the fish as a symbol, because in Greek, the initials for something like “Jesus Christ, Son of God, King” spelled the word for “fish.” Obviously, that didn’t come about until there were Greek-speaking Christians. But how early was it, after that? Given that the Gospels were written in Greek, could their references to fishermen – and to becoming “fishers of men” – have been inspired by that symbol? Might Peter and his brother Andrew – or brothers James and John – not have been fishermen at all?
We can’t trace the fish symbol very early — I can’t think of an instance before the third century, so centuries after the NT itself. Maybe someone on the blog knows the earliest instance of it.
There is the funerary stela of Licinia from the Vatican Necropolis, early 3rd century, and an instance in the catacomb of Priscilla, late 2nd/early 3rd.
“39But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a SIGN; and yet no SIGN will be given to it but the SIGN of Jonah the prophet; 40for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE BIG FISH, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:39)
The Ichthys may be a Christian adaptation of the Vesica Piscis that the Pythagoreans called the Womb of the Mother Goddess (or, in the PG13 version, the Divine Vagina). The Ichthys symbol itself is essentially a Vesica Piscis turned 90 degrees with lines extending out at one end to create the tail fin. Could just be a coincidence. Could have been intentional. Who knows.
Speaking of Paul, does the following verse indicate that Paul had relatives that were Christians? Is it likely that Paul became a Christian missionary due to the influence of his relatives?
Romans 16:7 (NRSV)
7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
“Relative” is probably a mistranslation here. The word means “compatriot” (either from the same race — Jewish — or nation)
Ok. Same question…Is it likely that Paul became a Christian/Christian missionary due to the influence of his compatriots? To me, it seems that he must have had some kind of influence other than his claimed vision of the risen Christ.
I think he probably heard of Christianity originally from compatriots, but that doesn’t seem to be what the verse is talking about.
Right. I was just trying to get a connection to what may have caused Paul to radically change his Jewish way of thinking. Perhaps he was influenced by compatroits/friends/relatives.
I think he had a vision of JEsus and that changed everything. What was happening psychologically is impossible to say….
Historically how do you think Paul converted from Judaism to a believer in Christ? I read in Paula Fredriksen’s book ” From Jesus to Christ” that Paul was most likely introduced to Christianity when early Christians were going to synagogues preaching their message. Paul was in synagogue and heard about Jesus, but was strongly opposed at first and became a persecutor (Gal 1:13 in his own words) but obviously later converted and believed in the ‘parousia’, the resurrection of Jesus and then spread the message throughout Asia Minor. Do you think this view is historically accurate in some way?
I think that’s a completely plausible scenario.
“One way to answer the question: what did a person need to do to be saved? For Jesus, it was repenting and keeping the law as God instructed (with the love commandments). But Paul does not say much about repentance and thought that keeping the law would decidedly not bring salvation. What mattered was Jesus’ death and resurrection, something that the historical Jesus almost certainly did not talk about. So … same or different?”
Much more similar than is oftentimes portrayed. Clearly the emphasis on teaching about Jesus as opposed to the teaching of Jesus himself cannot be denied as a major shift in focus. But, for those of us who follow some kind of subjective genitive understanding of the faithfulness of Jesus, this difference is mitigated quite a bit. It is not merely faith in Christ, but imitating the same faithfulness of Christ that is most essential.
And Paul is very much in agreement with Jesus’ view of the law: the law is fulfilled in one command, Love your neighbor as yourself (Gal 5,14 Rom 13,9-10 cf Gal 6,2 the Law of Christ, ie, messianic law).
And, as a good Jew, Paul certainly understood and taught the importance of repentance. See, for example:
Romans 2,4-5:
Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
2 Corinthians 7-9-10:
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death. Now I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance; for you felt a godly grief, so that you were not harmed in any way by us.
2 Corinthians 12,21:
I fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced.
Other passages that could be cited that do not use the word ‘repent’ but convey the same idea, for example:
Romans 8:5:
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Romans 12,1-2:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect.
1 Corinthians 15,34:
Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
Your contact email isn’t working: Question – Will you have a book signing in Asheville/Waynesville NC area this year for your latest book? I enjoyed your last signing and speaking in Waynesville in 2014.
Dennis
It’s *possible*, but we haven’t set one up yet. If so, it would be in Waynesville.
Please do! And thank you for taking the time to personally answer emails.
I think the key is their differing views on circumcision. Paul says circumcision is unnecessary for salvation. Jesus speaks approvingly of circumcision (it’s part of the Mosaic Law–not one jot or tittle, etc) in John 7:22-23. This alone makes be believe that they were preaching different religions.
I get your point but I don’t think either one of them were advocates of a new religion (leaving aside the “Forged” epistles of Paul).
Gould makes an interesting comment about Acts: As Gould argues, a fascinating story from Acts is Simon Peter’s famous “tablecloth vision” from Chapter 10 [It will be recalled that “Peter” (i.e., “Rocky”) is a nickname that Simon has acquired, presumably because his support of Jesus was “solid as a rock”.] Peter is going to be invited to dinner by a centurion, Cornelius from the Italica regiment in Caesarea, who is improbably described as “fearing God”, “giving many gifts to the poor”, and “supplicating God continuously” (Acts 10:1-2). Peter has a vision in which a heavenly tablecloth descends, covered with various animals, which he is instructed by a voice to “kill and eat. ‘Surely not, Lord!’ Peter replied. ‘I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.’ The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ ” (Acts 10:13-15). Later, Peter summarizes his visit: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:28). Gould argues this story is one of the most revealing and explosive in the entire New Testament. First, it demonstrates unequivocally that the whole “inclusivist message”, which is directly attributed to Jesus via innumerable Gospel stories, was in fact completely foreign to the historical Jesus. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary for Peter, one of his closest and “rockiest” supporters, to receive a vision about it well after Jesus’s death. Thus, this story, by itself, tells us that vast portions of the Gospels, in which Jesus is pictured as associating and engaging in table fellowship with all kinds of forbidden persons (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc) and dismissing Jewish dietary law in favor of a universalist, humanitarian message (“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.” Matt 15:10), are just invented from whole cloth. In fact, Gould thinks it is astonishing that anyone can remain a believing Christian after pondering this clumsy addendum to the Jesus Gospel stories. These are Gould’s thoughts anyway.
Longtime reader, first time questioner, Bart! When you say that Paul believed that “Christ died for the sins of others” is that different saying that Jesus died as a SUBSTITUTE for our sins. The belief that Jesus was born sinless so he could bear our sins developed over time, correct? I wonder if Paul would approve! Thanks!
Paul never says anything about Jesus being born sinless. But I would take “for your sins” to refer to some kind of substitionary atonement.
Bart do you know what ” Assembly of Demi gods ” is ? Thomas Jefferson referred to the men who drafted the Constitution as an “assembly of demigods? Just want to say it might be right In front of our faces when I comes to human history. Freemasons? Illuminati ? Secret societies? I would like to make a statement not that is accurate from my understanding knowledge now, but who’s knows it might be accurate when I say that all the way back to George Washington days, that had secret knowledge they held.? I think it’s fun and exciting to study and research and all. But human history is what I am big on. I know this is not Christantity in Antiquity but from Rod of Asclepius of side of ambulances to caduceus staff of Hermes ?
Jefferson referred to the men who drafted the Constitution as an “assembly of demigods,” so it was hardly a surprise when Congress decided to immortalize George Washington in a similarly magisterial fashion? Zeus was here. To Statue of Liberty? And the Olympics? Temple of Asclepius first western hospital and it was turned into a church ? Or Greek theatre to honor DIONYSUS where modern day Hollywood comes from ? Warner brothers and others were Freemasons. Not that this important, but Americans need to know what knowledge their founding fathers really had? Just blogging. Again human history, I am big on it. Off subject of library of Alexandria? times of homer, Herodotus, Atlantis ? Seems every where you turn, it is some shape or form from and or inspired by Ancient times. I can go on, but my quick question was ” ASSEMBLY OF DEMI GODS “? You know why Thomas Jefferson said this Bart ?
An assembly of demi-gods would be a group of semi-divine beings.
Lol right ! But why did Thomas Jefferson say this there !!?? Received the answer I was looking for !
Thank you very much Mr! demi gods !! They must love Zeus as much as I do !! Any body with real knowledge knows Zeus is sometimes called father Zeus! When Demi gods talk to him, they some times call him father Zeus. ” my father and my god, watch us as we pray ! We pray as you watch my god and my father ! ” Giants were here earth ! Giant knowledge ! Thanks Bart ! Assembly of Demi gods is self explanatory! Assembly of Demi gods ! Thanks again Bart !
I don’t know for sure, but I think he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, indicating that the Constitution was produced by people who were so inspired they were not mere mortals.
Dr. Ehrman, would you know of any books or other reliable literature on this topic of debate on the differences with Paul and Jesus’ teachings/ideologies?
I like the book on Paul and Jesus by Victor Paul Furnish.
How close do you think Paul’s beliefs in Romans 5:12+ were to later understandings of original sin?
Not very. The passage was certainly *used* by later authors to build their theological views; but those views were rooted in philosophical traditions and developments outside of Paul’s worldview.
Would you agree that this passage (Romans 5:12+) becomes foundational for traditional Christian theology (both Catholic and Protestant)? The connection between the Fall and the need for a savior seems well attested through the centuries.
Yup. Though the idea that there was a “fall” is a later Christian interpretation of Genesis.
How much later? When? By whom or through a gradual evolution?
Seems it was mighty close to the idea of The Fall by 100CE or so when the author the the Revelation of John wrote that the serpent was Satan. But I realize that’s not quite enough.
Do you over this in one of your books?
Can you recommend an article or book?
I’m not sure when the idea began to appear — but it is not teh way Jewish interpreters read Genesis. It’s a great set of questions though: maybe someone on the blog knows of bibliography on the interpretation of Genesis 2-3 in Jewish and Christian sources?
Well for a start Jesus was a jew and Paul was a christian. But of course Paul was also a jew. I think most people today put the focus on salvation so the answer probably depends on whether you think the method of salvation was fundamentally the same or different. I tend to lean more toward different personally, but it’s a good topic for debate. What about the question did Paul represent fundamentally the same religion as 19 year old Bart Ehrman?
Nope. And the 19 year old Bart Ehrman didn’t represent fundamentally the same religion as the 59 year old Bart Ehrman!
Interesting. What do you see as fundamentally different between your christian beliefs back then to Paul’s teachings?
I suppose Paul never taught that to be saved you have to “ask Jesus into your heart” (!)
I suppose neither did Jesus (would be a bit creepy if he did!) It’s funny we still talk as though the heart is the organ responsible for emotions. It sounds better than asking Jesus into your kidneys though.
Easy answer. They are fundamentally different. The key or fundamental proclamation Jesus declared as the most important commandment stated in Mk12 is the shema Deut 4:6, which is also acknowledged by the Rabbi as the fundamental truth That *He* God Almighty is One, Who alone is to be worshipped. Now Paul fundamentally has a different conceptualization or understanding of the shema to theologically/ christologically imply Jesus is a recipient of worship along with God Almighty. That is the key fundamental difference between the two.Difference between Jewish monotheism and Christological polytheism?
I may agree, but I don’t think it’s an easy answer!
Given their fundamental difference and understanding on the most important commandment of all – Deut 4:6 – consequently has distinctly influenced or molded their theological presumptions about Who the one God Almighty is and how He is to be conceptualized and how we engage in a devoted relationship with Him. There is a key fundamental difference on how Jesus and Paul define the ‘Oneness’ of God Almighty that has critical implications on how God is to be worshipped and understood. To me this fundamental difference is the key to understanding why Jesus and Paul taught fundamentally different theologies.
Paul does not redefine the “Oneness” of God. Later church fathers did. Paul (or someone claiming to be him) went so far as to say God highly exalted Jesus and seated him at his right hand (Right hand man). Later church fathers had to take it up 3 notches by proclaiming he was 1. divine from baptism, then 2. divine from birth, then 3. the second person of the trinity.
Hmm..some scholars would disagree with you on your point about Paul. Essentially, Paul’s creedal formulations seem to be expanding the OT Shema to include Jesus within Yahweh’s identity! Bauckham acknowledges that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is essentially a Christian expansion of the Shema. Bauckham believes that Paul intended to include Jesus in the identity of the one Lord of Jewish monotheism
You ment Deut 6:4 not 4:6, right!
Ha! Right. Scribal error.
Wow, based on the post above, I actually went and read Deut 4:6, expecting it to be the ‘core commandment’ of the Jewish faith. What I read (in that section of chapter 4) was basically a commandment to obey God. One could argue that that is as ‘fundamental’ as it gets, so it made sense to me and I started working that out in my mind.
Then I read a few posts later that I had been misled by a ‘Scribal error’ (‘Ha’, indeed!).
What a perfect illustration of the idea that simple, usually unintentional, “scribal errors” can sprout entirely new theological branches in the minds of subsequent readers. Where that new ‘branch’ goes from there depends on the motivations – as well as the level of influence – of those readers.
It literally just happened to me, and if I hadn’t seen the correction, I would have continued to believe that ‘obey God’ was the Shema, and not “love God’. Similar, to be sure, but not exactly so.
? Yes apologies!
I really want to take the side that they were fundamentally the same on this one, but I can’t seem to do it. The overarching goals of Paul and Jesus seem to be alike, and there’s qualities of their ministries that blend together, but on the most basic level, they are different. Paul changed the fundamentals by preaching Christ crucified and bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. He only observed Jewish law in order to convert people but didn’t truly believe in following the Torah any longer. Fundamental differences are what led him to have arguments with others. They disagreed on the most basic level. Without Paul changing the fundamentals, Christianity may have never went anywhere. It’s the largest religion in the world with a slew of fundamental differences.
I’d vote for fundamentally different. Jesus, by all Biblical accounts, predicted a new world order that would come about within the current generation. After his crucifixion, which must have come as a surprise to his followers, those left behind needed a different perspective.
As the reverend Peter Gomes summarizes it, Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God; the church came along preaching Jesus.
It might have the largest numbers of adherents but it still comprises only 31% of the global population. I might add, this is after 2,000 years of evangelism!
Bart,
Paul was not in favor or breaking the law only as regards the Ten Commandments. The rest of the teaching of Moses he found to be counter productive and an obstacle to salvation. Jesus was in favor of observing the Law of Moses, which at least according to Matthew means every jot and tittle, and not just the Ten Commandments.
There is something confusing when you write that Jesus was in favor of observing the Law of Moses, and Paul was against breaking it, when Paul was only against violating the Ten Commandments.
Uzi Weingarten
Would you agree that Paul didn’t discover or realize or find that the rest of “the teaching of Moses” was “counter productive and an obstacle to salvation” but that it was his opinion?
Sorry — I’m not understanding the options!
I question whether Paul “found” it to be case that the rest of “the teaching of Moses was counter productive and an obstacle to salvation.” To find something to be the case suggests it was true and merely waiting to be discovered, found or realized. I’m suggesting a more neutral position would to be to simply say that it was his opinion or belief.
This is a very helpful summary. Thanks as always for thinking and writing so clearly and concisely.
And, which side of the debate do you come down on?
End of the day: I see lots of similarities in their broad apocalyptic views and decisive differences in their specific religious perspectives and claims.
As I’m sure you’re aware Bernard Brandon Scott has written a book called The Real Paul in which he asserts that Paul was not a convert and had no intention whatsoever of forming a new religion, that his enemy was the Roman Empire, not the Jews, and that he was attempting to fulfill Hebrew Scripture– Israel is to be a nation of priests and a holy nation and to bring the message of God to all peoples (Exodus 19:6). Paul differed from Peter and the Jerusalem church in asserting that circumcision and those funny food laws weren’t necessary. Scott (who would dump “Acts” completely), then proposes that there are two covenants, one for the “original” Jews and the other for the converts, but all to be joined together in God’s kingdom. Your view of Paul may be somewhat like this. Is that a fair assessment—in simplistic terms?
I pretty much agree on the points about Paul not wanting to start a new religion; but completely disagree that for Paul there were two separate covenants. Paul is quite explicit that the new covenant in Christ is for both Jew and gentile.
I agree with you. I laughed when I read about the 2 covenants, but Dr. Scott is a very sincere guy, and he has been striving mightily to offset long term Christian demonization of the Jews.
Yes, the two-covenant thing didn’t originate with him. It is most famously argued by John Gager at Princeton (who learned it from others)
Bart, would you agree that, in all likelihood, first century Jews who had witnessed Jesus’ actions and teachings would not have rejected his teachings as beyond the pale of the Judaisms of their day? Paul may have been explicit that the new covenant was for both Jew and gentile but Paul’s intention or his own estimation of his gospel’s consistency with the Judaisms of his day doesn’t answer the question of whether his Gospel nevertheless went too far beyond the pale for most Jews to accept his as the same religion. In a way, it’s kind of odd for us to be debating this: didn’t the vast majority of first century Jews (and most Jews ever since) give the–or their answer–when they they rejected Paul’s additions and changes as too beyond the pale–that is, as too fundamentally different from Judaism as they knew it?
Yes, I’d agree: Jesus was, and was perceived to be, Jewish in every way. And yes, many non-Christian Jews certainly thought of Paul’s gospel (the core of which he inherited from others) as heretical invention.
Bart, you replied to me, “many non-Christian Jews certainly thought of Paul’s gospel (the core of which he inherited from others) as heretical invention.” I think we have surmised that from what we know about the numbers of Jews and Christians in first and succeeding centuries. right? But we don’t have any Jewish writings saying so, do we?
No, we don’t have any Jewish writings from Paul’s day evaluating his claims (or even mentioning him!) (then again, we don’t have many writings from his time)
I can’t think of the verses, but I have been told that Jesus prohibited [too strong?] teaching to the Gentiles (the little commission/lost sheep of Israel ?) That idea seems consistent with Jewish exclusivity. If that’s the case then is Paul’s shift to saving the Gentiles much more fundamental than it would otherwise seem
The verses that have always struck me re this point are: Matthew 15:24, “But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”; and Mark 7:27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs”. Both address the same event and in both versions, he relents and cures the non-Jewish daughter. So was he selectively inclusive?
Could you clarify a question about Paul? Was Paul advocating belief in the resurrection of Christ IN ORDER that the great mass salvation or was it individual? assumption into heaven could take place? (referred today I think among evangelicals as The Rapture?) Then Christ’s message had little to do with a life after death scenario? Due to a bunch of factors I’m unable to read blogs regularly enough to keep up .. sorry.
Sorry — I’m having trouble following your question!
Fair Enough .. hopefully I can better clarify my own thinking. Paul advocated that the belief in the resurrection of Christ lead to salvation … I guess I’m asking what the word “salvation” meant? I assumed that it meant the assumption into heaven and maybe this is an error? I had read that the assumption into heaven in early Christianity was thought to be an ‘in mass’ event rather than individual event and referred to today as The Rapture. (I think I’ll stop here and wait to learn if I am clearer before adding more). Am I any clearer now Dr. Ehrman??? (hopefully)
By “salvation” I think Paul meant that the individual would be saved from the wrath of God when destruction came at the end of the age (sometime next month…)
Next month!?? Holy socks! No more Game of Thrones!!?
Humm. Your answer nullifies my assumptions contained in the first hapless question because I was thinking Paul and Jesus taught differently about salvation. Then when did salvation signify entrance into heaven and not so much saved from God’s wrath at what must have been seen as an Armageddon?
Christians started seeing it this way as soon as they realized the apocalypse wasn’t about to happen soon. The new understanding is already reflected in the Gospel of John.
Bart,
Along these lines, your readers might be interested in an intriguing 2005 book I recently read entitled “The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity” by Rev. Jeffrey Butz, an ordained Lutheran minister. His central thesis is that Jesus’s younger brother, James — long overlooked in history despite his having led the Jerusalem “church” for 30 years after Jesus’s death — may have differed with St. Paul in some surprising ways (to me, anyway) regarding core theological tenets of early Christianity, in addition to their well-known difference on the primacy of Jewish food laws. He further makes the case that whoever or whatever James was, Jesus was also. Namely, that this Jesus of Jewish Christianity was significantly different from the Jesus of Paul — whose unique (and later!) theological understandings, however, came to dominate the Gentile Christianity we all inherited. Which explains, according to Butz, why the early Catholic Church felt the need to downplay, even suppress, James in the collective memory of its adherents.
Butz’s treatment of this controversial subject comes off (to me, anyway) as both well-researched and even-handed, in that he cites both conservative and liberal scholars, both Christian and Jewish, to make his overall case. Of course, he references your related 2003 book, “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew”, which I will be reading next.
Probing the theological similarities and differences between Jesus, on the one hand, and Paul on the other, is always fascinating and relevant. Thanks for this post, and your previous ones, on this subject.
It seems Jesus and Paul were as different as James R White and Joel Osteen.
Ha!
I guess I see this issue between Paul & Jesus as a much greater contrast. I go back to Jesus’ admonishment: “Solemnly I tell you that until Heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or smallest detail will pass away from the Law until all has taken place (Matthew.) That sounds fairly resolute and doesn’t seem to leave much room for compromise. Was Jesus a strict adherent to the Law and, as such, of Judaism? Wasn’t his brother James a notoriously strict adherent to Jewish Law? If the law wasn’t going to “pass away,” does that not imply that it needs to be followed? It seems to me that, if anything, Jesus was even stricter on this topic than others may have been. (Not the act of lusting but even lusting in your heart is a sin) I find the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah to be very problematic here. If he knew the Law the way it is implied in the NT, would he not have known that the Messiah was going to be a Jew? As messiah did he come to “change” or “fulfill” the Law? In my amateur opinion, Jesus was a Jew through and through, and Paul was an opportunistic charlatan, nothing more. My late wife (who professed to be an atheist) used to tell me if you wanted Jesus’s message, tear all the letters of Paul & Acts out of your Bible, then read it. You’ll come away with a totally different story.
doctor ehrman
i have a question on the 500 witnesses
if one were to assume there were 500 witnesses , how come paul is the only source for this information and where is he getting the line “500 witnesses” from? who is he hearing it from? from the witnesses? from some one who heard from some one who heard from someone?
second question
if there were 500, how come in acts,
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[a] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
is this the ONLY believing group remaining?
what is going on here?
Yes, we know of the 500 only from Paul, and it is nearly impossible to validate. Acts knows nothing about them.
does acts only know of 120 christian believers before the mass conversions at pentecost?
Yup.
Bart, are you familiar with Rev. Peter Gomes’ formulation? Something like, Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God and then Paul came along preaching Jesus [Christ].
No, hadn’t heard that.
Dr Ehrman,
As you say, Paul’s belief was that Christ died for the sins of others.
Did Jesus ever say that this is what he intended to do?
Where did this idea come from?
Jesus says similar things in the Gospels. The question is whether the historical man himself said such things. I think the answer is Definitely Not.
So the question then is where did the idea come from?
From later theological speculation, especially by Augustine.
If Paul believed that Christ died for the sins of others and Jesus never said that this is what he intended to do, then the idea must have originated either from one of the disciples or from Paul himself.
If Jesus really was divine, he could have saved himself from crucifixion but, since he did not do so, the logical conclusion is that he must have sacrificed himself.
The idea that Jesus was divine and sacrificed himself for the sins of others is fundamental to Christianity and to Paul’s epistles, but it has no relevance to Judaism.
To return to the original topic of debate:- Is it not the case that Paul was a Christian but Jesus was a Jew and these are two fundamentally different religions?.
Paul certainly did *not* think they were two different religions! Neither did most every other Christian we know about in his day.
Would you explain in the future the difference between the Jewish understandings of Torah? My understanding from the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding Torah is not whether or not a person should follow Torah, but which Torah: the Oral Torah or the Written Torah. Paul, as a Pharisee, would have accepted both. When Paul became a Christian he rejected the Oral and Written Torah as means of obtaining salvation. Jesus appears to adhere only to the Written Torah–as interpreted by himself. The result is that Jesus appears more lenient than the Pharisees on certain issues (you do not have to wash your hands before eating), but on other issues Jesus make the Written Torah stricter by internalizing the teachings (lustful thoughts for a woman in God’s eyes equates to adultery and divorce and remarriage is a sin). Moreover, Jesus believed it was actually possible to follow his teachings on the Written Torah, and he accepts that there are righteous people who do not need him. (Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17) Paul, on the other hand, assumes that no one can properly follow the Torah and everyone’s salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. This begs the question as to why God would have forced his chosen people to adhere to laws He knew they could not fulfill rather than have Jesus come 500,000-250,000 years ago. This would have saved more people (and multiple species of humans). And it would eventually spare the Jews from the burden of being continually punished for failing to follow commandments God knew no human could ever keep.
I don’t think for Jewish sects it was a matter of “which” Torah. It was a matter of “how.” How does one best follow Torah? Was it by amplifying it through oral laws that explained what it was really meaning to legislate (as in the oral Torah)? Was it by elucidating its over arching principles (as in Jesus)? Was it by following the law both literally and figuratively? Or something else?
In Deuteronomy 30:8-141, we can see that there are not only the commandments and statutes to follow but the commandment to follow them. About that commandment, God says to Israel, “For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it” (11-14). Let’s repeat four of those words, emphasizing one: “you CAN do it.” Did God just toying with them, jerking them around, knowing they were required to do this perfectly but never could? That’s what Paul would have you conclude. Paul’s worldview fails to align at times with some basics of that shared by most Jews. He disagrees with God.
Also, there are figures in the Hebrew Scriptures like Noah, Caleb, Hezeki’ah, Josi’ah, Job whom, the authors say, were totally righteous before God. The Pharisees were the sages of the people who helped the people understand how they might fulfill Torah when some of its laws were ambiguous or hard to apply to life. Jesus was doing the same. Out of all the Judaisms we know of in the early first century, Jesus was most like the Pharisees.
A good book on the subject (I think, anyway,) is Hyam Maccoby’s “The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity.” He comes down pretty hard on Paul for “making up” or his “artistic license” with scripture, but also asserts fairly strongly that Jesus WAS a Pharisee. He gives a number of examples where Jesus is questioned by Pharisees and seems at least to answer the question to their satisfaction.
I smell the aroma of the subject of another trade book wafting on the breeze:
The Historic Jesus and James Vs. The Historic Paul – the saga of two religions and how one became dominant and superseded the other
Certainly a subject that endlessly fascinates.
One religion became dominant but did not dominate Judaism. “Supersede” means “take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant something old & no longer useful.” Your subtitle would have to be revised since, while the conservative Christian view is that the Gospel or Christianity supersedes Judaism, this is certainly not the Jewish point of view. As one Jew said to me, “Judaism kept right on living and evolving and is quite alive and well, thank you very much.”
Your response to Blackwell was that Paul certainly did not think they were two different religions. The question at the outset was whether they are, not whether Paul thought they were. By a similar token, Mormons call themselves and think of themselves as Christians. But some have questioned whether, even thought they share a basic belief in Christ with most Christians, they can even be considered to be a monotheistic, biblical religion at all since they believe they each have the potential to become gods just like god, before he was god and was a man like Mormons today, became God.
I think God wanting to fully embrace his ability to join humanity let himself be born with limits on his human intellect, ie he didn’t know he was God, he was a thirty something jew who thought God had called him to be a prophet or even THE messiah but in context of what a 30 something Jew of his time, location and education would have been able to discern, and only after he finished his earthly mission did he feel a need to reach out to St.Paul in a vision cause the disciples in Jerusalem like wise saddled with intellectual limitations of time, location, and culture were unable to grasp the sense salvation applied to all humanity not just jews.
Every religion has its stories, its myths. In Hinduism, the divine became human by becoming humans. As Muktananda used to say and write, “God in in us: AS us.” Writers in the New Testament (and you) claim that God did this and wanted that and became that. People create God and gods in their own images all the time and always have. For some reason, it seems that you think it literally happened that God/Jesus really “reached out to St. Paul” (actually Saul) which he could just as easily done to the “disciples in Jerusalem [who were] likewise…..unable to grasp the sense salvation applied to all humanity not just Jews.” For that matter, he could have “reached out” to everyone and stopped the 2,000 disagreements before they ever started. We know what Paul and the authors of Luke/Acts and the other Gospels wrote. I do not think we know if their claims about what God intended or wanted or did are true. The chances are, I think, that, if Jesus believed himself to be the messiah (which I do not capitalize because Jews did not expect the messiah to be divine), he would have taken his job to be that which most Jews expected the messiah would undertake: to drive out the enemies of the Jews, restore the nation Israel, and usher in the Kingdom of God. The messiah was for the salvation of Israel. I think the probability is that people after Jesus created the story that he came for the salvation of souls–all souls, Jews and gentile alike. Jews, although they knew they sinned, had ways to deal with that and did not believe that Genesis 2-3 told a story of the Fall of humankind from which all souls need redemption. And they were right: if you read those chapters literally, you will find no such story there.
God is. All else is speculation. All else is theology, man’s study of God. It seems man tends to worship the messenger. Jesus was the messenger. There is that of God within each of us. It would be good to learn to see it and cultivate that which is of God. God is love. God is good. All else will follow. Jesus was right in saying that we should love God above all else and our neighbor as ourselves. We have made it so difficult. It was not meant to be so.
Most of what you assert here (including “God is”) is theology and speculation portrayed as fact.
A real eye opener for me when I read Paul state he was our father in Christ, just after I read in a different book that Jesus stated “God is your father in Christ, and Christ is your teacher” Many believe that Luke wrote the book of Acts , he did not travel with Peter but did travel with Paul. Also I noted that Paul had made a trip to Arabia to learn of Christ and think that was after the death of Jesus. Then I asked myself if Paul was stating he was equal to Our God, but lesser than the God of the Jewish peoples.
Did Paul ever condone Incest?
1 Corinthians 7:36
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.
From , A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures, By Geoffrey W. Sutton (pg. 215):
“There is another curious passage in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. The meaning hinges on how people translate ‘auto parthenos’ (his virgin). Some have attacked Paul and his teaching for justifying father-daughter incest. Others interpret the verses to mean that Paul was offering guidance in how a father could handle plans for the marriage of daughter to her finace.”
https://books.google.ca/books?id=envhCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=%221+corinthians+7:36%22+incest&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjysM-4t5PUAhWL24MKHeHrAQkQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=%221%20corinthians%207%3A36%22%20incest&f
No, he’s not talking about incest. he’s talking about giving his virgin daughter away in marriage.