We could deal forever with the question of the historical accuracy of Acts. There are entire books devoted to the problem and even to *aspects* of the problem, and different scholars come to different conclusions. My own view is that since Acts is at odds with Paul just about every time they talk about the same thing, that it is probably not to be taken as very accurate, especially in its detail. In yesterday’s post I dealt with a couple of places where it’s portrayal of Paul’s *actions* seem to be at odds with what Paul himself says; in today’s, my last post on the topic, I speak about Paul’s *teachings/views* and come to the same conclusion. I’ll pick just one example, and again, draw my remarks from comments I’ve made elsewhere in print.
***************************************************************
Almost all of Paul’s evangelistic sermons mentioned in Acts are addressed to Jewish audiences. This itself should strike us as odd, given Paul’s own repeated claim that his mission was to the Gentiles. In any event, the most famous exception is his speech to a group of philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens (chapter 17). Here Paul explains that the Jewish God is in fact the God of all, pagan and Jew alike, even though the pagans have been ignorant of him. Paul’s understanding of pagan polytheism is reasonably clear here: pagans have simply not known that there is only One God, the creator of all, and can thus not be held accountable for failing to worship the one whom they have not known. That is to say, since they have been ignorant of the true God, rather than willfully disobedient to him, he has overlooked their false religions until now. With the coming of Jesus, though, he is calling all people to repent in preparation for the coming judgment (Acts 17:23-31).
A lot of people (naturally) assume that Paul really said what the Book of Acts says he said. But did he? Keep reading. If you’re not a blog member, you’ll need to join first. You will bless the day you did so till you pass off your mortal coil.
When you wrote the other day that “suffering is no longer a ‘problem’ for me, just a horrible reality”, does it not now impinge in any way on your reflections about God? Are you completely able to dismiss it from an understanding that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving then he ought to prevent suffering?
Yes, I don’t believe in a God like that. If I did, I’d still have a problem explaining suffering.
Do you also think that the Lukan Paul has a non-Pauline belief in resurrection and judgement? Acts 17:31 describes Jesus as a human judge (the Man), whereas Paul probably considers Jesus as no longer a flesh and blood man, but a spiritual archangel. Acts 24:15 declares there will be a resurrection of the wicked, whereas Paul probably believed in a transformation of the living and resurrection of only the righteous (i.e. the worthy of getting the upgrade). What are your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy?
I would say that the resurrection narrative in Luke 24 suggests that the body that went into the tomb was exactly the body that came out, with wounds and digestive track. Paul probably didn’t think that. I don’t know if Acts 17:31 has that view or not. Paul probably did believe in the resurrection of the wicked, but it was so they could be destroyed once and for all. I discuss this in my book on heaven and hell.
A persuasive and thought provoking thesis supporting the view that the author of Acts probably did not really know Paul very well and, hence, his description of Paul in Acts Is not completely historically accurate.
Readers new to this blog should read Dr. Ehrman’s textbook on “The New Testament” which is a terrific book.
What do you think of the idea that ACTS was composed at least in part as an attempt to heal a breach between the Pauline churches and the Jewish church? To reestablish a severed connection? This line of thinking presupposes that the conflict between Paul and James was rather more serious than portrayed and may have resulted in an actual schism. And of course recognizes that the Jerusalem church would have been destroyed or at least marginalized in the aftermath of the First Revolt. Maybe ACTS was search for roots and in the process heal some wounds and smooth over some bumps?
Yes, definitely, and the breach between Paul and Peter in particular.
I don’t see a breach between Paul and Peter. Paul chastised him for being intimidated by the “circumcision party.” Paul’s entire battle was with the unnamed members of this “circumcision party” — seen in Acts 11:2, Galatians 2:12, and Titus 1:10. They continued to insist that the gentiles be circumcised and keep the whole Torah (Acts 15:5), even after James ruled that they did not need to convert. Many of us Jews don’t have any hesitancy to eat at table WITH gentiles; it doesn’t mean we are eating treif, and Paul wasn’t telling Peter to eat non-kosher food. In Acts, Paul claims to be Torah-observant, and non-Christian Pharisees affirm that he is (Acts 23:9, 28:21). James affirmed that he knew Paul was observant: Acts 21:24.
Yes, if you go by the book of Acts, there was no breach. It’s only if you stick to what the one eyewitness says about it (Paul) that you see there may have been a problem. It’s often thought that Acts wanted to smooth over the difficulty to make Christianity look unified from the outset.
Christianity began its internal battles in Acts 15:5 when “believers of the party of the Pharisees” insisted that the Gentiles who wanted to join them be circumcised and observe the Torah of Moses. None of them are named; rather, they are referred to as “the circumcision party.” Paul refers to them in Titus 1:10 as “insubordinate.” Insubordinate to whom? Most likely insubordinate to James who ruled that the Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism but need only follow the Noahide laws. It seems to me that this “circumcision party” evolved into the Ebionites as the Ebionites wanted nothing to do with Gentiles and hated Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. Christianity as structured under James, consisting of Torah-observant Jews and Noahide Gentiles is nowhere to be seen after the destruction of the Temple.
I’m new here and I’m excited to dive in and learn as much as I can. My first question is which Bible translation is the most accurate to read and study? I currently have KJV and NIV
I prefer the NRSV as the least slanted theologically toward the views of the translators.
At the beginning of “Luke’s” gospel he states clearly that the story is the result of investigation, not personal eyewitness. There is nothing at the beginning of Acts to counter this. Surely if the author was an eyewitness to some of the events he would have stated so, rather than leave his readers think it was just the result of investigation. Perhaps the “we” passages were spliced into his story from his sources without explanation or good editing. Question: do you think Acts was written separately from the Gospel, or written as one and split up later (in which case his intro to the gospel clearly also applies to Acts).
They were written later, but I think the author meant them to be read together so that vol 1 and it’s preface is meant to cover both of them (as teh preface to vol. 2 suggests)
The *blinding* light story in Acts and Paul’s repeated claims to have *seen* the reincarnated Jesus on that occasion seem to be in conflict. Do you know what the party line is reconciling the stories, especially considering he had not previously laid eyes on Jesus?
Yup!
The predominant view of the beginning of Romans typically suggests something akin to this outline: Theme: The Guilt of Mankind:
—Ch. 1 Addressing the guilt of the Gentiles.
—Ch. 2 Addressing the guilt of the Jews.
—Ch. 3 Addressing the guilt of the both.
But is this what Paul is really doing? It’s possible, due to the absence of any designation of race in chapter one that Paul is actually addressing the Jews & Jewish Christians in chapters 1 – 4 et. al. and not referring to pagans. Perhaps Paul is employing Nathan’s tactic in dealing with David (the “you are the man!” tactic in 2 Sam. 12 & compare with “O man” at Rom. 2:3, NASB). Moreover, the OT quotes in chapter 3 are all from contexts that judge the OT Israelites.
So if Jews & Jewish Christians are Paul’s actual focus and not pagans, then it would not be the case that Paul is soft on pagans in Acts and hard on them in Romans (in other words he’s not addressing them). Instead, he’s being stern with hard-hearted Jews in Romans (because unlike pagans, the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (3:1-3) and thus /they/ ought to know better) and, as per usual, he’s being gentle on pagans in Acts 17 because (consistent with Jesus) it’s a better evangelistic method and, they have not had the “oracles” & “Law” so as to know better.
In short, Paul is consistent. Hard on those who should know better and gentle with those who do not.
The motive could be the opposite — Paul wished to maintain popularity amongst the converted and therefore was overly-harsh on pagans in Romans, when in fact he was very lenient, as described in Acts. Given that Paul’s contribution to Christianity was its expansion to non-Jews, including pagans, I’d bet he was soft on paganism. But the real difference seems to split along the pagans’ consciousness of guilt — mens rea. In Acts, they are not aware of the one true god and have acted in ignorance — all very forgivable. In Romans, the pagans know there is one true god and have acted wrongly in defiance of him, therefore a harsher judgment is due. It all depends upon whether the pagans know they’re doing wrong. Hence, there really isn’t a contradiction. Pagans who are ignorant are treated one way, while pagans who are defiant are treated another, less lenient, way.
Great post Bart.
Apologists go to Luke (Acts) and Mark alot (Claiming Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke and Acts) . Thanks for clearing this up.
Dominic
Sorry, this is an off post question. What guarantee have we that Jesus himself ever called himself the Messiah or the king of the Jews? For example the then prince and regent emirate of Ethiopia- Haile salessi was worshipped as Jesus reincarnation by the Rastafarians but when he was interviewed he made it clear that he was not Jesus, that he was just a mortal man.
Now looking at the Bible we will see this same incident happened with John the Baptist where he was called Elisha even by Jesus but when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elisha he answered No!
My second question is that did all jesus’ disciples see him as the Messiah?
No guarantee. But I think it’s likely — even if the argument for it has to be a bit complicated. I’ve posted on it before. I’ll think about returning to it.
I find the conversion of Paul very interesting and is probably the most puzzling for me. I wish there was more information on it. Did he really have a vision or was he converted in the typical fashion of word of mouth? Was he perhaps bored with the standard Jewish religion and sought something new and therefore went on a new journey (spreading Christianity) that he found exciting? A teller of tall tales? I guess we will never know. According to all that is written about it in the NT Paul had a vision of someone he believed to be Jesus. His conversion is a tremendously important element of Christian history and one apologists use quite frequently. Is there any other (contemporary or close to it) reports of his conversion outside of the NT?
No,m there’s no record about him at all, in any way, outside the NT until a brief reference to his missionary work and death in 1 Clement (ca. 95 CE)
Paul doesn’t strike me as a guy who would tell “white lies” even if it was in the interest of winning converts. So great was his integrity for the truth he was punished and abused repeatedly and ultimately died for it. Also what need does someone of his intelligence and skill with words have for lying to achieve his ends. Do we have other examples of him telling “white lies” to win converts?
The only thing that is close is when, in 1 Corinthians, he says he became a Jew to win Jews and a non-Jew to win gentiles, in 1 Cor. 9:20. That could obvioulsy be taken in a number of ways.
I take it this way; he became a Jew (spiritual – a true Jew circumcised of the heart) to win Jews (carnal – circumcised flesh) and a “non-Jew” (no longer carnal) to win gentiles as a means to reconciling carnal Jews to God. So I wouldn’t say this is an example of a lie told in the interest of winning converts. I’d say it’s quite truthful.
Red Ink fan here: Once again I must confess to enjoying the red ink almost as much as the post!!
I believe I truly will ” bless the day (I) did so till (I) pass off (my) mortal coil. “
I, on the other hand, find the red ink annoying and disruptive (especially when the continuation repeats a sentence or a fragment of a sentence). I am sure that it would be trivial to program the page so that those of us who have paid for access would not have to see this interruption.
To me, there is a more striking difference — the one regarding the reason for the death of Jesus and its relation to salvation, like you said in your books and this blog. According to Paul (and other NT authors), Jesus died for the atonement of the sins, and salvation comes through faith in Jesus. This stands in the core of Paul’s teatchings. However, according to Luke, Jesus’s death provides no atonement. This is a little confusing to me, so forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think Luke’s view is that salvation comes through repentance and subsequent forgiveness by Jesus/God. So it is hard to imagine the author of Luke as a disciple of Paul. It would make much more sense if the author of Mark were Paul’s disciple, for instance.
I would like to ask you: how many scholars recognize this difference I mentioned? Is it a minority or a majority view? I know evangelicals and conservative scholars will deny any such contradictions, but what about other scholars?
It’s probalby a miniority view. Most people see atonement everywhere because that’s what they’ve been told and trained to see.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with me here? I really don’t know where the Prof. is coming from at all. i.e. of course he would’ve been seen as a living being here on Earth who returned from death, that’s the whole key to it beng a resurrection, is it not?
Me: When I was young I pictured Jesus as a ghost, but this seems like it would be wrong because ghosts are weak, faded images, so do you agree Jesus was probably seen in a more vibrant way than a ghost, because resurrection was something powerful, you wouldn’t be weaker than before, does this make sense?
Prof.: “Nobody, least of all Paul, saw Jesus as a living, human figure on earth. That’s not what the ancients thought epiphanies were.”
No, I disagree with his quotation. Both sentences. I think both are demonstrably wrong. BUT, it somewhat depends on what he actually means by “living, human figure.” He could mean something different from what I do. If he means “mere mortal,” then yes, of course that’s right.
One of the intriguing issues in the Paul vs Acts questions for me is the question of circumcision for Jewish Christians. Paul certainly takes an extremely negative attitude toward the circumcision of Gentiles, and Acts seems to confirm this. But it shows Paul as accepting it -even practicing it- for Jewish Christians who were not yet circumcised, at least in the case of Timothy. [16.3] Is this report credible? Is it a case of Paul being a “Jew to the Jews,” or should we dismiss it as a case of Acts papering over the differences between Paul and the Jerusalem church?
I think it is precisely in-credible. Paul says explicitly that it’s what he *refused* to do with Timothy!
Unless Paul deals with Timothy elsewhere, I think you are confusing Titus [a Gentile acc to Gal 3.3] with Timothy [who had a Jewish mother and was therefore a Jew]. In Galatians, Paul points out that the Jerusalem church did not require a Gentile Christian, namely Titus, to be circumcised. In Acts, he causes the circumcision of the technically Jewish Timothy to satisfy Jewish objections. And he reportedly takes part in a Temple ritual in Acts 21 to prove that he doesn’t “teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children.”
So my question is not satisfactorily answered, unless I have missed something.
I’m confused about the thread of the conversation, but I was saying that Paul refused to circumcise the Gentile Titus, quite vehemently, in Galatians; but Acts reports that he willingly without reservation circumcised Timothy in Acts. The fact that his mother was a Jew did not make Timothy a Jew. He was raised as a gentile. The two accounts are usually seen as a discrepancy.
Thanks for clarifying. But even though Timothy might have been raised as a Gentile, the Jewish community may have argued otherwise. Certainly Acts 21 takes the attitude that Paul was willing to bow to Jewish public opinion regarding the circumcision of Jewish Christians. It’s to prove this that he supposedly goes to the Temple in a public act demonstrating his solidarity with Jewish tradition [and gets arrested]. So my original question remains: Do you think Paul’s attitude was that it was OK for Jewish Christians to circumcise their sons? For Acts the answer is clearly yes, while in Paul’s letter the answer isn’t as clear. He tries to be “all things to all people” but how far is he willing to bend in order to do that? I lean toward the opinion that Paul’s teaching on this was probably similar to his teaching on food sacrificed to idols: you don’t need to obey the commandments [yes to circumcise and not to eat food sacrificed to idols], BUT if it offends your brother if you do not obey, then obey.
I guess the point is that Paul himself is insistent that Jews and Gentiles have the same way of salvation, and it has nothing to do with circumcision, to the point where he insisted that if the non-circumcised Galatians got circumcised they had invalidated their relationship with God in Christ; later he says that he hopes when those urging them to be circumcised had it done to themselves (showing they were non-circumcised) he hopes they are “cut off”. English translations tone it down, obviously, but it’s very sarcastic. he doesn’t believe in yielding to jewish sensitivities, and didn’t do so himself (didn’t keep the law when he was with gentiles) So there’s nothing to suggest it was the sort of thing he would do and lots to suggest it wasn’t
Thanks! I agree that Paul is extremely adamant about this in Galatians. However, just as he toned down his rhetoric in Romans on this point, I wonder if he might have been more open to compromise later on. After all, in Galatians he is writing in anger against the Judaizers, who were perverting his “gospel to the Gentiles.” But the story Acts describes a period where Paul is on his way to Jerusalem on a mission or reconciliation with his fellow Jewish Christians. One thing for certain: the “Paul” of Acts is very different from the Paul of Paul!
Replying to Bart, Feb. 25. Since when did a child of a Jewish mother NOT be a Jew? Of course Timothy was a Jew and obligated to all of the 613 law of the Torah, no matter how he was raised. Though Paul did not have any personal obligation to circumcise Timothy, he would have wanted him to be circumcised (1) because it is a mitzvah, and (2) people may have questioned why he was not.
Are you familiar with the book, “Jesus the Pharisee,” by Rabbi Harvey Falk. Rabbi Emden discusses this subject.
The idea that to be a Jew required a Jewish mother is modern. I believe there are some Israelis on teh blog, but my sense is that it was related to Zionism and the founding of the state of Israel: who would count as a Jew? It obviously wouldn’t be enough to say your *father* was, since, techncally, it’s almost impossible to prove who your father was. But not your mother.
Did Paul really prosecuted chirstians? The roman authorities allowed that?
He admits to “persecuting” the church. The bit about bringing them to Jerusalem in chains comes from Acts, so this is not Paul’s own claim. It wouldn’t be under Roman law authority though, in any case. Acts claims he was working for the high priest of Judaism at the time.
My guess is that Paul was paid by Romans, through the Sadduccees, to try to stop the Christian messianic movement which would have been viewed as an insurrection. They may have convinced him that it was in the best interests for Jews to stop this movement which was getting on Rome’s nerves. He later regretted it.
Karite Judaism, which like the earlier Sadducees does not accept the oral law, generally accepts patrilineal descent for identifying who is Jewish. Talmudic Judaism generally accepts matrilineal descent for identifying who is Jewish. But there are (always) dissenting opinions, for exampl b Yebamot 17a.
Dr. Ehrman,
So according to Paul, (Romans 11:25-30) Jews will eventually accept Jesus as messiah before the end of the age?
That’s my reading of it.
Dr. Ehrman,
So if Paul believes all Jews will be saved, does he believe in hell? And if so, would it only be for Gentiles who did not accept Jesus?
I’ll be dealing with this in my forthcoming book. But basically, no, he’s not talking about hell. Being “saved” for Paul refers to being delivered from the coming desturction to arrive with Jesus’ return. Paul has no concept of people’s souls going to “hell” for eternal punishment.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think, perhaps based on some things he says in 1 Thess., that Paul believed in a chance for salvation at the general resurrection/return of Christ? (Because in the later writings of the NT, it seems like things were trending more strict, and that as soon as earthly death takes place, our fates are sealed one way or another).
No, I think by then it would be too late, for Paul
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you still think that Peter and James sacrificed animals after Jesus’ death and resurrection, or would they have seen Jesus himself as the forgiveness for sin?
Either the latter or both. they may have continued to sacrifice because that was the law of God.
Acts is the most important book of the Christian bible. It shows a semi-chronological history that the Jesus messianic movement started out with exclusively Jewish followers and that at least a dozen years passed before they began to accept Gentiles. Acts 10 thru 14 discusses “a door being opened” to the Gentiles. That they questioned (Acts 15:5) whether the gentiles needed to convert to Judaism means that those who were born Jews continued to observe the entire Torah of Moses. That they decreed the gentiles did not have to means they embraced dual-covenant theology at that point. All of this blows up what the second-century church fathers taught. Paul was assigned to be an apostle to the Gentiles. This follows the opinion of Rabbi Jacob Emden, whose letter was published in a book by Rabbi Harvey Falk, entitled “Jesus the Pharisee” (1985). The false rumor that Paul was teaching Jews not to observe the Torah was acknowledged by James as false in Acts 21:24 in which he reportedly said, “…thus all will know that there is nothing in what has been said about you, but that you, yourself, live in observance of the Law [Torah].” Most of the confusion about Paul has to do with not understanding there are different laws for Jews and for gentiles and that almost all of what he taught was for gentiles. Another interesting aspect of Acts which is largely ignored is that the Jesus-messianic sect was respected by non-Christian Jews. Although none of this can be proven by outside sources, it is critically important and credible that the author of Acts wanted to communicate this idea in so many places. This means — in fact — that the author of Acts wanted to show that the followers of Jesus did not believe he was God. The gospels (Matthew and John) show that Jews believed that anyone who claimed to be God was a blasphemer; logically, if his followers believed that, they too would be considered as blasphemers and idolaters as well. But they weren’t. Acts 5:13 says they were “held in high honor” by other Jews. Acts 5:39 has the president of the Sanhedrin, Rabban Gamaliel, saying their movement might be “of God.” In Acts 23:9 and 28:21, non-Christian Jews “find nothing wrong” in Paul. First century Christianity did NOT believe Jesus was God.
Dr. Ehrman,
This is what he said….(remember this is the prof. with the quirky view of seeing things). Do you know about this? Or even so, do you agree with me that this has nothing to do with the apostles seeing/believing they actually saw the resurrected Jesus?
Me: Is there an ancient writer who describes eyes as pathways to the soul?
Prof.: “Well, Galen, the philosopher & physician, for a physiological-medical description. It’s alluded to in other texts.”
Yes. And it depends what you mean.
Dr. Ehrman,
Just to clarify: You concur that Galen’s writings/philosophies have nothing to do with the apostles seeing/believing they saw the resurrected Jesus, is that correct?
No.
Dr. Ehrman,
I thought your position was that they thought they saw him in plain view with their eyes, NOT some esoteric “hole in the soul” (like Galen’s philosophy). Please clarify.
It seems esoteric to us. But however they understood what it meant to “see” something, it did not mean what *we* mean to “see” something, since they had ancient understandings of how sight worked, not modern scientific understandings. Ancient common sense typically sounds esoteric to modern ears. However hearing works….
Dr. Ehrman,
So how did it work? Stare at a wall and then say hold on let me swish that image around in my “soul” (whatever that means exactly) and hey, what do you know? Actually it’s not a wall but Jesus! If there’s a better analogy please let me know! Because this is what I get from such a theory.
Yes, it’s very difficult to think in the ways people in other cultures do. What is common sense to them is nonsense to us, and what is commonsense to us would have been nonsense to them.
Dr. Ehrman,
That doesn’t make sense. In Jesus’ time they still had to rely on their eyes, didn’t they? How else would they operate in the world? I think you are starting to contradict what you said before. Before you said that they were convinced they saw the risen Jesus in plain sight, and it took them by surprise, (but just happened to actually be hallucination). BUT
Now it sounds like they just deliberately imagined whatever they wanted whenever and then disingenuously passed it off as authentic eyewitness testamony.
I’m clearly not getting through here! They claimed they saw Jesus. What did they think were the physiological mechanics of how a person “saw” something? They weren’t scientists, and so had no clue. If they did have a clue, they would have accepted what scientists of their day said, not what scientists of our day say. It might seem like hocus pocus, but how were they supposed to understand the nature of light and the anatomy of the eye and and the visual functions of the brain in 21st century terms when they lived in the 1st century?
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for your patience. I think there was a disconnect. I think that prof. threw things way off. His way of trying to explain things left me with the impression that he was saying something along the lines of: Jesus’ followers thought they had something like a third eye that they used at will to conjure up preplanned visions of things. So in that way they could have literally and intentionally dreamed up an image of whoever, whenever and then just said so and so was raised from the dead. BUT I think that you would agree that this description goes too far into left field, am I correct? I think your hypothesis is much more straightforward and goes like this: The apostles were generally honest people who routinely operated using their regular eyesight just as we do day-to-day, when sometime after Jesus’ death they were surprised when they (were truly convinced they) saw a physical appearance of the resurrected Jesus. This would have also convinced them that Jesus’ remains were no longer in the ground. Do I have your position all correct now? or what would you change?
I dont’ know what htis professor said, or what he might have had in mind. But as you know, I think that his followers who said he was raised though that his body was no longer in the ground.
What order were the various Epistles of Paul written in, and is their theology consistent throughout, or jump around (as one might expect from random copying/editing errors), or evolve, as though toward some growing consensus or party line? Can we assume that all of the forgeries were written after all of the real letters?
It’s debated. Usually it’s thought that 1 Thessalonians was first, Romans last, and the others? Possibly in the order they appear in the canon. His thinking *may* have evolved; my forthcoming book on the afterlife argues his views on what happens to the Xn at death did change as he got older. It’s usually thought the forgeries are later not because they *couldn’t* have been produced earlier but because the theology and situations they presuppose make better sense a few decades after Paul’s death.
I don’t see what you are describing in the actual texts. Paul does not say Pagans believe in the “one God” in Romans – obviously they don’t. In both Romans and Acts he is explaining that all people see glimpses of the one God. He says the Greeks worship that God in ignorance. That is different than saying they are completely ignorant of that God.
Romans:
“being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
Nothing in Acts suggests Paul thinks Greeks would be ignorant that these things are wicked. That seems quite a stretch. This is basic morality that God informs all people by writing his law on their hearts.
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
In other words don’t claim you didn’t know murder and deceit was wrong because Christ Jesus will know your thoughts and these laws were written on your hearts. (I argue we can not learn what “should be” except by God.) In Acts he explains that with understanding comes more responsibility and therefore more culpability if we fail. So in acts the Greeks should repent for what they did once they learn more completely God’s path. (see also Corinthians 5:1 “…even pagans…”)
All people sometimes knowingly do wrong and sometimes do wrong out of ignorance. And when you do so knowingly you are more culpable. These are common sense views/beliefs and there is no reason to think Paul (as described in Acts or understood by his own letters) didn’t hold those beliefs.
Dr. Ehrman,
In a book by Prof. Henry Wansbrough he writes of the Passage in Romans: “Jesus did not become the Son of God at Resurrection, but it was then he became ‘Son of God in power.'” Why do you think this is incorrect and Adoptionism is the way to go?
It has long been thought (argued) by scholars that Paul is taking over an adoptionistic creed and that he himself added the words “in power” to correct the older form of adoptinism in the creed.
Dr. Ehrman,
So then do you think Paul wrote Philippians 2:6-11himself? Because that gives the impression that Jesus was pre-existent.
No, I think he’s quoting an earlier poem that he fully agrees with. You really should read my book How Jesus Became God, because I deal with all these kinds of issues there!
Dr. Ehrman,
1 Corinthians 15:54-55 seems to echo Isaiah 25:8, Isaiah 26:19, and Hosea 13:14. Would these be good verses to cite to show to critics that Paul believed in bodily resurrection? Or else, in something merely “spiritual” how would Death really be swallowed up in victory, correct?
No, verses from the OT will not show you what someone living centuries later beleived.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks, that’s why I ran it by you. So would the best argument for Paul’s belief in bodily resurrection be that Apocalyptic Jews believed that in the end times God would literally redeem his creation? Is there anything that is written in Paul’s letters or anywhere else that I can cite as evidence for this, or was that just their common understanding at the time?
I’d say the best argument is that it is what he himself precisely argues in 1 Corinthians 15. As you know!
Dr. Ehrman,
Yes, but what can I say to negate critics here?…There are 2 verses they cite to say that it’s just spiritual and not bodily:
v. 44 “sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.” and v. 50 “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”
AS you know, I’ve commented on it repeatedly on the blog. Say what I do. 🙂 (I have a long discussion of it in my forthcoming book)
Jews frequently cite the book of Ezra as evidence that only a child of a Jewish mother is a Jew. In Ezra we see that Jewish men took “alien wives” and were instructed to send them away WITH their children. A Jewish father is obligated by the Torah to raise his children as Jews (Deuteronomy 6:7), “And you shall teach them to your sons….” That the Jewish fathers sent their children away means that the children of these non-Jewish mothers were not Jews. “And now, let us make a covenant with our God to cast out all the wives and their offspring…” (Ezra 10:3). This is also discussed in the Talmud, Yevamot 23A, interpreting Deuteronomy 7:3, so it is not a new interpretation.
So what was Jesus referring to, if not the soul, when in Luke 23 he tells the thief that he will be in heaven with him that very day?
Yes, he does appear to be referring to the soul there. I have a discussion of that in my book, showing that this is the later view of Jesus put on his lips, not the one Jesus himself had 50 years before that Gospel was written.
In his book ” James the Brother of Jesus” Robert Eisenman seems to indicate that there are actually two authors in Acts. One, in the beginning, focuses on Peter and the later focusing on Paul. Someone later put the two stories together. What are your thoughts on this?
It’s almost certainly wrong. The book is a literary unity, in terms of writing style, vocabulary, point of view, topic, theme — in every way.
I might ask about Acts 17:31 sometime, as different English translations seem to have a different slant on that, but today I will focus on Romans.
Chapter two seems to mitigate the condemnation in chapter one somewhat. It begins by telling the letter’s recipients that they cannot claim to be better or more innocent than those disobedient pagans. Later, verses 12-16 credit the gentiles (presumably the very same as those ignorant pagans) with a conscience that God takes into account on the day of judgement.
The J. B. Phillips paraphase (which I happen to be sentimentally fond of) renders Romans 2:12a as “All who have sinned without knowledge of the Law will die without reference to the Law”. Liberal-ish Christians (such as I was) will extend this to a general principle, that all who have sinned without knowledge of X will die without reference to X, because it is unthinkable that Paul (or, worse, God) should be inconsistent. From there it’s a short step to using the passage to demonstrate that people don’t need to have heard of Jesus to be saved, whatever some ultraconservative evangelical might say.
Please respond if you feel moved to do so (applies to all comments ever).
I’m not sure what Paul thought about those who died without knowledge of Christ; but given the urgency of his mission, it appears he felt that he had to reach everyone before it was too late. And that suggests it would not be good news for those who had not heard….
Perhaps the gentleness of Apostle Paul towards pagans in the Book of Acts is just an isolated phenomenon? Most foreigners are in a different situation, they do not have the concept of the Supreme God. May I ask Professor, do you have any other arguments that can explain how Paul’s attitude towards foreigners differs between Acts and Paul’s letters?
By foreigners, do you mean “gentiles”? He himself was from Tarsus, so Jews in other places would also be foreigners. But if you mean “gentiles” I’d say the theological views of Acts 17 are the ones that most contrast with his views in his letters. The point of Romans 1 is that gentiles DO have a concept of the Supreme God and reject it, precisely the opposite of what he allegedly says in Acts 1. That’s the problem!