Loading...Who gave Paul the authority to persecute Christians? The book of Acts suggests it was the authorities in Jerusalem. Can that be right? In fact, is Acts right in what it says about Paul generally?
The questions matter: Acts provides our oldest surviving narrative description of the first thirty years of Christianity, and the only narrative source of the life of Paul (before the legendary Acts of Paul from a century or so later). It’s a terrifically interesting book. What can we say about its historical accuracy?
I was browsing through posts from the good ole days of the blog “in the beginning,” and came across a brief thread from, well, eleven years ago that addressed these kinds of questions. I thought would be worth reposting it here.
My posts started in relation to a question I received.
******************************
QUESTION:
You mention in your book “Did Jesus Exist?” that Paul started his persecution of Christians in the early 30s. If he was tasked with hunting down Christians by the Sanhedrin he must have had a fairly high position among the Sanhedrin (I don’t mean that he was a member). How come he didn’t witness the crucifixion or why didn’t he in some way have firsthand knowledge of the events in immediate connection with the crucifixion?
RESPONSE:
Ah, an interesting question. So, it’s part of a much, much larger issue. Let me explain.
We have two sources of information about the life of Paul: his own letters and the book of Acts. There are lots of reasons for thinking that the book of Acts is not always reliable when it comes to describing events in Paul’s life. I may devote an entire post – or maybe even a series of posts – to the question. For now, suffice it to say that whenever you can compare what Paul has to say about his own biography (life and teachings) with what Acts has to say, in almost every case you will find discrepancies.
This is true of small issues: was Timothy originally
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!
Imagine the conversation of a husband returning to his wife having gone to the market to buy a tent – only to return dripping wet (freshly baptised) and excitedly and urgently insisting that all the household pagan idols need to be burned, as the family is now exclusively worshipping a crucified Jew who came back to life and is now enthroned in the heavens – but is coming back soon to judge the living and the dead!
“Did you at least buy the tent, dear?”
Looking forward to the “different post” to answer the other three questions…
You’ve taken an interest in memory recently, but I was wondering if Peters Denial in the Gospels could be one of those.
It seems odd that early Christian’s would paint their “main” apostle in such a bad light if it wasn’t historical in some sense. Perhaps there’s some historicity to the story?
Possibly. It’s also possible that they could get some mileage out of it — that even a sinner like Peter could be favored of Christ, and htat one who “didn’t get it” eventually did come to see the light.
aramaic peasant who doesnt have the same glorious kind of greek literary flourish as paul calling to a far higher christology minus all the parts of jewish law romans didnt prefer for themselves. unsurprising they’d want to portray him in a bad light. our first gospel doesnt seem to like peter at ALL. mark goodacre points out matthew actually reinforces this about peter contrary to the view that matthew is pro peter.
Hi Bart,
Just caught your appearance on the Within Reason podcast and you mentioned that in the last 50 years or so there’s been a florescence of scholarship on the material conditions under which — and the theological and Christological convictions with which — the writer of the Gospel of John’s community lived. What books or essays would you say constitute some of the signal achievements of that endeavor? I’m aware your The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture gets into this a little bit, but I’m wondering what sources you were drawing from there and/or what new texts have been written since yours.
Thanks so much!
They key works that set th eagenda for the past forty years or so are J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourht Gospel and Raymond Brown, the Community of hte Beloved Disciple. Many of their views have been challenged, but their basic understanding of the community are still widely held.
You recently interviewed Hugo Mendez about the Gospel of John. In your opinion, how strong are his argument and evidence that the Johannine community probably did not exist?
I think he’d agree that there must have been some kind of community; his argument is about the role of the community in the composition of the Johannine writings. And there, despite my reluctance, I think he might be right…
I can certainly understand why Luke might want to promote the ideas that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had studied with Gamaliel, but why would he want to make up the idea that he was from Tarsus? How would that advance his goals? Just to be clear, I’m not saying he was from Tarsus, and I know there are alternative ancient sources on his origins, but I’m not sure I understand why Luke would choose to put that forward.
Tarsus was known as one of the intellectual centers of Roman antiquity, kind of like Alexandria but in Asia Minor.
So why DID Paul persecute the early Jesus Movement? (They weren’t called Christians yet.) I expect you have a full post for that one, not just a reply to a comment.
I think that’s pretty certain. He himself says so and it’s not to get any personal mileage out of it; and he is shown that way as well in Acts.
No question that he did persecute them. I’d like to understand why.
My view is that he was deeply offended that anhone was calling one “cursed” by God the “Christ” of God, as he suggests in Galatians.
1 Cor 15:3-4 says “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was entombed and that he was awakened on the third day”
Doesn’t that suggest that Paul believed in the empty tomb? and that therefore he accepted the possibility of a crucified man being taken down from the cross and buried?
It assumes that he believed Jesus was buried, yes.
But if Paul believes its conceivable that a crucified man would receive a proper burial why would anyone today doubt it?
I think I’ve explained why people doubt it. The questoin is not whether Jesus’ body was disposed of (which is all Paul says); the questoin is whether he was given a “proper” burial on the afternoon of his crucifixion (about which Paul is silent)
The ‘proper’ burial need not be anything more than what the gospels say – just that the body was put in a tomb. And Paul claims exactly that.
He claims the death, burial and resurrection, all happened within a 3-day period.
I think it’s clear Paul didn’t believe the body was left on the cross to decay and be scavenged.
I believe you’ve said that before. 🙂
Possibly 🙂
Paul was in Athens when he sent Timothy to the Thessalonians, but that does not mean that Paul communicated his instructions to Timothy face to face. He could have used the messengers of Acts 17:15 to send Timothy. If the head of CNN sends her EU correspondent to Lampedusa, it does not mean that he was ever with her at CNN headquarters in Atlanta. It might simply be that she was able to send a message from Atlanta to him in Brussels, telling him to go to Lampedusa.
Acts and 1 Thess agree that
1) Paul went to Macedonia before Athens.
2) Paul was able to communicate with Timothy when he, Paul, was in Athens.
3) Paul communicated that Timothy should come to him soon.
4) Paul was then alone in Athens.
5) Timothy was in Macedonia while Paul was alone in Athens.
6) Timothy later returned to Paul.
Do you still see a conflict between Acts and 1 Thess?
Yeah, that strikes me as a bit far-fetched. It’s possible to reconcile most anything, but that would not be the natural way to read Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμεν καταλειφθῆναι ἐν Ἀθήναις μόνοι, καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν Τιμόθεον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. He (and others? pl.) thought it was preferable to be left in Athens alone, and so sent Timothy away to the Thessalonians. (They decided to be left being alone there, not to remain alone there) (do you think καταλειπω means something else?)
I can explain. Paul was in Athens with those who accompanied him from Macedonia (Acts 17:15a). He was impatient to hear news from Thessalonica, so he sent these believers back to ask Timothy (and Silas) to come to him as soon as possible, with news of Thessalonica. He sent the unnamed companions even though, having done so, he would be left alone. It was the departure of these unnamed companions that made him “alone”, not the absence of Timothy (for Timothy was already absent). Paul had the choice of waiting for Timothy and Silas to come to him on their (pre-arranged?) schedule, or sending the companions back to encourage Timothy and Silas to come sooner. He chose the latter option, even though it meant that he would be left alone in Athens. So, no, I am not needing to retranslate καταλειπω.
My view is that you can pretty much reconcile anything if you work hard enough at it. The question is always: what’s driving the hard work? (E.g., Genesis 1 and 2; the infancy narratives; the rending of the curtain; Peter’s denials; etc. etc.) So yup, it’s possible. Is it the most plausible reading? I suppose different people have different thresholds of plausibility.
You wrote, “My view is that you can pretty much reconcile anything if you work hard enough at it. The question is always: what’s driving the hard work? (E.g., Genesis 1 and 2; the infancy narratives; the rending of the curtain; Peter’s denials; etc. etc.) So yup, it’s possible. Is it the most plausible reading? I suppose different people have different thresholds of plausibility.”
This is (mildly) ad hominem. It seems to cast me (incorrectly) as a conservative apologist. Acts and 1 Thess do not contradict on the movements of Timothy. This harmony does not require additional unsupported assumptions or duplicate journeys. Anyway, I am glad that you find the reconstruction possible. The problem is that your other supposed conflicts between Paul and Acts also evaporate on closer examination. Have you read my Galatians article yet?
Yup, it’s pretty ad hominem. But I’m not categorizing you as a person. I’m referring to the mode of reconciling accounts that are at odds. It’s a strategy that people use with the Bible that they almost never use with other texts (from ancient historical accounts to reporting in different newspapers).
Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question. The study of early Christianity is still new to me:
When Paul first meets Barnabas and they travel to Jerusalem together, was Paul being “summoned” by Peter and James? Was Barnabas following orders to bring this “nutjob” to the Jerusalem church so its leadership can make sense of his radical views? Or was Barnabas genuinely moved by Paul’s preaching (after checking him out on his own accord maybe?) and he felt compelled to introduce Paul to Peter and James as a friend of the church?
Thanks
There doesn’t appear to be any indicate that they were summoned. (This is in Acts, of course, and it seems to stand at odds with how Paul portrays the situation in Galatians 1)
If Paul was persecuting Christians outside of Palestine, under whose authority was he carrying out persecutions? Does the fact that he was exacting punishments lend any credibility to the claim that he was a Roman citizen? In other words, could he have been acting under the authority of Rome somehow?
Unrelated question:
Why do the references to Gehenna in Matthew 5:22 and Mark 9:43 refer to it as “the Gehenna of fire” and “to Gehenna, to the unquenchable fire”? I understand the area was at one time used for passing children through the fire to Moloch, and for incinerating human bodies that were dumped there. But those fires would be temporary and brief. I know you reject the idea of Gehenna once being a continuously burning garbage dump, so what accounts for its association with an enduring fire? Why not just call it “Gehenna the accursed!”?
Matthew 5:22 “But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment, and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council, and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the Gehenna of fire.”
Mark 9:43 “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to Gehenna, to the unquenchable fire.”
The old answer was that it was a garbage dump where they kept the fires burning; that turns out to be the invented claim of a medieval rabbi, not an ancient view. The place became a metaphor for the location spoken of by Isaiah, the god-forsaken place where the worm never stops gnawing and the fire is never quenched
I have wondered about the exact workings of Paul’s alleged policing of Jesus followers.
1 Who did he work for exactly?
2 How did he get paid?
3 How did the job work at the level of step by step action?
4 Are there any other examples of other Jews doing this at that time?
I read recently (maybe here) that he would go to synagogues and make accusations and expect the Jewish local community to punish people with lashes — as they allegedly punished him later on.
But since this story of his previous life is told again and again, it would be nice to see that people really know what they are talking about.
The answers are pretty easy I thin. 1. No one 2. Nothing 3. We don’t know (did he just beat people up) 4. Not that we know of.
The key is #3. I wish we knew. We always say that the “lashes” was a standard punishment in synagogues, but recently an expert on ancient Judaism says that there’s no evidence of that — people say that because of Paul’s own claim that he was lashed.
Luke can be wrong, just that I’m not sure if Paul the Breathing-Outer should always be taken at face value. Pikuach Nefesh might be invoked by him being plain about being sought by Aretas, a major king-judge figure, in 2 Corinthians 11:32.
Thank you as always, I now need to research how his privileges are presented in his own letters, if at all:
1. right to appeal
2. extensive travel without financial assistance
Timothy 2 is accounted to forgeries in Forged, so it may not back Acts’ claim that Paul seeks an appeal after the “first answer “. That is only available to Roman citizens, afaik.
His Lordship of Perpetual Travel doesn’t quite fit the model of a non-citizen manual laborer. How is he getting that quantity of work/high pay that keeps him in ship tickets? Access to work depended on admission into city-specific Roman trade guilds, with letters of introduction. For the Roman Empire, Jewish folks seemed on a low tier, even expelled.
I think the Nabataean community at Puteoli may have presented themselves as the community of Jesus’ followers that takes him in, and may be a key.
It makes no sense to me that a group of soldiers representing the leadership of the priesthood of one country would be allowed to enter the sovereign territory of another country to arrest its citizens without the consent or permission of the Roman governors in the countries involved..
On the other hand, a recent article suggest that the Damascus referred to was Qumran. Makes more sense as the Dead Sea area was in home territory. In a new study, Ben Gurion University archaeologist Daniel Vainstub and his team of researchers argue that the Damascus Document shows Qumran was the site of an annual ceremony known as the Covenant of Renewal, where the ancient, mystical Jewish sect known as the Essenes would gather from towns across the Land of Israel.
It is known that Paul was originally a member of the Pharisees, of course he started as a persecutor of Jesus. It wasn’t until he was approached by Christ, while on route to Damascus, who made him blind and directed him to go to Damascus but wait there. it was Ananias who was summoned to pray on him to receive his sight. It was from this point on, that Paul took on a different pathway to the preaching for Jesus rather than against. Why is this even brought up for questioning?????
The questioning is about what we really know. If the book of Acts is completely accurate in what it says, then you’re right, there’s nothing to questoin. But since it contradicts Paul on a number of points (connected with Paul’s biography) and also says things that can’t be right otherwise (that the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem had jurisdiction over Damascus), the questions start arising about what really happened.
Could Paul have been authorized to persecute the early Christians by even earlier Christians, i.e. Peter and James?
Maybe this seems an absurd idea, but I think you mentioned in a previous post that the first Christian martyr, Stephen, may have been persecuted by Jerusalem Christians (led by James) who felt that Stephen was a heretic at that time.
Given the troubled, competitive relations between the Jerusalem sect and the Paul followers, such an early ,internal “persecution” may not be beyond belief.
Yup, now *THAT* would change things. But no, there isn’t any evidence of that and everything points the other way. Stephen wasn’t persecuted by Christians (I think you may have misread something I wrote?)
Another unrelated question:
How are we to interpret Jesus’ talk of lesser and greater rewards or punishments in Luke 12:47-48 and Matthew 11:20-24? In Luke one might be able to interpret this as talk about a person’s ranking in the coming earthly Kingdom of God. But in Matthew Jesus is talking about the Day of Judgment, Heaven, and Hades. If Jesus is merely talking about annihilation awaiting the unrepentant, then how can there be greater and lesser annihilation? Or is it varying amounts of time in Hades before annihilation?
Good question. I don’t think Luke’s story goes back to Jesus; Luke in places (ch. 16) appears to have an altered view of the afterlife from Jesus; Matthew’s account doesn’t appear to be about a personal afterlife. I’m not sure how a city as a collective is punished on the day of judgment — I’ve always thought it had to be metaphorical (since othersie I can’t make sense of it; surely not everyone in a single city has exactly the same punishment if there are degrees…)
In redirect to your reply on July 1, 1:45pm, If Jerusalem had jurisdiction over Damascus, then Paul being a Pharisee, would not be a hinderance of him traveling to a Jewish community. According to Luke, it was how he was interrupted by the Lord’s actions, that turned him. If that is not what’s in Paul’s biography, then perhaps you could educate me on how Paul did become a preacher in Christ’s name.
I’m saying that Jerusalem did *not* have jurstiction outside of Jerusalem. Moreover, even if it did, it would not have any bearing on the Pharisees, since they were not subject to the rulings of the high priests / sanhedrin (historically). Paul became a preacher because he (said he) saw the resurrected Jesus who commisioned him to preach.
Unrelated question:
What is the Apostle Paul’s view on the fate of the unrepentant? In his letters he never mentions Gehenna or Hades, correct?
Instead, there are vague threats about “the wrath of God” (Romans 1:18), “deserve to die” (Romans 1:29-32), “day of wrath,” “wrath and fury,” “affliction and distress” (Romans 2:5-9), “death” (Romans 8:5-6), “you will die” (Romans 8:13), “objects of wrath that are made for destruction” (Romans 9:21-22), “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21), “the coming wrath” (1 Thessalonians 1:10), “repay with affliction”, “inflicting vengeance”, “suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), “those who are perishing,” “will be condemned.” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12”
It seems to be a mix of unspecified affliction yet death. What do you suppose Paul has in mind? Or is he being vague because it’s vague in his own mind? Where did he get these ideas?
mY sensee is that he had a view shared with other apocalypticists of his day (including Jesus) that at the day of judgment those who were opposed to God would be annihilated. (I talk about this in my book Heaven and Hell)
I always wondered why Saul was living & being educated in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel. how could he could have NOT witnessed it!
Yes, I’d say there’s about zero evidence that Paul actually did study with Gamaliel.
In Sunday school over 40years ago, tentmaking was a practical job that Saul learned in his family growing up.
Acts says he was a tent maker, which is often understood to mean “leather worker,” and that view is at leeast consistent with what we know about Paul from his own letters (since he says that he worked iwth his hands to make a living and was able to move from town to town — which a leather worker could easily do). Whether he acquired the trade from hhis family or not we can’t say — it’s just a speculation.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is this evaluation accurate?
“…Paul likens the future resurrection to a reenactment of creation. Just as God created the person initially, so God will re-create that person, with a body that is no longer made of flesh…Paul distinguishes the concept from both the Greek idea of immortality of the soul and the traditional Hebrew notion of extended mortal life.” (p. 876).
HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. Revised, Updated, 2011
I’d say so, yes.