Loading...My post on the portrayal of Paul in Acts generated a considerable response, so I thought maybe I should say a few more words about this issue in another post – or in a series of posts, if need be. Some responses have suggested that maybe “Luke” (we don’t know the author’s real name, so we may as well call him this) had sources of information available to him for the book of Acts, just as he clearly did for the Gospel (e.g., the Gospels of Mark and Q).
I think this is absolutely right, he almost certainly did have sources. Otherwise he would have had to make everything up himself, and I don’t think there’s any way that happened. There are too many close parallels to what Paul has to say about himself — even though on closer look, in almost all these parallels there are striking discrepancies; so Luke had sources, but the sources were not completely reliable; and he altered them as he saw fit.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!
You mention the oath Paul swore in Gal 1:20. It seems strange that someone would make such a strong oath, unless there were rumors consistent with Acts that were already gaining widespread attention. Does this play into the dating of Acts, pushing the date of composition to something close to that of Galatians or perhaps before? Could Paul be writing in response to Acts?
My sense is that Paul’s opponents in Galatia were claiming that he received his message from the other apostles and then corrupted it; he is swearing an oath to convince his readers that it’s not true. So I think Acts is reacting to a different set of circumstances (the rumors that Paul didn’t get along with the Jerusalem apostles)
If I remember correctly, another problem with Acts is that it describes the conversion of Paul three different times using somewhat different details. Does this mean that Acts came from at least three different sources?
It probably means that hte author of Acts had three sources for that event!
In one of the TTC lectures on the beginnings of the Gospel Traditions (and in several writings if I remember) you note that there isn’t a concern for verbatim repetition of a story, rather that it is changed each time for the audience at hand. It amuses me to think that the Acts 9, 22 and 26 accounts Paul’s telling of the tale is evidence of this in narrative form, whether or not it speaks to the actual events that occurred. Another case of the Bible telling “truths” while relating misinformation…
How early were Christians aware of the conflicts between Paul’s letters and Acts and how did they respond?
I think it’s a post-Enlightenment phenomenon.
Well, it’s obvious that the book of acts is not 100% historically accurate. Regardless, I think it kind of reads like a cool action/adventure fantasy novel. Hell, it somewhat reminds me of my favorite action/fantasy film of all time, “Conan the Barbarian.” All it would take is for Peter and Paul to get laid by some hot babes and we’d have a pretty cool Hollywood flick on our hands! 🙂
All proto-orthodox and non-orthodox Christian groups from 2nd century onwards claim to derive their teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Does the fact that Paul emphatically distanced himself from the apostles show the authority and prestige of the apostles wasn’t entrenched in the Christian community in Galatia?
How do the inerrantists attempt to harmonise the details in Acts and Galatians?
I think just the opposite: Paul’s readers naturally assumed that hte jerusalem apostles were authoritative, and they were being told that Paul’s deviations from the others were corruptions of the true gospel. That’s why Paul writes Galatians, to correct them.
Ah, inerrantists: just about anyone can reconcile contradictions if they are bound and determined to do so!
Given the apostles were regarded as authoritative by the Galatian church, surely Paul was taking a high risk by admitting he opposed Peter to his face? The Galatians would then have to decide whether they side with Paul – someone who never met Jesus, or with Peter – the chief apostle taught by Jesus over 3 years.
Tom Wright regards Paul as “the intellectual equal of Plato, Aristotle or Seneca”. What’s your view of Paul as a thinker? I find Paul’s writings, like that of whole of the Bible, to be philosophically lightweight. He asserts a lot of things without giving rigorous justifications (unlike Aristotle). His ethical teachings e.g. urging cultivation of the fruits of the spirit, would make the readers much better people if put into practice, though the teachings are not particularly profound by modern standards and are not stylistically sophisticated. Yet great thinkers past and present have been deeply inspired by Paul’s writings (e.g. St. Augustine, Karl Barth) who are undoubtedly towering intellectuals in their own right. I often wonder if the profundity they found in Paul is the result of the inherent characteristics of Pauline writings, or of their own belief that what Paul says, is what God says. I wonder if Paul were to read the voluminous commentaries writing on his letters, would he be taken aback by the dazzling depth and insight he never had an inkling of.
Yes, it might seem risky to us. But not to Paul. He had seen the resurrected Jesus — so he KNEW!!! (As he was quick to tell people)
Does Tom Wright *really* say that Paul was the intellectual equal of Plato and Aristotle?? Not really. Really??
Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus – but surely that’s no big deal, hundreds of early Christians made the same claim, as Paul alluded in 1 Corinthians 15. As any philosopher of religion knows, making inferences from religious experience is highly problematic.
Yes he *really* did. Here’s the excerpt from Tom Wright’s “Paul: Fresh perspective” (Preface, page x): “Despite the long-standing English tendency to sneer at Paul and to press him for answers to questions he didn’t ask, I persist in regarding him as the intellectual equal of Plato, Aristotle or Seneca, even though the demands of his overall vocation, coupled with his dense style, mean that what we possess of his thought is compressed into a fraction of their written compass. Whichever angle you come at him from, there will be surprises and riches in store; again and again, just when you think you’ve got his measure, he chuckles and forces you to read a passage you thought you knew well in a quite different light, and then, if you dare, to attempt what he had already accomplished, that is, to reflect on how the different viewpoints integrate one with another…I have to say that for me there has been no more stimulating exercise, for the mind, the heart, the imagination and the spirit, than trying to think Paul’s thoughts after him and constantly to be stirred up to fresh glimpses of God’s ways and purposes with the world and with us strange human creatures.”
Not only does Tom Wright thinks Paul is Aristotle’s equal; he obviously thinks even more highly – Paul’s thoughts offer glimpses of God’s ways and purposes. In other words, what Paul says, is what God says.
St Augustine, in The Confessions, also compares the Bible with the writings of the great Greek philosophers.
When you were still a Christian, did you find Paul’s letters inspiring and profound?
Well, I agree that Paul is very smart and can be very deep; parts of his writings are virtually impenetrable. But, uh, “intellectual equal of Plato, Aristotle or Seneca”??? Wow. I’m sorry, but just because we can’t figure out what Paul meant in places, and because we can constantly find new meaning behind his words, does not make him equal, intellectually, to the greatest philosophical minds of Greek civilization! I think any cultured reader of the first century would have found that claim outrageous. (I also don’t think one can put Seneca in that august company. He’s not playing the same ballgame…)
As you may already be aware, Tom Wright’s 4th volume of the “Christian Origins” is coming out next year, on Paul. The volume is going to be in 3 books – engagement with the secondary literature, the primary literature and history of Pauline research.
Where do you stand in the New Perspective-Old Perspective debate?
Wow. He’s amazingly productive. I’m definitely onboard with the new perspective. IN fact, I think I was before I realized it was the new perspective! (Back in my grad school days) I think E. P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism is still one of the foundational books in the field, far more important than, well, most anything that has been produced since! (Although I learned with Chris Beker, and still very much buy into his view of Paul as an apocalypticist)
How would one answer this question (intellectual contribution of Plato vs. Paul)? The popular newspaper rag “Parade” once said (author-columnist-debater-word connoisseur-political analyst and philosopher) William F. Buckley, Jr. was not an “intellectual” … one wonders how they reached such a conclusion?? Is it based on some scholarly assessment of their published work with (or without?) regard to long term impact on education, politics, religious tradition, etc.? Is the two thousand year engagement with Paul’s writings solely due to religious authorities forcing everyone to hear his written words, understanding his thoughts would otherwise be lost and forgotten?
It’s interesting you see yourself in the New Perspective camp. I got the impression in various places in your “New Testament” textbook that you interpret Pauline discussions on “faith” and “salvation” through the traditional reading of Paul.
Wow. Really? Nope — I’ve been there with Sanders and Co. all along.
Bart suggested, “…so Luke had sources, but the sources were not completely reliable; and he altered them as he saw fit..” Perhaps also reasonable to say that he selected from them as he saw fit? Historians must inevitably make judgments about what to to include, what to leave out, what seems credible, what appears too dicey to trust. The selections themselves can reveal a lot about perspective and the suppositions that undergird a narrative or argument. The cautious historian must always be mindful of how his/her choices may tailor the story. We readers need to be mindful of this as well.
Absolutely!
What would Paul have meant by “Arabia”? Care to speculate why he went there?
What do you make of the claim that he got everything from a personal revelation? Are we to interpret that he got everything from that first conversion experience or is he hinting (as he does elsewhere) that there were other visionary experiences? (But he can’t mean he got everything from personal revelation because in various places in his letters he does claim to be passing on traditions that he received.) I get the impression that not just for Paul but for the early church in general ecstatic and mystical experience were an important part of worship much more so than abstract discussions of theology. Is someone doing scholarship on this component of the development of he early church? Care to point towards a book or the name of a scholar whose work I could investigate?
Thanks!
Off hand, I’m not sure what he means, precisely, by Arabia. But I don’t have any of my books handy to dig around in. In any event, it’s surely a mistake to think — as I was repeatedly told when I was a young Christian many years ago — that Paul went off to the wilderness for three years. He came back into Damascus, and that is probably where he learned what he learned. There was almost certainly a Christian community there. My hunch is that at his “revelation” what he came to realize (i.e., what was “revealed” to him) was that the death of the messiah Jesus was for the sake of sins and that therefore being Jewish is not what mattered before God.
Books. Well, a good start would be Alan Segal, Paul the Convert. If you don’t mind heavy hitting scholarship: E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.
Fergus Millar and (especially) G. W. Bowersock have a lot of good information about the “Arabia” question. Arabia was “understood” by ancient writers but the geographical contours were not carefully defined in ancient times.
A comparison of “Luke’s” historical philosophy and methods to those of Eusebius (evaluated by Robert M. Grant) might be interesting even if they are separated by approximately 200 years. (I would wish to abandon the *presumed* classification of Eusebius as “orthodox”!)
Well, I’d say he was “orthodox” in comparison with all that came before. It becomes a problematic category in the fourth century and later.
And yes, in my book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, I do just what you’re suggesting — tracing the lines of historiography from Acts to Eusebius. (In my first chapter)
Sorry to keep beating on this drum …
All of us know Eusebius was pressured to “go orthodox” at Nicea. He continues to give hints that he was not comfortable with what happened there, almost certainly aware that others shared his misgivings about the long term impact of adopting the key Nicean ideas. So we can assume Eusebius thinks about the long term impact of these decisions and does not abandon his concerns.
The common idea of orthodoxy is loaded with the implication of enforcement. Shouldn’t we ask: Did Eusebius want to become part of enforced ideas, knowing others too would experience the discomfort he experienced? If we can imagine Eusebius as non-orthodox, doesn’t his search for an accurate historical record, constantly being revised (and not to go towards orthodoxy), take on a more “objective” character, rather than the now-standard assumption that he is an orthodoxist always defaulting to orthodox views?
OK, I have tried my best to get you to concede that a scholarly bias has developed against Eusebius, and that this unsupported assumption muddles the discussions about whether Eusebius was trying to document a genuine core (still allowing diversity) of “apostolic” tradition, not *inventing* it. I was really hoping you would warm up to this suggestion (you don’t favor scholarly biases, right?) but now it’s looking like either the bias I have perceived is a figment of my imagination and we must proceed with the assumption that Eusebius was 99% supportive of the invention of orthodoxy, or I lack the tools to present this suggestion adequately. Poor Eusebius, I fear
I have let him down!
On Paul’s Oath
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne. – Jesus
Oh, yes, Paul’s vision surely informed him about his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He was really in line with Jesus. Paul has less credibility and less integrity for me than for some.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. – Shakespeare
You agree that Paul went to Rome. Is it a (near) consensus amongst the scholars that he actually got there? And that he died there (martyred or not)? That he went from there to Spain seems a little far-fetched, of course.
More important question: do you think PETER ever set foot in Rome? Since I was raised a Catholic, you probably understand my curiosity…
I’d say most scholars do think Paul went to Rome, was in prison there, and probably died there. I myself doubt if Peter was in Rome — but if he was there eventually, he certainly did not start the church there.
And I am convinced that Peter did indeed start the church there, much earlier than most scholars today believe. And that the church was world famous or, as Paul puts it, “reported all over the world” (‘world’ as in their world, of course not our “Arctic to Antarctica” world. )
And if not Rome, then the question remains… where did Peter go after his escape from prison in 42 AD? Did he just ‘disappear’?
Who was doing this “reporting”? Why doesn’t Paul name names?
“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.” Romans 1:8
And I would say that the church was not small (a few hundred) as some modern historians like to assert. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Tacitus call the Christians killed in 65 AD an “immense multitude”? And doesn’t he suggest that it was ‘popular’?
Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information,
||| an immense multitude was convicted,
not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.” The Annals of Tacitus Book XV A.D. 62-65
http://classics.mit.edu//Tacitus/annals.html
Blessings. Please correct me where I err. 😉
Bart
Dear Fabiogaucho: I am convinced that Peter went to Rome in 42 A.D. ‘on the heels of simon magus’. You’ll find it in Eusebius’ History of the Church. And, this paper by John Wenham is an eye opener.
And, I say this as a life-long non-catholic.
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1972_23_04_Wenham_PeterInRome.pdf
Dr. Ehrman:
Not to be splitting hairs, but since we’re splitting hairs, lets split them.
You said:
“According to Paul himself, in Galatians, when God “was pleased to reveal his son to me” (that is, when Paul first came to realize that Jesus really was uniquely the Son of God”)
My Greek New Testament has the word “ἐν” where you’ve translated it ‘to’. “To” paints a picture of Paul referring to his very first road to damascus experience, whereas, “in” seems to imply God’s son within him, as in Ananias’ laying on of hands.
The way you’ve represented it here also doesn’t include “so that I might preach amongst the gentiles”
“But when God,
who set me apart from my mother’s womb
and called me by his grace,
was pleased
to reveal his Son
in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles,
my immediate response was not to consult any human being.” NIV
Acts 9:15
But the Lord said to Ananias,
“Go! This man is my chosen instrument
to proclaim my name to the Gentiles
and their kings and to the people of Israel.
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
I really think that you’re confusing the road to damascus experience with the instructions from Ananias, the laying on of hands, the receiving of the Holy Spirit, which was three days later.
Also, you’ve said:
“That makes the account in Acts 9 very strange indeed, for it contradicts what Paul himself says up and down the line. In Acts, when Paul has a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus (not in Damascus as, evidently, in Galatians), he is told precisely to confer with a human being, Ananias (Acts 9:1-19). And he does so. And what does he do immediately after leaving Damascus? He heads straight for Jerusalem and with the help of Barnabas, joins up with the disciples of Jesus there (all of them) (9:26-30). That’s just the opposite of what Paul swears (literally swears) really happened.”
Could it be that you’re confusing the word Apostle with the word disciple? There were many disciples, were there not?
Ok, this is incomplete, but I gotta run…..
Blessings sir.
Bart
You appear to know Greek. As you know, prepositions are very difficult in some contexts to translate into appropriate English. They can mean so many different things in some contexts! ἐν is no exception!
Appearances can be deceptive. I know enough Greek to fool the many and be the fool to the few. 🙂
I’m not a hairsplitter when it comes to the graphe. I know that communication between people today is pretty ‘loosy-goosy” and that we need to afford one another some slack–even in the ‘graphe’ (writing, scripture). We tend to hear the things we’re looking for, and read into texts things the author wasn’t even thinking about at the time. I believe that the chronology of Galatians vs, Acts & is one of those instances.
But since you brought it up, and have gone to town with Paul over swearing (with the implication that Jesus said not to do that), lets look at the passages. Please add your expertise as a textual critic. If there are alternate manuscripts that indicate discrepancy, please fill me in. I will look in my Greek New Testament, and we can go to the CSNTM or Vatican library manuscripts, or wherever they are (they’re pretty much all online these days) if we need to.
You said: “That’s just the opposite of what Paul swears (literally swears) really happened.”
Ok, lets look at that ‘swearing’ part. Galatians 1:20 (NIV)
ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι.
the things I am writing to you behold, before the face of, in the presence of God not I lie.
Did he “swear”, ὀμνύετε “take an oath”? No. He “beheld before the face of God” that what he was writing was not a pseudo…. a lie.
That’s not the same thing that word ‘swear’ or ‘take an oath’, that Jesus and the Lord’s brother James said not to do.
ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ verses “ὀμνύετε”/”ὀμόσαι” “ὀμόσῃς”
Is “beholding before the face of God” and “swearing an oath” the same thing?
James 5:12 ὀμνύετε, Matthew 5:34 ὀμόσαι or 36 ὀμόσῃς
James 5:12 (NIV) / ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.
Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ὀμνύετε, μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ Ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ Οὒ οὔ, ἵνα μὴ [a]ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε.
Matthew 5:34 (NIV) / ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ
But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ·
Matthew 5:36 (NIV) / ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ
And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν [a]ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν.
Forgive me. I rush and edit and edit again. I answer the question. Then I ask it intending to take out the answers, to not appear to be persnickety. But then duty calls. Alas. I hit “Comment” and the persnicketousness remains…..
And, as I’ve told more than one person in the past, I know enough Greek to fool many and be the fool to the few, the few, being most certainly, yourself, kind sir.
Pop quiz me on my 1st year Greek, taken nearly 30 years ago, and, alas, as is obvious, I shall fail the quiz.
Bart,
Before Barnabas joined up with and traveled with Paul (e.g., Gal 2:1, 11-13), do you consider it historical that Barnabas knew and worked with Peter and the twelve in Jerusalem? Also, do you have any estimate of a date when Barnabas joined up with and started working with Paul?
I wish we knew! But all we have is what Paul himself says, which connects Barnabas only with himself and his mission (in Galatians), and that comment in Acts 4:36-37, which puts him with the apostles in Jerusalem. Is taht reliable? Dunno He does have an Aramaic name, which I suppose would support the idea that he came from the Jewish homeland rather than the Diasporah, but I don’t really know for sure (I can’t recall offhand how common Aramaic names were in Greek speaking circles outside of Israel)
Bart,
Based on 1 Cor 9:4-6, do you think it likely that Barnabas was one of the apostles in 1 Cor 15:7?
Based on 1 Thess 2:4-7 (cf. 2 Cor 1:19), do you think it likely that Silvanus was one of the apostles in 1 Cor 15:7?
1. I don’t know, but it’s a great question. 2. Again, don’t know. For both, oh boy I wish we did. And what about Junica?
Bart,
If we were to somehow find out that Barnabas and/or Silvanus and/or Junica were among the “apostles” referenced in 1 Cor 15:7, what additional significant conclusions would you draw from that (you said, “oh boy I wish we [knew]”)?
We would conclude that they were among the people who were reputed to have seen Jesus after his death, and in this case they would be people that Paul was more closely associated/familiar with than other peole who names (James, Cephas, the twelve).
Bart,
Continuing this line of thought, if Barnabas and/or Silvanus, who as you know traveled and preached Jesus’ resurrection with Paul, were among the “apostles” referenced in 1 Cor 15:7, could the historian then say with confidence that the appearance tradition to “all the apostles” could *not* be a legend intending a collective event (because it would require Barnabas and/or Silvanus flat out lying to Paul and everyone else they preached to)? If you agree with me here, how would you then go about explaining this appearance tradition?
No, of course not. I think you need to think about how rumors, gossip, and so on spread today even in groups intimately familiar with what really happened. If you are interested in how it actually works, check out the books written by experts on “rumors” and “gossip.” It’s quite amazing how it works. In any event, we precisely don’t now if they were among the apostles he has in mind in 1 Cor. 15:7.
I don’t know any way to establish it as probable one way or the others. disabledupes{a0d0b50d87c1918637ccc859a95f4cf4}disabledupes
Bart,
Can you please refer me to your best book or two on rumors that covers a situation like the one I proposed, i.e., that Barnabas was among the apostles in 1 Cor 15:7 and literally watched Paul preach that Jesus appeared collectively to all the apostles, but, on your view, would never have corrected Paul even privately if this was a false rumor.
There aren’t any books on rumors that deal with specific situations like that in antiquity. The whole point is that if you are fixated on one particular instance of something by definition you can’t see it in a wider perspective. Just look up on Amazon books that deal with rumor and gossip, and you’ll see how they spread. (And I’ll continue to point out that you are basing your question on a false premise. Paul never mentions Barnabas as among the apostles who saw Jesus)
Thanks Bart. I was just looking for books that might comment on a situation *like* the one I proposed, not the exact one nor even in antiquity. On my premise that Barnabas was an apostle, it was just a hypothetical, I wasn’t asserting it was true (although 1 Cor 9:4-6 seems to favor it IMO).
I’m not sure I know of any books that argue preciesly who the apostles were Paul mentoins in 1 Cor 15:7, of that discuss wither Barnabas and others he know were among them, or what, ehtn, it might say about the certainty of Paul’s testimony about them.