Loading...I received this question recently and decided to post on it again. It seems like it should be a softball. It turns out, it’s not. It’s a hard curve. Here’s the question and my response.
QUESTION:
Why did Paul establish the idea of salvation via faith? Why did he think that salvation by Jesus’ crucifixion was conditional on faith? Especially when Jesus’ ministry often promoted good works and when Jesus himself surely would have believed in salvation via good works (being Jewish)?
I feel like this is a core tenet I struggle to get my head around since it seems almost contradictory to circumvent good works and then have so many good people–or at least as good as those who have faith–go to hell, or, more accurately, annihilation.
RESPONSE:
The easiest way to see how Paul came to think/believe/understand his evangelistic message that “salvation” with God can come only by “faith” in Christ’s death is by realizing how he started reasoning backwards from his belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. Paul insisted that Christ appeared to him long after he had been crucified, and so he “knew” that Jesus was alive again. This “fact” led him to try to work out the “implications.”
The backward reasoning appears to have worked like this: if Paul knew that Jesus had been crucified, the only way to explain how he might be alive again (Paul knew he was alive because he saw him [he said]) was that God did a miracle. God had raised Jesus from the dead. But if God raised Jesus from the dead, that would mean that Jesus really was the one who stood under God’s special favor. He was the one chosen by God. He was the anointed one. But then why would he die? If he was in God’s special favor, why would God let him be executed? Would God require him to be executed? Tortured to death? Is this what God does to the one he favors? What does he do to his enemies?
The matter was actually a bit more complicated than that for Paul, because Jesus didn’t die just any death, not even just any excruciating death. He was killed on a cross. That was a particular problem for Paul because
Most people who think that in Christianity, salvation comes “by faith” have no clue where the idea came from. I explain it in this post. Want to see? Join the blog! You get tons of content for very little money. And all the money goes to help those in need. What could be better??<a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
And he might be astonished to know that there is still a thing called Messianic Judaism.
Without Dr. Robert Eisenman’s work on Paul and blood purity of the Essenes in the disusssion, there is no hope — what to say of little hope — in understanding Paul. All his doctrine is an inversion of Jamesian Qumran purity observances laid out in the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesherim.
The gnostic Apocalypse of Peter also confirms the DSS Pesherim. Orthodox Christianity was born from an aborted monster fetus with Paul as midwife.
Has no one else here read Eisenman?
Lots of people have read Eisenman, of course! (Whether here or not is another issue) I”m afraid very few scholars who know the sources have found him persuasive. Off hand I can’t think of any. If you know of some, let us/me know — I’d be genuinely interested in knowing.
You haven’t read him! I thought so. I may not be a trained biblical scholar but I do recognize a genius when I read one, and I’ve read all 3,000 pages of Eisenman’s key books. He has the arguments and support to show James was the Righteous Teacher, Paul the Spouter of Lying, and Ananus, the Wicked Priest. You have to argue the case, not point to a lack of collegial support. That’s an appeal to authority and NOT an argument, as you well know.
I don’t know. I suspect it’s out of jealousy, if they read his work and protest it as invalid. Who else explains WHY Paul is the Liar, and WHY James is the Righteous Teacher, and WHY Judas is a cover for James, the same as the First and Second Apocalypses of James and the Gospel of Judas do. If these so-called scholars would actually consider his proof they would not reject his thesis. He is RIGHT. I prove him right with an entirely independent argument from the mastership succession of Sant Mat, (The ultimate appeal to authority, I suppose!)
Do you want to understand this or not? Blood salvation is inversion of Essene purity.
Yes I’ve read his key points. So have lots and lots of scholars. Have you ever read any of the scholarship that shows he *can’t* be right? One key issue has to do with the dates involved. The events being described in the Scrolls (Teacher of Righteousness/ Wicked Priest/ etc.) simply can’t refer to figures from the first century CE.
The most striking fact is that if Paul was willing to die for what he meant to be the truth, why was he lying in order to survive?
“And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them, liars.” (Rev 2:2)
It reminds me of the hunter who was annoying his friends with the story of a lion that attacked and chewed him.
How could he be so bold as to pretend the story being truthful and still he being alive?
But he would reply: “Well, and you call THIS life?”
I don’t understand what you think Paul was lying about. Pls explain… thanks.
There are two different pieces of evidence, one internal and one external.
The internal has to deal with Acts mostly, maybe Revelation but also his letters.
He might have reasons to doubt the Mosaic Laws being instrumental to salvation, but when he attended the council at Jerusalem, he kept quiet and nodded a lot. While in the other part of the Roman world, he spoke different words.
The external is, every Christian that is not a saint is a hypocrite. And even if in Rome later they celebrated him as such, he was just as anyone else.
I don’t understand the second part. The early church had no Saints – only martyrs, which Paul was believed to be….
I would bet good money that less than 5% of Christians on the planet are aware of this sophisticated theological interpretation.
I can say with some assurance that fewer than 1% of my Christian students do!
Lots of invention going on in the Gospels/Acts to show that it was OK to break with Jamesian Jewish law: the three ‘tablecloths from heaven’ vision by Peter telling him it was supposedly alright to eat what is ‘unclean or common’ (sacrificed to idols) as if he never learned that in three YEARS with the master. Salome granted the head of John the B after Herodias danced for it, who condemned the Hetodians for niece-marriage, and Jesus healing the woman with a twelve-year issue of blood showing he can touch whatever he wants no matter how impure. All these things were Qumranic blood purity rules of James Paul would have issues with. None happened, but the culmination would have been Jesus, actually DRINKING blood (as wine — also forbidden!) at the Last Supper, becoming, ultimately, the quintessential symbol of his saving power. Eisenman goes into how a gazillion details of this connect Paul to rejecting James and his law-giving. The idea was always to demean James and Peter, the two primary opponents of Jesus, both almost certainly successors in the line of Masters of the time. At least James was, for sure. He became, of course, fictional traitor ‘Judas.’
Didn’t Paul receive the doctrine from earlier Christians? Isn’t this the implication of 1 Corinthians 15 verse 3? I think you have said that he learnt some of the fundamentals of the faith from those who came before him.
He certainly indicates that “Christ died for our sins” was something he heard from others. What he doesn’t indicate is the logic behind it.
I know you favor the objective genitive in the πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) debate (faith in Christ [objective genitive] vs faithfulness of Christ [subjective genitive]). Fine. But even with an objective genitive (faith in Christ), I think Paul’s use of πίστις is best understood in most cases with ‘faithfulness’. Thus it is not merely faith or belief in Christ that saves or justifies for Paul, but faithfulness to Christ, which obviously includes following all moral laws (and much more) as is abundantly clear from Paul’s letters. Surely you cannot disagree with that, can you??? Seriously???
Ha! Well, it’s amazing what things I can thing. My preference is not “faithfulness” but “trust.” Complete obedience comes because of that deep trust in the salvation provided by God in Christ, and it is made possible by the fact that believers have received the Spirit at baptism, so that they are no longer under the “power of sin.” But the justification is provided by Christ’s death, received by faith. IMO.
You will always be a Protestant atheist!
I had a feeling that was coming….
Dr. Ehrman, your response here calls to mind Pete Enns and his book, “The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires Our Trust More Than Our “Correct” Thinking.”
The distinction he draws between “faith” and “trust” helped me navigate this theological puzzle, which mirrors navigating Scylla and Charybis in some respects! The irony for me is that I long ago walked away from Christian faith, and I remember thinking as I read Enns, “Wow…if I had read this 30 years ago my journey may have ended differently.”
I still read about the history of Christianity because I am live in a culture that is so completely marinated in it. I cannot understand myself and my culture without understanding how Christianity has shaped both.
We need to get rid of the idea that “salvation” means having eternal life and going to heaven after death. The word “salvation” is used 84 times in the Old Testament, and nowhere does it contain those ideas, which were not part of a Jewish understanding in Jesus’ time, although some Jews had started to believe in a future resurrection of the dead. We need to see salvation as something for this life, not a future one.
Mel Tuck
I think you’re absolutely right, that is the OT teaching. But I dn’t think it was Paul’s. For him the verb “save” is virtually always FUTURE tense. IN part this again show just how diverse the biblical views of things were, even the most critical.
Quite number of movies portray what Saul Paul believed. Earth destruction happens and it is no more inhabitable and everyone trying to escape, then Jesus appears from the sky with a celestial ship (cloud) to SAVE his followers out of the flaming earth 🌎 to a new earth (Salvation).
Salvation literally means saving from something. So it can mean saving from foreign occupation, bondage, disease, dictatorship, ignorance, etc.
Though partial salvation happens when having faith in Jesus where evil bondage has been broken.Ultimately death is conceived by Paul to be the objective evil, so salvation from death treads anything else & it happens through leaving this earth (which will be destroyed because it is evil & ruled by evil) & residing in a new earth where he would have new body with no weaknesses (Utopia).
Salvation is saved from REBIRTH into this world. That’s what the Masters say. “Lest a worse thing come unto thee.” John 5:14
An off-topic aside, but something I think many of my fellow blog-readers might find interesting.
Currently (and for couple of weeks) Audible is having a sale in which a *huge* number of courses from Great Courses are available for $10 each[!]
And of particular interest here, the sale includes all (I think) of the GC courses by Prof Ehrman (as well as courses by other stars like Jodi Magness and David Brakke.)
(To pre-answer one obvious question: A pdf of the Course Handbook is included with the purchase of each course.)
I suppose they’re discounting mine just so they can get rid of them finally!
It figures that it would be ones that I already have.
Off topic, but a suggestion (request?) for a blog discussion (assuming it’s not already been done here):
Examples of hapax legomenon in the NT (or in the Bible more generally).
I realize that (probably) the majority of these are not especially interesting: for example proper names, or terms whose meanings are nonetheless reasonably clear.
But it would be interesting to look at some examples where any translation of the term is at best conjectural, and at worst, simply an guess. (No doubt an educated guess, but ultimately a guess nonetheless.)
(I think this is one of many interesting, and often under appreciated, issues involved in translation, especially when talking with the “textual infallibility” or KJV crowd.
More generally, I think it’s safe to say that for many folks their working model of how a translation is made is that it simply involves looking up each “foreign word”, one by one, in some hypothetical “translation word-list” and just copying out the English.)
It’s a terrific idea. (For those who don’t know, a biblical hapax legomenon is a word that appears only one time in the BIble, in the original language; a bona fide hapax legomenon that appears in the Bible is one that appears only once in the original language, either ever or up to the time it appears in teh BIble). Even though I know some off the top of my head, I’m not sure where I would find a list. Interesting issue. And you’re right, unusualy important and unknown. If anyone reading this can think of a partial list somewhere,that would make it easier for me!
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/66705.aspx
This page contains an article where the writer (Mark Barnes) describes generating a list from the Logos 5 software package.
The first line in the initial posting holds a link to a Word document containing his results.
(Unfortunately I don’t seem to be able to copy the direct link.)
Also in the doc he says this is a list of words that “appear once in the USB 28”.
So I’m not sure how many of these are “bone fide” HL (I.e. i suspect it may include words where the given syntactic form appears only once in the NT, while other forms of the same Greek word may appear elsewhere in the NT; or words, while unique to the NT, that may appear in other sources.)
THanks. Yes, most of these occur (sometimes often) outside the NT. Those would be less interesting, since they are simply words in Greek, not something someone made up for the occasion.
Lots of people — lots and lots of BIBLICAL SCHOLARS! — make the mistake of thinking that “New Testament Greek” is a language; it’s kinda like saying “Da Vinci Code English” is a language, and that if you study the Da Vincie Codes use of words and grammar you can understand it without knowing English itself VEry weird.
I think this issue in itself would make an interesting topic; I.e. what it really means to produce a translation, and the common, popular misunderstandings of what that means.
I certainly can’t claim to be any sort of expert, but when I hear many folks discussing “translations” it’s hard to avoid the feeling that their concept of other languages is that they are all essentially “just English with different words” (that is, as a type of “substitution cypher”.)
The Jewish Encyclopedia has an article on the hapax legomena in the Hebrew scriptures: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7236-hapax-legomena
A British chap named Mark Barnes created a computer generated list of hapax legomena in the Greek New Testament that can be downloaded here:
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/66705.aspx?PageIndex=1
THanks!
THanks!
Here’s Mark Barnes’ downloadable list of hapax legomena in the Hebrew bible:
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/70793.aspx
Great!
Perhaps this link may help us: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7236-hapax-legomena
THanks.
Simple DuckDuckGo query:
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7236-hapax-legomena
Thanks.
Very interesting, at least to me. According to Wiki (not, shall we say, always a trustworthy source), “The Greek New Testament contains 686 local hapax legomena, which are sometimes called “New Testament hapaxes”. 62 of these occur in 1 Peter and 54 occur in 2 Peter.
Epiousios, translated into English as ″daily″ in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3, occurs nowhere else in all of the known ancient Greek literature, and is thus a hapax legomenon in the strongest sense.”
The Wiki entry contains references.
Interesting. I thought some later Greek church fathers talked about the word and what it meant. But maybe not.
One Professor I had preferred a translation where “daily” had the sense of something like “seed grain”.
That is that we should trust in God to the extent that we could safely consume the grain that we would otherwise use to grow “tomorrow’s grain”. I.e. that God loves us so much, we don’t need to worry about the future.
To follow up a little bit further:
In his commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible series, Joseph Fitzmyer gives two very dense pages just to [Epiousios], together with 22 bibliographic references (including, for example:
Metzger, B. M. “How Many Times Does ‘Epioisous’ occur outside the Lord’s Prayer.” ExpTim 69 (1957-1958) 52-54.)
(Also, the only really relevant reference to a Greek Father that I can find in Fitzmyer’s article is this: “The problematic Greek adj. […] is probably best explained by Origen, but without his allegorical interpretation of it.” Although, alas, without any more direct citations…)
But more to the point, while there’s no room to go into the full discussion here (and, in any case, I certainly wouldn’t presume to offer any of my own thoughts or summary here), I think this clearly underscores the original point. I.e. that any modern translation that renders the term simply as “daily” is certainly papering over a whole multitude of issues.
Yup, the problem with producing a translation is that you have to choose a word. It’s a very frustrating experience, publishing a translation…
I have found a list of NT hapax legomena at https://community.logos.com/forums/t/66705.aspx
This is within a blog entitled FaithlifeForums
It appears to be remarkably comprehensive.
THanks.
Great
Again interesting, checked it out and compared this to what Wiki says. Clicking 3465.Hapax Legomena.docx within the community.logos link (also provided by Robertus above) opens the Word document. Therein, neither Mat 6:11 nor Luke 11:3 is listed (i.e., “epiousios”).
So: is Wikipedia once again incorrect (by exclusion), or is the Wiki author hip to something which Mark Barnes (the compiler of the list) is not?
Beats me. My goodness one can’t believe everything one reads.
“Prior to this, the followers of Jesus – the first Christians – were of course Jews who understood that he was the messiah who had died and been raised from the dead. But they knew this as the act of the Jewish God given to the Jewish people. Certainly gentiles could find this salvation as well. But first they had to be Jewish. Not for Paul. Jew or gentile, it didn’t matter. What mattered was faith in Christ.”
Not as Paul presents it in Galatians 2:4. Those who urged circumcision for gentile Christians were intruders, whose innovatory views were rejected by James, Cephas and John, the pillars of the community. From Paul’s account, the contrary practice – that gentile Christians should remain gentiles – was the established expectation before the sham-Christians barged in.
One further point on the resurrection of Jesus; “…God did a miracle”.
Surely this is incorrect? For Paul, the general resurrection of the dead is hard-wired into God’s creation. The resurrected Jesus was the ‘first fruits’ of this general resurrection. So for Paul this was not (indeed could not be) a ‘miracle’.
I”m defining “miracle” in this context as an act of God that could not happen in the normal course of things. By that definition, the sun coming up would not be a miracle, but an iron axe head that suddenly was made to float would. THere are lots of other definitions, and this one is rough and ready — but defensible, I’d say. Jesus’ resurrection would definitly qualify as a miracle in this way of looking at things. So too was the resurrection of all to come — an act of God, done at a particular time or place, not the way the universe normally works. As to Gal 2:4 — I do not consider opponents the first Christians. THey were later converts, and very possibly themselves of gentile extraction.
Fair enough understanding of a ‘miracle’ from you perspective Bart, but Paul’s ‘reasoning’ was rather different.
Paul (as I understands it) recognises ‘wonders’ as God intervening into particular circumstances through the actions of the Spirit – Galatians 3:5. A miracle is a singular outcome; and not presaged in previous circumstances.
Whereas Paul sees the resurrection of Jesus, and the New Life in Christ, specifically (and not metaphorically) as a childbirth event within the whole order of Creation; Romans 8:22. Any childbirth (and certainly safe childbirth in the Roman world) is indeed an outcome of wonder; for which all concerned may well be grateful to God. But it is not a ‘miracle’; in that every pregnancy necessarily presages a future birth.
For Paul, current labour-pains throughout Creation are an undeniable (and universal) observation – albeit that only a few (as yet) recognise that these pains *are* labour-pains. But just as childbirth following labour is ” the normal course of things” for men and women; so New Life in Christ arising from the groans of the world’s labour pains can be recognised as ” the normal course of things” for Creation.
While this reasoning back from the facts is indeed compelling, how does Paul go from “Following the Law was not God’s method for saving his covenantal people, Jesus’ atoning death was” to “They need to believe in the death and resurrection of the messiah Jesus.” Could Paul not have concluded that the Sacrifice was fully sufficient and ALL people were saved by it regardless whether they believed it (or even knew of it!) at all?
Some Pauline passages do suggest that (Rom. 5:18 e.g.,). But since Paul sometimes considered salvation a “gift” he thought it had to be “received.” If you reject a give, you don’t get the goody. Or at least that’s one of the ways he looks at it.
Not all immigrants to America come because of their love with American Culture. Many come for economic reasons, others come for freedom ambition while others might come for the superiority &/or protection associated with it.
For all of those, there is a culture shock because of conflict with values from motherland. The handling of this shock is dependent on how adherent you are to motherland culture. For a fervent believer of motherland culture, a schizophrenic life is lived where you conduct all your life within new land, though your thoughts, concepts & values reside in your motherland. There is a further problem.If your motherland sees itself to be the supreme nation & despise America for example, you would enjoy or even milk the benefits America offers you although you despise & hate America internally. Contemporary examples are protests organized by Islamic fundamentalists within western world calling for destruction of the western world and being it overrun by Islamic rule.
Now 2nd generation immigrants kids would suffer more because they have not lived in motherland, they only see the motherland through the eyes of their parents. The second generation from such family would try to create a hybrid of their reality & their parents motherland culture in order to live semi normal life. This 2nd generation kid is Paul who intrinsically wanted his perceived salvation to be given to all the Roman population vs historical Jesus &/or his disciples who despised the Roman way of life (separated themselves from it) and required everyone else to be Jewish 1st.
Paul’s hybrid perception had to abandon the Jewish law works in order for his preaching to reconcile with reality and also to be successful since the push for drastically converting people lifestyle had failed & was guaranteed to fail again.
Ah! Thank you so much for this Dr Ehrman! It is SO helpful!
Would Jesus-as far as we can tell from the gospels- have agreed with this backwards reasoning? Did he ever indicate that this was how salvation would be obtainable in the future?
Thank you so much!
I very much doubt it.
With what evidence do you doubt it?
Thanks so much!!
Sorry, I don’t have a record of our ealier conversation, so I don’t konw what I said I was doubting or what evidence you are asking for! Remember to include a summary of what you’re asking about if it is not obvious to readers — otherwise other blog members won’t know what we’re talking about either.
Sure! (Thanks for your patience!!)
So essentially what I want to understand is:
1. What is the commonly-known Protestant view of how Jewish people obtained salvation versus what Paul established?
2. What is the more authentic, New Perspective on Paul, view of how Jewish people obtained salvation versus what Paul established?
3. What was Jesus’ view on how to obtain salvation? And with what evidence do you doubt that Jesus would have agreed with Paul’s’ backwards reasoning
Thank you so much!!
1. Since Luther it has been that Jews had to earn salvation by doing god’s will; 2. the new persepctive says that God made them the covenant people without requiring them to do the Law; doing the law came as a *response* to the salvation they already had. 3. Jesus thought that people needed to repent, return to God, and live lives of giving to others in need to have salvation. 4. He would have disagree because he didn’t think salvation was about his death and resurrection; only after he died did anyone think that this is what was required for being right with God.
I wonder whether Paul considered the plight of those who were in no position even to know about that atoning death. Can’t have faith in something you don’t know about. And Paul seemed to believe that there was only a limited amount of time to get the word out, so to speak, before the kingdom arrived on earth. Not likely you could spread the word to everyone is it? So those folks out in the boonies are damned when the kingdom arrives, through no fault of their own? Was Paul a nascent Calvinist? And this still seems to be a step with no logic in it: an atoning death, but not if I don’t know about it, or don’t accept it or have faith in it? His reasoning backward seems to have many flaws. And Occam’s razor suggests that the simpler true answer is simply that Jesus was no messiah, and Paul’s visions were delusional. Or, the atoning death wasn’t conditional on anything. But that breaks down too, when you think of it…
I wonder too. His sense of urgency suggests that he had to convert them … or else…
Thank you so much for clarification. A sceptic in me might than ask: the thousands of Jews crucified after the rebellion of 70 AD “WERE” cursed? I suspect Paul couldn´t have known about this future event, as he probably died (and certainly wrote his lettes) prior to it, but shouldn´t it make this chain of thought at least dubious for later theologians?
He certainly new of lots who had been crucidfied *before* then. IT’s a good point. Did he really think they were all especailly wicked? Kinda blamin’ the victim here…
Paula Fredriksen indicates that crucified Jews were thought of as victims as you say or even as heroes. Not as being cursed.
Yup, I”m sure that’s right. But calling one of them the messiah would have been a problem.
Its true “Jesus’ ministry often promoted good works”. Paul’s teachings contradicted that of Jesus. He was never a follower of Jesus. He merely stopped persecuting and introduced a contradictory/new religion.
“Paul insisted that Christ appeared to him” Paul never met Jesus. How could he recognize Jesus or Jesus’ voice? None of Paul’s companions confirmed his story to be true.
“Paul, as a good citizen…and a good Jew” Can you call a dangerous persecutor/terrorist a good citizen?
“God’s special favor.” How could God allow the crucifixion if special favor? John 7:32-34 confirmed Jesus was saved. Crucifixion/Ressurection contained 174 contradictions and wrong prophecies.
“..proved…God raised him from the dead.” Where are the proofs that God Said “God raised Jesus from the dead.”?
(proved…Paul had seen him alive). How could Paul seen Jesus when he cannot even recognized Jesus?
“the followers of Jesus – the first Christians” There is not even a tiny historical evidence that the followers of Jesus were first Christians. Where are the proofs?
“..followers who understood..messiah who had died and been raised from the dead.” This understanding was published by unknown/unreliable Greek writers who never met the followers of Jesus.
“Paul never met Jesus”– absolutely right. That for me is a real sticking point. Of course, all sorts of modern Christians will tell you they’ve “met” Jesus but that’s modern jargon, this personal encounter stuff, that cuts no mustard, to be frank. Paul’s visionary experiences are simply off the wall. We really know very little about those entirely subjective experiences because Paul wasn’t that explicit about them. Paul DID meet people who DID know Jesus in the flesh, but he seems to have had little regard for them and considers his visions more valid. That is just bizarre to me. Paul was an odd duck, to say the least. Which makes Pauline Christianity highly questionable.
Dr. Ehrman, the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15 already says that Jesus died FOR OUR SINS. If you just described the line of thought for Paul, do we know how did similar idea of Jesus dying for sins of others crept into the minds of early Christians before Paul?
Yes, I absolutely think that even before Paul, Jesus’ followers were saying that he died for the sins of others. I don’t know, though, how they worked out the logic of that statement, just as most Christians today — the vast majority — have never thought through the logic and cannot give a coherent explanation of how it “works.” It’s possible they did, but we can’t really tell. It looks pretty clear to me that Paul did though, at least to his own satisfaction; and he thought that the implications were a “revelation of God” given just to him (according to Galatians 1)
Obviously, they knew it because they read it in the NT! 🙂 Do you think Isaiah 53 might have helped them make this connection? I suppose you do not ascribe this tradition to the actual sayings or predictions of historical Jesus.
I think Isaiah 53 and other passages were appealed to only *after* they made the connection.
Completely off topic: In “Studies in the textual criticism of the New Testament”, Chapter 1 “The Text of the New Testament”, you say that the ‘western’ witnesses, apparently related to Codex Bezae “appear to preserve an early but unreliable form of the text”. What is unreliable about these witnesses? Would we not normally expect the earliest forms to be the most reliable? I often see the phrase “our earliest and best” manuscripts say one thing or another, like for example the short ending of Mark. Is there a subtle distinction here between an early MS and an early ‘form’ of the text?
THis form of the text has a large number of oddities in it, and illustrates very well why “early” does not mean “better” when it comes to manuscripts. And here’s the reason:
suppose Manuscript X comes from the 3rd century but Manuscxript Y comes from the 4th century. YOu might think Manuscript X would naturally be superior, because it’s earlier. BUT what if Manuscript X was copied from a manuscript made just a decade earlier, also in the 4th century, but Manuscript Y was copied from one of the 2nd century? In that case Manuscript Y of the 4th century has a demonstrably earlier text than Manuscript X of the 3rd century! (There are other reasons, for thining that earlier is not NECESSARILY bettter, but tha’s good enough for now)
So, considering the Bezae Codex specifically, does it contain anything that perhaps conflicts with other, more ‘reputable’ texts, that can be trusted?
Yes, in a number of my technical studies I’ve argued that it sometimes has the more original text — for example, when in Mark 1:41 it indicates that JEsus became “angry” when the leper asked him to heal him, rather than “compassionate.”
I have seen you present this “story” a number of times. I would be interested in hearing the background on who first attributed this train of thought to Paul and how it might have developed over time.
Good question. The essence of it goes back to E. P. Sanders — at least that’s where I first read something like it, when it comes to “backwards thinking”
What do you make of Acts 10 and the conversion of Cornelius? Is it simply the writer of Acts trying to harmonize Peter and Paul? It has to be an early tradition/story, maybe within a decade or two of whatever kernel of truth spawned it, right? I just wonder what you make of it given: “Certainly gentiles could find this salvation as well. But first they had to be Jewish.” How confident are you that it really was ONLY Paul who thought and preached that? Just him?
YEs, in part it’s meant to show the complete harmony of Peter and Paul. Even more, it’s to show that Peter started converting gentiles before Paul did! So Peter was invested in Paul’s understanding and mission even before Paul was. I don’t think there’s any way that’s historical, but it’s certainly how Acts wants to spin it!
That sounds like what EP Sanders argued. I am skeptical of the question’s premise that Judaism is salvation by good works. EP Sanders argued in Paul and Palestinian Judaism that ancient Judaism was a religion of god’s election of the Jews by grace that did not have to be earned by good works. Has that viewpoint held up in later scholarship?
Yes, one of Sanders major contributions was to show that Jews did not believe in earning salvation by good works. Others said that before, but he more or less proved it, and it’s the standard view now. This is simplly a CHristian caracature of Judaism (htat they have to “earn” it but we have been “given” it)
Thanks for this! I’m just about to delve into Paul and Palestinian Judaism!
So if the more authentic view is that Jewish people were saved by being in the covenant and not through works, how does this change Paul’s view? Does it mean that he thought that through the death of Jesus the covenant was extended?
Thank you!
He thought that God’s people were those who had faith in the messiah he sent, and that included both Jews and gentiles both, the latter of whom did not need to keep the sign of the covenant. It gets a bit deep and in the weeds, but see if SAnders makes sense to you.
I can see some logic in that, yet still would ask why belief is necessary. A debt can be paid off without the debtor agreeing to it. If you walked off without paying your bar tab, and I paid it for you before the manager called the cops, that would not require you asking for it, accepting it, or knowing about it.
I suppose God could still set certain terms for the credit to be applied. Why belief though? Why not living a good life, but getting away with a certain degree of sin? The law still matters, but perfect adherence is not necessary. Or something else.
Let’s first remember that Paul never knew Jesus. All Paul knew about Jesus came from the Jews he prosecuted including Stephen and other hearsay that Paul probably immediately dismissed, including news of Jesus’ resurrection, until Paul’s vision enroute to Damascus
Let’s not forget that Paul never knew Jesus. The synoptic gospels had not been written. All Paul knew about Jesus came from Jews he prosecuted and hearsay from others that he probably immediately dismissed. Paul may not even have have believed in Jesus’ resurrection until his dream or vision of Jesus, while Paul was traveling to Damascus.
Paul had no first hand knowledge of Jesus’ teachings and ministry as they related to faith-based works as essential for salvation. This was a significant factor why Paul defaulted on the importance of faith-based works as a basis for salvation. Notwithstanding Paul, there is significant support in scripture that Jesus earned eternal life because of his exemplary life and devotion to God, rather than because Adam ate forbidden fruit.
As I strongly infer in my book, Today’s Christian Heretics?, Paul was simply mistaken, and the Greco-Roman influenced early Christian church was a good forum developing Paul’s beliefs as a part of the Nicene form of Christianity.
How does salvation via faith/belief in Paul compare with salvation via faith/belief in the gospel of John?
It’s a very good and complicated question. I can’t get into all of teh ins and outs here in a short reply, but I will say that even though John does indeed think that Jesus laid down his life for others, “faith” in him, for John, is a lot more about believing that he is the one who has come down from heaven as sent from God and that he is one with God. It is less about atonement and more about believing in Jesus’ identity as the divine being who has come into the world to reveal God.
Bart,
It’s very simple, really. Two verses each from the mind of each: Romans 10:9, and John 6:40. Salvation for those who CONFESS and believe, compared to those WHO SEE and believe. And it is ‘see’ PHYSICALLY, not some other kind of ‘seeing’ because 6:36 just before 6:40 says they DID see but DIDN’T believe. Only living Masters can save. They ALL say so, including this One.
You do realize how important this is, right? Not just one, but many, many great Saviors. They all say so. Nanak, Paltu, Maharaj Charan Singh, SwamiJii, Dadu, Bulleh Shah, James, John the Baptist…
1 Peter, Chapter 1: verses: 20 and 21: “He was chosen before the world was created, but has appeared in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead to his glory, and so your faith and your hope are in God.” – OK, so *God* (of which Jesus, being the 2nd “person” of this entity) chose a *savior* BEFORE “they” created the world? Wouldn’t this indicate “they” intended to create a world that needed to be saved? The Christian paradigm is such a mind fart. So this *perfect*, *all knowing* Creator created creatures (humans) “in their own image” so flawed and evil that they had to send part of themselves down to “die” to *atone* for THEIR shoddy workmanship? Oh, but wait, that was the PLAN? I’m sorry, no disrespect intended. I believed this stuff FULLY for many years myself.
Paul was a terrorist, Acts 29: 9-10; Acts 8: 3; Acts 9: 1; whereby he persecuted the genuine followers of Jesus. Paul not a good person.
ALL JESUS’ DISCIPLES REJECTED PAUL in Acts 9:26
Acts 9: 23 and 15 more verses in Acts whereby Almost the entire Jewish population including followers of Jesus wanted to kill Paul.
Paul changed completely the religion of Jesus and the religion of the enemy of Jesus.
He had to save his life. He escaped to the gentiles to get permanent protection. Paul reintroduced the pagan religion, changed their pagan god to Jesus as their Lord and retained all the pagan habits, continue taking pork, no circumcision or obey the Law. He offered something attractive, easy, but ridiculous and they will be on their way to heaven.
Paul explained in Acts 26: 19-21. The Jewish community did not believe his vision and he had changed the status of Jesus from Messiah to Lord.
Can you consider writing about the 15 verses the Jewish population wanted to kill Paul?
“first Christians”. Acts 11:26 Paul and his followers were the first Christian. Jesus and his followers had a different religion and were never Christians.
It’s not clear to me what you mean by terrorist in this context.
Paul believed in the code of Noah as applicable to all peoples of earth.
God required a lot of special practices of the tribe of Jews to maintain their position as his best friends, but doesn’t say non-Jews are doomed for not being Jewish.
I believe it is Isaiah that envisions non-Jews streaming into Jerusalem to show their loyalty to YHWH. Jews insist such adherents should follow the Noahide code, and, if they are faithful to the Most High, would be viewed favorably by God.
Paul wasn’t renouncing the special practices Jews adhere to in order to sustain their status as God’s best friends, he simply saw that God had set up a two-tiered system already in scripture, and so why—especially in a time of spiritual emergency, when God was expected to return any day and we all want God to be as warmed as possible by our response—try to initiate tens of thousands of gentiles into the tribe of Judah when the prophets of the tribe’s own God had already envisioned God being pleased by throngs of non-Jews showing their allegiance to the Most High?
Do you believe there is any historical validity to the account in Acts 10:1-48 of Peter baptizing the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius based on a vision?
Actually, I’ll save you the typing and answer this question for you with a link to: https://ehrmanblog.org/paul-and-acts-part-three-for-members/ 🙂 . But feel free to comment further!
No, don’t think so… It’s a story meant to show that Peter and Paul were completely sympatico, that Peter was behind the gentile mission even before Paul was….
I’m not sure if other are having the same problem (hence my comment now) but I keep having posts cut out at a certain point. I’m clearly logged in, and I’m merely at the lowest membership level, but the last words I can see here are “This was a particular problem for Paul because”
I use google chrome browser.
I must have refreshed (and used multiple browsers) a million times (several weeks back) to try to read the squirrel story and Bruce Metzinger, all to no avail. 🙁
Are other having this problem?
When you have a problem, be sure to send a quick note to our Support team (click on Help). They’ll figure it out for you.
What do you think came first, the belief that Jesus was the son of god or the belief that he was Lord?
Hard to say. I suppose Son of God. His followers would have thought that the second they came to think he was raised from the dead. They may have concluded he was “Lord” as a corrolary. On the other hand, they would have called him “Lord” while living, since that was just a term for a teacher or master. On the third hand, they may have called him son of God then too, since he was especially close to God. Conclusion: hard to say.
See? You, for one scholar, believe something Eisenman says! Why stop with Cornelius, though? The tablecloth vision right before in Acts 10, is also fable.
Another detail Eisenman points to is Hegesippus, in History of the Church, 23:11, attributing “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” Luke 23:34, to James. As well, “He is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and He will come on the clouds of heaven,” Matt. 26:64. Obviously James is being absorbed into Jesus here. Right after Luke 23:34, verse 35 has “rulers scoffed at him” a peculiar phrase mirrored in DSS Pesherim with Paul in connection to James. Lots are cast to divide Jesus’s garments, here and Acts 1 with Matthias, and Acts 7, with Paul and Stephen. ‘Crying out,’ “on his knees” (‘camels knees’ of James, Hegesippus), and stoning Stephen, all James cover characters. Mark’s kiss (James kisses Jesus in the Apocalypses), seizing of Jesus (Apocalypses: James is seized, three ‘of them’ as in John) naked young man, ‘following Jesus’ (as successor!), fleeing (UP!) and leaving his ‘linen cloth’ (Nazirites wore no wool), all tie Jesus and Judas to James. Many details from Eisenman.
1. Does the OT support salvation thru the death of another person?
2. If it does not, then this new doctrine must have been alien or new to the ears of the 1st century Jew-turned-Christians who heard it preached for the first time.
1. No. 2. Yup. That’s one reason most Jews rejected the message.
Bart,
Now a days , i am hearing a group of people claiming as Oriental Orthodox Christians propagating the following theology . They claim that the Yahweh(Old testament God of Jews) is not the actual father of Jesus christ or the father in the Trinity Concept. Yahweh is just a tribal God, whereas the father in Trinity is the almighty God, who created the universe. Though i am not a practicing christian, i am a Orthodox Christian by birth . I have never heard this theology in an Orthodox Church . Could you please comment on these claims from your knowledge of early Christianity .
That’s the opposite of the early Xn view, which understood YHWH to be the God who created the world, chose Israel to be his people, and sent his son to die for salvation.
So that was not an orthodox view anytime , right. So is it the same doctrine, you talked about earlier in your blog as given below
Marcionism – the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries a.d. accepting some parts of the New Testament but denying Christ’s corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament.
Ecclesiastes 1:9: “There is nothing new [‘NEW’ Testament] under the sun.
Hosea 6:6: “For I desire steadfast love AND NOT SACRIFICE, the knowledge of God [Gnosis], rather than burnt offerings.” Judas was created to eliminate James, the real savior of his day. The Pauline Lie of sacrificial salvation was created out of James’s SELF sacrifice and put on the cross. This is why the Essenes called Paul the Spouter of Lying (Habbakuk Pesher, X,9), and the Gnostics called him the “evil and cunning man of a manifold dogma,” (Apocalypse of Peter, vii, 3; 74.20). Robert Eisenman covered the Scrolls and Paul, I added here the Nag Hammadi Paul.
The New Testament IS A FRAUD. It, and its offspring, the Church, is responsible for more mayhem than any other single thing in human history. The sooner scholars call it what IT IS, the better. Anyone going through Western theological education has been brainwashed. Even those who think they repudiate it.
The Essenes were close, and the Valentinian Gnostics were closer still to true. Sant Mat is truth. (Www.rssb.org. And no, I don’t care if you come, or join. Fine with me if you don’t. More room for me at Satsang.)
I don’t know if contemporary scholars of early Christianity still focus on parallels between Paul’s teachings and those of the so-called “mystery religions” of the ancient world, but those also frequently featured an element of divine “faith” (pistis) in their rites. Is Paul asking his readers to trust that Jesus was alive and would return to redeem them soon qualitatively (or conceptually) different than the faith Apuleius, for example, puts in Isis, whom, somewhat like Paul, he also glimpses in a mystical vision?
My sense is that most scholars today who have looked deeply into the matter by actually reading the ancient source.s of information about the mysteries see some similarities, but not any causal connection. Apuleius, for example — well, not him, but his character in the Golden Ass, Lucian — has a very different relationship of “faith” wiht Isis than Paul does with JEsus. He does indeed treater her as the ultimate divinity (for a while!), but even then he remained a polytheist and he never thought that she had done something to bring about the salvation of humans in general, let alone the cosmos. ANd the vision Lucian has is very different from Paul’s in that it is ritually determined, all part of a set practice. Etc. BUT I will completely agree that reading this kind of material can help illuminate the early Christian traditions
NOTE: The post is incomplete.
That is, it ends at mid-sentence: “ That was a particular problem for Paul because ”
Bummer I’m not sure why you didn’t get it all. But when you have a problem like this, contact “Support” by clicking the “Help” link, and they’ll figure it out for you.
Why is even faith or trust in the atonement needed for salvation? For many Christians faith itself seems to amount to a “work”. Why not just say that, because of the atonement, salvation is a pure gift for everyone whether they believe in Jesus or not? For one thing it removes the unfairness of condemning those who have never heard of Christ. And Paul at least hinted at ultimate, universal salvation, didn’t he?
What do you think of this explanation? (I probably got it from you.) God still insists on people leading moral lives. But without the strength and grace God gives through faith/trust-and through Baptism-people’s sinful nature prevents them from being (fully) moral.
Finally, how does repentance figure into Paul’s formula for salvation?
“
I”m afraid that’s a theological question; I have my own preferences too! For Paul repentance is a minor issue. He doesn’t emphasize that people need to repent so God can forgive them (Jesus’ view) but that people need to belief in Christ so they can experience atonement.
I”m afraid that’s a theological question; I have my own preferences too! For Paul repentance is a minor issue. He doesn’t emphasize that people need to repent so God can forgive them (Jesus’ view) but that people need to belief in Christ so they can experience atonement.
During Jesus’s lifetime (ie, before the resurrection), what made his followers think he was the Messiah? From reading your books, I can recall two things: (1) the apocalyptic message that infused his teachings and actions; and (2) he probably told his closest followers that in some sense he was the Messiah.
I’m wondering if the gospels contain historical evidence of other factors. I’m thinking of what kind of personal impression he might have made on people. Was he extraordinarily charismatic, compassionate, brilliant, inspiring, and/or authoritative? Did he make his whole life congruent with his message? Did he weave together old beliefs and new ideas that spoke to people’s deepest sufferings and hopes? What are some examples?
Miracles (without making him unique or proving divinity) would be a good explanation too. I understand that there can’t be historical evidence for miracles. But could a reputation for miracles or some near-miraculous, life-transforming encounters with people have been factors?
It appears that they believed him when he said that God was soon to bring his kingdom to earth, that they would be rulers in it, and he would be the ruler over them — that is, the “king” of the kingdom, the messiah. As with other charismatic leaders with groups of devoted followers, he didn’t need to do anything miraculous to make them accept his message.
That might actually be interesting if it were true. But where in all the Bible does Jesus ever say anything about his kingdom ‘ON EARTH’, Bart? I know several that say exactly the opposite. I don’t get it with you.
WEll, the Lord’s Prayer to begin with.
Why did the author of Hebrews think that “there can be no forgiveness without blood”? Is that stated somewhere in the Torah?
THe entire sacrificial system of the Torah seems to be predicated in one way or another on that idea.
How did Jews living far away from the temple observe the sacrificial system? For example women are supposed to make some sort of offering at the temple after menstruation (Leviticus 15:19). So what would a Jewish woman in Galilee or Rome do?
They weren’t performing sacrifices in thosee areas and so they did not need to be ritually cleansed.
During Jesus’s lifetime (ie, before the resurrection), what made his followers think he was the Messiah? From reading your books, I can recall two things: (1) the apocalyptic message that infused his teachings and actions; and (2) he probably told his closest followers that in some sense he was the Messiah.
I’m wondering if the gospels contain historical evidence of other factors. I’m thinking of what kind of personal impression he might have made on people. Was he extraordinarily charismatic, compassionate, brilliant, inspiring, and/or authoritative? Did he make his whole life congruent with his message? Did he weave together old beliefs and new ideas that spoke to people’s deepest sufferings and hopes?
Miracles (without making him unique or proving divinity) would be a good explanation too. I understand that there can’t be historical evidence for miracles. But perhaps a reputation for miracles or some near-miraculous, life-transforming encounters with people might have been factors.
I thought I answered this query? Uh, did I? It’s a major topic in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I don’t think it was miracles. Lots of people think the charismatic leader of their group is chosen by God, no miracles required! In Jesus’ case, his followers were convinced the kingdom was coming, they would be rulers, and he would be the ruler over them — the king of the coming kingdom.
Why is even faith or trust in the atonement needed for salvation? For many Christians faith itself seems to amount to a “work”. Why not just say that, because of the atonement, salvation is a pure gift for everyone whether they believe in Jesus or not? For one thing it removes the unfairness of condemning those who have never heard of Christ. And Paul at least hinted at ultimate, universal salvation, didn’t he?
What do you think of this explanation? (I probably got it from you.) God still insists on people leading moral lives. But without the strength and grace God gives through faith/trust-and through Baptism-people’s sinful nature prevents them from being (fully) moral.
Finally, how does repentance figure into Paul’s formula for salvation?
“
Certainly some people did believe in universal salvation, faith or no faith; Paul suggests it himself in several places, including Rom. 5:18. Paul, though, stresses the importance of atonement (Christ paid for the sins of others) rather htan repentance and forgiveness (in which God which God would simply forgive them when they asked, no payment involved)
Please pardon the following off-topic comment. I wrote it last night about Bart’s 8/15 post, and only then discovered that commenting there was closed. (Why should that ever be necessary here? If someone joins in 2025, why shouldn’t they be able to comment on a post from 2020?) Rather than discard it, I thought I’d put it on the record here.
§§§§§§§
I think the Criterion of Embarrassment suggests there must be at least a kernel of truth in the story of Moses. If you’re inventing the story of the greatest Jewish hero ever from whole cloth, surely it’s unlikely you’d have him raised by the pagan Egyptians, murder a man in a moment of righteous indignation, lack eloquence, and marry a non-Jewish woman! Of course, I can’t be objective about this, being named after him, but I think that’s a fair argument.
On the other hand, regarding God commanding shocking brutality and genocide, I was very happy when I learned that archaeology shows this to be pure myth making. Even if you do think God exists, there never was a grand conquest of Canaan under Joshua during which such commands could be obeyed.
I don’t believe comments are ever closed are they??? In any event, it doesn’t matter where you post a comment, I answer it (without checking to see which post you’re responding to!)
I can not see your full Response. the paragraph ends at “That was a particular problem for Paul because “
Others had teh same problem, but not everyone. Weird. I’ll look into it, but see today’s post on what to do if you ahve a problem. I want everyone to be able to read the posts!
I found out why – my account expired. I re-subscribed. Now I can read all the posts again.
It happens a lot!
Paul in Romans 5:18-19 seems to be saying that neither faith nor works are required–we’re all heaven-bound. His reasoning is that just as we didn’t opt in to get Adam’s sin, we needn’t opt in to get Jesus’s salvation.
“just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
Does this reasoning sound right to you?
Yup, it’s one of those passages in Paul that appears to support universal salvation (I discuss others in my chapter on universalism in Heaven and Hell)
I believe it was Augustine who put an end (for the time being) to speculation that eventually all would be saved. He was certainly adamant that damnation was eternal!
Slaughter and Persecuting Innocents, Saints, and put to deaths Innocents Saints are horrible TERRORIST acts.
Acts.9: 1 “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,”
Acts.8: 3 “As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”
Acts.22: 4 “And I (Paul) persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.”
Acts.26: 9-11
“I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth”.
“..many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them”.
“And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities”.
1Cor.15: 9 “I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”
Gal.1 :13 “..how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God”
Phil.3: 6 “As to my zeal, I (Paul) was a persecutor of the church,”
I was just wondering what you meant by the term “terrorist,” not about whether you thought Paul himself was one. Is anyone who persecutes or harms others a terrorist, in your view?
Thankyou so much for yet another excellent post. Your blend of extensive knowledge, logical analysis / reasoning & invitation of scrutiny frankly leaves many / most / damn-near all of your vocal conservative opponents way behind.
I’m sorry I haven’t yet read “Heaven & Hell” and expect you cover my questions in there :
1. I gather the concept of “salvation” for Paul (& recorded for Jesus?) mean salvation FROM annihilation & nothingness, but salvation FOR what?
Until a few years ago I used to adore the distilled truth from Jesus’s lips in John 17 – until I started asking who was with him to hear all his prayer and then how was it recalled & recorded word-perfectly 60 years later? (And then I came across your work which so appealed to me)
2. Re John 17:3 “and this is eternal life” – just what did this mean to that author & to that initial audience – & would have meant to Jesus & Paul? Knowing God & Jesus Christ seems quite different from the modern hijacked meaning of just living forever??
1. For Paul and Jesus it means saved “for” a glorious existence in God’s eternal kingdom here on earth 2. For John it is eternal life with God up above in heaven.
Does John expect people in heaven to come back and live on earth when the kingdom is established?
Do I understand it right if I say that the first Christians (direct followers of Jesus, not Paul) did then probably not believe in substitutionary atonement?
I”d say they did hold to the idea, but that they probalby hadn’t worked out the logic of it (Just as today many Christians deeply believe the Christ died for their sins, but they would not be able to explain the internal logic of it.)
With great respect, I must say your question is not relevant to the context and has to be rephrased for an intelligent answer: “Is anyone who persecutes or harms others a terrorist, in your view?”
1. It is extremely important to understand the reason or motive for a person to harm another person. A person who harms a murderer to prevent a murder from taking place is not a terrorist despite the fact that he harms somebody.
2. You have to be specific for an intelligent answer.
3. Paul belonged to a big terrorist group whose objectives were to destroy and do injustice to innocent followers of Jesus including upright Saints. Anyone who harm guilt-free Saints is a very cruel person. They wanted to eliminate in an atrocious way, if possible, the entire group of people (followers of Jesus) who were not in line with Paul’s big followers (enemy of Jesus).
When Saul is viewed from a corporate perspective – possibly the first franchise system in the world – faith over works is a much easier sell.
As a follow-up to your blog, “Why did Paul think faith would bring salvation?” it would be most interesting to hear your take on what Paul thought salvation itself consisted of: being “saved” for, from. What was it that people heard in Paul’s context that they needed to be saved from and when they were saved, how did they know?
Ah, Paul thought GOd was soon to destroy the world. Salvation meant being saved from teh destruction and for the kingdom that GOd was going to bring for his followers here on earth
Bart,
No, scholars have not shown that Eisenman *can’t* be right about first century dating of the Pesherim at Qumran. Just as he was first to declare the supposed discovery of the James ossuary a scam — the day that the news broke — he proved that the Habakkuk Pesher and a few others from Qumran were first century C.E. *from internal data*, not depending on carbon dating, which only dates the ink and paper. Geza Vermes and he crossed swords, and he didn’t shirk the challenge. One of his books addresses the issue head-on. The tell-tale dating is regarding Ananus, whose body was thrown to the dogs over the city wall, bodily, ‘corpse’ — not “body of his flesh” (page 170, DSS1x) as Vermes translates it, meaninglessly. There are dozens, hundreds, of such details that he painstakingly lays out for each and every essential point he makes. It took him 1.000 pages in his book on James and another 1,000 for The New Testament Code, with 200 more pages of notes online, when the publisher protested its length. I’ve study him carefully. He’s right! Also his conclusion: “Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus” *without* knowing Masters.
Would evangelical Christians (typically) argue that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus was a vision or that Jesus physically came back to earth for this event?
THey think that Jesus was physically there and that Paul saw him. (But that’s a “veridical” vision…)
Bart,
From Mark Goodacre’s recent JSNT (pre-pub)-sounds pretty convincing what is your opinion on this? TY!
SC
–
How Empty was the Tomb?
June 16 2021
Mark Goodacre
Abstract
Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. The gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials. The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb. Apologetic anxiety leads to the characterization of the tomb as ‘new’ (Matthew and John), ‘in which no one had been laid’ (Luke and John), but it is possible that the appearance of Mark’s young man ‘on the right’ is significant. The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’
YEs, it’s a very intersting article indeed. Maybe Mark (Goodacre!) will give us some posts on it. But I have to say, it doesn’t make sense to me to say that the tomb must have housed many bodies already if the text (as Goodacre indicates) explicitly states that the tomb had just been constructed and no one was yet buried in it. Surely there was a point in every history of every tomb when it was finished being construcgted but did not house a corpse. THe Gospels say that’s what this one was. So I don’t think the claim it was “empty” necessarily makes “little sense.”
Prof Ehrman,
In Misquoting Jesus, you mentioned how a large number of manuscripts omitted the verse of Matt 24:36 ‘not even the son’
Please, can you name any of such manuscripts that omit the text? Thank you.
I haven’t read all of the previous comments so these points might have been raised already.
1. “Paul, as a good citizen of the ancient world, and a good Jew in particular, immediately saw that Jesus must have been a kind of human sacrifice”…
a. I thought that Jews dispensed with the idea of human sacrifice after the story of about the sacrifice of Isaac.
b. One of the bad things about the Canaanites in the bible is that they, allegedly, practiced of child sacrifice
2. “The only thing that must matter is trusting in the sacrificial atonement”
Bart, I am a long-time fan but you don’t seem to have answered the question about why trust gave a person the benefits of the sacrifice.
I can see the benefit of trust coming from the belief in a nice fantasy. But I doubt if Paul thought that way.
If Paul believed that the death of Jesus saved other people from punishment by God why would they have to believe it to be saved? Why wasn’t the effect like the effect of covid. It affects you whether you believe in it or not?
My sense is that there has to be some mechanism for taking the sacrifice of another and applying it to yourself, and for Paul that mechanism was trust. In economic terms, Christ pays your debt but you ahve to accept his payment in trust that God will accept it.
Very succinct explanation, I thought.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. Please, what are your views on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews?
Q2. Is there any evidence for its disputation in the early church amongst the Church Fathers?
1. I don’t think we know who wrote it or ever will; but whoever it was, it was not Paul.
2. Very much so. Most of the churches in West did not accept it for the first few centuries.
Does Paul believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? If so, is his understanding of the Messiah the same as what Jesus believed?
Yes. No — Jesus thought he would be made the king when God brought in his kingdom soon (he did not expect to be crucified); Paul thought Jesus had to die and was coming *back* in power to establish his own kingdom.
Christ as an atoning sacrifice is a large topic in the epistle to the Hebrews.
If it was Paul who reasoned that Jesus death on the cross must have been “a kind of human sacrifice”, do you think that the author of Hebrews reasoned this out independently of Paul, or that he got his ideas from Paul?
I think it was a view that Paul inherited from Christians before him; he certainly developed it significantly with some serious brain power. So did the author of Hebrews. I don’t think they were dependent on each other’s views.
What is the soteriology (doctrine of salvation) of Paul? Is Paul’s soteriology “exactly the same” as that of Jesus’?
I”ve argued it is quite different. If you look up Paul’s Understansding of Salvatin on the blog (do a word search) you’ll see a bunch of posts devoted to it.
If salvation through faith in the death & resurrection of Christ was a notion that Paul himself came up with, is it safe to say that this concept would not have been present among Jesus’ own apostles and the Jerusalem church headed by James? That is the view of James Tabor and other authors I have read but I wasn’t sure if it is something you agree with. Thank you.
Yes, I think it was the faith of the very earliest Christians, before Paul converted. It was the main reason he was persecutiong them.
Ah ok interesting. So then what are we to make of Paul’s claim that his gospel is from no human source (Galatians 1:11,16-17)? He is quite emphatic that the gospel he preaches is from his visions of Christ , not from what he’s learned from the apostles. Even his account of the Eucharist derives from these visions (1 Corinthians 11:23). Does this not indicate that what Paul was preaching was unique to him and not deriving from the apostles?
He doesn’t mean the messae of Jesus’ resurrection; in the context he is referring to the good news that the message goes to both Jews and Gentiles equally.
I understand that the original apostles believed Jesus to be divine after their visions of him post-crucifixion, but I’m asking about the belief that one could saved by simply believing in Jesus’ resurrection. As you said “The only thing that must matter is trusting in the sacrificial atonement provided by Christ”. Isn’t this idea originating with Paul and not the Jerusalem apostles? I thought they had continued observing the Jewish laws.
One important point is that Paul himself indicates that he first heard it from others (1 Cor. 15:3)
I would like to dig deeper into the idea that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed by God.
From an apocalyptic perspective it is especially troubling. God curses _anyone_ who is hanged on a tree, even if the execution is carried out by the forces opposed to God (in apocalypticism)? Any lynch mob has the power to manipulate God into cursing someone? What???
One might say that God miraculously prevents his favoured people from being hanged, but that seems to contradict the spirit of apocalypticism. Either God has given the forces of evil temporary control or he hasn’t. Occasional miracles are one thing but this would require routine intervention.
From a non-apocalyptic viewpoint (with no resurrection), there are also questions, including what exactly it meant to be cursed in a Jewish context. Normally I would say that to be cursed means that misfortune is fated to befall you. If you have been hanged, then certainly misfortune has befallen you, but it does rather limit the scope of further misfortune.
Any insights into how people might have answered these objections?
I don’t think Paul was thinking aboutt it like this. He thought that Scripture was right that a person who was hanged on a tree was cursed by God, and so he had to explain how that could happen to Jesus. He wasn’t thinking generally about why evil people would execute people on a tree, bu about how God coyld allow his messiah to undergo such a cursed death. I’m not sure I’m saying this well, but the issue for Paul is why it would be God’s *plan* to have precisely his messiah killed in a way that involves a curse.
It makes sense why Paul believed that Jesus’s atonement must have been important for salvation. It also makes sense to me why Paul did not believe following Jewish law was necessary for salvation. However, I’m still confused why Paul taught that *belief* in Jesus’s atonement was a requirement. What made Paul (and early Christians) think that *belief* was what mattered? Did it have to do with them being persecuted?
Also, did Peter and James agree with Paul that *belief* in Jesus’s atonement was necessary for salvation?
I guess it’s kinda like sacrifice. The fact that a sacrifice can atone for your sins is fine, but unless you allow the priest in the temple to make the sacrifice for you, it does you know good. Believing in Jesus is like accepting the sacrifice. For Paul, “belief” does not mean something like “acceptance of a doctrine” but more like “trust.” If you trust that Christ’s sacrifice can restore your relationship with God, it will. We don’t know what James himself thought, but I’m sure that he certainly thought *that*. Being a follower of Jesus early on meant accepting his death as bringing salvation, as a sacrifice for sins.