I am currently in the middle of a thread discussing the significance of Paul to the history of early Christianity.  So far I have been trying to argue that Paul is of utmost importance to the New Testament itself, but that it is very difficult to know how much of what we think of as Pauline theology (the doctrine of the atonement, for example) was *distinctive* of Paul (I doubt if he came up with the idea himself) and that there are some prominent features of Paul’s thought – e.g., the importance of Jesus’ resurrection – that he must have inherited from Christians before him. One of my ultimate points is going to be that whatever one thinks about Paul’s originality, it is clear that the gospel that he proclaimed looked very different from what Jesus himself taught.  To get to that point, I have to deal a bit more with what it is that Paul proclaimed. Nowhere does Paul lay out his gospel message more clearly than in the book of Romans.  The reason [...]

I was recently recording the monthly Q&A that I do with Gold members of the blog (if you're not a Gold member, this is one of the perks of moving to that level: every month Gold members ask me questions -- in writing -- and I record a 50-55 minute audio Q&A answering them; since the Gold members get audio versions of the posts, as well as written, this is an add-on they get every month.  Think about joining!).  In this Q&A I received a lot of really interesting questions, but one was very important for understanding the life and ministry of Paul.  And now I see that it was closely related to a question I received on the blog years ago, which is exactly what I was going to post on today anyway!  Here's the original blog question and response.   QUESTION What do you make of Paul’s statement that he didn’t get the good news (= the resurrection and thus the triumph over death) from other humans but from the ‘risen Christ’ himself? [...]

I’d like to say a bit more about Paul in relationship to the beginning of Christianity. Yesterday I argued that Paul could not have invented the idea of the resurrection. I should point out that Paul himself – who was always proud of the “revelation” of the truth given to him and his part in disseminating it (see Galatians 1-2) – admits in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, before appearing “first” to Cephas and then others. I should stress, this language of “receiving” and “passing on” has long been understood as a standard way of indicating how tradition was transmitted from one person to another. Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him. People today often think of Paul as the second-founder [...]

I have been discussing at some length the rise of Jewish apocalyptic ways of thinking. I decided to do so not only because it's so interesting and important on its own terms (which it is, at least for me) but also because I wanted to talk about the apostle Paul's understanding of salvation (how do you get it?) and I realized that I couldn't do that without talking about apocalypticism. My reason for talking about Paul's view of salvation was because I wanted to ask if he had the same as Jesus. A rather important issue and actually controversial. But I realized I couldn't discuss either without discussing Jewish apocalyptic thought. Hence the thread. You don't need to have read all the preceding posts to make sense of this one and the ones to come; but if you end up wondering more about some of the things I talk about, the posts are there in case you want to check them out. I have not dealt with the theological views of Paul and Jesus in [...]

Here is our final guest post from Richard Fellows, based on his article in an international journal of biblical studies: “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the Confusion in Galatia” Biblica 99.4 (2018) 544-566. He has some bold and controversial claims.  Check them out!  He'll be happy to respond to your comments. ****************************** The identity of Titus and the historicity of Acts This is the last of three guest posts on the background of Galatians. In the earlier two posts I (Richard Fellows) argued that some activists had convinced Galatian Christians 1) that Paul himself believed in the need for circumcision, and 2) that it was only to please the Jerusalem apostles that Paul continued to speak against circumcision. In this post we will explore the identity of Titus and the events that created this confusion that Galatians was written to correct. Titus has been described as the most enigmatic character in the New Testament. In the undisputed letters the name “Titus” appears at Gal 2:1,3 and 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6,13,14; 8:6,16,23; 12:18,18, yet it is strangely absent [...]

Blog Member Richard Fellows earlier provided us with a controversial post connected with his publication:  “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the Confusion in Galatia” Biblica 99.4 (2018) 544-566."  The earlier post is here:  (Was Paul Really at Odds with Peter and James? Guest Post by Richard Fellows | The Bart Ehrman Blog)   Now he follows it up with a second; one more is yet to come. ************************ In my previous guest post I proposed that the Galatians had come to believe that Paul now believed in circumcision, and that they thought that it was only to please the Jerusalem apostles that he was not recommending circumcision to them. In this post we will confirm this proposal using the letter alone. By finding the theme that is highlighted by repetition and by the letter’s structure, we will identify the conclusion that Paul wants his audience to draw. Those preparing presentations are advised, “Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you have told them”. Paul does this in Galatians. [...]

Those of you who read the comments on my posts know that my thread on Cephas and Peter elicited some very interesting responses.  One person in particular who who took me on leveled some very learned and detailed critiques.  It made my day(s)! Richard Fellows is an unusual person, not to mention blog member.  He is trained in a different field (Physics at Cambridge university) and works as an engineer, but he has published a number of articles in academic journals on the New Testament.  Now THAT doesn't happen very often.  In fact, I don't think I know of anyone else who has pulled it off (though I know a lot who have tried and a lot more who have wanted to).   Academic journals are very demanding, whatever field you're in, and without training, well.... But Richard has done it and is still doing it (he has another article coming out).  His special interests are the apostle Paul and those associated with him, including Peter (whom he, like most other sentient beings, except me on [...]

In my previous post I tried to show why most critical scholars think that the letter of 2 Corinthians is actually two different letters that have been spliced together.  When I was back in graduate school, I learned – to my surprise – that there were scholars who thought that in fact 2 Corinthians was made up of five different letters, all spliced together.  At first that struck me as a bit crazy, but as I looked at the evidence I began to see that it made a good bit of sense. I’m not completely committed to that idea, but I’m inclined toward it.  My sense is that this is the view of a sizeable minority of critical scholars, but I have no data, only anecdotal evidence, to back that up. In any case, what matters more is what you yourself might think of it.  I won’t be giving the evidence in full, but here is how I lay it out for students to consider in my textbook on the New Testament for undergraduates.  To [...]