I am off today to Boston for a week of various professional activities. Tomorrow morning I will be filming a documentary with an independent film maker on some aspect of the New Testament. After that I’ll be having lunch with about a dozen members of the blog, and then dinner with three or four. Following that, on Friday, I will be giving a talk at the Biblical Archaeology Society FEST (a gathering of interested lay folk to hear lectures by scholars for a couple of days). And then it’s off to my annual professional meeting, with thousands of other biblical scholars from the U.S. and around the world, the Society of Biblical Literature meeting.
My talk at the Biblical Archaeology Society will be about Paul and his understanding of his mission. About a year ago I realized something I had never thought of before. Paul actually understood himself, personally, to have been predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament as the fulfillment of God’s plan. Wow. Here is how I have thought about and explained the matter recently:
*****************************************************
It is easiest to understand Paul’s subsequent missionary activities and evangelistic message by realizing how an appearance of the living Jesus would force him from “fact” to “implications.” For him the “fact” was that Jesus was alive again, as he knew from having seen him. From there Paul started reasoning backwards. This backward reasoning must have proceeded through a number of steps ending in a remarkable place: Paul came to believe that he himself had been chosen and commissioned by God to fulfil the predictions of Jewish Scripture. Divinely inspired prophecies delivered centuries earlier were looking forward to his day, his labors, and him personally. Paul cannot be faulted for thinking small.
Paul’s vision made him realize that it was Jesus’ death and resurrection, and nothing else –e.g., not the Jewish law – that established a person in a right standing before God. Thus, to be members of God’s covenantal people, it was not necessary for gentiles to become Jews. They did not need to be circumcised, observe the Sabbath, keep kosher, or follow any of the other prescriptions of the law. They needed to believe in the death and resurrection of the messiah Jesus. This was an earth-shattering realization for Paul. Prior to this, the followers of Jesus – the first Christians – were of course Jews who understood that he was the messiah who had died and been raised from the dead. But they knew this as the act of the Jewish God given to his people the Jews. Certainly gentiles could find this salvation as well. But first they had to be Jewish. Not for Paul. Jew or gentile, it did not matter. What mattered was faith in Christ.
Once Paul came to realize this he was blinded yet again by a further insight. Throughout the prophets of Scripture …
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, it’s easy to join. You’ll get tons for your money, and every penny goes to help those in need. So JOIN!
Paul, if he was a true historical person, was a SELF-PROCLAIMED apostle. That is important to remember. Basically, all of his virtues were presented by the writing of his own pen.
He is the pioneer of Christianity; the first to introduce the blood-atonement death of Christ. That’s the Gospel of Christianity. But, it does not mesh with the Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ preached (Mat. 4:17), and that which He said would be proclaimed at the end of the age (Mat. 24:14). Christianity’s Gospel is an interruption of the true Gospel of the Kingdom.
Light in the world > Age of darkness > Light returns
Gospel of the Kingdom preached > Christianity’s corrupted Gospel preached > Gospel of the Kingdom preached
Though it has long been obvious that Paul saw himself as having a divinely ordained mission, it’s an interesting insight into his mind, to realize he believed he himself had been prophesied in scripture.
But his mind worked like that–this fits with his belief that Jesus had been a pre-existent divine being (an angel, perhaps, as you’ve suggested), waiting in heaven for his time to be briefly made flesh.
So the question is–did Paul at times entertain a belief that he also was pre-existent in heaven? He would have known that he could not work miracles, and was not in any way omniscient. He would have believed Jesus was superior to him. I don’t think he could have believed he was an angel, any more than Jesus believed he was God. But might there not be special souls created for special purposes?
And what hunger in him was waiting since his youth–looking for some mission to achieve? Something conventional religiosity could never appease. He started by persecuting Christians, but recognized in the ones he met a fervor and conviction that appealed to him. And Judaism, as practiced by his fellow Pharisees, was such an inward-looking faith. Not given to proselytize at this time.
And Paul was born to proselytize, and I don’t mean it was divinely ordained. I mean it was his nature. Some people are just like that. They can be raised in an environment entirely devoid of any religious belief–they will look for something to believe in, that they are supposed to convey to others. An ideology of some kind. It could be atheism as much as anything else.
And that impulse that exists among people found in all cultures can be a source of great good–or evil. Or both.
Very interesting. It appears god calling the gentiles to salvation was in the imagination of many Jewish thinkers, Paul seems to be the main one of them that focused on actually calling gentiles.
Terence L Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Ayf057kcuJsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Paul’s vision made him realize that it was Jesus’ death and resurrection, and nothing else –e.g., not the Jewish law – that established a person in a right standing before God.”
If this is indeed the case, did the truth of this realisation strike Paul having heard it from others (obviously others already believed that Jesus died and rose again) or was it something which was his completely original insight and interpretation of what this signified? If the latter is the case, would this not indicate that, in fact, Paul IS the creator of Christianity – something which, I always thought, you do not hold to?
Not necessarily. He could be recognizing something that others before him also recognized.
I also came to a realization about Paul recently. I’ve been re-reading the epistles, and I came to realize that Paul was a bit of a jerk. That is, sometimes his sense of self-importance got the better of him and he turned into a bit of an a-hole. For example, Paul’s dressing down of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 4:6-13 is dripping with vituperative sarcasm: “Oh, you are all so special, now? Well, maybe you’re all kings and I’m just a cipher. Don’t mind me, over here slaving away for Jesus. I’m here risking my life to spread the gospel message, but, no, you guys are the real heroes!”
This is probably a good reflection of what Paul was like in real life: a pugnacious, abrasive, in-your-face hothead.
Your comments echo so many of my thoughts about Paul. My husband, even when we were Christians, would always point out that he didn’t necessarily like Paul. HIs sarcastic tone and self-importance seemed antithetical to the gospel that we believed. Ah, but the more I study, the more I realize that I was sold a gospel that was not based on truth.
The scales have definitely fallen from my eyes and I consider myself a skeptic.
1. Did Paul think he saw Jesus (someone he never met) or did he think he saw the Christ?
2. If he was a Pharisee as he claims, who taught and explained to him initially about the Christ so that he actually accepted this message and then thought of himself as the fulfillment of God’s plan?
He thought he saw Jesus. He knew *something* about Jesus since he was persecuting people who declared him the messiah.
My understanding was that he claimed to have seen a blinding light and heard a voice. Not that he saw Jesus in the flesh, as it was claimed the disciples had. To have seen him that way would require a mental image of somebody he never met.
Paul believed Jesus had walked around in the body of a man, but that doesn’t mean he saw him as a man. He believed the mortal body had only been a shell housing some radiant spirit. Jesus the man was not important to him. Jesus the divine being was.
The light and voice are from the accounts from Acts, not Paul’s own account in Galatians 1.
Which is frustatingly sketchy. He does not say he saw Jesus in bodily form. He says almost nothing about it, though presumably some of the people he’s writing to have heard that he had a vision of some kind.
Is it possible that this is deliberate? He knows he’s entering a cult that will be suspicious of him, for good reason. If his account is too different from their own visions of the resurrected Jesus, they may reject him.
Paul is such a good writer, I tend to assume nothing he does is by accident.
It seems that Paul thinks he saw Jesus in his Christ form, especially since Christ is the only thing that Paul talks about.
You and I have discussed that Paul’s persecution of people was likely him giving approval to the leaders of the synagogue flogging Jesus movement Jews. I am thinking that in addition to being apart of this, Paul must have also been “studying” or being taught by friends or having discussions about Jesus’ resurrection to the point that he agreed with the message and then determined that he was the fulfillment of God’s plan. Then his three years in Arabia must of been for him to get his thoughts together before beginning his ministry. Does this seem correct?
No, I don’t think he was off in the Arabian desert thinking things through for three years. He appears to have begun his missionary work then, in the Nabatean kingdom.
Ah! I didn’t think about him beginning his missionary work during this initial three years. He obviously did not receive the message he was preaching from the vision he claims to have had. And he states that he was completely opposed to the Jesus movement message before the vision. For most people, a change in thinking happens over a period of time. What are your thoughts on how Paul went through his change in thinking?
I deal with this in my forthcoming book The Triumph of Christianity! It’s a bit of a long story — but his realization that Jesus had been brought back to life led him to try to figure out then why he had died (been crucified) in the first place…
Dr. Ehrman, I have just started to really think about Galatians 1-2 after pondering the doctrine of apostolic succession. I have seen Catholics claim that in the NT all authority was originally bestowed by the 12 Apostles and that even today bishops and priests are a part of that line and you have to have authority bestowed on you. I don’t have a scholarly knowledge of Galatians, so I will say it’s not totally clear to me that Paul started his missionary work right after his conversion, but he was preaching for 14 years after he met with Cephas and James, and it seems to me like he was only given authority by the other apostles after those 14 years. That’s how I interpret the “right hand of fellowship” given to Paul when he went back to Jerusalem, anyway. Do you think I’m on the right track with this? I think it would poke a hole in the idea of apostolic succession, at least b/c there would be an example in the Bible of a pillar of the church not waiting for authority to be conferred on him before he started his mission. Though you could still argue Paul wasn’t supposed to do that. One of the reasons I started thinking about this is b/c I read the intro to “Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity” by James D. Tabor. I felt some of Tabor’s ideas were faulty but it seemed like the book would be a worthwhile read anyway. Do you know this book and, if so, can you say anything for or against it?
Paul, of course, considered himself an apostle and did not think he needed approval from the others to justify his mission (which had been going on for 17 years — the first three were apparently in the Nabatean kingdom “Arabia”); he appears to have wanted agreement with the others simply to get the others on his side, not to sanction his message (which he “knew” was right already). Not sure if that helps!
I think it helps. Paul is a little confusing to me in Galatians 2, though. He says he went to Jerusalem after 14 years “in response to a revelation” and told the leaders there the gospel he’d been proclaiming to make sure he “was not running, or had not run, in vain.” That sounds humble; he wanted to make sure he was preaching the right message. But then he says the acknowledged leaders contributed nothing to him; instead they saw he had been entrusted to minister to the Gentiles. And he says Peter, James and John recognized the grace that had been given to him. That sounds like Paul already knew he was right, or at least that he was proven to have always been right. I don’t know how much he wanted the leaders’ approval but he did seem determined to prove that his mission and message came directly and only from God.
Yes, my sense is that Paul very much “knew” he was “right,” from teh very beginning. He was trying to persuade the Jerusalem apostles not to get in his way.
The disciples who had dreams and visions of Jesus after the crucifixion were reacting to the death of somebody they had known and loved as a man, but then came to see as somehow semi-divine. God’s adopted son, the Messiah.
Paul is the opposite. He probably never met Jesus, did not witness the crucifixion. He went from despising and persecuting Christians to being one of the most zealous of them. He knows Jesus was a man, had a physical body, but for him it’s the vision he had that was the true Jesus–and it makes sense, in that context, that he’d see a blinding light, and hear a voice. We know many at the point of death, or in a state of delirium, as he would have been, have had such visions.
So he was deliberately vague in his epistle to the Galatians, because he knew what he saw was different from what the disciples had claimed to see. But over time, as he became established as a major figure in the new church, he did tell the story in some detail to good numbers of people, and it was preserved in Acts. Perhaps not 100% accurately, but it’s the best explanation for why they would tell such a different story about Paul’s experience.
Completely unrelated to this post, but are you aware that Robert Price is writing a book about you? It is called Bart Ehrman Interpreted (See link to Amazon):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bart-Ehrman-Interpreted-Robert-Price/dp/1634311582/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510759630&sr=1-12&keywords=bart+ehrman
Strange huh? What do you think about it?
Ha!! What a scream!
Quite the compliment, when you think about it.
I don’t imagine you’ll be returning the compliment. 😉
I think Price is correctly realizing that the word “Ehrman” will sell more books than the word “myth.
He’s going to make some cool cash off that book
“Taking a collegial approach and rejecting polemics, Price defends Ehrmans writing against conservative attacks but also suggests a number of points at which Ehrman may be insufficiently or inconsistently critical.”
Dr. Ehrman, I’m thinking of writing a book called “I Bart Ehrmaned Bart Ehrman, and so can you: Bart Ehrmaning with Bart Ehrman on Bart Ehrman’s Bart Ehrman”. I think it’s really gonna sell.
Great idea!
Publishing date : April 1, 2018. hmmm
“Wow” indeed…again, I ask: this is your own theory you developed correct? what has been the response from Academia and historians on this? I never heard you mention this in books or lectures/debates before – has this been published?
Very intriguing view – what led you to fascinating view ?
Finally, are there any writings (other than what you quoted at the end) of Paul that either back up this view further, or perhaps now make better sense in this context?
Thanks,
No, I’ve never published it before. It will be in my book Triumph of Christianity. And it is backed up by the accounts of Paul’s realization of why God called him, e.g., Galatians 1-2
I usually view Paul’s role in Christianity as one who disrupted Jesus’ message of love and compassion, but your article today has gotten me to think about the role of Paul in a different way !!
Perhaps I should see Jesus and Paul as part of a single divine plan. I had not considered that. Thank you…and have a great trip.
How much proof is there for the apocalyptic origins of Christianity
Pretty abundant, rooted, for example, in the evidence that Jesus was an apocalypticist.
You’re saying that all the evidence rests on Jesus being apocalypticist?
No, I’m saying that’s an important piece of the puzzle.
I agree ..Paul saw himself as the fulfillment of scripture in that he was aware that it was by grace , i.e Christ in him ..”I live yet not I but Christ in me .” Paul understood that Jesus Christ was God’s grace . This was the fulfilling of Joel ..”and I will pour out My spirit on all flesh” as was witnessed at Pentecost and afterwards. Jesus also pointed this out in the synagogue ..that God shows mercy to whom He shows mercy..the examples that Jesus used was Nathan the Assyrian ( who did not keep the law of Moses) and there were many widows in Israel at the time of Elijah , a time of great drought and famine but Elijah was sent to a widow of sidon …again not one of “God’s chosen ones” ..a gentile . This of course got Jesus carried to the brow of a hill by an angry mob. It would be the equivalent of God revealing His love and mercy to a Muslim/Buddhist/etc. or a university professor while Billy Graham ( nothing against Mr Graham ) and the “very religious Christians” were overlooked….you can imagine the gnashing of teeth over that scenario.
I do take exception that Paul had an exalted view of himself . I believe he was chosen by God because he knew better than most that his keeping of the Jewish law only worked self-righteousness and hate. His own history kept him from exaltation. I see this same ” spirit” in many “devout ” religions and it has worn many religious clothes throughout history. We often view someone’s motives , actions , words , etc. through some dirt on our own lens …at least I believe that to be true. ( The Speck in my eye as it were. ) I think God’s grace humbled Paul …it did not exalt him . ( How could the murderer of Stephen have an exalted view of himself ? ) This is, I believe the wisdom of God for He gives grace to the humble ..the proud either do not see their need, too proud to admit it or like Wolsey , Thomas More and other religious people who ” burnt ” heretics that published the gospel in English ..the truth came at too great a cost . ( What will my friends think while I am burning at the stake though I cause people to be lost for eternity ? )
History is full of stories of self-proclaimed prophets who insist they received revelations directly from God and/or Jesus. Paul, the self-anointed Apostle of the NT, can be counted among the many self-proclaimed prophets.
What sets Paul apart from the others is that he is essentially the principal architect of the Christian doctrine. And what’s rather astounding regarding this is that Paul admits in his letter to the Galatians that “his” gospel message is based solely on a revelation from Jesus Christ.
“I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
It seems from this passage that Paul, who never met Jesus personally, did not gain any knowledge of Jesus or his gospel message from any of Jesus’s apostles or eyewitnesses to Jesus’s ministry.
Most scholars believe the Pauline epistles pre-date the synoptic gospels, and therefor they probably influenced whoever wrote them. This would seem to be problematic for Christians because the majority of Christian doctrine stands or falls on the dubious revelations of but one man. A man who never knew Jesus personally, who admits he learned nothing from any of Jesus’ “chosen” apostles, and who humbly said in chapter 15 of 1st Corinthians that he was the “least” of the apostles, but in the next sentence arrogantly proclaimed that he “worked harder than all of them.”
This sounds like the same “calling” that Jesus likely also heard, believing himself to be the Messiah of scripture and the deliverer of Israel. Could it be that Paul and Jesus alike were gifted in words but completely deluded as to the supposedly God-called nature of themselves? In that same sense, how were they different from any of the current glib pastors of today’s American mega-churches, whose congregations far exceed those of Paul and Jesus?
There might be similar mutatis mutandis; but it’s that mutatis you have to pay very careful attention to!
Well, they differ in their individual and/or joint success in imprinting their messages! (some of them at least)
Does Paul say some place that Jesus was killed in Jerusalem? Does Rom 9:33 unambiguously point to Jerusalem?
No. And no, not necessarily.
Bart,
I believe scholars agree that the message of salvation through the crucifixion story came from Paul’s hand. And the rift that happened between him and Peter at Antioch appears to have been more serious than is commonly supposed. This puzzles some historians because the issues of circumcision and dietary requirements had been resolved at the earlier Jerusalem conference.
It breaks down to faith versus the law of Moses, respectively Paul’s Crucifixion story versus what Jesus taught, which was not at all strict adherence to the letter of Jewish law.
Can you offer some illumination regarding the rift between Paul and Peter and his entourage at Antioch?
Ah, that’s a good and involved question. I’ll add it to my mailbag.
I would be very interested to read what you have to say on this.
It’s a really good question.
If Paul was the one God had chosen to bring salvation to the “world”, how do Christian apologists answer the question of why it took hundreds of years for an all-powerful and all-knowing God to communicate this message to the millions of people living outside of the Roman Empire (e.g., in North and South America)? If I didn’t know better, I would say that God didn’t know about these people until the Europeans found them.
God’s plan is mysterious! And who are *we* to question it? (!)
I don’t believe it is a universal Christian belief that Paul was the special one chosen for this purpose. Bart is putting a fairly new spin on Paul’s words, that I happen to agree with, but the fact that he’s just recently come to this conclusion would prove pretty conclusively that most Christians never believed this about Paul. That he had a vision, yes. But so did many others.
To Jews of that era, ‘the world’ means the Roman world. Nobody knows about the Americas.
And anyway, Mormons say Jesus appeared to the Indians. Well, the Angel Moroni said that.
😉
Hi Bart, appreciate all you do. Regarding the Society of Biblical Literature meeting, can you give us a brief report? Especially if any new discoveries or innovative insights are reported/discussed?
Interesting idea. I’ll consider it!
How do you think Paul’s assertion that a person is nothing without love plays into belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection being the “only” thing bringing one into a right standing with God? I’ve always read it as “necessary but not sufficient”. That is, you have to believe, but you still have to live a certain way, and if you don’t live that way you dont really believe. There are people though who believe that as long as you believe it doesnt matter how you live or treat others. As much as I try to respect others beliefs, I think that is horrid. I get the sense that people who believe this cherry pick 1 Corinthians.
Yes, Paul’s letters are specifically directed against those who think it doesn’t matter how you live once you have faith.
I’m a bit surprised you only realised that a year ago.
I’m a bit slow.
Hi Bart, did Paul fit into the mold of Mark 16 verses 17 and 18? Apart from having been bitten by a snake he didn’t seem to be following in Jesus’ footsteps, casting out demons and healing the sick. Would Paul and Jesus be preaching different gospels?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Mark was written after Paul’s lifetime, and vv. 17-18 were not added to Mark until even much later by scribes. We also don’t know what miracles Paul was reputed to have done, given our limited access to Paul’s life.
Fascinating! As I read this post a strange thought came to me. If a movie was to be made of Paul’s life, which actor would best play him?
Ha! Good question. Let’s ask other blog members for casting options!
Oh my god, Shia laBeouf. Paul was a Shia laBeouf, no doubt about it.
I heard once that Paul had reddish hair…and had an exalted view of himself…hmmm. I wonder if DT would consider the motion picture business if he got booted out of office??
Anthony Hopkins
Already did it.
I’m thinking enough actors of North European descent have played the New Testament guys.
Yes, that’s why I picked him. He’s experienced.
I have to go with Bogart! He can use the same marbles he had in the Caine Mutiny!
When you point out exalted self-image, it makes me think that anyone who believes they are a prophet, messiah, or someone otherwise foretold by scripture seems to have (or at least project) a healthy opinion of himself. I know these folks came from another culture and time, so that factors into assessing them. But do you think a touch (or more) of narcissism predisposes someone to becoming a prophet?
I think it’s really hard to psychoanalyze people who live in completely different times, places, and cultures. (Hard enough to psychoanalyze people in *our time that we know just distantnly)
Wow! Quite a thesis! Sounds like another book. Do any other past or present scholars see it this way?
Have a good trip. As always, you are one busy fellow. I wish I had your knowledge and your energy.
Entirely off topic; but does anyone else think that the image of Jesus on the cover of the upcoming “Triumph of Christianity” book has an uncanny resemblance to Dr. Ehrman himself?
Ha! No one that *I* know. It was an artist who drew it from the reconstructed image of the shroud of Turin!!!
Oh my gosh! If both are true, then, then, then….???
I often wonder where Christianity would have gone if Paul had been a touch (or even more than a touch) humbler about what he heard from God.
The story of Lazarus and the rich man found in the Gospel of Luke is a very odd story. Do you think it tells us anything about early Jewish views of heaven especially since the Old Testament never mentions the subject and here in Luke we have Abraham in heaven? Are there any Jewish versions of this story that are earlier than that written in Luke? Thanks
Yup, that’s what I’m hopefully going to get to on this thread.
Wow! I had never noticed the connection between O.T prophecies and Paul’s missionary work among the gentiles. This would explain why Paul was so zealous about his work.
Welcome to Boston Professor. I thought a handsome gentlemen of scholarly visage and academic New Testament joy passed me on the sidewalk.
You are in Boston on not the least but certainly not the best of weeks. You’re at the tale end (maybe beyond) of the glory of Autumn but catching the rains of the seasonal change. We always get a several days of wet weather right around now.
If you have a chance though visit the Arnold Arboretum. Boston is very lucky to have a park and tree museum as beautiful as the Arboretum. I can recommend the Haven for good Scottish food or Galway House for good New England clam chowder (none of that NY pseudo clam chowder here). Both are in Jamaica Plain. Knowing your enjoyment of good beer I should mention that the Sam Adams brewery is also in JP.
Will you be speaking at any public events? I would be honored to hear you in person.
Hope you have a great time in Boston.
My only speaking even is this morning (in about 50 minutes!) at the Biblical Archaeology Society meeting. After this I’ll be heading over to the Society of Biblical Literature meeting but won’t be giving a paper there. You should have stopped me to say hello!
You said “Paul may well have thought specifically of famous words about God’s special servant, spoken by the Lord himself, again in the book of Isaiah”
I think that is exactly what Paul was thinking. Or least whoever wrote Acts was thinking about him:
Acts 26:15-18
“‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’”
Bart
You say that Paul reasoned that “to be members of God’s covenantal people, it was not necessary for gentiles to become Jews. They did not need to be circumcised, observe the Sabbath, keep kosher, or follow any of the other prescriptions of the law.” I know that circumcision was a hot button issue that he locked horns with Peter and James over and that was his primary emphasis in writing to the church he established in Galatia because of the different gospel they were hearing from the circumcision faction. Other than that, is there any compelling reason to think that when Paul spoke of justification by faith not by works of the law, he only had in mind circumcision and those other laws that are used to identify a person as Jewish rather than the whole compendium of Jewish law laid out in the Pentateuch?
THe main reason for thinking so is that he says, e.g., in Galatians , that believers need to love one another, because “the whole law is fulfilled by the word ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (5:13-14) That presupposes that it is indeed important to fulfill the law. yet this occurs in a letter that insists that hte readers NOT get circumcised!
I have come to believe that Paul “changed” the message of “love and service to others that ” that Jesus taught in Matthew 25 to one of salvation theology. It became “all about me” instead of all about serving other’s needs.
There’s some truth in that, but–
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-2.htm
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Galatians is one of Paul’s earliest letters, written at a time when he was (apparently) still smarting from his confrontation with the Jerusalem apostles. Do you think that contributed to a sense of being the only one who truly understood God’s plan and that his view of himself came back to earth a bit later? I’m thinking of 1Cor. when he says Paul, Peter, and Apollos are all preaching the same Christ.
Interesting idea!
Two nominations for the role of Paul: Oliver Platt and Steven van Zandt. Neither has a pretty face and they both portray abrasive personalities very well. I’ll bet there are some very fine Mediterranean actors I’ve never heard of.
I’ve been thinking about it. And I find it understandable that both Jesus and Paul could have considered themselves super-important – because they weren’t aware of the diversity of cultures and belief-systems that existed in the world, even in their day.
What’s harder to understand, when one really thinks about it, is how *modern* people can *still* consider them super-important. We know we’re living in a vast Universe; simply because of its size, it’s almost certain there have been, are now, and/or will be other intelligent species, other civilizations. Yet the “omnipotent, omniscient” deity Jesus and Paul believed in never gave them a *hint* of this?
Or – more to the point – a hint that there were civilizations in the Western Hemisphere of *this* planet?
What about the God-fearers? And the gentiles who embraced the Noahide laws? Weren’t they considered as being made right with God? Yes, they didn’t have all the privileges of Jews and they didn’t have the birth right, but they were considered as what some today would call “saved.” So, why would they think that they needed to listen to Paul or to follow Jesus?
Not for Paul! Otherwise there would be no reason for Christ to be sacrificed.
The subject and that of the interaction between Paul and James, fascinates me. These ideas resolve for me all of the contradictions that arose when I tried to be a Christian. I just happen to be currently reading James Tabor’s book “Paul and Jesus” and noticed that on page 103 he states that “Paul believed that his calling and his mission to the Gentiles were witnessed in the Hebrew prophets,…”
If that is true, that Paul believed himself to be such a divine agent, wouldn’t the Jewish Christians regard Paul as a blasphemer worthy of stoning? At what point would Paul’s opinion of himself cross a line for James and the Jerusalem church?
I’m not sure that thinking you were the fulfillment of Scripture would be constituted as blasphemy.
I’m entirely sure that the early Christians, Jewish or gentile, never stoned anybody.
Paul would have had rivals, critics, detractors (you can see him trying to win them over in his epistles), but nobody in the Christian community wanted to kill him. The resistance early Christians met from both Jews and pagans would have meant that they’d embrace Jesus’s reported saying that “Whoever is not against us is for us.”
And a Pharisee’s son, who had once persecuted them, coming over to their side? Huge win.
We know that Jews stoned people because it said so in the “Life of Brian” when John Cleese’s pharisee was stoned with a 16 ton rock for inadvertently saying “Yahweh”. If the Jewish Christians were devout in their jewishness, I am sure they would have kept stoning as a pastime.
The drama underlying Paul’s letters is that Paul really did not come over to their side. I love to imagine how Paul and James and Peter’s interactions looked like. Just man on man. One person having known Jesus as a brother and the other being talked to in his head for 17 years. What did they say to each other?
I like Robert Orlando’s book and movie “A Polite Bribe” which attempts to dramatize the undying hatred between Paul and the Jewish Christians. It should be taken to a series of the quality of “I Claudius”. Orlando already wrote much of the storyboard.
At the last meeting with James, there was (if you believe the account in Acts) a plot to have Paul stoned as he left the Temple after fulfilling his vows. So right. Maybe he was being attacked for heresy and not believing that he was the second messiah.
Isn’t that an accusation that the assembled Jews made about Jesus at his trial? (Actually I guess he claimed to be the king of the Jews and that was meant to upset the de facto rulers including the rulers.
I’ll read up some law on what you had to do to get stoned. How unorthodox you needed to be.
Yes, Jesus was executed for calling himself the king of the Jews.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m gathering from this post that you think Paul did have some supernatural encounter with Jesus. Even if this experience was in his own mind alone, I’m surprised you think it was authentic. This is certainly not the case. Paul was an opportunist. He saw an opportunity for power in the guise of a new religion which he took to non-Jews (because Jews weren’t having any of it, then and now.). There is plenty of evidence that Paul produced many lies in his accounts. He was an egotistical, arrogant man in need of attention. And he was smart in his dealings with non-Jews blending some truth with mostly lies to perpetuate his vision of aquiring power in essence elevating himself to a god-like position. His message has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible and Judaism.
No, I definitely do not think he had a supernatural encounter with Jesus. I think he had a vision of him, just as lots of people have visions of those who have died.
What is the difference between a supernatural encounter and a vision? I don’t think there is any difference. Paul’s world was only of himself. Yet he attached his ideas to attain power to a partial truth which is brilliant if you think about it. And his religion took off in order to fulfill Paul’s own need for power. There was no vision. It was an idea. A light bulb. But no vision.
A supernatural encounter presupposes that there are forces outside the natural world that impinge on our experience; a vision does not require such an event — it can originate in the brain as a purely neurological episode, for example. That sort of thing happens all the time.
Dr. Ehrman,
I highly doubt Paul’s vision was so intense that everything he wrote came from what he thought to be Jesus. I don’t know any right minded person that’s ever had years worth of such an encounter. I’m surprised you seem to be taking the position that Paul was authentic in some way in his writings. Rather than taking the position that Paul was simply a liar. For example, Paul’s assertion that he persecuted Christians is completely fabricated. Or that he was a disciple of Rabbi Gamaliel. This is also completely made up. Paul was an opportunist seeking power and control.
You may want to read up on the literature of visions. And historically — think Constantine!
Are you saying Dr. Ehrman that Paul in his own mind was tell the truth? And that many of the events that he claimed to have happened, such as Paul having persecuted Christians or him being a disciple of Rabbi Gamliel really happened? Or that Paul was not an opportunist and a man in need of powers and control?
Yes, I don’t think Paul was lying whenever he said whatever he said. I think he may have been completely wrong, but not that he was a bald-faced liar.
He doesn’t though, say anything about studying with Gamaliel; that is found only in Acts.
Good point Dr. Ehrman concerning Acts/Gameliel. However Paul’s assertion that he persecuted Christians or that he was a pharasee of pharasees is completely made up. Provided Pilippians was an authentic Pauline letter. But, even if we just stick with Romans…how is Paul’s blatant change of the Hebrew text reference Romans 11:26/Isaiah 59:20 not constitute a lie??? Unless the definition of “lie” has changed since
Christianity began. There are so many more examples of Paul’s systematic scripture twisting Additionally, there is no evidence Paul knew hebrew, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m still surprised you hold the position that Paul was being in some way truthful even if only in his own mind.
I don’t see any evidence to suggest he was lying — especially since he was writing to people who knew him.
If we could ask Paul today, “Paul, why, in your letter to the Romans (11:26), did you change the wording of Isaiah 59:20 when you quoted the Prophet? Making it mean something completely different.” What do you think his response would be Dr. Ehrman?
Paul’s version: “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
What it really says: “A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the Lord.
See the difference? Subtle but completely changes the meaning…This is a lie. Interesting thing is, Paul set the stage for the Church to manipulate what the Hebrew Bible actually says to comport with what they needed it to say…
Two problems. One is that we don’t know what form of the text of Isaiah Paul had available to him, in an age when there was not *one* version floating around, but lots of different versions in different textual forms. He certainly didn’t have exactly the one on which our modern translations are based. The other is that he is simply following traditional Jewish modes of interpretation: no one, I think, would argue that all ancient interpreters were “liars” because of how they presented and interpreted their texts — but the kinds of moves Paul makes were those commonly used at the time.
Dr. Ehrman. With all do respect…I’m an Orthodox Jew. I haven’t come across one classical Jewish text in my studies that tampers with a verse as Paul does. This was not common practice among Jews of the time. Certainly not within mainstream Judaism. What is your evidence that such a thing occurred? Additionally, this text is quoted in the Talmud and other classical jewish works in its original form. The DSS scrolls include this text in it’s original form. It is also consistent with the general theme of the Hebrew Bible. If there are multiple examples of such a thing occurring in Paul’s writings, the only conclusion is that Paul was a liar.
I’m not sure what sources you’re referring to as having been written at the time. What are you thinking of? And when you speak of “mainstream Judaism” — do you mean later rabbinic Judaism? As you probably know, Judaism was remarkably diverse in the first century; I’d be hesitant to say there *was* a mainstream, and if there was, we certainly don’t have access to it. Be that as it may, we simply do not know what the Greek text of Scripture available to Paul (or Matthew, or the others) looked like. I can’t think of a single good counter-argument to that — but would welcome one! Even so, if you want to see ancient (pre-Rabbinic) interpretive techniques look like, consider the biblical commentaries among the DSS. Now *that* is creative exegesis!
I’m referring to classical Jewish texts by which we base our faith. I.e Tanach. I realize you take an academic position concerning the authorship of the Hebrew Bible. But my point is the texts we have today are virtually identical to the originals. Unlike the NT. The method of transmission of the Torah cannot be compared to that of any other ancient writing. Why would every single Christian Bible render our verse in question correctly? If there is a version of the Hebrew Bible Paul was using that renders it as he does in Romans, where is this copy??? Wouldn’t it behoove Christian bibles to use this version? And if Paul was such an educated Jew, he would know that his rendering of the verse is not the worldview of the Hebrew Bible. Makes no sense. Another example: Paul’s “understanding” of Genesis 12:7 is almost laughable. The verse describes physical descendants in the plural. Like we would say “Sheep.” Reference Galatians 3:16. Yet Paul somehow thinks this is talking about one person, The Messiah, since it does not say “Seeds.” Would we say “Sheeps” to describe multiple sheep? See??? He got away with this because his audience was uneducated. They were at Paul’s mercy then, and now. You are correct Dr. Ehrman in your assessment that there were many different varieties of Judaism in the 1st century. How do we know which Judaism is/was authentic? Very simple. We look at the Judaism which survives to this day. The Judaism that survives today is Judaism that follows both the Written AND Oral Torah. You can call it whatever type of Judaism you want. Pharisaic. Rabbinic. Heretical groups such as Sadducees, Essenes, Jewish Christians, etc no longer exist, because they denied the Oral Torah or other aspects of classical Judaism. And why would Paul need a Greek version? He should have been able to read Hebrew if he was a “Pharisee of Pharisees.” Same with the other writers of the NT, who Christians claim were all Jewish. The quintessential book in the NT titled “Hebrews” is written in Greek!!! Like I said earlier, Paul was a deeply troubled man, yet Charismatic and articulate. He was able to get away with lie after lie because his audience didn’t know any better. He was an opportunist in need of uplifting his ego and gaining power over people. His religion, Christianity, is opposed on all levels to the Hebrew Bible.
Oh, well if you’re talking about the Tanach, then I”m afraid I have to disagree rather strongly. There were massively different versions of Scripture from early times. The version of Jeremiah attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, is most closely aligned with the Greek version (the Septuagint), which is 15% shorter than the Masoretic text on which modern translations are based. I don’t think anyone would say that the scribes who produced that text were “liars.”
Dr. Ehrman,
The problem is with any reference to the “LXX” is that this document does not exist. Any translations in Tanach outside of the Torah never did and never will mean anything, because no one knows how they were written or by whom. The original LXX was only that of the Torah. There is no reason Paul would have needed a translation of any kind anyways, if he was a “Pharisee of Pharisees.” Same with the rest of the writers of the NT. Transmission of the original Hebrew texts was and is a sacred task. There is nothing comparable to the transmission of ancient texts that compares to the writing of a Torah scroll. Every Torah around the world today is identical. So back to my point, Paul either a) did not understand the worldview of the Torah (dispelling the notion he was a “Pharisee of Pharisees”), or b) he was a Pharisee, understood the worldview of the Torah, yet changed/misused Hebrew texts to further his cause. Either way you look at it, he was a liar. Do you think he was telling the truth when he makes it clear the Jews killed Jesus (1 Thessalonians 2:15)? Last time I checked the Romans killed Jesus. Are we to rely on such testimony when he never even met Jesus? Did he see Jesus being crucified?
You may want to read up on what we know about the *early* (as opposed to the medieval) transmission of the Jewish Scriptures. I have a discussion in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction. My point is that the *Hebrew* version of Jeremiah discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls represents a text that is 15% shorter than the MT. And mutatis mutandis….
I cannot stop thinking Paul invented Christianity with his apocalyptical views and he was followed by the rest. He started everything. He heard the story of Jesus and build the stories backward. Like someone having a great idea!
“One day I went fishing at Galilee Sea and I met a fisherman called Cefas. He told me a great legend:
It goes like that…”
Sometimes I think that Jesus was born and died at the perfect time in history. The Roman Empire, with its Pax Augusta, allowed Paul a relatively safe way to carry his messages of the new Judaism to a Gentile world. Paul as a highly educated and wealthy Jewish man, had full protection as a Roman citizen, and was a zealous convert to this new Judaism. All these factors may have made him a perfect candidate to disperse the good news. Or did God arrange all of these serendipitous events?
Dear Bart!
You said: “For him the “fact” was that Jesus was alive again, as he knew from having seen him.”
My question is: Where does Paul speak about the vision?
I think that Paul was not motivated by the vision,but the his experience, what he describes: “to reveal His Son in me”.
But seriously, Paul does not speak about vision. Anywhere. The vision and the reveal not the same. Paul could have prevented the attacks, if he would tell and witness the vision. But he did not do it anywhere. Why? He forgot? He did not consider it important? Maybe because it did not happen?
The word “vision” comes from the Latin word video “to see.” A “vision” is something that is seen. Paul thought he saw Jesus, and so it was a vision — something that he saw (or thought he saw).
Ah thakn you! But I claim he did not have a vision:-) because he does not talk about it nowhere. If he had seen Jesus, he would have said it. He did not do so. Why?
He does say so: 1 Cor. 9:1 and 15:8.
Codex Sinaiticus 1Kor9:1: “ουκ ειμι ελευθεροϲ ουκ ειμι αποϲτολοϲ ουχι ιν τον κν ημων εορακα ου το εργον μου ϋμειϲ” nothing:-) He doesent say of Jesus, and the vision.
In 1Kor15:8 he speaks of Christ and not of Jesus.
Paul refers to Jesus in a number of ways: Jesus Christ, Christ, the Lord, etc. There’s no ambiguity about that is there?
When we say Christ, we are thinking of Jesus. But I think Paul does’nt. In any case, Paul never speaks about the vision of Jesus. Its very insteresting:-)
On the contrary. Paul typically refers to Jesus as “Christ” or “Jesus Christ.”
Dear Professor! With great respect, but I do not think so. Paul made a name from the title. But please help me if your time allows. Where does Paul say: Jesus ‘ho’ Christ? Important for me-) Thanx.
I”m afraid I don’t understand your position. Are you saying that when Paul says Jesus Christ or Christ he is not referring to Jesus? He doesn’t say Jesus the Christ (maybe there are a couple of exceptions — I’d have to look it up) simply because Christ functions as a name for him.
Oh sorry! When the Paul said Christ, only Christ (itself) he is not referring to Jesus. Yes, that’s what I say. When Paul said Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ, the Christ functions as a name for him, and not a title. Yes, i think so. The Lord Jesus Christ the resurrected Jesus. And when the Paul said Jesus (itself), he refer the Son of God, whom “God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” Rom8:3, Fil2:6-7 Paul says this to me: Jesus in his death became is Christ, and not in his earthly life. That is, Jesus is not equal whit Christ. I think so Paul thought so.
I don’t think you would be able to sustain that view if you did a thorough study of Paul’s use of the terms Christ, Jesus Christ, etc. It is crystal clear that when he says Christ he is referring to Jesus. This is not a disputed point, to my knowledge.
Between the 1Cor12:3 and Gal3:13 there is a huge contradiction.
Dear Professor! Very thank you your answers, and your time! Of corse was precedet by a thorough study, nearly ten years. In my opinion, my model gives an explanation the huge contradiction between the 1Cor12:3 and Gal3:13. One more time very thank you!
There is a big difference between cursing Jesus (“Jesus be cursed!) and saying that Jesus took on the curse of others (“Jesus became cursed”)
The question is: if Jesus became cursed, not cursed? Why don’t be cursed? “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” If “everyone who is hung on a pole” is crused, why can not speaking: Jesus be cursed? If he be cursed, because became cursed? Maybe dont Jesus “hung on a pole”?
Dear Professor! My modell name TrionoModell (tria/three and nomata/name), namely ThreeNameModell. I studied Paul’s communication of three levels: 1. semantic 2. pragmatic, and 3. apobetic. The modell works well and explains (does not dissolve) apparent or deep contradictions. I to offer a critical review.
What I’m saying is that there is a difference between my saying “Damn you!” and saying “You are damned.” The first is when I’m expressing my views about you with vehemence, the second is when I’m expressing my understanding of Christian soteriology, probably in a Calvinist vein….
Excuse me Dear Professor, but I did not think, so that discussing a question works like this in Chapel Hill. Whatever Merry Christmas!
Hi Prof. Bart – I heard you make the same point as this post on your podcast today and found it very interesting. Does Paul specifically say anywhere that he’s the fulfilment of the “light to the gentiles” prophecy, or are you inferring it from him saying God revealed his son to him “so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles”?
It seems plausible to me, but not obvious, that he sees himself in that exalted way.
He does not come out and say “I am the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah.” But the language he uses to refer to his own appears to indicate that this is what he thought. I give the evidence for that in my book The Triumph of Christianity.
Thank you. I’ll look that reference up.
Unrelatedly, in your recent Luke podcast, you said you weren’t completely on board with the trend to date Luke much later than traditionally – I think you cited c120 CE – which you said could be the wave of the future.
I’ve heard Steve Mason go through the argument and, as an amateur, found his reasoning compelling that Luke relied on Josephus, particularly for specifics about life and history in Roman Palestine.
What to you are the chief arguments for the c80 dating and what do you agree/disagree with about the late dating?
Many thanks.
I’m happy to be convinced. I have a pretty high threshold for “proof” that one surviving literary source used another. Mark as the source of Matthew works for me; John using Mark does not. I haven’t found the arguments for Luke using Josephus of the order that I find compelling, but I probalby need to look at Mason (and Pervo) again. I remain convinced that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke, and sayings of Jesus that appear to be from Luke are quoted in sources such as the Didache (ea. 100 CE). It’s a close call.
Thank you. Definitely recommend having a look at Mason, who goes into quite some depth to show how events, characters and topography from Josephus seem to reappear in Luke.
It would probably make my eyes glaze over but for the implications that if true, it suggests Luke/Acts is significantly later that I had long thought. Maybe this is “the wave of the future,” as you said.