Loading...Here I continue my few remarks on the differences between Paul’s proclamation as recorded in the speeches he gives in the book of Acts and the views he sets forth in his own letters. Again, this is taken from my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (Oxford, 2006).
******************************
Further contrasts between what Paul says about his proclamation and what Acts says about it can be seen in
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
The absence of something in Paul’s letters doesn’t mean, without substantiation, that he didn’t say it.
That’s right. Only if they contradict each other is it a problem.
Hi bart
does 2 Cor. 12:12 prove Paul did miracles?
I guess it proves that Paul claimed he did. And probably believed he did. And probably that his Corinthians readers knew or at least agreed he did. What they were … oh boy I wish we knew.
“Why then, for Luke, did Jesus have to die, if not as a sacrifice for sins? …
Jesus was WRONGLY put to death. This was a GROSS MISSCARRIAGE of justice.”
But this is also a Pauline idea:
“But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for IF THEY HAD, they WOULD NOT HAVE crucified the Lord of glory.”
(1 Cor 2: 7-8)
Interesting differentiation.
In fact, in Acts 3:17 Peter speaking about Jesus’s crucifixion states:
“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in IGNORANCE, AD DID YOUR LEADERS”
For this speech Luke is probably following Paul in 1 Cor 2: 7-8.
In the original greek the parallelism is even clearer since the word translated as ‘leaders’ in Acts 3:17 is αρχοντες the same translated as ‘ rulers of this age’ (αρχοντων τοu αιwνος) in 1 Cor 2: 7-8.
Also IGNORANCE in Acts 3:17 is αγνοιαν (lack of knowledge) while the verb for ‘understood ’ in 1 Cor 2: 7-8 is εγνωκεν (they did know), both words related to γνωσις (knowledge).
Paul became extremely influential, but do we have any early church theologians specifically arguing against his doctrine of atonement?
None that I know of.
In the undisputed letters themselves Paul seems at odds with himself sometimes with regard to salvation/eternal life. Along with the judicial and participation models he appears to have some additional/sometimes conflicting requirements:
Romans 2:6-11: Good deeds required?
Romans 11:22: Salvation can be lost?
Romans 11:25-27: All Israel will be saved no matter what?
1 Corinthians 15:1-2: Being saved if you hold firmly? Salvation is a process and can be lost?
1 Corinthians 15:29: Baptism on behalf of the dead?
Galatians 5:19-21 and 6:7-9: Good works/good behavior required? If we do not give up?
Philippians 2:12-13: Work on your own salvation with fear and trembling?
Paul has me confused. Any thoughts?
These are all highly complicated passages that talke a long time to unpack in their literary and historical context. Just as one example, with respect to Romans 11:25-27, about eight years ago I had a PhD student write an 800-page dissertation JUST on what the term “Israel” means in the verse. So yes, they are complicated and at times confusing, and need to be seriously unpacked to make sense of them. Whether they cohere after doing so is another questoin! Paul does seem to think or say different things at different times.
Bart, what prophecy by David is Paul (or Acts) referring to when he claims that Jesus’s resurrection fulfilled it? Is there really such a passage in the Books of Samuel or Kings?
He is referring to Psalm 16:10, “You will not allow your holy one to see corruption.”
Hello Dr. Ehrman… just joined… Thank you so much for being generous with your time and intellect.
The more I learn about Paul, the more I am sort of intrigued that he, a man of formal education and therefore likely from a reasonably wealthy background, got so involved in a movement that preemptively began amongst an illiterate group of itinerant men from the relative underclasses of their society. Does it strike you at all odd that he would be drawn to spend time with a group of people whose level of education must have been far beneath his own, and who were most likely far beneath him on the social ladder? Do you think it is indicative of something of the character of Paul that he did choose to travel among these circles (and if so what?), or, perhaps conversely, does it perhaps indicate that belief in Christ was spreading (however slowly) up the social ladder by the time Paul encountered it or accepted it? Or is it irrelevant? I am happy to take my answer in the form of pointing me to where to read or listen if you have already addressed this point.
I think one of the most interesting things about Paul is that for the most part he appears to have steadfastly refused to associate with the earliest followrs of Jesus. In Galatians he indicates that they played no role in his conversion or “christian education,” and that he visited them briefly just twice over the course of his ministry. Maybe their stark differences were the reason for htat.
Dear Bart,
I just watched your fantastic interview with Professor Candida Moss.
Would you consider interviewing Doctor David Litwa, PhD whom I know as a friend. He has written several great peer-reviewed monographs including Found Christianities (2022) which builds on your own great work Lost Christianities as well as How the Gospels Became History (Yale University Press) and Posthuman Transformation (Cambridge University Press).
His Faculty Staff page and contact details are here https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/schools/stm/faculty/faculty-directory/m-david-litwa.html
Thanks for your time and great blog!
Stephen
Yes, he was once my student! And he certaily is cranking out the publications. I interviewed Candida becuase her book was written for a broad general audience; so far I’ve restricted my podcast interivdews to that kind of work. But thanks for the suggestion.disabledupes{25890c6f49454af3f5b2f369dd53ca3f}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman,
Is is possible that Peter, James, and the other elders at the church at Jerusalem agreed that Paul could have a ministry to the Gentiles as a way to get rid of him, never thinking that he would be successful?
I’d say it’s impossible to know.
“Even if he did occasionally preach in the synagogues, which might be suspected on the basis of 2 Cor. 11:24”.
A bit more than ‘occasionally’ I think there Bart; what Paul says is that he had five times been offered the choice; “You can voluntarily submit to a severe punishment beating, but afterwards be welcome to attend this synagogue as a fully observant Jew; or otherwise you must face the ‘greater penalty’ of excommunication.”
From which we may infer that Paul considered his continued synagogue attendance (and consequently also his full observance of the Jewish Law) as central to his particular apostolic mission. Which may also be inferred from Galatians 5:3 – that all followers of Christ who are circumcised remain obliged to obey the entire law.
I would agree, though, that the Paul of the letters might have continued to attend synagogue primarily to seek out ‘god-fearing’ Gentiles, rather than to those who, like him. were ”Jews by nature’; but since there was likely only the one Jewish assembly, he would have been addressing both.
And maybe it was his urging the god-fearers to absent themselves from civic worship that compelled the synagogue to flog him?
It’s hard to say what led to the flogging; I should think a number of options were possible. He himself probably persecuted Christians for claiing that one cursed by God was the messiah, and I suspect that’s why others persecuted him. He never mentions god-fearers in his letters, so it’s hard to know if that was an issue.
Neat point about Paul not mentioning god-fearers Bart, though a god-fearer reference would only be likely in association with a synagogue reference; and Paul does not (in the undisputed letters) mention synagogues either. That might lead us to infer that Paul did not commonly attend synagogue worship – except that he must have done, to have received five synagogue floggings.
Which is where we came in.
I’m not a big fan of the god-fearer hypothesis, even though it seems to be ubiquitous. But I don’t see how anyone could claim he never attended synagogues. (Then again, Jodi Magness told me that she had never heard of a synagogue punishment of the 40 lashes minus one, and asked me what evidence I had outside this passage that it was a synagogue punishment as opposed to something else. I told her … I don’t know!)
Well, in the diaspora communities the synagogue authorities had the power to discipline any Jew who came in there; he could refuse, but then he would be denied access to the synagogue. The only evidence I know of for flogging in the synagogue comes from the NT itself, eg., Matt. 10:17. There is also this: “forty minus one” is a peculiarly Jewish way of counting lashes; see b. Makkot 22b and b. Shab. 49b. There are a couple of explanations; one is that if a doctor says the disciplee can survive 40 lashes, they give him one less to make sure he does. (If the doctor said he could survive 20, he gets 18, not 19, for some reason.)
But there are other uses of the form “forty minus one”, such as the number of acts forbidden on the Sabbath because they are “work.” I’ve seen other arguments, some rather mystical, for the formulation.
How do we know that about diaspora communities? And do we have any indications from sources that are not centuries later?
Mark 13:9 (and synoptic parallels) talk of Jewish judicial beatings being administered in synogogues – or maybe of belivers being tried in the synagogue and beaten elsewhere. It is commonly proposed that the synoptic authors’ frequent references to Jesus actions in synogogues could well more accurately be informed by diaspora practice than that of Roman Palestine; but that likely makes these more applicable to Paul’s cirumstances, than less.
…But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for IF THEY HAD, they WOULD NOT HAVE crucified the Lord of glory
…
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News.
.
Dr Ehrman, if Paul is saying that satan was ultimately responsible for the crucifixion, then whats all these stories of exorcisms in marks gospel? Its “SECRET and hidden wisdom” so how is it possible satan or his minions know
“What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!” (Mark 5:7, NRSV).
“son of the MOST High God” ? How did they know this ? “Do not torment me”? Paul said satan was a god of this WORLD and was IGNORANT of who jesus was….?
Paul’s passage is hard to figure out, but he appears to think that the powers of evil were responsible ultimately for Jesus’ death. One ccould still think that and accept that Jesus cast out demons during his ministry (something Paul never mentions). It would just mean that at the end he submitted for reasons of his own to the evil powers.
>the powers of evil were responsible ultimately for Jesus’ death
mark says that the devils are afraid of being tormented ,paul says they didnt even know who jesus was , had they know, they wouldnt have tormented jesus
“They didn’t even know who Jesus was, had they known, they wouldn’t have tormented Jesus.”
This shows clearly that the “rulers of this age” could not be “the powers of evil”,
The “rulers of this age” were just the Romans, Paul was a strong supporter of Roman rule and the fact that Jesus was crucified by the Romans was a problem to deal with.
In fact, Paul’s almost absolute silence about any Jesus saying was probably due to the anti-Roman character of his preaching.
In the case of John the Baptist, we know from Josephus that “Herod, who feared that the GREAT INFLUENCE John had over the masses might put them into HIS POWER and enable him to RAISE A REBELLION, thought it best to put him to DEATH.” (Antiquities 18.118)
We are speaking about politics, rebellion, and the violent response of the Roman vassal king, no much room for God, Satan, demons, or spirits (holy or unclean).
Jesus, as John, was also a man of his times, the turbulent decades that led to the Roman-Jewish war.
Jesus’s real message was silenced by Paul and then totally reinvented by the gospel writers that lived in the pacified senatorial provinces.
It’s noteworthy that the prodigal son parable appears only in Luke. Since it’s a metaphor for God’s forgiveness without requiring a sacrifice, I can see why Luke would have preferred this interpretation, even if he was aware of Paul’s.
Suppose he was actually the Luke that was a close associate of Paul’s, and this is an event he witnessed. How likely then, is it that he was:
1. Less concerned with the nuanced difference between these two ideas of forgiveness, than with the outcome being the same (forgiveness) as the most important thing ?.
2. perhaps, in addition to 1, unsatisfied with with the atonement view because he knew that it wasn’t what Jesus preached, per the prodigal son parable, and wanted to reconcile Paul with the Jerusalem (James’) church so he had Paul, who preached the atonement view, say something Luke wanted him to say rather than what Paul probably had or would’ve?
I’m not sure how to answer the questions, but I will say that Luke is the only author of the NT who appears to get rid of the atonement. If he wasn’t concerned much a out atonement one way or the other, then he probably wouldn’t have excised it from his source (Mark); all the disciples of Jesus almost certainly held to the idea of atonement, I’d say. That’s how the explained Jesus’ death.
The observations about Acts having no atonement theology are amazing! I’ve always thought that the sermons in Acts don’t sound much like today’s evangelical sermons!
Two questions:
Acts 20:28 says that Christ purchased the church with his own blood. With this be an indicator of maybe a hint of atonement theology?
And three times in Acts, Christ is said to be “hung on a tree,” which sounds like the “cursed is he who hangs on a tree” passage in Deuteronomy and quoted in Galatians as a reference to Christ’s atoning sacrifice. It seems a bit of a stretch, but would some say that this is evidence of Luke’s understanding of atonement?
Thanks!
Yes, Acts 20:28 is the hard one. I have to develop a long explanation of that in my book Orthodox Corruptoin of Scripture. There are problems with understanding how to translate the Greek and even more in figuring out what it really means; I argue that if yo ulook at it closely it doesn’t actually specify that it is referring to an atoning sacrifice. The references to hanging on a tree elsewhere in acts do not seem to indications of “atonement” but descriptions of crucifixion; it only comes to be related to atonement when Paul quotes the Scriptural passage to indicate that Christ “bore the curse” for others. Luke never makes a connection like that (either does anyone else in the NT, as it turns out; it’s an intriguing way of arguing, but unique to Paul)
I have a question that is a fair bit wide of the topic, but I’d love to hear your thoughts:
In I Cor. 9 Paul, evidently responding to criticism, argues forcefully and at length, that as an apostle he has a right to demand material support for his preaching.
But he then denies that he ever made use of this right, and indeed that he would rather die than give up this point of boasting.
My question is: Is Paul claiming in 1 Cor. that he never made money off his ministry (not even accepting free will offerings) but entirely supported himself through his own labor, or is he claiming that he didn’t demand compensation as a condition of his ministering (though he was happy to accept offerings to support him in his work)?
It seems to me that 2 Cor. 11:7-9 makes a lot more sense, rhetorically, if he had previously claimed not to accept offerings but it had come to light that he was getting donations all along. But maybe I’m being unfair to him.
Yes, he seems to be claiming that, but if so, he must mean only in reference to the Corinthians, since he clearly received financial support from the Philippians.
What I mean to ask is whether Paul might have been caught being less than straightforward with the Corinthians about his finances.
The sequence would be something like this:
In I Cor. 9, responding to people questioning his motives (perhaps occasioned by the hard sell he was giving them to give to his collection for the poor in Jerusalem), he insists that he supports himself and gets no financial benefit from his ministry. (Although, as you note, he certainly was getting support from other churches.)
Then, it comes to the Corinthians’ attention that he had been getting money from the churches in Macedonia all along, and they confront him; some of them object, “you told us you were doing this out of the goodness of your heart, on your own dime, and now we learn you were receiving money to do it all along. Why should we trust you if you are not only getting paid, but hiding that from us?”
2 Cor. 11:7-9 then is his response to the renewed suggestions that he is a dishonest swindler. The response is a sarcastic: “I ‘robbed’ the other churches so I could minister to you.”
Is that a plausible reconstruction of events?
Interesting reconstruction!