(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...I’d like to say a bit more about Paul in relationship to the beginning of Christianity. Yesterday I argued that Paul could not have invented the idea of the resurrection. I should point out that Paul himself – who was always proud of the “revelation” of the truth given to him and his part in disseminating it (see Galatians 1-2) – admits in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, before appearing “first” to Cephas and then others. I should stress, this language of “receiving” and “passing on” has long been understood as a standard way of indicating how tradition was transmitted from one person to another. Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him.
People today often think of Paul as the second-founder of Christianity, after Jesus. Or even as the founder of Christianity. In my view that is assigning way too much importance to Paul. I don’t know how much Paul himself came up with (based, in his view, on his encounter with Jesus). But he did *not* come up with the idea that Jesus’ death brought salvation and that he had then been raised from the dead. That part he “received” from others.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
Bart said: “Paul did not “receive” this information from his visionary encounter with Jesus (Jesus didn’t tell him: first I appeared to Cephas then to… and then to… and then finally to you!). Paul received this core of the Gospel message from those who were Christians before him.”
Of course, mythicists from the Wells/Doherty/Carrier school will point out that Paul never states that he “received” that info from the Christians before him. Earlier, in 1Cor 11:23, he states that he “received from the Lord”. So isn’t it just as likely that the “received” reference in 1Cor 15, is of the same sort – i.e. “from the Lord”, i.e. one of his personal revelations?
I’m not a mythicist, but I’m not totally convinced that “receiving” in 1Cor 15 is necessarily from the Christians before him.
I’ll deal with that view in a post soon.
I am very interested in the current posts since I am interested in how early Christianity developed and changed through the centuries, and the fate of the early church in Jerusalem. To this end James Tabor suggested to me and to others the reading of Hugh J Schonfield’s book “The History of Jewish Christianity: From the First to the Twentieth Century” ©1938. What are your thoughts on this book, if you read it?
I’m afraid the only book of Schonfield’s I read was The Passover Plot. A very different book indeed!
Ooops! I had missed the absence of the concept of the atonement in Paul’s speeches in the book of Acts. Thanks for educating me.
I want to challenge you on the point on whether Paul received his information about Jesus from the apostolic leadership before his arrival in I Corinthians 15.
My reading of this passage suggest that Paul’s knowledge of Jesus originates from the Tanakh. He uses the phrase “according to the Scripture.” This suggest that Paul’s Christology is derived from the illuminated re reading of the Old Testament.
What say ye Dr. Ehrman?
Yes, Paul certainly thought that Jesus death and resurrection fulfilled Scripture — but he does not say that this is where he got the *idea* that Jesus’ death and resurrection brought salvation, as I read him.
I found this to be a very informative post as it touches on something I’ve often wondered about, just how central was Paul to the spread of early Christianity? As you point out, the epistles mention other people out spreading the word, and there was an active Christian community in Rome prior to Paul going there himself. H
Any chance the proximity of Paul’s churches to Constantinople played a part in his letters becoming canon?
Do you have a sense of how Christianity spread to North Africa?
Paul’s churches weren’t *that* close to Constantinople (closer than the writings of otehrs of his time, for example). AS to north AFrica, we have no reliable specific information.
Excellent post. I agree that too much weight is being put on Paul’s importance in his own day, and this makes sense because he is dominant in the NT writings and because the Fathers also glorified his person and his letters dogmatically.
I also agree that Paul did not come up with the core Christian beliefs about Christ as you also argue here. But you write that in 1 Cor 15,3 Paul says that he “received” his information on Christ from other Christians, in that the verb used (paralambano) is normally used for the passing on of information between people. So that Paul’s not claiming here that he received this information about Christ from his visionary experience with Christ. But doesn’t Paul previously in the same letter, 1 Cor 11,23, explicitly say that he in fact “received from the Lord” the information concerning the Last Supper which he had in turn passed on to the Corinthians using the same verb? Also in Gal 1,23 he uses the same verb, that he’d “received” from his visionary experience the things he’d been teaching the Galatians.
So how can you be so sure, that in 15,3 Paul is not also referring to information regarding Christ that he’d received directly from Christ? What is the difference between his receiving through revelation in Gal 1,23, “received from the Lord” in 1 Cor 11,23 and “received” in 15,3?
Good question. I’ll deal with that in a post soon.
I understand that salvation theology seemed to be very important to the early church but that apparently was not the message Jesus brought about God’s Kingdom. Why do you think salvation theology won out over the message of the kingdom?
Probably because the kingdom never came! Maybe I’ll devote a post to this!
As to the Kingdom not coming, since the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God was a central, major teaching of Jesus, any direct reaction by early Christian leaders to it not coming would be interesting to hear about. I can understand how early Christians might sweep some inaccurate details under the rug, but it would seem like the failure of a central teaching of Jesus would get some explanation by early Christian leaders (maybe like, “we thought the Kingdom was coming soon, but we misinterpreted Jesus”).
Yes, this is a (very) big issue in the study of early Christianity. My view: rather than saying “Jesus got that bit wrong,” his followers started changinge what exactly he allegedly said so that he came no longer to proclaim the imminent arrival of the kingdom (already in LUke; stronger in John; strongest in Gospel of Thomas). The tradition becomes de-apocalypticized.
I would love to read a chapter-length treatment on the book of James, using your various methods of exegesis.
Ah, that would be a lot of work! I do devote a substantial discussion to James in my scholarly book Forgery and Counterforgery; and I have a lower-level discussion in my textbook on the New Testament. But i don’t plan on doing anything further in the foreseeable….
Given that James never mentions the death or resurrection of Christ, nor atonement or any such Christian doctrine, do you think it’s safe to say he didn’t believe in the resurrection or atonement through it?
No, I don’t think so. It’s safe to say that in this particular writing he had something else he wanted to talk about. More than that — who can say?
When you say that Paul is opposed by other Christians, is it more appropriate to say that he is opposed by Jewish Christians or Jesus Movement Jews?
In Galatia, yes. In other places (such as Corinth) no.
Bart, but isn’t Paul then contradicting himself? Either he’s telling the truth in 1 Cor or in Gal … It can’t be both!?
“Paul admits in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 that he “received” from others the view that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead, before appearing “first” to Cephas and then others. ”
“Gal 1: 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
See today’s post!
You wrote, “…the majority of Christians saw Paul as the great apostle, and so they not only collected a few of his letters (has anyone ever wondered why we have only seven of them now? Surely he wrote *dozens*!! What happened to the others? Why weren’t they preserved?)”
We have exactly zero letters from Paul written during roughly his first 20 years of preaching the gospel. He was founding churches during these years, so it would seem reasonable he would have had plenty of reasons to write letters to the churches he had founded. Seems to be more than coincidence.
Question: Your best guess on why 100% of Paul’s letters in the New Testament were written during the last 15 years or so of his life?
I don’t have a best guess, just speculations that need to be thought out a bunch more!
“James (another forgery), is widely understood to be directed either against Paul or against a Pauline theology.”
This is something I would like to hear more about.
OK, I’ll add it to the list!
Hi Bart,
Is Paul (or his epistles) mentioned in writings such as the Nag Hammadi library? I now understand that he had adversaries during his life time, but were his views and influence embraced by later unorthodox circles of Christianity?
Thank you so much, as always.
Yes, there is in fact a “Prayer of the Apostle Paul” as one of the tractates in the library. For a scholarly discussion of Paul among Gnostics, see Elaine Pagels book The Gnostic Paul.
Bart, perhaps Paul was quoting from the Ascension of Isaiah? The Ascension of Isaiah in it’s first edition is traditionally dated in the late first century to early second century, but it seems Paul knows of the Ascension of Isaiah.
In his (first?) letter to Corinth, Paul quotes this passage of a scripture found nowhere in the Old Testament.
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”
Some scholars say Paul is quoting a botched version of Isaiah 64:4, but the sequence is more like the passage in the Ascension of Isaiah.
Isaiah 64:4 “For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him.”
Paul mentions in this order:
Eyes
Ears
Heart
For those that love God
Isaiah mentions:
Ears
Eyes
God who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
Apparently the Ascension of Isaiah in it’s Slavonic/Latin version (11:34) has that verse in from 1 Corinthians verbatim.
I know some scholars date the Ascension of Isaiah early,but I myself don’t think there’s any way it could have been composed before the middle part of the second century. I talk about this a bit in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
On your comment that we only have 7 of Paul’s true letters:
In Books and Readers in the Early Church by Harry Gamble he goes to great length discussing the dissemination of early Christian works and in particular Paul’s letters. Given how Gamble describes the distribution of Christian works and the network for this distribution it would seem phenomenal, to me at least, that we don’t have more of Paul’s letters.
Me too.
// Christianity came to be centered not just on Jesus, but also on Paul. But in Paul’s own day, it wasn’t that way at all…..//
And that’s where it went off the rails, becoming a legalistic religion of “how many impossible things can you believe before breakfast in order to get out of hell?”
“Probably because the kingdom never came! Maybe I’ll devote a post to this!”
But Jesus is quoted as saying God’s Kingdom had already arrived but folks just didn’t see it.
When dealing with the historical Jesus, the question is not only what is he *recorded* to have said in the Gospels (are you quoting the Gospel of Thomas, by the way?), but what he actually said, based on a historical study of his sayings. Jesus appears to have preached not that the kingdom had arrived, but on the contrary, that it was soon to arrive. I may talk more about that on the blog.
After the debacle in Jerusalem for Jesus and his followers, it would seem the story ends. The Romans are
still in power and the Jewish insurrectionist has been put to death ( Mark’s gospel). Jesus followers had needed the consolation Jesus provided that Roman rule would be overthrown. Surely Paul was free to weave past beliefs into a narrative to fulfill other needs such as the fear of dying. He did not let a tragic story
go to waste.
Do you believe the “Paulo Apostolo Mart” tomb found at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome is the authentic tomb of Paul of Tarsus?
No. There’s no evidence for it at all. ANd lots of reasons for thinking that if Paul did die in Rome, the authorities wouldn’t have given his body over to Christians for burial. (For one thing, if he died in Nero’s persecution, then the other Christians would habe been rounded up themselves!)
Dear Ehrman,
I am trying to improve myself about Paul. I ask for your help at one point.
One of the criticisms brought to Paul is that he added something of himself to the Christian tradition. At least he added the portion saying that Jesus appeared to him as well. How much more? No one really knows. According to some, Scholars can only speculate. What do you think about this subject?
Do you think Paul really added to the tradition? If Paul did add to the tradition once, wouldn’t that make Paul unreliable? After all, he added to the tradition once. Where else did he add? Nobody knows…
Thank you for starting such a blog.
Most scholars think that Paul is reciting a precisely constructed formula — a kind of early Christian creed that was easily memorable. it’s in two parts with three subparts each: Christ A1 Died; A2 according to the Scriptures; A3 was buried; Christ B1 Rose; B2 according tot he Scriptures; and B3 appeared to Cephas. It is a very tight construction, formulaic, giving the “fact”; the “scriptural support”; and the “physical proof.” Scholars disagree about how MUCH of the rest involves things Paul or others have added. But my sense is that the creed itself, because of its tight formulation, probably ended originally with the appearance ot Cephas.
1) How did early Christians view suicide? Was it considered a sin?
2) In Romans 7:15, Paul mentions struggling with sin. Some have said it’s possible this was struggle with his sexuality? Paul mentions he was devout to Jewish law, and was abstinent so I doubt it. Thoughts?
1. Interesting book on that by Arthur Droge and James Tabor, A Noble Death. Answer: No. Not until Augustine.
2. This is one of the most misunderstood chapters in the NT because it’s almost impossible to read it without thinking that Paul has some kind of characteristic sin that he just can’t withstand. For some decades now scholars have argued that’s not what the chpater is about when read in the context of Romans 1-8. It’s not autobiographical. Paul is talking here about how the power of sin controls people who have not yet believed in Christ and been baptized. His point in Romans 6 is that those who have been baptized are no longer under sin’s power, no longer having to do what it forces them to do. In chapter 7 he is illustrating what it’s like for the person still under the power of sin, unable to control his/her urges. He’s assuming the role of that person, not talking about his own personal life at the time. He himself, as a baptized believer, is no longer under sin’s power, and he’s explaining why escaping it can only come through Christ, not by self-will. In any event, there’s nothing in the text that indicates he’s talking about sexuality, just the inability to do what one knows is right and avoid doing what one knows is wrong.
Dr. Ehrman,
1. Since Jesus didn’t actually appear to Paul, then who did Paul learn from before he talked to Peter and James?
2. And what did Paul mean in Gal. 1:12ff?
1. Paul certainly *says* Jesus appeared to him. But whether he did or not, Paul was persecuting Christians before he became one of them; that means he knew what they were saying and didn’t like it, and only later came to think they were right. 2. I’m not sure what you’re wondering about.
Dr. Ehrman,
What is your understanding of Paul’s conversion as it relates to him being “blind” for three days and then healed? Do you believe something like this happened (meaning, he believed something like this happened), or do you believe it is a complete myth? If Paul was convinced it happened, how do you explain him being blind and then healed? If not, then what do you make out of this story in Acts?
Paul of course doesn’t say anything about it. I think it functions metaphorically in teh book of Acts. Like Bruce Springsteen, Blinded by the Light (whose lyrics I never did understand…)
If I understand correctly, “orthodox” Christianity flourished at the expense of other beliefs because the Roman church adopted the orthodox view and being in the center of the empire had money and organization other churches, with different beliefs, lacked. What importance do scholars think Paul’s letter to the Romans had in establishing the orthodox view that took root and grew in Rome? After all, that letter kept being copied and is with us today. Romans also seems to be the most detailed view of Paul’s (orthodox) theology. Was Paul explaining to the Romans what they should correctly believe, or was Paul trying to prove he agreed with their theology that was already in place?
At least, it seems as though Paul was instrumental in setting up Rome’s primacy, even if only by the letter that Roman bishops held in high esteem.
Thanks.
Yes, I wish we knew. The first Christian writings from Rome outside the New Testament — e.g., 1 Clement and Justin — don’t refer to the letter. Justin (150 CE or so), a significant figure in Roman Christianity, famously and oddly never quotes Paul at all. So, it’s hard to say…
That is really interesting. Thank you. I didn’t realize, given the famous letter, that we don’t know what the Roman bishops thought about Paul. I especially didn’t realize that the earliest Roman church writers never mention him!
Whoa — did I say that? He’s mentioned as having been martyred in 1 Clement, written from Rome even before some of the final books of the NT.
I probably skipped a beat. What you said to me was that the “letter” isn’t referred to, but now I understand that Paul as a character who was martyred is mentioned.
Phew!! You had me nervous there….
I ran across this interesting examination of Paul and his alleged vision on the road to Damascus. Rabbi Tovia Singer points out some intriguing arguments. Only a short essay (15 minutes) that may worth the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UARYj8lGiM
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
Was Paul really raised in Jewish tradition and a pharisee, as he claims, in your opinion?
He is boasting that he was very highly educated pharisee, but is it true that he is mostly quoting from the Septuagint?
From one point of view, it is logical to use the Greek translation of the OT as his audience were Greek speaking people, but in the Greek translation there are passages which are mistranslated(some intentionally) and thus changing the meaning of the quotes. If he was a high level pharisee, I think he would have recognized how the passages are mistranslated into Greek and should have wanted to stay with the original meaning of the words of God.
Is this evidence that he was lying about being a pharisee?
Is it likely and are there actually any records of pharisees living outside Palestine(like Paul have lived in Tarsus)?
My sense is that no one who read teh Septuagint knew that the text didn’t read the same as the Hebrew text. One of the many problems is that we don’t know what hte Hebrew text looked like in Paul’s time; another is that we have good reason for thinking there were various, possibly many, forms of the Hebrew text, not just one (that the LXX was “different” from); another is that we don’t know of any requirements that Pharisees read Hebrew; yet another is that there’s nothing to indicate Paul could read Hebrew; and …. and there are all sorts of problems that would have to be solved before we could say whether Paul was just making up his Pharisaid connectoin.
Thank you for your answer!
Can you please share your opinion on is it likely that there were pharisees outside Palestine at the time of Paul?
I’d say apparently so. But we don’t know anything about them.
Did Paul Know Hebrew?
It’s debated, but my view is no. He appears familiar only with the Greek version of the OT, e.g.
Can you refer to me any online article that summarizes this debate?
I”m not sure which aspect of the debate you have in mind? Maybe ask again with a fuller explanation?
What evidence is there that Paul did or didn’t know Hebrew. That’s what I’m looking for
Paul’s own letters are the key. He quotes the Greek version of Scripture and doesn’t show clear familiarity with the Hebrew.
It could be argued that he was quoting the version that his readers / listeners were familiar with. As for the latter point, could you please supply a couple of verses where he reveals his lack of familiarity with the Hebrew? Thanks.
I’m not sure how a biblical quotation could show that he didn’t know the Hebrew; it can only show that he did know the Greek.
Dr. Ehrman,
What are your thoughts on Paul claiming he could do miracles in 2 Cor. 12:12? What miracles did Paul think he could do? Wouldn’t Paul have known he couldn’t really do miracles? Does this make Paul deceitful or insincere? Thoughts?
Thanks,
He certainly claims he could and did them! And is reminding his readers, so they presumably agreed he did. I’ve always thought that’s amazing, and have never figured out what it oculd have entailed. Maybe they thought his converting a particularly belligerent opponent or two was a “miracle”? It’s hard to think they remembered him raising people from the dead, etc.
Prof. Ehrman,
a few days ago I listened to a conference by Gabriele Boccaccini on Paolo. the scholar, speaking of Paul, supported, as I also think, a continuity of Paul’s thought with the Judaism of the time. So not a replacement but a continuity. Paul was and always remained a Jew who never denied the value of the Mosaic Law and the Works. His was therefore not a true conversion but, rather, adherence to a different current of Judaism of the time. Salvation was also offered to pagans who converted since Second Temple Judaism was an inclusive and not exclusive religion since natural law was perfectly compatible with Mosaic law.
Do you agree with this point of view or do you see in Paul’s work a break with the Jewish past?
I’d have to hear the details of his argument. He is a very fine scholar (if Gabriele himself gave the talk on Paul). I agree wiht most of your summary, but I would not agree with the claim that it was not a “true conversion.” He means by that that it was not a conversion from one religion to another, and that’s absolutely right. But it *was* a conversion with respect to Jesus, whether he stood under God’s curse or was instead the messiah whose death and resurrectoin brought salvation. I completely agree that Paul continued to see himself as Jewish though. But that was a very broad category. Your last sentence I think is tricky though. Pagans, for Paul, did not have to ocnvert to Judaism, and most elements in Judaism would not welcome pagans who did not accept Torah.
Yes, perhaps I phrased the sentence badly and I apologize for that. the concept I wanted to express is this: For Paul, those among the Jews who became Christians were still obliged to continue to respect the Mosaic Law. in the same way, those who converted among the pagans were required to respect the natural law, the one that, after the universal flood, God had given to Noah and to humanity. Therefore there are two laws: the Noahic one for all humanity and the Mosaic one which represents God’s alliance with his beloved people.
Dr. Ehrman (BDEhrman) I was wondering about Romans 3:19. I’ve heard people saying that since it talks to “those under the law” he only means the Jewish people. However, it seems quite clear to me he’s talking about “the whole world”, so gentiles alike.
I see it as much more likely that in that case “law” doesn’t refer to the Jewish law, to which only Jews were initiated, but some sort of moral law, that the whole world is accountable to.
Could you give me your thoughts on this?
As usual, many thanks, you’re most kind!
Paul uses the term “under the law” in reference to Jews who had the law; and it appears from 3:1 and 3:9 that he is referring to Jews in 3:19 as well.
Thank you! I see your point. Would you consider it plausible, however, from Romans 3:9-10: “[…] Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:” – and then he goes one citing the “everyone is a sinner”, basically –, that it might refer to both groups?
And then again, the conclusion from 3:19 “so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God”.
But I can see if your point is he already addressed gentiles in chapter 2, now he addresses Jews in 3 and verse 19 is a sort of conclusion of all of it.
I think if we read “law” here as Law of Moses, you must be right. But it seems it’s talking about something that the “whole world” is under.
Let me know what you think. And don’t hesitate to tell me if there’s a problem in my interpretation, or if it at least seems plausible to you as well.
Yes, all are under the power of sin since all descend from Adam. Jews are “under the law” which is both good and bad. It’s very good because it’s God’s law and is holy, righteous, and just. It’s bad because the law indicates what one must do but does not provide the power to do it, so it brings a curse. CHrist brings the power that frees from the curse for Jews. And that frees from the power of sin, for all people.
Right, but if only Jews are under the law, how can the law prove the whole world guilty?
Because in this passage (starting with 1:18) Paul thinks that even gentiles have the law of God written on their hearts ot the extent that when they look at the world around them they know there is only one God but have sinned against that knowldge.