Loading...How influential, actually, was Paul in his day? And how much of what we read about him (and allegedly by him) in the New Testament is accurate and how much is slanted in one way or the other. Indeed, how about later times? How was he (mis)remembered?
Just now I am in the process of preparing the third edition of my college textbook on the entire Bible — Genesis to Revelation, including the “Old Testament Apocrypha. I have asked Joel Baden of Yale University to co-edit it with me; he’s taking care of the Hebrew Bible parts and I the New Testament.
That means I need to read through the whole thing again, of course, and, frankly, it is not generally exciting reading your own prose from some years ago. BUT, pleasure does come from reading bits that you think are especially interesting, and I had that experience this morning, and thought I could share it with y’all here on the blog.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. My only thought is, if Paul might not have been that influential in his own lifetime, or even until the dawn of the 2nd century, why would scribes have bothered to preserve his letters? I know that only 7 genuine letters have come down to us, but none from his Apostolic rivals (ie. the ones whom he refutes in his letters) seem to have survived.
Even if he wasn’t hugely influential on Christianity at large at the time, members of his churches revered him and five of those churches kept one or more of his letters.
Sorry to come back, Dr Ehrman, but my impression is that Paul was significantly influential, if not in his own lifetime, pretty soon afterwards. He’s referenced in 2 Peter and possibly the letter of James too. The Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral letters traded on his reputation and Marcion incorporated his writings in his canon even though he had no known connection with a Pauline Church. Most of this literature (Pastorals etc) probably dates to the First century.
Yes, the books that were accepted into the New Testament many years later are all favorable toward Paul. (except arguably Matthew)
I’ve been wondering what impact Marcion had on mainstreaming Paul across Christianity. If Paul was a minor figure, then it makes sense his writings would be taken more seriously once Marcion enters the stage and promotes Pauline epistles, but Paul survives the anti-Marcionites
It’s a theory that others have had, yes. The other theory is that Paul was unpopular precisely because Marcion championed him. (This latter theory is more common). One common line about Marcion and Paul is that “Marcion was the only one in the second century who understood Paul; and he misunderstood him.” (! Meaning: he saw how radical Pauls’ views were about Jews and gentiles and the newness of the Gospel, but really didn’t understand Paul’s actual views.)
I’ve never really accepted how Paul converted, strange to me how someone so against Christianity converted without ever knowing Jesus , just a voice in the desert . Yes a massive figure in the New Testament, but like so many stories from the pages I’m sceptical , no I have not a better explanation.
But so much about Paul is dodgy , ie the 500 still alive, walls falling down in jail etc
And I understand a lot of Paul’s supposed writings are not Paul’s .
I devote a chapter to Paul’s conversoin in my book Triumph of Christianity, if you’re interested.
I wonder if the Deutero-Pauline Epistles evince any likely chronology in their authorship, or any association with geographic locations?
They are difficult to date, but because of their understanding of teh church situation, the church hierarchy, their alterations of Pauline views, and a range of similar things, they are usually placed toward the end of the first century, say in the 90s. They are obviously directded to Crete and Ephesus, but that is simply part of the ploy of the author. I don’t think we have any good idea where they were written.
I’ve been seeing “John the Baptizer” lately instead of “John the Baptist.”
Why the change? Perhaps because John the Baptist could be interpreted as “John, who attends the First Baptist Church”?
Ha! It’s because the Greek of our earliest reference, Mark 1:4 and elsewhere uses a participle to describe him rather than a known: literally, “John the one who Baptizes.” Elsewher the noun is used to modify the name (e.g. Matthew 3:1): “John the Baptist”disabledupes{ca8b26d0445d44f1ede2a94b94d065e5}disabledupes
Hello, Lucinda. Every village had a tradesman who dyed the shorn wool. He was known as “the Village Baptist”. Interesting, the Pharisees had their own “baptism”. The Pharisee’s “baptism” was for the symbolic cleansing of the soul. These Second Temple water purity laws were invented by the Pharisees in order to compete with the Essenes. The Essenes had a daily cleansing bath (Josephus). The Essenes acquired the practice from their sister sect in Alexandria, Egypt: the Therapeutae. The Therapeutae acquired the practice from the Buddhist missionaries who arrived by 250 BCE. These particular Buddhists acquired the practice from the KRSNA Hinduism of the Emperor Ashoka of the Mauryan Dynasty. Ashoka invented the myth of Buddhism and the fictional “Siddhartha Gautema”.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Paul, since I’m reading “Lost Christianities.” I was glad that you picked Paul to talk about today, because I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about him. I find Paul’s account of his confrontation with Peter in Antioch very interesting. In “Did Jesus Exist”, you said that this Peter is one of Jesus’s twelve disciples. How do we know this? It seems to me that a disagreement with one of Jesus’s disciples over what Jesus taught would be quite an embarrassment, and would not be something that one would want to publicize. What do you make of this? (I’m about to finish my third book by you, and have three waiting in the wings.)
I think that Peter as one of the twelve is firmly established: it is multiply attested on numerous layers of the tradition in lots of places. It’s one of the amazing aspects of Paul’s sense of his own authority: He received his message straight from God, no matter whether an apostle or even an angels says otherwise, so anyone who disagrees with him is wrong (Galatians 1)
Since you were talking about Papias, it’s interesting that Papias seems familiar with Matthew, Mark, 1 John, and 1 Peter, but nothing of Paul.
I wish we know who/what he was familiar with. With only these few wretched fragments, most of them centuries later….
I think that I didn’t ask my question quite right, so I need try again: How do we know that the Peter that Paul mentions in this instance is THAT Peter? I now have one other question: I am not quite clear on the designation “apostle”. Paul is called an apostle, and I believe that Jesus’s twelve disciples are also called this (or is Judas not?); are there others who are commonly referred to this way? I’m starting to get a feel for Paul’s sense of his own authority that you describe. That kind of attitute can work with some, but I bet there must have been some who rolled their eyes whenever another letter from Paul arrived.
Peter wsa not a name in antiquity. It was a nick-name (“Rocky”) Jesus gave to his disciple Simon. No one else had it to our knowledge (unless Cephas and Peter were two different persons and Paul knew them both; that’s a view I’ve argued for at times). So if Paul mentoins Peter he must mean THAT Peter. Or one of those two.
I’ve preordered a copy of Love Thy Stranger, and it’s supposed to arrive on March 24! I’m looking forward to reading it!
Since the book deals with loving those outside one’s own tribe, I’m curious whether it touches on the apostle Paul. In Romans 13:8–10, he addresses a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles and emphasizes the obligation to love others. Does the book discuss Paul’s relevance to that theme?
More broadly, do you think Paul’s teachings, like Jesus’s, have played a significant role in shaping the moral conscience of the West?
Yup, I think that many of Paul’s ethical teachings and his understanding of Christ as one who gave everything for others also had an influence, but these were not teaching’s Paul came up with (he came up with others!) but inherited from the tradition going back to Jesus.
How important was Paul? He “invented” Christianity (you might have written an entire book on this premise). Important enough for two groups to write as pseudo-Paul. One group wrote 50% of 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, 1st Timothy, Titus, and Ephesians 5:22-24. The other group (the former Essenes) wrote 1st & 2nd Thessalonians and 2nd Timothy. The Council of Nicea assigned Hebrews to Paul’s authorship. I enjoyed your comment, “Marcion was the only one who understood Paul, and he misunderstood him.” On the social platform Quora, I have found two people with my same interpretation of the second chapter of Romans. That interpretation is that “acceptable service” is not faith in the saving power of the Finished Work of the Cross.. “Acceptable service” is being obedient to the Divine Law. The Finished Work of the Cross is the judgement of non-believers by the Divine Law. The former Essenes were the “Q” Community who contributed the “Q” content in the Synoptic Gospels. “John of Patmos” was a member of the “Q” Community. They wrote 2nd Peter, Jude, and the addendum to 1st Peter as pseudepigraphal forgeries. (Ephesians and Colossians were written in shorthand by a stenographer from a Ceasarea jail cell.)