Loading...QUESTION:
You mention in your book “Did Jesus Exist?” that Paul started his persecution of Christians in the early 30s. If he was tasked with hunting down Christians by the Sanhedrin he must have had a fairly high position among the Sanhedrin (I don’t mean that he was a member). How come he didn’t witness the crucifixion or why didn’t he in some way have firsthand knowledge of the events in immediate connection with the crucifixion?
RESPONSE:
Ah, an interesting question. So, it’s part of a much, much larger issue. Let me explain.
We have two sources of information about the life of Paul: his own letters and the book of Acts. There are lots of reasons for thinking that the book of Acts is not always reliable when it comes to describing events in Paul’s life. I may devote an entire post – or maybe even a series of posts – to the question. For now, suffice it to say that whenever you can compare what Paul has to say about his own biography (life and teachings) with what Acts has to say, in almost every case you will find discrepancies.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, WHY WAIT???
Luke claims to have traveled with Paul during the last of his journeys. I can’t remember, did Paul ever mention the Luke was with him? If they really did travel together why was Paul’s ideas of Jesus so different from Luke’s as expressed in his gospel?
The author of the book of Acts (who does not call himself Luke) in four passages uses the first person plural pronoun “we” when talking about Paul’s travels. That is why readers have assumed he was Paul’s traveling companion. Paul does mention a companion Luke in his letter to the Colossians. My view is that hte author of Acts wants you to think he was Paul’s companion. But I think he could not have been. I discuss this in my book Forged, and even more in my forthcoming book Forgery and Counterforgery.
What about Paul claiming to only know about the ‘Christ’ (and what he wants etc) because of a personal revelation and NOT because of other humans (or texts by other humans)?
So for believers it all comes down, as far as ‘the risen Christ’ is concerned, to believe what one man (Paul) said is indeed the Truth?
I also find it interesting that Paul never really refers to the words of Jesus and if he does it is very very brief. He doesn’t talk about, or mention, any parables, miracles, or traditions of Jesus (the so called virgin birth, etc.) in any of his letters. One wonders if he knew about any of the parables or miracles of Jesus (whether found in the gospels or other circulating stories). Granted, the gospels were written AFTER Paul wrote, but one would expect to hear something from him considering he could try to use Jesus’ teaching to support his claims and instructions to the churches in his letters or when facing disputes. While there is no way to really know what Paul knew about the life and teachings of Jesus, what are your general thoughts on Paul’s knowledge?
Too long for an simple blog response! But I talk about the issue in my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, and in the book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene
Actually we learn a great deal of Jesus from Paul, although not as much as the Gospels. About the virgin birth, yes, he makes no allusion, but he does say that he was born of a woman and under the Law of Moses (Gál. 4:4). He is the very first author, chronologically speaking, that talks about the Last Supper in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:23-26), he says that he was crucified (he says that all over the place in his letters), and resurrected (he says so all over the place in his letters too). In fact, the earliest account that we have of Jesus’ resurrection comes from Paul, long before any Gospel was written (1 Cor. 15:3-9).
Paul also refers to a lot of Jesus’ teachings (by saying “the Lord says” or “the Lord orders”), the majority of the times very accurately. When he wants to distinguish between his own teachings and the Lord’s, he says so too (“this is my order, not the Lord’s). How do we know? He explicitly says so: about not divorcing (1 Cor. 7:10-12 / Luke 16:18; Mc. 10:9,11-12); about living from preaching the Gospel, a privilege Paul clearly does not use (1 Cor. 9:14-15a / Luke 10:7a, 8a); about what is really unclean (Rom. 14:14 / Mc. 7:14-22; Mt. 12:34b); and about being abducted by God at the end of times (1 Tes. 4:15-18 / Luke 17:34-35.). Other times, Paul refers to Jesus’ teachings indirectly: not to judge and not being a scandal (Rom. 14:13 / Luke 6:37-38; 17:1-2); about calling God “Father” (Gál. 5:4-7 / Luke 11:2-4); about the body being a holy place or a temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16 / Jn. 2:13-15a,18-21); there is also a bit of an association between Paul’s conception of the resurrection of the body and Jesus’ (1 Cor. 15: 42-55 / Mc. 12:24a,25); about the Lord coming back like a thief in the night (1 Tes. 5:1 / Luke 12:39-40). Also, there might have been several teachings of Jesus preserved by Paul, but that the Gospels, apparently, never mention, such as Jesus’ request that everyone should listen a person with the gift of prophesying (1 Cor. 14:30-33a,37.)
And you are right, he did not quote Jesus’ parables, but clearly, in his mind, he has Jesus’ teachings as he received it from the community he belonged, and possibly the Apostles themselves: remember, he stayed with Peter for a while, and also talked to James.
On the reliability of Acts, couldn’t the Jerusalem business be argued to be a bit of a special case? After all, Luke seems to organize his material so that the Gospel consists of movement toward Jerusalem and Acts movement away from Jerusalem. One could therefore regard material in a Jerusalem context as relatively suspect, and other material (such as Saul of Tarsus, tent-maker and Roman citizen) as having a rather more neutral probable truth value.
The other question I’d like to raise is as to Luke’s use of sources (Luke 1:2 of course admits their existence up front). They’re transparently visible in the Gospel (having Mark is obviously a huge help; then there are hints elsewhere, especially in the Passion narrative: 22:19-20 looks suspiciously like 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, having been juxtaposed with a very different narrative (22:15-18)). Can we play a source-spotting game in Acts too, and thereby highlight particularly (un-) reliable passages?
Yes, Acts is almost certainly based on sources. The problem is that unlike the Gospel of Luke, here we have no extant sources to compare the account with to decide what has been borrowed and what not….
I can imagine why Pauline Christians wanted to claim Paul was a Roman citizen. But what’s to be gained from inventing his origin from Tarsus or his profession as tent maker? As to the historicity of Acts, surely the problem is no more severe than for the gospels – the historian’s task is to make educated evaluations of the historicity of the content.
Well, Tarsus was the center of a great intellectual (rhetorical) tradition, so that would be a reason to locate Paul there. Like saying that he came from Harvard….
It seems that many scholars agree that Acts is unreliable but then accept that Paul is a Roman citizen based on Acts. Why do many scholars believe Paul to be a Roman citizen if it is only stated in Acts and Paul never say that he is?
I don’t know! I for one don’t I’m not sure how many scholars unreflectively assume Acts is right on that one.
As I explored my roots more and more and found the resulting observations increasingly disturbing and no longer tenable, it became clear that much of what ol Shaul of Tarsus was up to is not really clear. His story seemed to change over time (depending on who was talking about him) and the mishmash of excuses for the apparent contradictions that the teachers I grew up under gave to me required faith to believe what I was supposed to have faith about. He had a Jesus, but (I know I need to read more of your books, et al.) what kind of a Jesus was this? From a wandering itinerant preacher (Rabbi) from Nazareth (?) to a Grand Cosmological Light Bearer? From House of Israel exclusively to the entire known universe (which my Christian friends point out was the intention of the Risen Christ who came to this knowledge after spending time in Hades and etc.)? The lovely transition that came about because Israel rejected not only another prophet but the very Son of God his own self (not present in the OT as far as I can tell)? Yikes! And I am not sure the Romans would have let any religious group organize like the Mormon hit squads (Danites) and go charging across the desert like the Nazgul looking for Hobbits. Not the historical Romans anyway.
So there is a rant on the wake of the Aurora killings and a Texas Republican blaming it all on America not honoring god (in so few words, I did listen to the drivel).
Keep blogging and getting the word out for us to at least consider before running down to the store to buy a gun.
There is also the aspect of the implausible scenario presented in Acts where Paul was asked by the High Priest (Acts 9:1-2) or the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:5) to arrest Christians *outside* of their jurisdiction, in Damascus (Syria). Apparently, the way Paul presents his story in Galatians seems to indicate that he lived in Damascus, and persecuted Christians there (Gal. 1:11-23). And there is also the question of how they were persecuted, since the Romans didn’t seem to allow a lot of executions made by religious fanatics. Perhaps that was one of the main reasons that the Jewish authorities handed Jesus to Pontius Pilate.
I understand Acts is not as reliable when talking about Paul as Paul’s own writings are. But you make it sound like Acts is unreliable in its entirety. Are there parts of Acts that we can put some reliance in from a historical perspective? Also, couldn’t it be the case that Paul was part of the educated Jewish elite in Jerusalem, but still didn’t know about Jesus? I can imagine this if Jesus was not nearly as popular and well-known as we tend to make him out to be today.
By the way, I love your site! I just joined today, but am impressed with the quality of your posts and your attention to following up with comments. Perhaps it being Summer has something to do with that. But I don’t regret spending the money to join. Keep up the good work!
Good questions. I’ll maybe make some posts on the reliability of Acts. The problem is that at almost every point where you can “check” Acts by comparing what it has to say with what Paul has to say, there are problems. Paul never mentions having any connections with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, and since he was rhetorically trained in Greek, he almost certainly group up outside of Palestine, not in Jerusalem.
I do agree, Jesus was almost certainly not as well known in his own day as he is today!
Paul was known for not telling the truth so much so he has to put in scripture that his defense against the claim.
Second, Paul’s autobiographical information is too similar to Josephus’ autobiographical information. Both survived shipwreck then made it to Puteoli (Pozzuoli. Naples, Italy), before continuing to Rome for legal matters before the Emperor of Rome. Josephus writes, “But to thee, O Epaphroditus, thou most excellent of men! do I dedicate all this treatise of our Antiquities; and so, for the present, I here conclude the whole. Paul’s Phillipians has: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. To the Phillippians written from Rome by Epaphroditus. [Not all Bibles contain this final dedication by Epaphroditus (who took dictation for Paul?) …The original Greek manuscript records it, the Syrian, Ethiopian, and Arabic manuscripts also record it.] Professor Ehrman, can you look into this claim, please? I do not have access to the original Greek, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Arabic manuscripts.
Until we can get an answer, we know both Josephus and Paul had reason to be grateful towards a man named Epaphroditus: “But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. For he longs for all of you…” Paul’s Letter to the Philippians 2: 25-26
A little correction to the text, though. The passage where Paul said that he was not recognized in Judea is in Galatians 1, not Gal. 2.
Prof Ehrman
Perhaps I’m missing something but that early on who would Paul have been persecuting outside of Palestine? Just how widespread would the Jesus movement have been that close to his death (early 30s)? And I’m presuming his victims would have been Jewish Christians since the real Gentile influx would have been later?
Great question! I wish there were a great answer! It appears that within a couple of years, at least, there were Christians worshiping in synagogues outside of Judea, in Galilee and Syria; it may be that Paul was resident in Damascus (Syria) and it was there that he confronted the Christians. He seems to suggest this in Gal. 1:13-17 (notice v. 17: “returned” to Damascus).
Hey Bart, while we are talking about Paul, I have a question about him. I hope you don’t mind. I think it’s pretty obvious from what he wrote in the New Testament that Paul, like Jesus, was an apocalypticist who believed the end of the world would happen in his lifetime. And so that is why he discourages marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 by saying the time is short. According to him, why waste your time getting married when the world will end soon?
OK, on to my question. Towards the end of my days as an evangelical Christian, I remember hearing from various people that it’s very possible that Paul was married at one time, because he was a member of the sanhedrin, and marriage was a requirement of sanhedrin members.
Is this true? Were sanhedrin members required to be married? And if so, is it likely that Paul was married at one time?
There’s nothing to suggest that Paul was a membrer of the Sanhedrin, and lots to be said against it. He wasn’t from Palestine; he wasn’t a Sadducee; he was a Pharisee. That’s three strikes and he’s out.
It is thought that Paul was not a TENT maker, but a tallit maker. There was no need for tents in that area. No one lived in tents. Tallit MEANS little tent, which is their prayer shawl, which represents the Temple. The area where he and Aquilla and Priscilla worked, there was the finest linen available. Too bad some ministries didn’t know this and called themselves tent makers, not knowing what it really meant. A JEWISH tallit. Ha!
Where do you get the idea that he was a tallit maker? The only verse the refers to his occupation in Acts indicates he was a leather worker (that’s where the idea of tents came from; they were made from animal skins).
Strong’s #4635, skēnopoios: 1) a tentmaker; 2) one that makes small portable tents, of leather or cloth of goat’s hair or linen, for the use of travelers.
From #4633: Skene: apparently akin to #4632 and #4639: A tent or a cloth hut. (literally or figuratively). In the KJV used as tabernacle or habitation.
#4632: NT:4632, of uncertain affinity; a vessel, implement, equipment or apparatus (literally or figuratively [specifically, a wife as contributing to the usefulness of the husband]):
#4639: NT:4639: NT:4639, skia: apparently a primary word; “shade” or a shadow (literally or figuratively [darkness of error or an adumbration]).
Common sense makes us look at the Cith of Corinth in that era. Did anyone live in tents? The tallit is called “little tent.” The translators, including James Strong, not knowing Jewish idioms, presumed a tent you lived in. “Christian” translators also not knowing idioms translated tent maker. Another idiom we use all the time is “It is easier for a CAMEL to go through the eye of a needle. . . ” The Hebrew word for camel is the same word used for large rope. Rope makes more sense. “Gamla,” in Aramaic. Mk. 18:25, Lk.18:25. Another is that Jesus as a Jew would not have gone into the house of a leper, as in Mt. 26:6, Mk 14:3, as gentiles that didn’t seem out of place at all, but as Jewish people began coming into the faith and reading the NT, they spotted out these things. He would have been unclean, have to go to the mikveh, etc., but the word for leper and jar maker are very similar, making them think this was a mistranslation and that Simon was a jar maker, maybe making pottery to be used in the Temple. GAR’BA (leper)and GARABA (jar maker) in Aramaic. Both the same letters, written without vowels. So it pays to know the customs, the times, the laws of purity, etc., from a Jewish perspective.
If I read Romans correctly, it seems that Paul would have been guilty of what was later condemned as the the Adoption Heresy, similar to Arius. How then were Paul’s letters, especially Romans, accepted into the canon?
Are you thinking of Rom. 1:3-4? Arius was not an adoptionist. He believed Christ was completely divine. He was God’s first creation, through whom he created the universe.
Yes, I was thinking of Paul’s statements in Romans ! that affirms that Jesus was a descendent of David and was appointed as the Son o God through his resurrection. This seems to deny the virgin birth, Jesus’ divinity, and that he was adopted as the Son of God. Wouldn’t this have been considered heretical by the early Church Fathers, especially Athanasius?
They read this particular statement of Paul in relationship to all of Paul — and all of Scripture — and so didn’t see the problem.
This is off topic, but I was wondering if sometime in the future you can give a couple of your thoughts on interpreting the Book of Revelation. This book seems to go under the radar — it is not as popular as Paul or the Gospels for many. However, many evangelical Christians continue to give it alot of attention and weight in the shaping of their beliefs and expectations of the future. The Left Behind Series have undoubtedly influenced how many Christians and nonChristians view and interpret Revelation (the series sold over 65 million copies!!). Yet, ironically they way it interprets Revelation is a minority position among scholars and Christians since it interprets the book literally and holds to a dispensationalist pretribulation premillennial interpretation. So my question is, how do you and scholars generally understand the Book of Revelation? What do you think was the basic message of the author?
Great idea. I’ll think about doing some posts on it. If I forget (I have a backlog of things I want to post on), well, remind me periodically!
when we say Paul was persecution Christians how badly might that have been? to what extent do scholars think Christians were being persecuted in that early period? i ask because i wonder if paul “the bad guy” might be exaggerated. Tomas Sheehan states he thinks Paul did nothing more that sit around and talk them in a friendly manner and it was there lifestyle that won him over but that seems a little liberal to me.
thank you
It’s a great question. I really wish we knew. But Paul says that he was trying to “destroy” the church, and that doesn’t sound like friendly converssations back and forth….
Three questions:
1) Outside of the New Testament, are there any reliable sources for the historical Paul?
2) Do you recommend any books or articles that focus on the historical Paul?
3) How reliable is Paul’s claim that he persecuted Christians before his conversion, or anything else about his life? It’s always stricken me that these types of credibility-enhancing claims are easy to make (and nearly impossible to refute) years removed from the events.
1. No, I’m afraid not; 2. One of the most recent is Albert Harrill’s book on Paul; if you’re interested in Paul’s letters themselves, you might try Calvin Roetzel’s book on it; Also I have a six-chapter discussion in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magadlene 3) I think those claims are reliable. He was writing to people who knew his biography and he is reminding them of it in order to stress a particular point.
Thank you!
The thought occurs that *if* Paul understood himself to have been in denial of Christ when he was persecuting Christians (and outside of Acts I am not sure he does), *then* his portrayal of pagans as being in denial of God could on some level be a projection of his own guilty feelings.
When is comes to Paul persecuting Christian’s, he never specifically mentions how he did it. However, Acts says he advocated and sent some Christian’s to their deaths.
Did the Pharisees normally execute Christian’s on the spot (through stoning or beatings), or through a religious based court system?
We don’t have any evidence of Pharisees executing Christians.
Is it possible to get an explanation on Paul’s view in Romans 13? Paul seems to describe himself as a pacifist, but he indicates in Romans 13:4 that governments don’t bear the sword in vain (they have the right to execute).
Did Paul consider it morally right for the Roman Empire to kill despite being a Christian Pacifist?
Yeah, it’s an intriguing passage. It’s one of the first in which a Christian writer insists that Christians obey the Roman authorities, a view that came to be widespread among Christians who wanted to be able to claim they were not troublemakers and lawbreakers, but just hte contrary, law-abiding citizens. In other words, it seems to be an apologetic claim. It’s no accident that Paul writes it to the Romans. (Even though he himself was frequently treated as a troublemaker!)