Loading...So far I have been discussing what Paul says about the historical Jesus in his surviving seven letters. For the next couple of posts I’ll indicate what he says about the teaching of Jesus. Once again there are two observations to make. The first is that he obviously knew that Jesus taught some things. The other is that it is a bit surprising that he doesn’t tell us more. I will be dealing with that second issue soon, when I discuss why Paul doesn’t give us more information about the historical Jesus (there are several options). The following discussion is taken from my book Did Jesus Exist, which was meant to deal more with the first issue: the fact that Paul quotes Jesus on occasion shows at the least that Paul knew Jesus existed (as do the other data that he mentions about Jesus’ life).
******************************
The Teachings of Jesus in Paul
In addition to these data about Jesus’ life and death, Paul mentions on several occasions the teachings he delivered. We have seen two of the sayings of Jesus already from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (11:22-24). Paul indicates that these words were spoken during Jesus’ Last Supper. These sayings are closely parallel to the words of Jesus recorded years later in Luke’s account of the supper (Luke 22:19-20).
There are two other sayings of Jesus in the book of 1 Corinthians that also find parallels in the Gospel tradition. The first occurs in Paul’s instructions about
Wanna keep reading? Joining the blog is simple and inexpensive — for little cost you get tons of benefit. And every nickel you pay goes directly to charities dealing with hunger and homelessness. Click here for membership options
Do you consider Paul’s references to Jesus utterences as evidence that Q had already been written and was circulating? Or is it more likely that it was still oral tradition at this point? If it was Q why wouldn’t he quote it more? I really hope we dig up a Q some day…
No, not really. We don’t know where Paul heard these sayings, and obviously lots and lots of Xns ere repeating it. There isn’t any evidence Paul knew Q; and we can’t tell when it wsa written other than it was before Matthew and LUke
I still get a kick out of the fact that one of the few things Paul quotes of Jesus is that preachers should get paid! But in Paul’s defense he appears to have often supported himself and didn’t demand payment from his congregations (so he says). Question: is it possible Paul only met with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Galatians 1) because most of the disciples did not believe the resurrection stories and abandoned the group (Matt.28:17)?
I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t know what the evidence would be. Paul himself thinks the twelve believed in the resurrection.
Hmmm how come your post ends with “The first occurs in Paul’s instructions about…”
And that’s it. I seem to be missing the rest of the post.
That may mean that your membership needs to be renewed? Click on Help and write a query about it to Support.
Hello, Bart. A question on a tangential topic: Historians of all theological stripes appear to agree that the historical Jesus was celibate. However, “celibacy,” is not synonymous with being unmarried. Instead, it means a conscious choice to abstain from sexual relations. Where does the NT say that about Jesus? At best, the most we can infer from our sources is that Jesus was not married during his ministry. Why wasn’t he married? Again, the NT is silent. However, if Jesus truly chose the celibate life, shouldn’t we expect Paul to quote that somewhere in his exchange in 1 Cor 7:1-16? In fact, Paul seems to admit that Jesus had no thoughts on the topic when he says of celibacy, “This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.” Appreciate your thoughts and Merry Christmas.
The NT doesn’t say anything about Jesus’ sexual relations at all — doesn’t say that he was or wsan’t married, was or wasn’t sexually active, was or wasn’t anything. So it has to be worked out from the hints that are given, and from what we know about Jewish life in that time and place. Paul seems not to know a lot of things about Jesus and his sex life was probably one of them.
Good Afternoon Dr. Ehrman,
Does the fact that Paul seems not to know a lot of things about Jesus provide evidence that, a) he never knew Peter or James very well, if at all (despite his claims) or b) Paul didn’t agree with much of what Peter and James told him about Jesus, such that he simply ignored those teachings when he began his ministry to the gentiles. I find it hard to believe he spent weeks with Peter and James and they didn’t tell him more of Jesus’ biography. What are your thoughts?
In my later posts on the topic I deal with all this. Keep reading!
So two unmarried men are making rules for whether women can divorce? Checks out.
The more things change…
It’s interesting to see how Jesus’s teaching on divorce differs from Paul’s version, which, as an earlier record, could arguably be more accurate. Paul’s appears less stringent (eg. he doesn’t use the word ‘adultery’) and one can’t help wondering whether the hard time that the Church (particularly the Roman Catholic Church) gives divorced and remarried Christians is actually justified.
Great post Bart! This is somewhat unrelated, but have you discussed 1 Cor 15:28 and the problems it posses for asserting Paul had a very high Christological view of Jesus?
You’ll need to quote the verse and ask the question again so readers of the comments can understand what you’re asking about. Good question though!
This is somewhat unrelated, but have you discussed 1 Cor 15:27-28 and the problems it posses for asserting Paul had a very high Christological view of Jesus?
For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. – 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, NRSV
It’s certainly a difficult verse for anyone who thinks that Christ has eternally been fully equal with the Father, but to most people clearly suggests that the Father is superior to the son.
Mr. Ehrman, I have an almost totally unrelated question. It may be silly or even flat out stupid, but I think it’s worth posing it. Are the words “Lord” (“Κύριος”) and “God” (“Θεός”) interchangeable? Do they mean the same thing every time? (I know it maybe is a stupid question, but I don’t mind looking stupid! My namesake Antetokounbo shoots airball in free throws, and then goes on to drop forty – so there you go!)
Nope, not silly at all. The words mean different things — God is a divine being and Lord is a master (human or divine). Christians already in teh NT do use them interchangeably for God (the Father); but not for Jesus, who is KURIOS but is not ever explicitly/unambigurously called God.
Two friends and I are studying the Bible from a more scholarly perspective. I frequently reference your posts which bring new insights to my friends. We have discussed the apocalyptic views of both Jesus and Paul. When reading Paul’s writings on marriage and divorce, as you reference here, I suggested that his thinking was that a change in marriage was unnecessary since the end was near. It aligns with Paul learning from oral traditions of Jesus as well as their apocalyptic beliefs. What are your thoughts?
I agree. He talks about the urgency of the moment “the present distress,” as the reason not to change marital status (1 Cor. 7)
Bart,
I have a question about Acts 7.16
Rabbi Tovia Singer has a 9 min video where he calls this “mindblowing” and a “monumental error” because the tomb of Abraham etc is said to be in Shechem (Nablus modern) instead of Hebron. I imagine you have probably been lucky enough to visit there.
This seems like a major unequivocal error to me as well – but have never heard it brought up before ever – so always like to run things like this past you because I trust your views to be objective.
If you would like to watch his vid just goto youtube and search Rabbi Tovia Singer Abraham was buried where?
Do you agree with Rabbi Singer on this?
TY for your time and have a wonderful day,
SC
Yeah, it’s kinda strange. In Genesis it’s definitely near Hebron, and Shechem is *way* up north. I suppose supporters of biblical inerrancy would point out that the author of Acts is not locaating the tomb of Abraham there, but Steven in the moment just gets it confused. Some scholars have suggested that Acts is tring to make a connection with Samaria, since after this the gospel goes there.
Doesn’t Mark’s version “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” which mentions the woman committing adultery, read like an addition to Matthew’s version?
Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Especially as Luke leaves it out too.
Reads like a sensible subtractino to me.
Yes Matthew subtracting “and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” would make some sense but which makes more sense overall?
Given that in both Matthew and Mark the original question of the Pharisees is “if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife”, isn’t it better to understand “if she divorces her husband … ” as an additional idea introduced by a secondary writer? especially since Luke doesn’t have it either?
Is your opinion that the one that makes the best sense must be original? If so, I’m not sure why that would be. Sometimes people change things for the better, sometimes for the worse. Depends on how you subjectively evaluate better and worse.
‘Is your opinion that the one that makes the best sense must be original?’ Not best sense as in most well written – but what makes best sense as a later edition.
Reading Matthew’s “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” its easy to see why someone would add Mark’s “and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”, clears up any ambiguity.
But there’s no particular reason for either/both Matthew and Luke to remove Mark’s addition.
I don’t see anyting ambiguous at all about Matthew’s saying.
Matthew says any man that divorces a woman and marries another commits adultery. A reader of Matthew might wonder if the same applies to a woman who divorces a man. Mark clears that up.
Do you think Paul’s views of a coming “kingdom of god” were about the same as Jesus’s except for Jesus’s role in that kingdom?
I think they must have been basically the same. But I think Jesus too thought he would be the kind of the coming kingdom.
Do the gospels copy Paul regarding the last supper, or did they use the Q source?
Probably neither. It’s in Mark so it’s not Q. Matthew and Luke got it from Mark. Paul’s version is different from Mark’s, but very much like Luke’s, which is interesting. At the least it shows there was a different form of it known in Pauline circles from Markan.
Do scholars have any useful speculations about what Apollos knew about the teachings of Jesus? Or even what he taught, himself, in comparison or contrast to Paul?
I’m afraid not. He is only mentioned a couple fo times and we don’t learn anything about his views, except that he appears to have agreed pretty much with Paul.
This is off-topic, but there is an interesting piece in the recent Smithsonian magazine regarding the new archaeological evidence that has a bearing on Solomon’s kingdom and it represents a new challenge to archaeologists such as Finkelstein’s notions of David and Solomon’s meager kingdoms. See https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/.
Thanks.
Another question about Paul’s thought (Dr Ehrman recommend EP Sanders’s Short Introduction, and it’s been very helpful). There are the passages where he refers to other supernatural beings: “rulers of this age” 1 Cor 2:6; “principalities and powers” Rom. 8:38; “knees to be bent…on the earth…also above and below” (Phil 2:10)
Yet, Paul seems to imply that the pagan gods are dead (don’t know if he uses this exact word), dead as in, they won’t answer prayers or intervene in human history. At least that’s what I take to be the opposite of a “living god.”
My question is, if Paul believes in other “powers” why couldn’t they be appealed to by prayer and sacrifice? If they can be, aren’t they “alive” as well? Did Jesus’s appearance change their status to useless or is it simply that he thinks his god is more powerful?
Paul like lots of other Jews thought these other powers were servants of God, and he alone was to be petitioned. And now that Christ has been elevated to a position of divnity, he too. No one else.
It has always struck me that the “powers and principalities” that Paul says are to be striven against, in contrast to “flesh and blood,” may not refer to supernatural entities at all, but to abstract social forces, to institutions and conventions that shape the world through a momentum of their own, something on the order of Marx’s idea of the “historical dialectic.” This is just what the English translations suggest to me; of course, there may be something in the original Greek that would rule out such a reading that I am not aware of. What do you think? Is such an interpretation plausible?
Elsewhere he speaks of the Prince of teh Power of teh air, and if it’s the same thing, it appears to be more a cosmic figure than socio-political. But some scholars have thought they were both at the same time, institutions empowered by the forces of evil. One can see the attraction of the view, given the role insitutions play….
Bart, first I want to say that stumbling across your videos on YouTube, has truly enriched my “Christianity.” I still consider myself a Christian, even though my beliefs would get me thrown out of most of the churches here in Boone, NC. These verses about divorce are ones I frequently reference when I discuss “cherry-picking” the bible for things to focus on. These are generally glossed over by most evangelicals, using some version of a “grace” cop-out. I generally contrast this with their stance on homosexuality. I was once very involved, and even on staff for a couple years, at Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale. Thank you for this blog.
Thanks!
Does Jesus ever say elsewhere :” …that those who proclaim the Gospel should get their living from the gospel” ?
I know Luke (Luke 10:7) has him say it is cool to stay in a house and accept hospitality “because those that work deserve their pay” (and 3..2..1 until you tell me, I am sure, I have picked terrible translation and Luke actually wrote Jesus said something completely different).
But based on my ignorance it seems kind of close. Luke kind of echoes this Paul quote. Kind of ….but it isn’t exactly the same (i.e. getting your living vs. accepting the hospitality of a home).
One might even argue Matthew (in Matthew 10:10) quotes Jesus as pretty clearly saying don’t accept any pay.
Is there a clear quote/story that Paul may be referring to? I know one of the points he is making is that alot of stuff is OK, but they should sacrifice for those not as strong in faith. It almost seems like you could suspect he is embellishing the Luke story a bit to make his point.
Yes, the line in Paul is usually taken to be a paraphrase of Luke 10:7.
Dr Ehrman –
Off-thread, but (maybe) a good “Mail Bag” question?
In debate videos, I’ve heard you express the idea that if one were to take the Nativity narratives of Matt and Luke and “squish them together”, then effectively, it would be writing “another gospel”… (I do hope I’m not mischaracterizing what you meant to express).
If I understood the idea correctly, though, isn’t that “squishing together” part of what historians do? What I mean is — it seems historians take different information from different sources and try to reconstruct the historical picture by putting all the info together.
If that is (at least, sort of) correct, then what’s the difference between that, and someone trying to “piece together” an historical picture from Matt and Lukes Nativity accounts?
(BTW – this is strictly a question about “methodology” – not about whether the Nativity narratives are true, or fiction)
Interesting point. But I’d say that ina sense it’s the opposite of what historians do. Collating Matthew and Luke’s accounts means taking everything they each say and harmonizing them into one big whole. Historians never do that in that way. They take a datum here and a datum there that they can corroborate and then reconstruct a picture. But it is by evaluating each datum carefully, not be accepting them all and smashing them into a large unit.
Dr. Ehrman –
Do we know of any lost letters of Paul? Or is there speculation that there may have been more of his writings in circulation earlier in church history?
Paul mentions an earlier letter in 1 Cor. 5:7 that doesn’t survive. And clearly he was writing a lot more than we have. We do have later forgeries, 3 Corintians, Laodiceans, an exchange of letters with Seneca; we know also of a forged letter to the Alexandrians. My sense isthat he wrote tons of letters, judging from the ones we have. Suppose he was connected or founded, say, 25 churches and he wrote each of them a letter twice a year. Seems plausible. His ministry lasted for 30 years. Crunch the numbers!
This is probably a stupid question. But what if the gospel writers actually got their spititualised versions of the last supper from Paul? That is they wrote about a real last supper but added the spiritual meaning as Paul saw it?
The account in Luke is very similar to Paul’s. Mark’s written earlier, is different in key ways (and is the one taken over by Matthew). Since Paul says he heard it from others, it appears that it was simply an account in circulation.
I hope this is not a silly question. Since Paul’s letters likely predate the gospels by decades, isn’t it possible that some of the statements in the gospels actually originated with Paul? The Last Supper account is the most obvious example, but could Mark have also picked up parts of the anti-divorce sentiments and other tenets from Paul? In Acts of the Apostles the author of Luke seems to say James and Peter eventually accepted Paul’s message for the Gentiles, but Luke already seems sympathetic to Paul. Do we have anything from “the twelve” that independently acknowledges Paul?
It’s possible, but in almost every case when you look closely at the details, it looks like it went the other way. The words of the Lord’s supper, e.g., are close between Paul and Luke, but Mark (and Matthew) are different; so it looks like Luke may in theory have been influenced by the way it was celebrated in Paul’s churches, but Mark not — and Mark is obviously earlier. Luke is definitely interesteed in showing that Paul was completely on the same page as the other apostles; it’s one of his main emphases. But that appears to be smoothing over disagreements that Paul himself talks about (see Galatians 1-2)