(18 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...I have been talking about the relationship of Jesus’ proclamation of the coming Kingdom of God to Paul’s preaching about the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the previous post I argued that the fundamental concerns, interests, perspectives, and theologies of these two were different. In this post I’d like to give, in summary fashion, what strikes me as very similar and very different about their two messages.
Again, in my view it is way too much to say that Paul is the “Founder of Christianity”: that assumes that he is the one who personally came up with the idea of the importance of the death and resurrection of Jesus for salvation, whereas almost certainly this view had been around for a couple of years before he came onto the scene. And it is probably too much even to say that he was the “Co-founder of Christianity,” for much the same reason.
But it is safe to say that of all the early Christian thinkers and missionaries, Paul is the one we know best as the one who forcefully advocated this Christian message, in contradistinction to the message of Jesus. In the writings of Paul more clearly than almost anywhere else in the NT we see that the message *of* Jesus has become the message *about* Jesus: that is, the message that was preached by Jesus during his life was transformed into a message about the importance of his death.
In any event, Jesus and Paul do share similarities as well as differences. Here is a rough summary:
Similarities of Jesus and Paul:
- Both Jesus and Paul were born and raised Jewish, and neither one of them saw himself as departing from the truth of Judaism and the Jewish God. They both understood that they were proclaiming the “true” form of Judaism. Neither of them thought they were staring a “new religion.”
- Both Jesus and Paul proclaimed an apocalyptic message rooted in the categories of Jewish apocalypticism, which understood that the current age was ruled by the forces of evil, but a new age was coming in which God would destroy the forces of evil and bring in a utopian kingdom here on earth.
- Both Jesus and Paul thought that this climactic moment of all human history was soon to come, it was right around the corner, it would be here within their own generation.
- Both Jesus and Paul dismissed what they saw as the Pharisaic concern for the scrupulous observance of the Jewish Law as a way to obtain a right standing before God.
- Both Jesus and Paul taught the ultimate need of faith and saw the love one’s neighbor as the summing up and fulfilling of the law, as the most important thing the followers of God could do.
So, there are a lot of similarities, at a very fundamental level. But there are also very important and key differences.
Differences Between Jesus and Paul
- Jesus taught that the coming cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom was a figure that he called the Son of Man, someone other than himself, who could come on the clouds of heaven in a mighty act of judgment. Paul taught that Jesus himself was the coming cosmic judge of the earth who would destroy the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom, who would come on the clouds of heaven in a mighty act of judgment.
- Jesus taught that to escape judgment, a person must keep the central teachings of the Law as he himself interpreted them. Paul taught that reliance on the observance of the Law in no sense would bring salvation; to escape the coming judgment a person must, instead, believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus
- Jesus taught that “faith” involves trusting God, as a good parent, to bring his future kingdom to his people; Paul taught that “faith” involves trusting in the past death and resurrection of Jesus. It wasn’t only faith in God but faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.
- For Jesus, his own importance lay in his proclamation of the coming of the end and his correct interpretation of the Law. For Paul, Jesus’ importance had nothing to do with Jesus’ own teachings (which Paul hardly ever quotes) but strictly in his death and resurrection.
- For Jesus, people could begin to experience what life would be like in the future kingdom if they would accept his teachings and begin to implement his understanding of the Jewish law in their lives. For Paul, people could begin to experience life in the kingdom when they “died with Christ” by being baptized and thus overcame the power of sin.
So, are Jesus and Paul more alike or more different? People come to different conclusions, looking at the same evidence. I’m afraid there is no right answer, even though many people are quite vociferous in their support of one position or the other.
Mr. Ehrman, does any Church Father that you know of talk about dissimilarities between Jesus’s theology and Paul’s?
The church writer Marcion developed his entire theology on the differences in the mid second century (look him up on the blog). Opposition to him drove most other church fathers to affirm their complete continuity.
Did “historical Jesus” or anyone in his camp think that he might become an ordinary (non-apocalyptic), political “King of the Jews”?
Yes, that appears to have been the view of some of his disciples before he was crucified, and explains why they were so discombobulated when their expectations did not come to fruition. And it’s almost certainly the reason he was crucified — so one can assume it was the widely held view.
Bart,
At times in the Middle Ages the Talmud was alternately edited, banned, or even gathered and burned by certain Christian elements. Do we have any knowledge of Christian groups doing this to texts other than the Talmud either in early Christianity up until the Middle Ages? Or was this something that was unique to Talmud. I’ve heard apologists say there is no evidence of Christians destroying texts they considered heretical.
Would appreciate your insight on this and thanks !
I’m not familiar with stories of Christians burning the Talmud. Where are you getting this from? By and large heretical books didn’t need to be burned. They simply weren’t copied, and that made them disappear quite effectively!
Bart,
This is drawn from:
The Essential Talmud – 1976
by: Adin Steinsaltz 1937 – 2020
Alma mater Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Head of the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications (at the time of this book)
From chapter 1 What is the Talmud?
“The book was reviled, slandered, and cosigned to the flames countless times in the Middle Ages…”
I could look for other references as well if you like over the coming days I’m retired and have the time and am curious myself. Apparently from what I’ve read elsewhere in other works there was some type of trouble stirred up in France against the Talmud that resulted in the The Disputation of Paris in 1240 that may have led a burning on June 17, 1242. There may have been other times and places as well.
Thats all I have for now but keep me posted if you find anything or if you think Adin Steinsaltz would be a reputable source on this. I’ll keep looking as well. Thank you for your time.
Interesting. So they are talking about medieval incidents. I wonder how well documented they are….
Dr bart why jewish scribe Like to add or diminish some writing in torah Like u Said tahts DEAD SEA SCROLL have 15% longer text than current septuagint, and also is it true that they reinterpret THe failed prophecy about eschaton from past prophet Like Micah jeremiah and Daniel and then tO jesus , basically They keep reinterpret this delayed eschaton and then again look at failed eschaton that jesus in NT and Paul Said , people could just keep reinterpret it , why They did that ? And why Christian still believe that bible is ACcurate
Early Jewish traditions were often considered not to be written in stone but to be living and expanding. The idea that the “truth” had to be written and never changed was unheard of in religions of the ancient world. And it is still not held by most people / religions in the world today. Those who do think that this is an “obvious” view are very much a minority still (and were unheard of then).
That’s news for me
Throughout the Gospel of Mark, more often than not Jesus seems to be clearly identifying himself as the “Son of Man” does he not? Exceptions might be in Mark 8:38, 13:26, and 14:62 where it is less clear. In the other three Gospels he also appears to be clearly identifying himself as such at times although there are more verses in them that are less clear and seem to be discussing the Son of Man as a “cosmic judge of the earth” in the future. Was he using the term “Son of Man” in both contexts but as different beings?
It’s an unusually thorny question with different scholars who have devoted many years and much expertise to the problem coming up with different answers! My view is that the sayings in which Jesus does *not* seem to identify himself as the Son of Man are the ones more likely original to him, since those do not seem likely to have been “made up” by later followers, who believed he *was* the son of man. Those probably authentic sayings refer to the Son of Man as a coming jduge of the earth. Later Christians thought *he* was the coming judge of the earth. And so they started putting the words on his lips as a kind of self-identification.
Dr bart do you know THe most severe historical or archeological error in THe bible that could Cancel THe bible innerancy in OT or NT
There are lots of inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. If you’d like some discussoin of them, see my book Jesus Interrupted.
These are generally problems only for fundamentalist Christians who want to think that the Bible must be inerrant in every way and fundamentalists of other religions who want to show that Christianity cannot be true because the Scriptures are not inerrant.
Christian theologians and apologists deal in a number of ways with the failure of God’s kingdom to come (and/or Jesus’s failure to return) before his own generation died out. Are there clear and strong reasons to refute them? Does it depend on thorough use of the historical-critical method?
Here are some examples: (1) Jesus himself is the coming of the kingdom. (2) Jesus was launching the kingdom-not saying that it was coming in its final form within his generation. (3) The kingdom is “within” you. (4) With Jesus the kingdom has made an irreversible beginning but fullness is to come (much, much) later (already and not yet). This includes the followers of Jesus beginning to practice the values of the kingdom. (5) Jesus’s atoning sacrifice “opened the gates of heaven” — so that a spiritual heaven is the kingdom of god in the fullest sense.
Would it make sense to say that, for Jesus, the coming of God’s kingdom has multiple meanings? ,
That’s certainly one view that many hold. For me the issue is not so much whether we should refute the views of theologians and apologists. Instead the issue is figuring out what Jesus really said and meant. Once that’s decided then it’s possible to consider the views of others to see if they are adequate. My sense is that Jesus talked about a literal kingdom of God coming to earth — based on the oldest versions of his teachings — and that later spiritualizations of that teaching are understandable and explicable given the passing of time.
In liberation theology and probably other schools of thought one gets the impression that Jesus is thought to have started the kingdom of god on earth but that it’s his followers’ job-perhaps over the centuries and millennia-to bring it in its fullness. To me, that’s a very reasonable and tidy understanding. It gives some ultimate purpose to “doing good” in our lives. Doing good is not just a test that qualifies one for the kingdom — whether the kingdom will be on earth or be a spiritual heaven. The second coming coincides with the completion of the kingdom on earth.
One huge difference between the above and the findings of the historical-critical method is that, per the latter, humans can do little or nothing to bring the kingdom—only God can do that.
Yet, there seems to be room in liberation theology for God to be bringing the kingdom through or along with humanity rather than by humans entirely on their own. In addition Gods direct contribution may be decisive to finalize the kingdom.
Is there much in the message of the historical Jesus to support that part of liberation theology? Or could it be a reasonable extension of Jesus’s message?
My view is that any Christian theological view can be supported in one way or another by appeal to the historical Jesus. But I don’t think that most modern categories (or Reformation categories or Medieval or late antique or even second century) are easily attributed to Jesus. He may have considered some views more amenable to his teachings than others, but we have no way of knowing since the theological frameworks (e.g., liberation in the modern theological sense) would have been alien to him, if you see what I mean.
In both 1 Corinthians 6 and Galatians 5, Paul condemns certain categories of behavior and says that “those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” How does a person’s (I’ll call it) behavior fit into Paul’s salvation scheme?
On a related issue… In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says that wrongdoers (i.e., fornicators, idolators, adulterers) will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” But now that they are “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified,” those who “used to be” wrongdoers will, he implies, inherit the kingdom after all. How did Paul imagine the relationship between wrongdoing and baptism/death with Christ? Is continued wrongdoing proof that one’s baptism didn’t take, wasn’t authentic? Why does Paul chastise the Corinthians for their wrongdoing if they’ve been baptized and have overcome the power of sin? The logic escapes me.
Yup, it’s a key question. It’s because they are no longer under the power of sin and so if they do commit these sins they are doing so by choice instead of compulsion; and if they keep it up, the power of sin will again enslave them, and then it’s cookies.
Once a person has been justified and united with Christ through baptism, they no longer live in the realm of sin. Anyone who chooses to pursue sin and live in it will not inherit the kingdom. They’ll lose what God had given them.
“Jesus taught that to escape judgment, a person must keep the central teachings of the Law as he himself interpreted them.”
I think that’s right – but perhaps only half the story? Mark summarises Jesus’ message as “repent, and believe in the good news” (Mk1:15) The repent part is, as you suggest, related to turning from sin and to Torah obedience. The ‘believe’ part though?
Jesus later declares “so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk2:10) and he heals the paralytic – Jesus believed he had the authority to forgive sins. I propose that as Jesus received the Holy Spirit at baptism, this fulfilled the prophecy that God would return to dwell in his temple, but instead of one made out of stone, it was made out of flesh. This meant that Jesus was now a walking-talking temple of God that could atone for sins.
This is later attested to in Mk14:58 “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.” So perhaps Jesus’ message wasn’t just about Torah obedience? There was something about his identity that was important.
This does not appear to be belief in Jesus, but belief in his message that the kingdom was coming. If it is, repentance is what is necessary. That’s why in Jesus ethical instructions for the kingdonm he never mentions anything about believing in him.
How do you handle Mk9:42 onwards which begins: “‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…..”?
It starts with Jesus objecting to those who get in the way of his followers believing in him, and then immediately moves on to removing other obstacles that would cause his followers to sin and deprive them of a place in the coming Kingdom. Does this saying not link belief in Jesus and proper ethical conduct in an apocalyptic setting?
I’m not sure if you’re asking about Mark’s view or the view of Jesus. If the latter, what about the saying suggests to you that itcomes from the historical Jesus himself?
I use a different methodology to you, in that unless I have good reason to doubt, I accept any Q or Markan saying of Jesus to be historical as I believe both these texts are products of the 40s and thus composed when the control group of eyewitnesses was able to correct.
If I was to use your methodology (assuming it remains the same as how you laid it out in ‘Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’) then I would argue the theme of Jesus discussing faith in him, or others who did, is found in multiple independent sources:
Q 7:1, 3, 6b-9: Jesus impressed with the Centurion and his faith in him.
Mt27:41-42: chief priests, scribes, and elders mocking Jesus saying they will “believe in him” if he came down from the cross.
Mk9:42: Jesus valuing the “little one” believing in him.
Lk22:67: Jesus claims the Sanhedrin will “not believe” if he reveals who he is.
Jn6:29 “Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’”
I, therefore, propose that the historical Jesus operated within a theological environment where belief in who he was and what he could accomplish was a significant condition of salvation.
That’s fine. I would say it is not doing critical history then — but there’s no reason one has to do critical history. Historians who do engage in critical analysis subject everything to critique (hence the term), without an inclination to accept or reject, but only an openness to both options. If you are dealing with a source that you flat out know is wrong in some instances, then, as a critical historian, you have to consider each instance individually to see if it’s probably right or probably wrong.
Whoops! I realise the Mt27:41-42 is not independent as it depends on Mk15:31. I substitute it for Mt16:17-18 which is uniquely attested to in Matthew where Jesus praises Peter for recognising him as the Christ.
Whilst I will not automatically defend the non-Q and non-Markan sayings as historical, the fact that they exist elsewhere in independent sources demonstrates that it wasn’t just Q and Mark that believed that faith in Jesus and his powers was a significant factor in being admitted into the Kingdom of God. Five sources indicated this was the case, and this accords with the macro-message of Jesus that his potential followers should not only “repent” but “believe”.
My proposal is that repentance from sin is half the message, and that faith in Christ was the other half.
He makes a tacit acceptance of the claim in Matthew’s Markan source, so I’m not sure it’s independent. But in any event, neither passage says anything about Peter’s confession being a belief that brings salvation per se, and Matthew’s version is almost certainly not historical. But if what you want are passages that say belief is what brings salvation, and if as you said before you prefer to accept what sources say unless proved to be wrong in some way, I’d say you could just quote verses from the Gospel of John since it’s all over the place there even though it’s not in the Synoptics.
“Historians who do engage in critical analysis subject everything to critique (hence the term), without an inclination to accept or reject, but only an openness to both options.”
Does that remain true for the Pauline epistles? I thought you had accepted the seven commonly accepted Pauline epistles and consider them reliable. Likewise, you reject the commonly rejected deutero-Pauline epistles and consider them unreliable.
You hold an inclination to accept or reject with these epistles. I am doing the same with certain gospels, accepting some like Q and Mark, and rejecting others like Judas, Philip, and Mary.
When it comes to Luke, Matthew, John, Hebrews and Thomas, I neither accept nor reject them out of hand. I take their contents on a case-by-case basis.
Am I not applying your same method, but to a different genre (Gospels, rather than epistles)? And are you not making an exception to critical analysis for one genre – Paul’s epistles?
Yes, it applies to everything. Every letter that claims to be written by Paul has to be evaluated carefully to see if the claim is plausible or not. But tha’ts very different from Gospels. The Gospels (except Thomas) do not make any authorial claim. The Pauline letters do. I don’t “reject” the deutero-Pauline letters as important documents for early Christianity; I reject their claims to authorship. Knowing Paul didn’t write them is hugely signficant for interpreting them.
Yes, I agree the canonical gospels were composed without any authorial claim attached. However, after carefully evaluating early external evidence from patristics and elsewhere, I believe I can date and identify the composers of Q, GMark, GLuke, and GJohn – GMatt being the exception as I believe it was the product of the Church in Antioch.
As I date Q and GMark early (before the Pauline epistles), I hold them to be reliable. Not because they made an authorial claim, but because the time span between the events they relate to composition was so short, memories of those events were clear enough, and the authors are unlikely to compose a fictional account without it being suppressed by the control group of eyewitnesses.
It’s a different method, but a similar conclusion in that unless there is good cause to doubt a piece of content (in the case of a Pauline epistle, we may spot a potential interpolation, in the case of GMark the order of narrative may be off in places) I accept them as a reliable witness of the events and people they portray.
So your view is that if something is written within, say, ten or twenty years of the events it narrates it is likely to be historical? Do you think that about the modern world, with, say, newspaper reporting the next day after an event? And do you accept it for ancient writings outside the Bible from within a decade or two of the events they narrate? Have you studied how oral tradition works? You might want to look at my book Jesus Before the Gospels where I discuss the matter at a good deal of length.
I wish to stress that’s not my only criteria, but it is an important one. It’s actually related to what you have argued – that if the first written accounts of Jesus were 40-65 years after the events, how reliable can they be? Despite the valiant work of Bauckham, I agree with this skepticism, which led me down this multi-decade rabbit hole of research.
Other criteria is authorship – were the composers eyewitnesses, or at least closely connected with them? If so, that increases reliability. Another is motivation – were the composers motivated to alter history to suit their theological purposes (GJohn shows signs of this)? If so, they are probably less reliable. Whilst Q and GMark have theological overtones, compared to other accounts theirs is more slight, so this increases their reliability.
I will read Jesus Before the Gospels, but while I do so, may I ask how you handle the evidence Paul presents? When Paul passes on pre-literary traditions and sayings of Jesus – do you accept them as reliable, and if so, why? Could memory not have affected his reliability over the resurrection appearances of Jesus, his words at the last supper, and the Philippian poem?
Paul quotes Jesus only three times; two of the three are actually periphrastic (1 Cor. 7:10; 9:14) and I think they may well repreesnt the kinds of things Jesus said. THey are multipy attested and fit in quite well with other materials that are attested widely.
I don’t think the account of Jesus’ words at the last supper are probably accurate since they reflect so clearly later Christain theology and liturgical practice. My view is that memory necessarily affected everyting.
So just as Paul was able to convey the historical meaning and message of Jesus some 25 years after he spoke (even if it was periphrastic), I believe authors within 12-15 years of Jesus were able to convey the historical meaning and message of Jesus.
To add clarity to my position – whilst I believe the authors of Q and GMark may have been able to reproduce some pithy sayings of Jesus verbatim, I doubt all or even most were. I allow a great deal of glosses and literary polish to have occurred, especially when translated into Greek, but – and this is the crucial point – I argue the composers reliably retained the historical meaning and message of Jesus’ words, even if they were paraphrases or reconstructions, just as Paul does some 10 or so years later.
I’m not making some wild claim over verbatim inerrancy. Instead, I believe Q and GMark preserve the gist of what Jesus was trying to say.
I’ve ordered JBtG, and it should arrive tomorrow. I’m looking forward to reading your research on memory. I read a couple of pages on the Amazon preview and it looks interesting.
OK. I don’t think Paul’s message was Jesus’ message, historically. Jesus preached repentance and a return to keeping the dictates of the Torah; Paul preached the need to believe in the death and resurrection independently of keeping the Law.
Yes, I agree. The point I was making is that Paul was able to convey some brief samples of Jesus’ teaching (divorce, evangelists earning a living, and I would argue, his words at the last supper) some 25 years later, so it was possible to convey the meaning and message of some of Jesus’ teaching after a considerable period of time, even though his words were not preserved verbatim.
I don’t think you disagree with this point, as you argued (Apocalyptic Prophet) some of Jesus teaching is preserved in the gospels. Where I think we differ is that I place greater value on Q and GMark due to my earlier dating of them.
I got JBtG yesterday and will be reading it this weekend.
This would make no historical sense since in the hebrew bible prophets already envision a time where jews will not have access to the temple and the alternative offered is to offer prayer.
1. What happen if you are poor?
2. What happen if pagans desecrate the temple?
3. What happens if temple is destroyed?
4 . What happens if one is diseased?
Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God,
for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.
2 Take words with you
and return to the Lord;
say to him,
“Take away all guilt;
accept that which is good,
and we will offer
the fruit[a] of our lips.
I don’t think Paul thought you needed to believe in the death of Jesus, that was a certainty, just needed to believe in his resurrection. “If you declare with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.”
Do you think Peter and James also believed Jesus himself was the coming cosmic judge of the earth?
Yes.
I have fallen into the habit of focusing on what we think Jesus may have actually said as reflected in the Synoptic Gospels when comparing Jesus and Paul. As a straight historical matter, I think that is the proper focus. John’s Jesus, however, is a different breed of cat. In John, Jesus definitely says he is divine and that belief in him is the way to eternal life. As we think John was written after the Pauline letters, what do we know about Paul’s influence on John? Is John a separate tradition of “belief in Jesus” as the road to salvation or is John a continuation of Paul’s community? If John is a branch of Paul’s tree, John would have some greater claim to proximity to Jesus than I usually give him.
I don’t think there’s good evidence that John is directly related to Paul, but I think they like most of the Christians after Jesus’ death would have agreed that faith in Jesus in some sense is what really matters. John puts a huge emphasis on believing what Jesus says about himself (it’s the point of almost everything Jesus says); Paul says nothing about that — not a word! So faith is important, but it means different things.
Do we have any idea of what sources in John go back to the disciples if any? Is any of John historical at all? I know entry level question but still curious. Pretty much all the time I see you discuss Historical Christ I see you use the letters of Paul or synoptics
I”d say none of the written sources go back to any of Jesus’ disciples, since they almost certainly couldn’t write. THere certainly are historical traditions in John, though — Jesus did come from Nazareth, he did have disciples, he did have controversies with other Jewish teachers, he did go to Jerusalem for teh passover, he was turned over to the authorities, etc. etc.
Sorry I think I was too vague
I mean, anything in John that is historical that we don’t know from other sources
I.e. John may be necessary for historical early Christianity but is he necessary for historical Jesus?
He’s not necessarly historical about Jesus, no. But there are sayings of Jesus in John and some activities that are certainly plausible as historical. For this kind of evaluation one has to go passage by passage, verse by verse, and render a judgment. Even so, I would agree that without corroborating evidence in otehr sources, it’s hard to accept a lot of what John says as historical.
Hi Bart,
What do you think led to the conflation of Jesus with the Son of Man?
Jesus’ followrs were taught during his life that the son of man was soon to come from heaven in judgment on the earth. When they came to believe he was raised from the dead and exalted to heaven they concluded that *he* was the one coming soon in judgment — i.e that he himself ws the son of man he had preached about.
In Jesus’ view, what would happen to the poor who received money and the like from people who gave away all their possessions in the coming Kingdom if he thought fortunes would be reversed?
Secondly: Did Jesus believe the other nations would or could be saved?
1. They would no longer starve; 2. Yup. (see, e.g., the parable of the good samaritan and the parable of the sheep and the goats — and other sayings)
Hi Bart, I mentioned this in a comment before and you might have answered but if so I didn’t see it so forgive me for noting it again.
I can’t understand why someone has to believe that Jesus is (a) the messiah and (b) a divine being in order to be saved.
You have pointed out that the story of the sheep and goats shows that you only had to be a good person. That is something you don’t have to have any specific faith to do.
So where would Paul come up with his idea that faith in a specific idea was so important. Did he inherit this idea or merely that the messiah is coming back to judge the world and that the people who do good deeds will be allowed to enter the new world?
The development of belief in Jesus as the way of salvation has everything to do with the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. If God raised him (and how else could he be alive?) then he was God’s most favored one. But they why did God allow him to be crucified? It must have been part of God’s plan. And why does God require the death of living beings? As sacrifices. Jesus’ death was a sacrifice, therefore; and a person has to “accept” the sacrifice — believe in it — in order for it to be efficatious. THat’s how I read it anyway.
On any given Sunday some kid somewhere will ask “why didn’t Jesus write a gospel?” or “did the churches ever write back to Paul?”.
Until we get a convincing response the Jesus quest will be stuck in a hall of mirrors chasing a white rabbit through a wardrobe to Pensecola.
Right. And the answers are pretty straightforward: 1. Because he couldn’t write and 2. Absolutely. (He refers to the correspondence in places)
Even if Jesus could write, one has to wonder whether he would have bothered, given that according to him, the new improved kingdom was just around the corner.
There is very little doubt in my mind that Paul and Jesus differed on whatever “salvation” means. But I cannot figure out how Paul and Jesus’ followers (seemingly) agreed on the gospel. Did the disciples completely forget Jesus’ teachings on salvation?
If Jesus was their Master, it’s unthinkable to me that they would ignore his most central teaching… And would come to believe that Jesus’ death, not following the law or being a good person (as Jesus taught) would get one eternal life.
It’s actually not clear what his own disciples said and taught after his death. The only source of information by someone who actually knew them is Paul, and he mentions only two of the disciples, doesn’t say what they mainly preached (only that he got them to agree with him about gentile believers in Christ), and what he does say is obviously slanted in his own direction.
Do you think it’s a reasonable hypothesis that Jesus changed his mind on salvation?
Let’s say I have a time machine, and I go back to 29 A.D., and ask Jesus how to obtain eternal life. He tells me to follow the law, help the poor, love your enemies, love God with all your heart and soul… I also ask him how to be forgiven, and he tells me (Matthew 6:14-15.)
Then I go to 30 A.D. and ask him the same exact questions. He tells me that to be forgiven, (Matthew 26:28.) As far as eternal life, maybe Jesus would have said something similar to Paul… “My blood forgives you for your sins, and accepting my my sacrifice for forgiveness is how you obtain eternal life.”
I thought about this issue quite a bit, I’ve looked at almost all of the relevant passages, and this is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
I don’t see it that way. YOu are looking at a source that was written 50 years later, after Jesus’ life, by someone who didn’t know him but had heard numerous conflicting stories about his teaching. Some of the teachings he records are things Jesus actually said; others are things that his later followers attributed to him. The trick then is figuring out which is which. It’s different with, say, Paul, for whom we have letters that he himself wrote years apart; there it is sometimes possible to detect a change of mind (e.g. about what happens to a believer immediately at death)
What if Jesus is talking to two different audiences according to their calibre and IQ?
For simple minded folks, (who are doomed any way), its to follow ‘the law” and for more sophisticated its the “blood sacrifice’?
Like Dr Ehrman writes one book for general audience and scholarly work for others on same topic?
I feel they are different. I felt Jesus was trying to show that the Pharisees were not delivering the practice of the faith fairly. Right after his Beatitudes on his Sermon on the Mount, he backs up the Law and the Prophets and continues with, “Unless your faith EXCEEDS that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”. In the first three Gospels, he corrals the children with the comment, “If you do not enter the Kingdom of Heaven as child, you shall not enter into it”. He always encouraged them to pray to the Father, such as, The Lord’s Prayer. In other words, bypass the Pharisees. He referred to himself as the Son of Man, including 12 times in John’s gospel.
After the Last Supper he told them, “..and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, the Spirit of Truth..” and “….rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”, both from John. I feel Jesus’ focus was on the Father, where Paul’s focus seems to be totally on Jesus.
Excellent summary Bart. Thanks so much for providing this. I love this blog and the fact that you are so generous with your time and knowledge.
Dr Ehrman
Did Paul mention or teach the trinitarian theology? Did he think that Jesus was “one” of “three”??
Definitely not.
The way you cover this in the new Wondrium course is so fascinating—these two are so unbelievably different in such incredibly important ways. The Pliny trials of Christians segment in Wondrium is particularly fascinating, listening to that right now—not done watching that course, but sooo much overlap with recent posts here.
Hi Bart,
Plus as per one of your favourite passages – https://ehrmanblog.org/the-sheep-and-the-goats/ – being saved according to Jesus was about what you DID not what you believed. And its likely it is original Jesus as it completely contradicts Paul’s later message. Makes a lot of sense.
Very interesting post. Something related I would like to see is a classification of where NT authors (particularly the evangelists, including Thomas) lie on these issues, whether in some intermediate position or in a completely different one.
It seems that all the authors of the New Testament valued Jesus’ death and resurrectoin as the means of salvation. My hunch is that most Christians did after his death — very few thought that his own message of repentance could lead to salvation.
An astounding example of grief guilt and anger leading people to turn away from the very teachings of the person and make the faith about him. No longer the message of Jesus, now he is the message!
Possibly the most astounding example of persecutors successfully altering the views of the persecuted!
At your behest, I read Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus. In your book Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet, you state that no one any longer agrees with his particular reconstruction. Can you tell me why? I’m particularly interested in your opinion of his reconstruction.
In order to get to his view that Jesus came to realize that he had to suffer the messianic woes he more or less willy nilly (to use the technical term) conflated an event in Mark’s Gospel with Matthew’s tied them together, and argued that that explained what was happening. When the kingdom didn’t come with the sending out of the disciples, he decided he had to suffer himself to bring in the kingdom, and it was only on the cross that he realized he was wrong. Whoops. Today scholars tend not to think we can get into Jesus’ head and figure out what he was actually thinking or changing his mind about at any point in time. Our sources just don’t allow it. So this view is seen as too psychologizing and implausible.
Since some of his followers saw Jesus as “King of the Jews” when he died, did some see his blood brother James as “heir apparent” for the title after his death?
He’s never discussed or treated that way. The followers of Jesus instead thought he was coming back to become king.
See Gospel of Thomas, verse 12:
“The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.” ”
Prof. Ehrman, doesn’t that suggest that there was a faction of early Christians who saw James as Jesus’s rightful successor as leader of the movement?
Yes, they did! But they didn’t think that he would be the King of the Jews (as the heir apparent).
Prof Ehrman, I may have asked this question once before but do’t recall you answering.
Why do the 4 gospels not mention Paul at all, especially since Paul’s letter were written some 30-40 years earlier and (we believe) Luke wrote 2 accounts, the gospel and Acts? Their silence on Paul seems odd.
The simplest answer is that they aren’t discussing anything that happened after Jesus’ life, and Paul did not convert till years later. So he and his letters were not relevant to what they were talking about.
Professor Ehrman,
Thanks for this great overview! The church that I once attended came up with a list of five things a person must believe in order to be saved. Miss one and you perish! They were:
1. The humanity of Christ
2. The deity of Christ
3. Christ’s death for our sins
4. Christ’s bodily resurrection
5. Faith alone brings salvation without works
Tagged on to these five were many details (ex: you can’t believe in the ransom theory of the atonement, you must believe in penal substitution).
No mention of the Trinity, virgin birth, or other important doctrines.
So, my questions: In church history has this been a big issue? Not what must I DO to be saved, but what must I BELIEVE to be saved. Has there ever been consensus on this issue? Is this what the creeds are all about?
Thanks!
Beliefs have always been a big part of lots of Christianity; that made it highly unusual in the Roman world, since most religions were about practices toward the gods — that is, acts of worship (not so much ethics: how we treat each other). The problem is that the lists of “correct” belief differed from one group to another, including still today! #5 is a product of the protestant Reformation, e.g.
In your answer to my question yesterday, you stated that today’s scholars don’t allow psychologizing. But isn’t that precisely what one must do, based in historical context, to understand behavior? If a person has a certain mindset, such as an apocalyptic perspective, how can you discount it? Personally, I haven’t read a better explanation than Schweitzer’s for explaining plausibly Jesus’s seemingly contradictory actions. Have you?
THe problem is that psychological explanations are evaluated on teh basis of their psychological merits, not on by means of historical criteria. People aree certainly free to try to figure out why people acted the way they did, and that can be an enjoyable an dinteresting exercise. But it’s not history per se; it’s a way of explaining history — kind of like appealing to God to explain evolution is interesting and enjoyable to some people, but is not a feature of biology itself. And yes, I think most modern accounts of Jesus’ actions are more plausible than Schweitzer’s, even though he’s one of my heroes!
Given the thesis of your excellent book “Misquoting Jesus”, how can one now reliably state exactly or even practically what Jesus taught?
I think the way to look at it is that everything we know about history — even the stuff you read in the newspaper — is a matter of probabilities. Some things are more highly probable than others — it’s INCREDIBLY probable that Russia invaded Ukraine yesterday; it’s reasonably probably that they drug 15 year old ice skaters. Some things are highly improbable: for example, that Biden actually orchestrated either thing. With Jesus, we can’t KNOW what the Gospel writers wrote or whether what they wrote is accurate. We think we Probably know reasonably well what they originally wrote, and then we decide whehter what they wrote was probably accurate or not. We can’t KNOW for certain. But that doesn’t mean we don’t try to work out likelihoods, especially since they matter.
When in your view do you think Baptism creeps back in among XTans or does it never leave?
Although Jesus is Baptized, only in John 4: 1-3 is there a record of Jesus himself Baptizing anyone & maybe that is specifically added decades later to dunk on John the Baptist’s followers who are getting a little too full of themselves, thinking they are sooo smart …
The Jesus quoted in MT and MK 100% tells them to go out and Baptize everybody, In the mid/Early 30’s Paul is Baptized. …I know you touched on before whether Paul and the disciples were baptizing with water or not and what words (in whose name)…
I guess I am asking if I wanted to follow Jesus in 30ish would he baptize me (either way by dunking or laying hands) and if the answer was “no” , when did they start doing that ?
Yes, my sense is that followers of Jesus started baptizing right away; Jesus’ own followers were baptized in preparateion for the end, I should think; and so they would have continued the practice. And yes, it would involve dunking. The word “baptizo” means to emerse or dip in water.
Could Jesus have been referring to himself as Son of Man in the gospels? Reading the gospel I always assumed he was referring to himself. Why do you think Dr Ehrman that he was referring to someone else? If so, do we have any clues as to who Jesus thought the Son of Man was?
It’s a very long story, but absolutely in the Gospels he refers to himself as the Son of Man. There are some passages where he talks about the Son of Man and gives no indicate e is talking abbout himself. Those are the sayings where he refers to a coming judge of the earth (Mark 8:38, e.g.). My view is that these are the ones he really said. After his death his followers thought that HE was the coming judge of the earth, that he himself was the Son of Man, and so when they later reported his conversations they have him identify himself the way they identified him.
Bart,
I am reading Schweitzers classic The Quest of the Historical Jesus and I know his main point and thrust is still dominant and why its a classic – but what are the secondary ideas he advances here that have fallen out of favor? TY!
I don’t know of anyone who thinks that you can combine unrelated accounts of Matthew and Mark in order to establish what “actually” happened in Jesus’ life; or — even more important — that Jesus at one point decided that since God hadn’t brought the kingdom yet he himself had to suffer the messianic woes to make it happen.
What is the evidence for Jesus not being the Son of Man?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking what is the evidence that he did not come from heaven to destroy the forces of evil? Or are you asking what is the evidence he did not use the term for himself? Maybe the latter? If so, as I’ve said to a couple of other readers with a similar question: It’s a very long story, but absolutely in the Gospels he refers to himself as the Son of Man. There are some passages where he talks about the Son of Man and gives no indicate e is talking abbout himself. Those are the sayings where he refers to a coming judge of the earth (Mark 8:38, e.g.). My view is that these are the ones he really said. After his death his followers thought that HE was the coming judge of the earth, that he himself was the Son of Man, and so when they later reported his conversations they have him identify himself the way they identified him
Thanks for your response! Yeah I meant to ask the latter.
Late to the party… But doesn’t this entire ‘dissonance’ between the teachings crumble as soon as you consider John to be historically accurate, at least somewhat. And therefore surely the response to ‘are these at odds?’ is a resounding ‘No’ from the vast majority of people. It isn’t fair to compare these things ‘out of context’ of Johns Gospel. A simple response would be Matt is simply choosing to only focus on certain teachings/sayings of Jesus, with the rest being recorded in John, thus it is somewhat silly to say Paul is at odds with Jesus.
I don’t think the message of Jesus in John is the same as the message in Paul either. But in either event, usually, and for very good reason, the Synoptics are seen as more reflective of the actual teachings of Jesus than John.
Yes, I used to think John andn Paul were very similar too. But I think that’s based only on a superficial reading. I don’t think they have the same message at all. (People are seduced into thinking they do because they both talk aobut “faith.” But what do they *say* about faith? That’s the key) (Plus their entire systems are different, their theological frameworks: Paul is apocalyptic to the core and John wants almost nothing to do with apocalyptic thinking int he traditional Jewish sense)
My view is Christus Victor.
Jesus saw the cross as a test or trial in which He would demonstrate His love for the Father through His obedience while Satan would try to find a flaw in Jesus’s obedience(John 14:30,31).
Jesus passed the test, and proved His worthiness.
The Father delighted in His worthy Son.
The Father rewards the Son of His delight with a kingdom, a throne, and all power and authority in heaven and on earth.
The Son then uses His power and authority to save, redeem, judge, abolish death, and set things right.
A redeemed creation then honors, praises and worships the Son.
Some basic variation of this story line is involved in the story of Joseph, David, and almost every movie or novel you’ve ever read.
Here’s a short paper on the subject that also describes eight major differences between Penal Substitution and Christus Victor:
https://www.academia.edu/34689178/Introduction_to_Christus_Victor_docx
I don’t understand why you state that Paul never envisioned himself as starting a new religion. His teaching brought in gentiles who were not Jewish. Wouldn’t that mean he saw this as something new?
He didn’t see it that way (I’m not saying it was *not* a new religion — just that he didn’t think so). He saw the incoming of the gentiles as the fulfillment of Scripture, especially passages in 2 Isaiah. This, for him, had been God’s plan all along.
Dr. Ehrman: This is an extraordinary essay and this topic certainly needs more discussion! My question is, as a practicing Roman Catholic, are priests and deacons taught this kind of material in seminary? I have noticed that many clergymen are aware of many of the topics you discuss and critique; however, NONE of this information is ever communicated to any parish.
It probably depends on which seminary they went to. Some Protestant seminaries teach this. But not many. Though many probably do raise the question, at least.
So, Paul believed that Jesus had to die as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the people of the world.
But he couldn’t just ask someone to kill him the way that Abe had planned to sacrifice Isaac.
Then, it would have been clearly a voluntary sacrifice with no one to blame.
Instead, he had to create a ruckus in a public place to get the government to kill him — which subverted the idea of sacrifice by making the cops and judges responsible for what was really suicide.
When Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac, that was a test–a test of Abraham’s obedience and faith.
The cross was a test of obedience and faith as well. Jesus did not “pay for sins.”
The obedience of Jesus Christ delighted God(a sacrifice was a gift/offering to delight God).
The delight that God has in Jesus overflows to us and “covers” our sins such that it moves God
from wrath to delight.
If I offend you, and give you a “peace offering” to appease you, then I can make atonement and peace between us.
Moreover, God rewards Jesus Christ with a kingdom, a throne, and all power and authority in heaven and on earth(Think Joseph becoming ruler of Egypt, or David becoming king in Israel) and He uses that power and authority to save, redeem, abolish death, and set all things right.
Dr. Ehrman,
I saw where the term ōphthē per 1 Cor. 15:5-8 means “was seen,” but one critic told me that it is and was often used in a metaphorical sense: apprehend, understand, perceive, realize, etc. “See” doesn’t necessarily mean the optical vision of a physical object was his claim. So what would be the best argument that it IS regular sight in 1 Cor. 15? Or is this something that we can’t know by the word itself but must put into context; and is it well enough to say that by Paul’s other arguments in the chapter, where he indicates that Jesus was raised bodily, it only makes sense that Paul experienced Jesus visually?
It is an aorist passive form, literally meaning “was seen,” but it gets used in this form (with this verb) to mean “appeared”
Dr. Ehrman,
Does Paul use a different Greek word in 1 Corinthians 9:1 vs. 1 Corinthians 15:8 for Jesus’ appearing/seeing of Jesus? If so, can it offer us any insight on how Paul encountered/believed he encountered the resurrected Jesus?
It’s actually a bit hard to say, oddly enough. The word in 1 Cor. 9:1 is the perfect form of a verb typically USED as the perfect of ORAO and the word in 1 Corinthians 15:8 is the aorist passive form of a verb typically USED as teh aorist passive or ORAO, but neither is clearly related either to ORAO or to each other in terms of their roots. So I guess I’d say that all practical purposes its the same verb even if technically speaking probably not. confusing, huh?
Dr. Ehrman,
So then do you agree that the NRSV gets both verses correct (see below), and that the indication is a seeing/appearing in an optical manner?:
1 Cor. 15:8 “…he appeared also to me.”
1 Cor. 9:1 “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”
I think seeing is always an optical matter.
Dr. Ehrman,
Since Paul argues for bodily resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, the context for vv 5-8 makes the most sense if the “seeing” was meant to indicate something literal, and NOT merely metaphorical ( i.e. apprehend, understand, perceive, realize, etc.) as some critics say. Do you agree?
I think I’ve answered this question a number of times. Yes, Paul actually claims to have seen Jesus alive.