I’d like to say a bit more about Paul in relationship to the beginning of Christianity. Yesterday I argued that Paul could not have invented the idea of the resurrection. I should point out that Paul himself – who was always proud of the “revelation” of the truth given to him and his part in disseminating it (see Galatians 1-2) – admits in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, before appearing “first” to Cephas and then others. I should stress, this language of “receiving” and “passing on” has long been understood as a standard way of indicating how tradition was transmitted from one person to another. Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him.
People today often think of Paul as the second-founder of Christianity, after Jesus. Or even as the founder of Christianity. In my view that is assigning way too much importance to Paul. I don’t know how many of Paul’s views he came up with himself, but he did *not* come up with the idea that Jesus’ death brought salvation and that he had then been raised from the dead. That part he “received” from others.
Why was Paul important then? And how important? Join the blog and keep on readin’! Click here for membership options
Incisive as always, thank you. So, Paul’s essential faith message was an easy choice (among the competition) for canon because of its simplicity in application and the difficulty in logically challenging it?
I’m not sure if that was the decisive factor, but it’s an interesting point. None of the church fathers who considered Paul’s writings authoritative put it that way, but they may have seen the appeal.
” I should stress, this language of “receiving” and “passing on” has long been understood as a standard way of indicating how tradition was transmitted from one person to another”
Dear Bart, don’t you find it strange that Paul finds the time in his letter to Philemon to mention many otherwise unimportant people by name, but never clarifies for his readership from Whom exactly he received the utmost important Tradition of all, that of the Vicarious death of the Messiah for the sins of evil Jews and Pagans (including his murderers) and his resurrection on the 3rd day, according to the Scriptures (certainly not the Hebrew Massoretic or LXX OT which do not have such a prophecy anywhere) which resulted in the abolition of the Mosaic Law.
Isn’t it more plausible that he intentionally omits his presumed sources because such a specific claim could be easily falsified, if Paul just simply made this new and strange theory up (i.e. a direct revelation from Jesus), and never really received it from the Apostles?
Since it’s a personal letter to people he knows, it appears he wants to name them and mutual acquaintances, and had no need to discuss the details of his theological views. He has a pretty set purpose for the letter. Maybe I’ll blog on it!
I believe Paul intentionally omitted the names of people who presumely handed down to him the tradition of the vicarious death of the Messiah (and his resurrection on the 3° day according to Scriptures which do not correspond to any actual canonical scripture in the Greek and Hebrew OT versions) resulting in the abolition of the Law, precisely because it could not be ascribed to any of the Apostles. I believe it was a totally original contribution/innovation of Paul in the early Christian circles, adopted somehow by Mark (but rejected by Luke who actually has Paul in the Temple offering sin offerings as a devout Jewish Christian). That is why Paul denies in Galatians having received such a Thesis (the dead and raised Messiah=law abolition) from men (i.e. the Apostles) but got it directly from Christ.
In Acts 17:3 Paul is said to have been “explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.”
But the only place in Acts where this explanation might be given is in chapter 8 where Philip explains the gospel to the Ethiopian based on Isaiah 53.
Shouldn’t it be taken then that for the writer of Acts the explanation of the death of the messiah is to be taken from the atoning sacrifice of Isaiah 53?
The odd thing is that when Philip quotes Isaiah 53, he specifically does NOT mention the part about atoning sacrifice. It’s one of the most astonishing things about the passage. If that is what Luke wanted to emphasize, it’s almost impossible to figure out why he didn’t quote just the part of the chapter he read that way. It’s also very important to note that Luke himself does not appear even to have a doctrine of the atonement; he edits all references to it out of his source Mark. Moreover, and even odder, no author of the NT — even Paul — appeals to Isaiah 53 as support for their view of Jesus. So no, I don’t think that’s a necessary conclusion.
Acts 8:35 says “Philip beginning with this writing evangelised to him”
so beginning with the passage
“In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth…”
the very next line in Isaiah 53 is “for the transgression of my people he was punished.”
So the Messiah was killed for the sins of others according to Philip.
Also in Luke 22:37 “For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”
Again beginning with the passage in Isaiah 53 the very next line is “For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Luke 24:37 “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.”
Isn’t Luke just giving his readers directions on where to find the meaning of the crucifixion in the scriptures?
That’s my point. He doesn’t quote the next line. If that’s the line he wanted his readers to read and think about and apply to Jesus, surely he would have quoted it.
Luke says the disciples didn’t understand why he was to be killed and it was only after the resurrection that Jesus explained it all to them. He wants his readers to have the same experience – not knowing why the messiah is being killed until they look up the references in the prophets afterward.
Isn’t “he was numbered with the transgressors” such a weak and undignified prophecy for the messiah to fulfill that the real reason Luke includes it is for what the very next line in Isaiah says?
“For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Dr Ehrman,
As much as I respect your scholarship, I’m not sure I can agree with completely with your post. I know you are the scholar and I’m a nobody but…
From the evidence of Galatians, Phillipines and Romans, Paul seemed to be primarily unpopular with the Jewish Christians. Understandably, they had big issues with Paul because of his controversial, iconoclastic ideas about the Gentile Christians essentially being the same as Jews. Even to me, his idea seems radical: “Gentiles are now members of the Abrahamic Covenant??” What?
In my opinion, if it weren’t for Paul, Christianity would have died in Jerusalem. The apostles still had the idea that their religion was for Jews. But it wasn’t sustainable long term n Jerusalem. Jews were not keen on the whole idea of a crucified Messiah. I think it would have eventually died.
Fundentally changing Christianity to include Gentiles was the game changer. It spread like wildfire among non-Jewish communities. The sustained viral growth in the following centuries was due to the Gentile following.
And was not Paul the key player here?
I”m not sure what you’re disagreeing with me on? My view is that Paul was important not for inventing the idea that Jesus’ death and resurrection brought salvation but that this salvation was available not only to Jews but to gentiles, who therefore did not have to convert to Judaism.
Didn’t Paul found all the churches to which he was writing (in the genuine Pauline letters)? Rome? How early were there non-Pauline churches?
Yes, all except Rome. Someone else founded it but we don’t know whom. It must have been fairly early on in the Christian movement, since when Paul writes to it in the early 60s, there are clearly a lot of Christians there. My sense is that non-Pauline churches started springing up fairly soon after the first disciples came to believe that Jesus was raised. Paul was persecuting them, outside of Israel, already just two or three years later.
To me, Paul’s importance was his insistence on preaching Jesus to the Greek world and his success in doing so. I think that, were it not for him, nascent Christianity would have had a lot more trouble recovering from the destruction of its Jerusalem headquarters. (I almost wrote “would not have survived,” but is that too extreme?)
Yup, who knows?!
Without looking it up, what proportion (by word count) of the New Testament would you estimate was written by Paul? Ask the same question to your students and your colleagues. Their answers, when compared to the facts, will be illuminating.
Fun question, off the top of my head it has to be about 60% if we count all his works including the ones debated over. What’s the answer?
Easiest way to get a rough estimate. Get a Testament. Mark the beginning and end of Paul’s letters and see how much of the entire collection it encompasses. Then do the same for the two (just two) books of Luke and Acts (written by one author), and compare them to Paul.
I already know what proportion of the NT was written by Paul. I was wanting to know what percentage you and others would guess. Perhaps Protestants would estimate higher numbers than catholics. In any case, it would be interesting to do a survey.
Richard: I guessed an eighth.
Do you think Paul should be considered a Judaizer? He does say pagans should follow some Jewish laws doesn’t he? Just not circumcision, kosher food laws and holidays. Do you think Paul was the originator of his specific Christian philosophy or does it pre-date him?
He’s usually understood to be opposed to Judaizers, who are normally understood as those who were trying to convince gentiles to become Jewish. Paul quite emphatically told gentile followers of Jesus NOT do follow the ways of Judaism (Galatians). The laws he insists they follow all entail ethical behavior appropriate to Jews and gentiles.
Thank you so much for answering these questions. With regards to Paul’s specific take or Christian philosophy, do you think he is the originator of it or do you think it already existed and he is the great amplifier of that specific philosophy/message?
It depends which aspect of Christian philosophy you mean. Much of what Christians were already saying he devloped, sometimes significantly; other things he no doubt came up with himself. I suspect he came up with the idea that followrs of Jesus do not have to become Jewish — a rather significant issue in the long run.
Yet, it is because his voice survived the ages in print that his work shape the way Christianity evolved. His depth of explanations without any depth by others to examine essentially allows for his voice to stand out. Maybe some thought because his work survived that it was God’s will, where other works that did not, were not worthy. Who knows? Clearly, the ability to be literate and have a strong sense of your argument was a factor in Paul’s work surviving. It is a shame that so many other works have disappeared. Is it possible that most of the arguments Paul wrote about were based on oral transmission?
It’s hard to know how much he picked up from others and how much he came up with himself, but most experts assume that his detailed reasoning was his own, not from others before hm.
I’ve been really enjoying your recent posts on Paul. Occasionally (once every 4 months or so) I’ve been having phone conversations with my childhood pastor about Paul specifically; it’s been interesting… but not as clarifying as I’d hoped.
I think what has been bothering me the most is we have Jesus in his own words (I know this unlikely, but for the sake of argument) in the sermon on the Mount saying that *no one* will enter into Heaven unless they follow the law closer than the scribes and Pharisees. I understand that to mean all 613 laws. But then…
We have some guy named Paul who, by his own admission, has been acting as a kind of bounty hunter against Christians (persecuting them violently). And Paul has a change of heart (to put it mildly), coming to believe that hey, you don’t worry about all that law stuff!
So… who am I supposed to believe… Paul? Or Jesus?
Kinda seems like Paul is, well, a false prophet… is that too harsh?
That’s a question that my pastor hasn’t really (in our talks) been able to clarify.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks for all that you share on these topics!
If I were a pastor I would say that Paul represents the essential teachings of Jesus as transformed by the reality of his resurrection — which necessarily changed everything. If I were a university professor at a research institution I would say that Paul had a fundamentally different understanding of salvation from Jesus. But that would be what I would say. I know pastors who have the second view and professors who have the first!
I think we are submerged, here in USA, in Paul because for us Christianity is, popularly, thought to be evangelicalism.
Post Reformation, Paul was the weapon used to probe and attack a catholic understanding, and still is. Their interpretation of Paul props up their worldly actions, then (wresting control from the papacy) and now (electing Trump).
BUT if we lived immersed in, say, reformation-free Eastern Orthodoxy, we would not be wondering if Paul was the real founder of Christianity.
I was raised fundamentalist Christian, but I now have zero interest in Christian ideas about “atonement“ and the salvific effect of Jesus’ death and resurrection. But I feel drawn to what seems to have been Jesus‘s message of love and the kingdom of God.
There’s much in the book of James that seems consistent with the message of Jesus, so I’ve been disappointed to read in previous posts that there is no reason to believe James the brother of Jesus or any of the other disciples wrote the book. You describe the writer as being well educated and quite eloquent in Greek and more opposed to Paul then James himself. Any other thoughts about the writer and any movement he might have been a part of? What should I read? Thank you!
Also, you recently asked for book suggestions, I would love to see a book about the options for those of us who have beliefs as I described above, being drawn to a gospel of love and the kingdom of heaven, but rejecting atonement. Should we consider ourselves Christians? Or something else? But it’s more of a theological, rather than historical, question. Maybe not of interest to you.
Actually it is of great interest to me, and I have indeed thought about writing the book. Maybe when I’m older and wiser.
My fullest exposition of what we might know about the author of James, and why it was not Jesus’ brother, is in my book Forgery and Counterforgery, pp. 283-97. I give a lot of bibliography there, though most of it is to scholarship. You could get a different perspective from the commentary by Luke Timothy Johnson, and probably in the collection of essays called Reading James with New Eyes, ed. by R. WEbb and J. Kloppenborg.
As to atonement: I know lots of (liberal) Christians who do not subscribe to a doctrine of the atonement, including theologians.
Thank you for the thoughtful response!
Dr. Sarah Rollens had an interesting take on the assumption that Paul founded all those churches. https://urbsandpolis.com/who-founded-the-churches-in-galatia/
Interesting, thanks!
Hi Bart,
How would you respond to the increasingly popular argument that, since the consensus of recorded early Church fathers was that Mathhew’s Gospel was written first, we should prefer this ancient opinion over the modern critical view that Mark wrote his Gospel first?
The consensus does not emerge, so far as we know, until over a century after Matthew was in circulation. By that time no one had any idea who actually wrote it or what sources he used. The modern view has extremely strong evidence in support.
Do you think that when Paul speaks of super apostles, he might be referring to guys like Peter or James? I’ve always wondered if Paul really agreed with them on the gospel message. It seems that the author of Acts, and even Paul himself, try to show that Paul and the Twelve Apostles ultimately agreed on the same gospel… But I wonder if this is just propaganda to legitimize the message of Paul the newcomer… when in reality, perhaps they taught completely different Gospel messages.
I don’t think so, since in the same letter he speaks of Peter and James and says nothing negative about them, as in other letters. The super apostles appear to be later converts.
Do any of your books categorize these branches of early christianity? Matthew, Johnnanie, Pauline, etc?
I’ve been reading “Ante Pacem” by Grayson Snyder. Which collects and examines lots of early Christian epigrams and archeology. And it is interesting to me how differently the physical evidence seems to present from the New Testament canon theology. Have you covered this in any of your books? How has your opinion influenced by those finds?
I deal with what we know about these kinds of Christian belief and practice in a number of places, including espectially my textbook: The New Testament: A Histocial Introduction. Yes, I’ve known Snyder’s book since my graduate student days, but no, I’ve never written about it specifically/ As you probably know, we have very few actual Christian material remains prior to the mid third century.
Interesting, not thought of it like that before. I do think Paul was central to Christianity spreading originally to the gentiles in the 1st century, after 70A.D and the temple was destroyed and the Jewish population spread throughout the Roman empire, the gospel could spread more rapidly. I believe the 12 (minus Judas) and James were the originators and so likely the most influential in Jerusalem. Do you not think Dr Ehrman that the disciples were pivotal too?
Absolutely. If they had not come to believe Jesus had been raised, we never wouldhave had Christianty.
Hi, Dr. Ehrman. Do you think Paul in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (the “difficult” passage about women and head coverings) was possibly quoting back and then responding to various statements made by the Corinthians themselves, as he apparently does elsewhere (like 1 Cor. 6:12 “All things are lawful for me…”)? Lucy Peppiatt in Unveiling Paul’s Women makes a good case for this, formatting the passage so that it reads much more coherently, to me at least.
If so, do you think there is any chance that eventually some mainstream translation of the NT might reflect this understanding and put quotes around statements like “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man”? Or do you think it more likely that 21st century Christian women are just going to be expected to keep on reading about how spiritually inferior they are to men indefinitely?
I haven’t read Peppiatt’s argument, so I don’t know. Are you saying that she says that Paul is actually quoting a saying (slogan) of the Corinthians and then offering his evaluation of it, rather than stating it himself? Andthe same with v. 10 (For this reason… women need a head covering)? And that then he is saying, Yes, but…? Interesting idea. Would it catch on? Depends on whose’se doing the translation I suppose…
Yes, she proposes that 1 Cor. 11:4-5 and 1 Cor. 11:7-10 are Paul paraphrasing issues and assertions he is hearing from the Corinthians, not stating his own views.
We often say that events in Jesus life would need more evidence than the books we have. Yet we believe the battle of thermopylae on the basis of 2 sources (Herodotus and a poem) and we believe in Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon also on the basis of 2 sources. How can that be reconciled? Isn’t there a double standard?
I suppose it depends on who you mean by “we.” Historians, of course, do not accept any statement in any source at face value, but examine it in every way possible to see if it’s true. Those interested in the life of Jesus of course almost never have any actual interest in the Battle of Thermopylae or the Crossing of the Rubicon, and so they would have no reason to queston them — jsut as some ancient historians have no particular interest in Jesus and so would hve no reason to queston the Gospels (except possibly on general principle
But doesn’t that mean that biblical literature is approached with more skepticism than other sources?
If ancient historians believe the battle of Thermopylae happened on the basis of a poem and something written by Herodotus (who as you know, includes a lot of legend, etc.). Shouldn’t we also believe the gospels as historical for that matter? If we don’t then it seems that the NT is approached with more skepticism and there thus is a double standard. What do you think?
No, I don’t think so. Historians of ancient Greek and Roman history approach every account with skepticism; one has to demonstrate that something happened, rather than start out by assuming it did. If an ancient source says something happened, then one needs to see if there are reasons for thinking it is right, and reaasons for thinking it’s wrong, and then weighing the evidence. The evidence is never based on religious belief or philosophical views. It is based on historical considerations, apart from what some one’s beliefs and philosophical assumptions are.
I see, yet:
How can they then for example take the battle of thermopylae as a historical fact on the basis of 2 maybe dubious sources, where the events in the gospels are mostly not seen as historical while the sources are more elaborate?
Who is the “they” you are referring to?
“They” would be the ancient historians
but isnt it that pauls few succeeded and became orthodoxy in the end. all other christian views disappeared, at least over time. is pauls standing as “founding father” of christianity really too far fetched? yet he was in confrontation with the followers in jerusalem and quiet a few other apostels. some of them knew jesus. he could be wrong and very far off of the genuine teachings and words of jesus. maybe his victorious few of christianity has nothing to do with what would be the real teachings of jesus and the ones who look for redemption in the teachings of jesus are looking in the wrong places. maybe the marcionites were closer to the real message. or the ebionites. its a mystery wrapped up in a riddle.
I really enjoy and appreciate your posts which definitely gives me a broader approach. Thank you !
Hi, Bart.
I’m sure you’ve been asked this question before, but I was wondering whether you know or have any idea what texts Paul was referring to when he wrote of Jesus’ dying “for our sins in accordance with the scriptures”, in 1 Cor. 15: 3-5? Didn’t you say that such an idea would have been pretty much anathema to a typical Jew of that period? Is there a chance he was spoofing, on this point at least?!
Regards.
I wish we knew. People often say things like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and even teh book of Jonah. I just wish Paul himself would have said….
Another slightly off-topic question: I recently quoted from one of your books that the population of Jews in the first century amounted to about 10% of the population of the Roman empire. I was challenged on this figure, and I had to admit that I don’t know where it came from. Can you tell me where you got it? The person who called me out said that it originated from a mistaken interpretation of a census carried out by Claudius, and that the 10% number was really the proportion of Roman citizens in the empire, and that there would have been no need to account for ethnicities in that census. Perhaps I misquoted you?
Demographics from the ancient world are very difficult — nearly impossible . But the normal estimate is that at the time of Jesus / Paul the Roman world had a population of around 60 million and 5-7% of them were Jews.
Why do you think that Paul’s message eventually won widespread support among Christians in the later centuries?
In part because he emphasized the grace of God given to all people without having to become Jews. Most of the converts, of course, were gentiles. As to why Christianity itself spread — that’s a different matter, which I deal with in my book Triumph of Christianity.
Why wife bought me the Triumph of Christianity for xmas and I’m excited to read it!
You obviously have a very thoughtful and lovely wife!
But don’t you identify Paul’s importance in the extent to which he shifted the focus of ἡ Ὁδός (הַדֶּ֫רֶךְ) and its keepers (נוֹצְרִים → נוֹצְרֵי הַדֶּ֫רֶךְ) to include non-Jews? This enabled Christianity to go beyond a Jewish sect and laid the groundwork for its becoming a world religion. Do you think it is exaggerating Paul’s importance to take this under consideration?
This is my first comment on your blog, having just become a silver member yesterday for the next year. I’m looking forward to reading your opinions and interacting with the members of your forum. Thanks for all you do and for your use of our membership moneys to do good in the world. You’re a great man, Dr. Ehrman.
Yup, that’s exactly what I think.
Hi Bart.
Two things.
1. You said at the start that Paul got the idea that Jesus brought salvation from the already existing believers and that it was something they all believed.
Then you say that Luke didn’t include Paul’s doctrine of Atonement in Acts. But was it atonement that was was supposed to bring salvation or is it something else?
2. I can’t figure out how people would believe this guy that he had conversations with someone who was dead. I think that you have said that it was the power of these preachers to do miracles that convinced people.
Regards
1. Yes, my view is that Luke either misunderstood or misrepresented what the earliest Christians said (including his hero Paul); 2. I’d say a lot of people believe that people speak with the dead!
The overarching idea of the argument for the centrality of Paul, at least in the Western church, is that he most clearly represents the basic tenets of proto-orthodoxy, by which I mean that Jesus’ death and resurrection was for the atonement of sins and that we are saved by faith in him, and, perhaps more importantly, that gentiles could become Christians while remaining gentiles. There may have been other evangelists preaching the same basic message at the time, but there is no real record of them. We can say that this particular messenger was important enough that other people wrote in his name. We can also say that his were the writings from the time that were preserved, at least in part.
Yes, there were other versions of Christianity espoused at the same time. As you noted, Paul had to deal with those competitors. The writings, if any, of these competitors were not preserved. In fact, it appears almost certain that any such writings were intentionally destroyed. We have to piece together the views of these competitors from the writings of others, including Paul and the Church Fathers, who considered those views heretical.
(cont.)
What would have happened if Paul had not existed? Would another view of Christianity have become the orthodox view? Would another proponent of proto-orthodoxy have taken center stage in Paul’s absence? The most honest answer to these questions is that we simply don’t know and have no way of knowing, but it is difficult to imagine Christianity prevailing if converted gentiles were required to also become Jews.
I wish we knew! My sense is that possibly Xty would not have become a religion of gentiles and so probaby not a widespread religion; it would have been a sect within Judaism, and possibly would not have survived long….
I once read a theory (but I forget the source) that Paul himself organised a collection of his own letters, which is why we have them in the order they are in. Do you share this view, Bart?
It’s hard to say, but I doubt it. You can read up on the idea in Gamble’s book Books and Readers in the Early Church. In any event, if Paul did keep a collectin of his letters (he must have written hundreds I should think), it didn’t affect the current collection, which is organized simply by length.
When I read this post, the first thing I thought about was the second chapter of your work The Triumph of Christianity. My memory was that one of the themes of that chapter was the critical importance of Paul to early Christianity’s growth. So my initial instinct was that this post didn’t square with that chapter.
But I re-read the chapter and the post and I think I at least partially understand now.
The work Paul did in establishing and nurturing early churches was essential. Some of his letters were saved and much of the theological thinking in those letters eventually became a core part of Christian doctrine. But we’re missing many of his letters, and the records that we do have may reflect a mixture of his thinking and the thinking of earlier Christians that he had spoken to.
So while Paul was essential in establishing those early churches, and getting converts, the ideas that he espoused were much slower to take root. The churches he founded often disagreed with him. It was only later as the church became organized and started establishing a formal doctrine that his ideas triumphed.
Is that a fair summary?
Yes, that’s a large part of it. The other part is that his essential message that the death and resurrectoin of Jesus bruoght salvation was not one that he came up with; his big contribution was insisting that this salvatin could come not just to Jews but to gentiles as well, without becoming Jews.
Don’t you think Paul’s relatively sophisticated, literate and logical written theology might be the reason for his lasting reputation that seems to have grown post-mortem – kind of like Jesus’?
Like 130ish rolls around & no one is alive who ever met a real disciple, there are 1000s of Christians in the eastern end of the Mediterranean, XTans are looking for Canon, unity and maybe a little distance from the Jews. Paul had written these wonderful letters that could be more or less harmonized with what most Christians believed and so he was recalled as a “Super Apostle” (I know he meant that as a slur I don’t).
I think this is a crayon and construction papered kindergarten retelling of points you have made in the past… no? That he wrote intelligently and semi-sophisticatedly in Greek on issues that were important just as a new generation of semi-sophisticated greek speaking Christian intellectuals were looking at many of these same issues and wondering what the early fathers thought? Of course Paul’s views and fame would grow, no matter how successful he was in his own time .
That may have been part of it, yes. Another part is that he was so famous as a successful missionary AND he developed strongly the idea of salvation apart from keeping the jewish law that he was hugely attractive to later folk, as one of the early superstars of the faith.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I’m in desperate need of some academic aid! So I got some feedback back from teachers on the first draft of my canon essay. One of the points that came back was that they’re looking for more of an argumentative essay rather than an overly narrative exposition. I was thinking about changing the question of the essay from “how was the New Testament canon formed” to something that can be proven like “to what extent was the formation of the canon a process of debate and evolution” or something to do with winners and losers etc… Do you by any chance have any suggestions for questions that could help shape the essay into something more argumentative?
Thank you so much!!
Ah, OK, good for them. That’s the problem with the canon books you’ve been rading (metzger, gamble) — they don’t have a thesis so much as a narrative. I myself also prefer a thesis, and am actually thinking about writing a canon book with one. THere are lots of options, e.g., Your thesis could be “there was no canon of Scripture was undecided for over three hundred years” or “the canon of Scripture was never officially ‘closed'” or “we could well have gotten a different canon of Scripture” or “the canon of Scripture can be shown to have arisen out of political debates instead of logical or religious necessity” etc. I am a BIG fan for dealing with history as an argument instead of as a chronology. Hope that helps.
Thank you Dr Ehrman! That really helps a lot!! Also, trust that I would be first in line to buy your book on the topic- that would be a great read!!
I was disappointed to have missed your zoom discussion regarding your thoughts for your upcoming books (unfortunately it was about 2am and a school night!)
What options are you considering for the next book (apart from the canon)?
Thank you!
I think I should make a post on the options for the next two books!
Although Paul didn’t come up with the idea of the Jesus dying for “our sins” and of Jesus’ resurrection, he did have his own “gospel” that he didn’t receive from earlier Christians. Paul’s unique understanding of how Jesus’ death brought an end to the Torah helped pave the way for Western Christianity. So in that sense it doesn’t seem like a stretch to say that Paul was the second founder of Christianity. The Jewish messianic movement centered on Jesus fizzled out within a couple of centuries, so without Paul’s gentile movement the Jesus movement would not even be a thing remembered today.
It’s always come across to me that Paul took the meaning, significance, and implications of Jesus’ death further than Jesus’ disciples had. They certainly didn’t think that his death resulted in the passing of the Torah, or that the gentiles needed to be brought in to the movement, or even that Jesus’s death in and of itself took away anyone’s sins. All of these concepts became further embellished through the work of centuries of Christian theologians, but all these important Christian concepts are rooted in Paul’s visionary teachings.
I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the fact that the gospels were heavily influenced by Pauline ideas, and yet those gospels don’t really seem to follow Paul’s idea of what resurrection meant for Jesus (a spiritual body– forget the corpse), and for followers of Jesus (a spiritual body clothing what would otherwise be a naked “soul” or shade– NOT a reconstituted corpse, assembled from whatever might be left, as bones or dust). You’ve got too many gospel accounts suggesting a more primitive, animated corpse type of resurrection. There seems to be a tension there, and I don’t see that it gets resolved very well.
“There were Christians in the second and third and later centuries who continued to think of Paul as the arch-heretic.” Who were these Christians? I would assume they were the Jewish Christians, especially in the second century, but were there others? Were there also non-Jewish Christians who thought Paul was a heretic – excluding gnostics?
The ones we know about were various kinds of Jewish Christians. The Gnostics we know about, btw, loved Paul and thought he supported their views.
Were any of the early church fathers against Paul and his writings, or at least ignore them?
YEs, Jewish Christian authors often were. Including, e.g., the letter allegedly from Peter to James (which I’ve mentioned on the blog). Justin Martyr very much stood in line with Pauline thinking around 150 CE in Rome, but never quotes him. Very intersting.
Very interesting indeed. I read somewhere that Justin Martyr did not consider Paul’s letters as Holy Scripture. I did not know he was in line with Paul’s thinking though. Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
Do you think that the Didache was in line with Paul’s thinking?
We don’t actually know about Justin’s views per se. What we do know is the odd fact that he never quotes him. The Didache has a very different set of interests from those in Paul’s letters. They certainly agreed on lots of things; whether they agreed on the issues that Paul was most concerned about is impossible to say.
Hello Bart.
1. Would you say that Paul has some / most / all of the hallmarks of a religious fanatic or religious zealot ?
2. If so, is it reasonable to postulate that his views may have been perceived as OTT even in his day, let alone ours ?
Thank you.
1. I’m not sure; I tend not to use those kinds of evaluative terms. He certainly was zealous! 2. Part of the problem is precisely that religious beliefs and fervor in some days and ages would strike us as outlandish if held/engaged in today, but were perfectly normal in their time and place.
That’s a fair answer. Thank you Bart.
What do you think of John Shelby Spong’s hunch / theory that Paul was a repressed gay man ? If you read Romans, 7, 21-25, where he talks about how he is captive to the sin which dwells in his members etc. Spong may have read too much into that passage, but I can see why he was tempted to think that.
Thank you.
I think there’s no way to tell. But I do thinkit’s a misinterpretation of Romans 7. There Paul is almost certainly not referring to his personal guilt complex (though he seems to be) but the guilt felt by one still under the power of sin (which he believes he himself is not, but he takes on that role to play th epart.
Interesting. Thank you Bart.
“Has anyone ever wondered why we have only seven of them now? Surely he wrote *dozens*!! What happened to the others? Why weren’t they preserved?”
I wonder about this a lot. I assume many Christians in Paul’s day hadn’t heard of him, or thought of him as a crank. Others respected him, but saw no need to preserve his letters. I’ve heard it hypothesized that one person or community tried to preserve Paul’s letters after he died, and put the letters they had in a single collection, and that all our texts come from that one collection (not including the Pastorals). This would explain why every copy of 2 Corinthians is pasted together in the same way, and why other early collections of Paul’s letters (e.g. Marcion) used the same ones we have. If so, that collection might be the earliest potentially recoverable version of Paul’s letters, with any previous changes impossible to identify.
Does this seem likely to you?
It’s a thorny problem and I don’t know the answers If you want to see some important reflections, check out the discussion in Harry Gamble’s Books and Readers in Early Christianity.
Thank you for this excellent post. I wish we had more texts from those opposed to Paul. It would be fascinating to read counterpoints to his arguments.
Reading the comments of this article was 👌 👏 I loved reading every one’s views.