Loading...Now that I have provided nutshell summaries of Paul’s life, letters, and significance, I can provide some suggestions for further reading. Here is an annotated list of some of the books you may find useful. These are taken from my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press) in which I devote six chapters to Paul. Another resource not listed in the textbook would be the (different!) six chapters I devote to discussing Paul’s biography in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magadalene (HarperOne).
******************************
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you believe (or are agnostic) that the disciples such as Thomas and others really touched the wounds? If you positively reject that, what do you think is the source of this information?
It comes from the Gospel of John and I don’t think it happened. But then again I’m not a Christian who believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
But if the disciples really touched the wounds, this does not emply the absence of a secular explanation – it is logically conceivable that they were victims of a deliberate prank or scam, like the gullible people who see the crop circles and believe they were left by aliens, or the believers in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, duped by the masterful medieval forger. Would you agree that this is not excluded? Or maybe there is something inherently so abysmally absurd about this idea that it’s even below an actually miraculous explanation in plausibility, however poor that explanation is?
It’s hard to answer because I don’t think the story recounts what actually happened, so it’s impossible to say that it (the thing that happened) would have been a scam (if it didn’t happen)
To your excellent list, I would add Paula Fredriksen’s PAUL: THE PAGAN’S APOSTLE.
It does a great job of helping us accurately picture the social and religious worlds he functioned in and was the first to make clear to me how Paul could sincerely believe his conversion of pagans was consistent with Jewish prophecy and beliefs.
I recently read your book Jesus interrupted and have become interested in your work. in it you discussed the potential forgeries contained in the Pauline letters and New Testament but it didn’t seem to mention much about the Old Testament. I noticed you did say that the New Testament was your specialty but was wondering if there was any evidence you were aware of that the Old Testament contains similar situations and which books.
Yes, my book was just about the NT, not the entire Bible. With the OT most books are either anonymous (Genesis through 2 Kings, e.g.) or written in the author’s actualy names (most of the prophets starting with Isaiah). Others are attributed to a person who didn’t write them (Proverbs does not claim to be by Solomon), but since they author hmself doesn’t claim to be that person, it’s not a forgery, just a wrong attribution. The only books that actually claim to be written by someone who didn’t write them are Ecclesiastes (whose author doesn’t name himself as Solomon but does say he’s the king of Israel who is the wisest and richest man on the planet!) and Daniel (written 3 centuries after the author claims to have been writing.
Hi Dr Ehrman,
In 1 Corinthians, regarding the bread in the Lord’s Supper, Paul says “this is my body that is for you.” Do you think that Paul is being literal, as in Catholic Transubstantiation, or are early Christians speaking metaphorically? This is one of the many concepts that drove me from being catholic to agnostic.
It depends on what you mean by “literal.” He doesn’t think that the bread IS Jesus’ body in a transubstantiation sense; taht idea doesn’t appear until much later. But if I should you a picture of my dog and sya “This is Nina” I do mean it literally (not metaphorically), but not in the sense that the picture is not actually her.
Dr. Ehrman,
You are quoted as saying, “Among scholars I personally know, except for evangelicals, I don’t know anyone who thinks this at all. And for a good reason: Paul never says he got this creed from Peter and James three years after his conversion. Doesn’t even suggest it.”
So do you think that Paul had it by 50 CE because Paul says: “I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you…” And it seems the consensus is that Paul visited them a few years prior to the 54 CE writing of 1 Cor.?
Sometime around then he must have had it. Maybe before. Certainly not after!
Have you given much thought to the perspective offered by Alan Segal and Daniel Boyarin and others, that sees Paul as an example of a sort of Second Temple Jewish proto-Merkabah mystic? It certainly clarifies some of the more mysterious comments Paul makes about his visions (2 Cor 12) and about angels and such. Of course the actual Merkabah movement postdates Paul, but aspects of “chariot/throne mysticism” is detectable at Qumran and in the Enochic tradition.
Yes I have. But saying that he was some kind of mystic, in my view, in itself doesn’t get us very far. Even a proto-Merkabah mystic. I don’t see any evidence, e.g., of a chariot / throne mysticism.
Dr Ehrman, what’s your thoughts on this passage in “The Alleged Anonymity of the Gospels,” by Gathercole;
“ If the first item of evidence for the Gospels’ anonymity is insignificant, what then of the second challenging datum: ‘the present titles probably were not added until sometime in the second century’ (the formulation of Freed quoted above, in his
representation of the majority view). This again may well be true. It is not clear that Mark added ευαγγελιον κατα Μαρκον as a prefix or a suffix to his autographon. This observation, however, is also irrelevant to the question of whether there was some other indication of authorship (not in the εὐαγγέλιον κατά X form) in the paratexts to the Gospel compositions. Irrespective of whether the full title was absent, the author’s name might in any case have been appended somehow.”
Sure. They “might have been” attached. Or the “might not have been attached.” Or someone else’s name might have been attached. Or they may have been no attachments. Saying something might have been the case is not an argument. And, of course, we have zero evidence of paratextual features on the “original” manuscripts. So apart from inspiring hope for the hopeful, I’m not sure what this statement gives us?
Hi Bart,
We know Paul claims to have encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. I was wondering if any of the “false teachers” he warns against, also claimed that Jesus appeared to them as well?
Paul actually never says that he encountered Jesus on the Road to Damascus. He does say that Jesus appeared to him (1 Cor. 15:8) and, elsewhere, that he had a revelation of Jesus after which he went to Arabia and then “returned” to Damascus (1:17), but it is only Acts that mentions he had a vision “on the road to Damascus.” So it’s not clear if he was living there at the time of his revelation or … something else. In any event, he never indicates whether any of his Christian opponents also claimed to have seen Jesus.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for this excellent blog and for using its proceeds to help those in need!
I would like to add PAUL THE PHARISEE: A VISION BEYOND THE VIOLENCE OF CIVILIZATION by John Dominic Crossan to your list. Here Crossan links Paul’s Pharisaic foundation to Paul’s understanding of Ascension and Resurrection as part of an evolutionary paradigm and also speaks to Paul’s belief that Jesus’ life was more about the here and now of the kingdom of God rather than something to wait for at the end of times. He also compared Paul’s letters to the much later written Luke-Acts and showed how the writer of Luke-Acts often discredited Paul in various things like his being the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Do you see Luke-Acts watering Paul down and making sure he is second to Peter in all things Apostolic or is it more about Paul purposely vaulting himself to the foreground (like when he writes about his dispute with Peter) at the expense of Peter and other apostles?
Yes, Crossan is generally more interested in seeing the “here and now” in the NT (including Jesus) than in the “what is yet to come.”
I don’t think Luke-Acts wants to water down Paul or blast Peter and the others. It’s mainly interested in showing (a) the complete unity of all the apostles, especially Paul with the leaders in Jerusalem; and (b) the validity of the gentile mission as part of hte plan of God, not the idea of Paul. (That’s why Peter has the vision in ch. 10 and explains it to the others in ch. 11, before Paul himself engages in the gentile mission in ch. 13)disabledupes{2a352d08d7c59900671613c5e7839592}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman,
A paraphrased passage from Prof. Gerald O’Collins, do you agree with the following assessment?: “…1 Cor. 9:1 clearly denotes visual perception, and since 1 Corinthians 15 argues for bodily resurrection, it is evident that the apostles understood that the risen Jesus was visible to the external, bodily eyes of those to whom he appeared.”
I think I’ve answered this question a number of times before. Yes, I do think Paul believes he/they saw Jesus alive again.