Dick Harfield
Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things, says some scholars say:
in “Acts and the epistles there are two Pauls, the historical Paul of the authentic epistles and the legendary Paul of Acts”
In other words, we must be careful not to confuse the historical Paul and the Paul portrayed in Acts of the Apostles.
In his epistles, Paul never claimed that he had performed the miracles attributed to him in Acts. Had he done so, he would have risked being challenged and, if unable to provide evidence of a supposed miracle, could have lost credibility for himself and Christianity. When writing against those he called “false prophets” he had to argue on the basis of logic and faith, unable to use evidence that God performed miracles through him. Decades later, long after Paul and his contemporaries were dead, the author of Acts could attribute miracles to Paul, unchallenged.
Paul consistently referred to himself as the apostle to the gentiles and his epistles show that he left Peter to preach to the Jews, but Acts repeatedly portrays Paul, as he entered each town, as first seeking to convert Jews and only after he failed to do so did he begin to preach to the gentiles. Paul claimed that he proposed that gentile men could be Christians without circumcision, but Acts (chapter 15) takes that credit from Paul and assigns it to Peter.
There is no evidence outside Acts that Paul was ever known by the name Saul, and he never mentions Tarsus, the city that Acts says was his home town. Paul never mentions going to the island of Cyprus, where Acts says he maliciously and miraculously blinded Elymas the sorcerer. In fact it is hard to find any evidence in Paul’s own epistles of the “first missionary journey”
Erik Manning
PAUL’S SARCASM
Paul was also one fiery and sarcastic guy. He can lay it on pretty thick at times. This snarkiness is worth quoting in some passages. Paul shows his exasperation over the Corinthians’ fixation with the so-called super apostles. He wrote: “You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Talk about getting punchy. But this is tame compared to what he writes to the Galatians. He wrote to tell them to not submit to the Judaizers who required circumcision for salvation. Paul was not happy that there were people perverting the Gospel and mixing the Law with grace. Paul writes: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (** you do not have permission to see this link **) Now that’s some razor sharp sarcasm. Lame pun intended.
We see this same mixture of anger and sarcasm from Paul in Acts, and it ties in to a striking external historical confirmation. In ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the Jews apprehend Paul and bring him before the Sanhedrin. Paul looks them in the eyes and says he’s served God and kept a good conscience. For this remark, he’s slapped on the mouth at the request of Ananias the high priest. Paul is furious. He says “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”
In response, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is a bit strange. He says: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul didn’t realize who the high priest was? Ananias was the son of Nebedinus.3 He was the high priest when Felix’s predecessor, Quadratus, was president of Syria. The historian Josephus reports that Quadratus bound Ananias and sent him to Rome. This was so that he could give an account to Claudius Caesar over some shady business4.
Agrippa interceded for Ananias, and so he was able to return to Jerusalem. But Ananias wasn’t restored to his former office of high priest. Jonathan succeeded Ananias. We know this because Josephus refers to Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during Felix’s reign. This implies an interruption in Ananias’ high priesthood.5 Josephus tells us that assassins killed Jonathan inside the temple.6
After Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest remained unoccupied for some time. Eventually, King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the high priest7. The events in Acts 23 took place during this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood remained vacant. So by his own authority, Ananias acted, assumed the role of the high priest. This explains Paul’s words in ** you do not have permission to see this link **: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” This is another difficult detail that Luke gets correct. He doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. These sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.
Some think that Paul is being sarcastic here when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest.” He is probably well aware that Ananias is not the high priest properly so-called. So when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest”, the subtext is because he’s not. He’s a usurper. Paul is likely being snide here.
Google: What is the difference between Paul in the letters and Paul in Acts of the Apostles
Result: Wikipedia Entry for Historical Reliability of Acts of the Apostles
Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul’s letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul’s own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. Scholars generally prefer Paul’s account over that in Acts.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
This June 2018 post by Bart D.E. should help this discussion thread.
(I also may have convinced a friend to join the blog, a person who enjoys discussing the Bible with me.)
Bart D. Ehrman
Does the Book of Acts Accurately Portray the Life and Teachings of Paul?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
June 17, 2018
Steefen said
Steefen
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I just did a “Paul” search of your posts and did not see a topic that addressed “The Orthodoxy and Paul’s Letters and Christology” or something to that effect.The religion of Jesus is different from Paul’s religion about Jesus.
Where may we find your material on this topic and if you have not done a blog on this, might you blog on this topic.
What comes to mind for me are
1) the biographical elements of Jesus missing in Paul, acknowledged by all critical scholars
2) Jesus’ reverence for Hebrew scripture that not one letter … [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
3) Paul not being as word for word with Jesus’ view of the Apocalypse as Paul is word for word with the Last Supper
4) Paul not preserving word for word the ritual of baptism, for example repent and get baptized for the kingdom of God is at hand, for Paul it is more baptism can be a way of dying with Jesus
5) Jesus of the gospels is not an archangel and high priest as found in Paul
6) Jesus does not want us to die with him so we can rise with him as found in Paul
7) Die with Osiris, Rise with Osiris (burial ritual of pharaohs, the term amduat and The Book of the Dead come into play) becomes Die with Christ, Rise with Christ.
Paul uses syncretism with the cult of Serapis (Osiris and Apis) to re-interpret baptism (think John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. John did not baptize Jesus saying, Die with the Son of Man who must be rejected and executed by Rome so you can resurrect after you become the suffering servant.)
Bart D.E.
If you want to know about Paul’s actual Christology — that is, his theology of who Christ was (as opposed ot his understanding of the historical Jesus), I have an extended discussion in my book HOw Jesus Became God. If you look on the blog for Paul and Jesus you’ll see a number of posts devoted to the issues. (E.g., March 14, 2016 and January 26, 2018)
Steefen
Thank you. I have begun moving my library, including How Jesus Became God, out of storage. I guess you are talking about Chapter 6: The Beginning of Christology and Chapter 7: Jesus as God on Earth.
No, that is not what I am asking. I am thinking about what was LUKE trying to accomplish by writing about Paul. Did Luke’s version of Paul 1) bring Paul more in line with the orthodoxy of the gospel of Luke, 2) make Paul more accommodating of the Jerusalem Church and the original apostles?
In Paul’s letter, he did not go to Jerusalem right after his conversion–one wold think: I believe in Jesus, let me run to his apostles.
In Luke’s version of Paul’s biography, Paul got to Jerusalem quicker than he did in his letters. There is no trip to Arabia or return trip to Damascus. Paul ran away from lethal danger in Damascus and made it to Jerusalem (Acts 9: 26)
In Paul’s Letter: “I did not rush to Jerusalem to consult with flesh and blood” [of the original apostles]. I went to Arabia, then back to Damascus. –3 years to get to Jerusalem.
Steefen said
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical AccuracyThis June 2018 post by Bart D.E. should help this discussion thread.
(I also may have convinced a friend to join the blog, a person who enjoys discussing the Bible with me.)
Bart D. Ehrman
Does the Book of Acts Accurately Portray the Life and Teachings of Paul?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
June 17, 2018
It turns out that Bart continued his post on the following day, June 18, 2018.
Does the Book of Acts Portray the *Teachings* of Paul Accurately?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
Steefen said
SteefenHi Dr. Ehrman,
I just did a “Paul” search of your posts and did not see a topic that addressed “The Orthodoxy and Paul’s Letters and Christology” or something to that effect.
The religion of Jesus is different from Paul’s religion about Jesus.Where may we find your material on this topic and if you have not done a blog on this, might you blog on this topic.
What comes to mind for me are
1) the biographical elements of Jesus missing in Paul, acknowledged by all critical scholars
2) Jesus’ reverence for Hebrew scripture that not one letter … [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
3) Paul not being as word for word with Jesus’ view of the Apocalypse as Paul is word for word with the Last Supper
4) Paul not preserving word for word the ritual of baptism, for example repent and get baptized for the kingdom of God is at hand, for Paul it is more baptism can be a way of dying with Jesus
5) Jesus of the gospels is not an archangel and high priest as found in Paul
6) Jesus does not want us to die with him so we can rise with him as found in Paul
7) Die with Osiris, Rise with Osiris (burial ritual of pharaohs, the term amduat and The Book of the Dead come into play) becomes Die with Christ, Rise with Christ.
Paul uses syncretism with the cult of Serapis (Osiris and Apis) to re-interpret baptism (think John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. John did not baptize Jesus saying, Die with the Son of Man who must be rejected and executed by Rome so you can resurrect after you become the suffering servant.)
Bart D.E.
If you want to know about Paul’s actual Christology — that is, his theology of who Christ was (as opposed ot his understanding of the historical Jesus), I have an extended discussion in my book HOw Jesus Became God. If you look on the blog for Paul and Jesus you’ll see a number of posts devoted to the issues. (E.g., March 14, 2016 and January 26, 2018)
Steefen
Thank you. I have begun moving my library, including How Jesus Became God, out of storage. I guess you are talking about Chapter 6: The Beginning of Christology and Chapter 7: Jesus as God on Earth.
No, that is not what I am asking. I am thinking about what was LUKE trying to accomplish by writing about Paul. Did Luke’s version of Paul 1) bring Paul more in line with the orthodoxy of the gospel of Luke, 2) make Paul more accommodating of the Jerusalem Church and the original apostles?
In Paul’s letter, he did not go to Jerusalem right after his conversion–one wold think: I believe in Jesus, let me run to his apostles.
In Luke’s version of Paul’s biography, Paul got to Jerusalem quicker than he did in his letters. There is no trip to Arabia or return trip to Damascus. Paul ran away from lethal danger in Damascus and made it to Jerusalem (Acts 9: 26)
In Paul’s Letter: “I did not rush to Jerusalem to consult with flesh and blood” [of the original apostles]. I went to Arabia, then back to Damascus. –3 years to get to Jerusalem.
Bart D.E.
Yes, Acts version of Paull is meant to portray him very much in line with the story told of Jesus in the Gsopel of Luke, and yes, also to make him completely sympatico with the other apostles
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I just did a “Paul” search of your posts and did not see a topic that addressed “The Orthodoxy and Paul’s Letters and Christology” or something to that effect.
The religion of Jesus is different from Paul’s religion about Jesus.
Where may we find your material on this topic and if you have not done a blog on this, might you blog on this topic.
What comes to mind for me are
1) the biographical elements of Jesus missing in Paul, acknowledged by all critical scholars
2) Jesus’ reverence for Hebrew scripture that not one letter … [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
3) Paul not being as word for word with Jesus’ view of the Apocalypse as Paul is word for word with the Last Supper
4) Paul not preserving word for word the ritual of baptism, for example repent and get baptized for the kingdom of God is at hand, for Paul it is more baptism can be a way of dying with Jesus
5) Jesus of the gospels is not an archangel and high priest as found in Paul
6) Jesus does not want us to die with him so we can rise with him as found in Paul
7) Die with Osiris, Rise with Osiris (burial ritual of pharaohs, the term amduat and The Book of the Dead come into play) becomes Die with Christ, Rise with Christ.
Paul uses syncretism with the cult of Serapis (Osiris and Apis) to re-interpret baptism (think John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. John did not baptize Jesus saying, Die with the Son of Man who must be rejected and executed by Rome so you can resurrect after you become the suffering servant.)