Loading...Peter and Mary Magdalene are not the only early followers of Jesus whose lives are shrouded in mystery. What about Paul? As it turns out, of all of Jesus’ female disciples after his life, we have the most information about Mary Magdalene, and of all his male disciples, Peter and Paul. All are mentioned (Mary just briefly) in the New Testament, and all have lots of stories floated about them after the New Testament, and there are writings allegedly by Peter and Paul in the New Testament, and more outside. That’s a lot to go on.
But, we have seen in previous posts that information about Peter and Mary is scanty, and much of it unreliable. With Paul we are in better shape, since we really do have letters he wrote available to us (at least 7 of the 13 in the New Testament really do appear to be his). But we also have lots of other material that is … iffy at best.
In some ways separating out the fact from the fiction about Paul is even more important historically than knowing about what actually happened in the lives of his disciple Peter and his female companion
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!
Hi, Bart!
What do you think about the episode of the graves of the saints that were open after the ressuraction ?
It’s only in Matthew, is almost everywhere (except among fundamentalists) seen as a (rather bizarre) legend, and it may be trying to show — with the earthquake, rocks splitting, etc. — that Jesus’ death was an apocalyptic event connected with the coming end of time, it’s cosmic signs, and a resurrection of the dead.
Dr Ehrman,
Do we know of any group of early Christians that recognized some of the Gospels as authoritative and possibly as Scripture, (say Peter-followers who would be using Mark or Matthew), but at the same time opposed Paul’s teachings and writings and would definitely reject them if they had to define a canon?
I guess we would be looking at late 1st/early 2nd century movements, similar to “second-century Jewish followers of Jesus who held a highly negative view of Paul” that you mentioned once in “A Letter from Peter to James … Against Paul!”. I am wondering who these groups would be and if the use of written texts like the Gospels as authority necessarily implies accepting Paul’s letters, or if some didn’t.
Oh yes, precisely some of those Jewish Christian groups such as the ones commonly labeled “Ebionites.
Thank you Dr Ehrman. Is it possible to say whether those in the Corinthian Church who preferred the teachings of the ‘super Apostles’ did so because of actual visits by those Apostles (in Paul’s absence) or merely because they had got wind of them by some other means?
They appear to have come to Corinth and pushed their views on Paul’s converts.
Hi Bart
I was wondering what does Luke 1:1-4 mean and does it someway connect the eyewitnesses of historical jesus to the gospel of luke
It is often taken as “evidence” that Luke spoke with eyewitnesses, but the interesting thing is that that is precisely what he does *not* say. He says the stories that he researched started with eyewitnesses. I too could say the same thing about stories I tell about Jesus: the stories of Jesus began with eyewitness testimony and was spread by “ministers of the word.” It doesn’t mean I’ve spoken with any of them.
Hi Bart,
Coming with another question.
What do you think Jesus meant by the verses we find in Luke 35-38?
“I’m not sure which chapter you mean.
I’m sorry. I mean Luke 22:35-38 . Why buy swords? And how is this related to the next verse about some prophecy?
Thank you, Bart!
I don’t have a good definitive answer, I’m afraid. It’s a hugely debated passage. It’s found only in Luke, and doesn’t seem historical. But what does Luke mean by it? Up to this point in chapter 22 the disciples have repeatedly shown they don’t understand what Jesus is talking about. It may be that’s the case here as well. When he tells them they now don’t need a cloak to cover themselves with but a sword, he may be indicating that the peaceful itinerant ministry they were engaging in is now at an end. It is the time of conflict and violence. He is going to his death. He isn’t literally telling them to buy a sword — or at least doesn’t appear to be, since when the sword reappears in vv. 49-51 he’s quite clear that he does NOT mean they are to use one. When they respond to his point that “it’s the time of violence” by saying “get a sword” (that is, get ready for violence — meaning brace yourself, NOT “go and literally get one”) they, as earlier in the chapter, misunderstnad him and say “We have TWO!” His response “it is enough” is often taken to be misunderstood by a casual reader; what he may be saying is “Enough of that!” i.e., “Good grief, you don’t get it do you. That’s enough of this conversation” All that would explain the arrest scene that follows, and is more consistent with Luke’s portrayal of Jesus otherwise (comparable, say, with Matthew 26:53).
I believe Luke introduced the mention of swords to avoid the logical conclusion, after reading Mark 14:47, that Jesus’s movement was not entirely peaceful.
Luke had to address the fact that the disciples were not only armed but also used their weapons.
His strategy was to “introduce” a pair of swords JUST BEFORE the arrest (‘Enough of that!’ he said), thus not contradicting Mark (who wrote decades earlier, how many?) that the disciples were indeed armed in Gethsemane.
Ok, they were armed … however… it was only for that particular scene, with just two swords.
Nevertheless, the servant of the high priest lost his ear, but behold!
With a touch from Jesus, Luke narrates that the ear was healed (Luke 22:51).
I never thought that about Luke’s swords passage!
What was Martin Luther’s “new understanding” of Paul’s letters? Thanks
He came to “realize” that Paul maintained that faith in Christ *alone* brought about salvatoin with God, and “doing good works” had nothing to do with it. He saw this as contrary to Roman CAtholic doctrine, that works were needed along with faith.
I’ve always been so interested in Paul and his letters’ place in New Testament canon. I grew up around fundamentalist churches and the books of the NT attributed to Paul were always thought of as no different from the other various books of the Bible- namely that they were the inerrant and inspired word of god. Imagine my surprise upon learning that Paul was such a controversial figure in the early Christian Church!
This question is probably too deep of a topic to cover in a blog response, but how on Earth did the writings of a man who butted heads with his Christian contemporaries come to be lumped in with the rest of Scripture? Or in simpler terms, when did Christians start looking at the writings of Paul as divinely inspired?
The first attestation of it is in the NT itself, 2 Peter 3:16, where the author (falsely) claiming to be Peter includes Paul’s writings as among “the rest of the Scriptures.”
I want to ask a general question, as a new Silver member here. This year I will be starting my journey as a theoretical physics PhD student in the US. I originally come from a developing nation in the third world, and for my education, a most important thing is the funding provided by the graduate schools. My question is related to this. Is it possible to pursue a PhD in Biblical studies after I finish my science degree? Does graduate schools consider students whose primary fields are completely different? If it is possible, what can I do in the next six years to prepare myself for that?
No, I’m afraid not. You would have to do some serious retraining first, taking lots of courses in biblical studies and some of the ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew, etc.) before you would be admitted into a PhD program. To do that you would need at least to do a master’s degree, and it may be hard to get into one without any academic background in the field. (And doing the PhD, AFTER getting in, would normally take 6-8 years of full time work).
Thanks for the response! How can I, if possible, prepare myself for getting into a Masters (Online or otherwise) ? Are there good online Masters programs that can train me into the field? Perhaps while doing my physics PhD, I can already do some available courses on languages and introductory Biblical studies courses to create a better possibility of getting into a masters program?
I don’t know anything about online Masters programs, though I’m sure they exist. They would not be as rigorous or useful as in person training. But you might look into them. To get into a PhD, you’d need a lot of courses in the field and one or more of the ancient languages at an examinable level.
I’m currently doing a Master of Education part-time. Postgraduate study requires money and heaps of motivation!
I’m more than a little fuzzy on Paul’s view of the afterlife:
Philippians 1:23-24: “I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better, but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.”
So does he think he has a soul and that it will go to a heavenly realm after death while his body remains in the ground until resurrection? Will the two be reunited later?
As for the resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:42-44: “So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. ………It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.”
So the physical body will be changed a into non-physical, purely spiritual form?
And will this take place on the existing earth? I can’t find in his undisputed letters where he specifically says that the kingdom of God will be on earth. Maybe I missed it. 1 Corinthians 7:31 says “For the present form of this world is passing away.”
Sorry for all the questions. Paul has me confused.
I deal with this question explicitly in my book Heaven and Hell, where I try to show that Paul in his early career (as reflected in 1 Thess and 1 Cor) believed he would be alive when Jesus returned and, like Jesus, would experience a transformation of his body into an immortal one. But nearer the end of his life he came to realize he would die before that happened (as in Phil 1 and 2 Cor. 5), and then came to think he would be present with Christ *before* the end came. But even then he believed at Jesus’ return he would be raised from the dead in teh body and experience a spiritual transformaiton. So the heavenly time with Christ was simply a short interim period.
I had actually started reading “Heaven and Hell” a few days ago but hadn’t yet gotten to Chapter 9 on Paul’s views when I made the post above. Now that I have read it most of my questions have been answered. Sorry about that. I could have saved you a few keystrokes.
People ask you what version of the bible you recommend, in the same manner what greek translation would you recommend for accuracy. I have been using the Textus Receptus offered online by scripture4all. (I am in no way affiliated with them, not a promotion or recommendation)
The Textus Receptus is not used as a study edition outside of fundamentalist circles, for the most part. Everyone, including evangelical scholars, use the United Bible Societies Greek NT and/or the Nestle Aland editoin (now the 28th edition). These two are the *same* text, but their textual appartatus differ. My preferred translation is the New Revised Standard Version, which I especially like in an annotated edition, such as the HarperCollins Study Bible.
What chapters and verses would you point to that, you feel says that Jesus will eventually come back to remain and reign on the earth with his disciples, if any? (non revelation too please!) For the life of me I haven’t been able to find anything “clearly” that says this will happen.
Yes, the book of Revelation is an obvious place! But also gospel passages such as Matthew 19:28.
Perhaps some of Jesus’ predictions (the soon coming of the kingdom) are off by a mile. But he nailed it when he said, Brothers will betray brothers and fathers their children.
Some religious people never take their boxing gloves off and they take a swing at anything that moves (Sadducees & Pharisees).
Then Paul comes along.
Paul challenged: Jewish thought on Messiah, much of the proto-orthodox teaching on Jesus’ identity, words and works, and what the rest of the world was supposed to do about it.
Other than that, not much.
Hi Bart, newbie here. Just want to say first that I really appreciate the insights from your blog and courses.
Off topic question: During your Genius of Matthew course, if I recall correctly, you made reference to a verse in 1 John which indicates a belief that following Jesus teaching means one enters (or is in) a permanent (?) sinless state (sorry can’t recall exactly which chapter/verse – maybe ch3/v9?). How do you reconcile this with other verses in 1 John that seem to imply otherwise (eg ch ch1/v8-9, ch 2/v1)? Are these all referring to sin in the past (pre-Jesus) tense?
Thanks!
My colleague Hugo Mendez is publishing a book on this, arguing that in 1 John those who have been “born of God” will no longer sin. People who *need* to be born of God are sinners (i.e., all people have committed sin), and even some who believe in Jesus still sin. But if they have a true experience of Christ, they will be without sin.
“born of God” will no longer sin. sounds like USA evangelists!-‘
little’consistencyof’doctrine’or’bibical’fundamental understanding
Hi Dr. Ehrman… have read all of your books and am wondering if there’s a new one in the pipeline…
My question is this: researchers have now accomplished a way to read scrolls that were burnt during the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD… it’s a slow process but they’re having early amazing results.
I wonder if there could be *any* chance that as more and more of these scrolls are read, that previously unknown letters from Paul might be discovered? Thanks once more,
Yup, I’m working on one now meant to show how the ethics of Jesus changed teh moral consciousness of the western world. Big task.
No, I think it’s almost inconceivable that the Herculaneum papyri will have any Christian writings of any kind in them. They were the library of a Roman philosopher/intellectual who almost certainly had never even heard of Paul or, in the unlikely event he had, thought anything of him.
But this new technicque of accessigng the scrolls is amazing and fantastic. The library will provide us with other rareties: authentic writings of Epicurean philosophers otherwise not in existence.
Looking forward to reading your new book! I’m now more than halfway through your Heaven and Hell book.
Dr Ehrman
Since Paul’s writings precede the gospels, what influence, if any, did they have on Mark, Matthew Luke or John?
After reading about the Cult of Dionysus (you know, the guy who changed water into wine) I wonder if their rituals are the root of the Last Supper. I read that one of the cult’s supposed rituals involved eating the body of the god. Coming from Tarsus, Paul would have been familiar with the mystery religions/cults.
It’s supposed that Paul got it from the Apostles or the early church, but can the reverse be true?
PS: I’m on my third reading of “How Jesus Became God”. I have a library of your books and that one is my favorite. It answered my most pressing question.
It’s debated how much influence Paul had on the Gospel writers. My view is that none of them knew the letters of his that we have, or if they did they didn’t make use of them in their writing. Mark, in my judgment, has theological views closest to Paul’s of all the Gospels; Matthew and Paul seem to me to be completely at odds on the question of the importance of the Jewish law for followers of Jesus.
I”m not sure that Paul came from Tarsus (Paul doesn’t say; Acts places him there, but since it was seen as one of the intellectual centers of the empire, he may have wanted to claim he was from there). Wherever he was raised in the empire, he surely would have heard of the mystery cults. Some scholars have argued for connections of the Eucharist with mystery cult ritual meals, but since we have SO little evidence about what they were actually all about (they’re “mysteries” in part because initiates didn’t talk about them!) it’s very hard to say. But yes, Paul picked it up from others as he indicates in 1 Cor. 11.