Loading...Why Paul Persecuted the Christians I have been side-tracked by other things, but now can get back to the thread I started to spin, or rather the tapestry I started to weave. The ultimate question I’m puzzling over is how did Christianity become the dominant religion in the empire? My point at this stage is that before Christianity began to thrive, it was persecuted.
The persecutions go all the way back. Our first Christian author is Paul, who must have converted to be a follower of Jesus just three years or so after Jesus’ death. Paul tells us explicitly that before becoming a follower of Jesus he was a persecutor of the church. And why was he persecuting it? He doesn’t say directly, but my sense is that it was for a very basic reason. He despised their message. Specifically, he could not abide by what Christians were saying about Jesus. Why was that a problem? Because they insisted he was God’s messiah.
Paul Persecuted the Church. So What Happened?
In my previous post, I indicated something of one of the common views of what the Messiah was to be. Here I summarize that view for you briefly, before pointing out a couple of other live options in first-century Judaism, and then explaining why the Christian view would have been so insulting to Paul.
We now know from the Dead Sea Scrolls a range of expectations of what the messiah would be like. The term “messiah” itself literally means “anointed one” and originally referred to the king of Israel, who was anointed with oil during his coronation ceremony in order to show that he was the one God had chosen to lead his people.
In the first century, Jews did not have a king. They were ruled by a foreign power, Rome, and many Jews considered this to be an awful and untenable situation of oppression. They were anticipating that God would once again raise up a Jewish king to overthrow the enemy and reestablish a sovereign state in Israel. This would be God’s powerful and exalted anointed one, the messiah.
Other Jews maintained …
Dr. Ehrman,
From a cursory critical reading here would it be fair to say that the “blasphemy” surrounding the claims of the divinity of Jesus to be more a Pauline reflection of a crucified saviour that was later retrojected into the Gospel accounts?
Are you asking whether Jesus himself talked about himself as divine? I think the answer is no.
Your statement in the paragraph just before the last paragraph is, to me, a very simple direct statement of what the early Christians believed. I realize that such is an historical observation of what they believed, what they suffered persecution for, and what Paul rebelled against before his conversion. I wonder sometimes, what if…there is a God and that is exactly what God did for us who live on this tiny speck of dust is an unmeasurably immense universe. What if studying that is not just an acedemic exercise but is in truth actually what happened? … That Jesus died that we might live. Your post got me thinking about that. But, then, that is theology, not verify able history. But…what if?
Hi Todd,
Do you think that God is so complicated? If there is a god who wants to save humans from doom, why making it so complicated? I think a perfect god would’t go trough so much trouble. Christianity is one of the most complicated religions out there. The path to salvation is so complex that you cannot earn salvation by just being a good person. There are many christian who believe the number of saved people have been already established and if you are not a son o salvation, regardless of what you do, you are not going to heaven. Another thing…have you ever thought about why god would want worship? Only an insecure person needs other people praises. God, if exists, is not human. God does’t have to have humans emotions.
I have often wondered about the inexplicably sudden spread of Christianity in the first century. It’s predominant initial purveyor is a Roman citizen (Saul of Tarsus) who suddenly converts from oppressor to militant enthusiast and proselytizer. While retaining the apocalyptic message he drops the politically provocative “Kingdom of God” thesis from his teaching (the absolute core of Jesus’ teaching) and instead inserts a number of strong edicts to “obey authority”. It all seems to serve Roman ends while preserving the impetus of the apocalyptic movement prevalent at that time. Travel, then as now was very expensive and, at least in the early days it seems safe to assume that funding would be an issue – yet Saul seems to have an unlimited source of money for his (and his companions’) trips. Perhaps Saul had Roman backing for his missions as he was spreading a less disruptive and more acceptable form (sect?) of Judaism.
Not saying he was not a believer, but maybe he was viewed as the lesser of many evils by the authorities and garnered support from them as a result. Perhaps Christianity is really of Flavian construction?
I don’t see how it could be. Paul himself indicates that on several occasoins he suffered brutal corporal punishment at the hands of Roman authorities (“being beaten with rods”; 2 Cor. 11:25). And Roman officials treated Christains *much* more harshly than Jews.
Isn’t there some debate whether or not the Romans distinguished at all between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva’s modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in AD 96? If so, then in 50 A.D. Saul would simply be seen as another mouthy Jew and the local authorities may have dealt with him harshly – unaware of his real mission. Also, I’m not aware of any independent attestation to his punishments so, alternatively he may have simply lied to sustain his ‘cover’ as a Messianic Jew to distinguish himself from the hated authorities.
In an age when a letter could take months to travel a few hundred miles it is hard for me to understand how early christianity could have spread so rapidly across such a wide geography without some significant official support. Perhaps in the second century christianity was allowed to go its own way as other solutions had been found to the Jewish problem only to be resurrected in the fourth by Constantine to provide a framework for his reconstituted Empire. Then it landed on us.
It’s pretty clear that the authrities under Nero in Rome (after the fire) knew the difference between Christians and Jews.
On your other point, remember that humans could travel just as fast as letters. It did not take months to go 200 miles. It took ten days, if you were not pushing it too hard. Or two days by ship.
Bart, I don’t see any proof in our historic sources for your hypothesis. Certainly, you’ve come up with one possible motivation for Paul’s persecution of early Christians. But I can’t see how this is anything more than one possible explanation. There might have been any number of features of the early Church that might have bugged Paul, including some that we’re not aware of today. We ARE talking about the Church years before the authorship of the earliest Christian writings, so we can’t claim perfect knowledge of everything about the church that a Jew like Paul might have been bothered by. Moreover, as you’ve adopted an early high Christology, perhaps that’s what Paul objected to: not that Jesus was being called “Messiah” but that he was being identified so closely with God. If Paul thought that the early Church was “blasphemous,” isn’t it more likely that what bugged Paul was Jesus’ alleged divinity and not his alleged messiahship?
It may be, but Paul’s own later comments indicates that the major stumbling block for Jews was the crucifixion of the messiah (not his divinity): thus 1 Cor. 1:23).
Good point, but you are making a logical leap that I think you should note. Logically, the Jewish “stumbling block” is not the same thing as what might cause a Jew to persecute the early church. The former is what would cause a Jew not to become a Christian, the latter is what would provoke a Jew to do whatever we think Paul actually did to persecute the church (still not clear on that point). Logically, the reason someone might have fought against Germany in World War II is not the same as why that same someone would decide not to emigrate to Germany (either during or after the War). Or, I’ll use my own case. If I had to state my main objection to Christianity, it might be how the trinity offends my ideal of monotheism. But the reason I don’t convert to Christianity might have more to do with my loyalty to my existing Jewish family and community.
Bart, you write that the followers of Jesus, before Paul, “must have proclaimed…..that Jesus’ death had brought about a much greater salvation….” And that that was “to save them for eternal life.” You wrote earlier that what Paul meant by “salvation” (in his letters) was, “the deliverance Jesus’ followers would experience when the rest of the world was destroyed at the second coming.” But does being saved from destruction during the coming apocalypse, saved for the Kingdom of God, imply eternal life? Paul preached salvation not just as surviving the apocalypse but as attaining eternal life, didn’t he? The problem I’m having here is that you’ve said that the Christian idea of salvation as “saved from the wages of their sins/sinfulness” was post-Paul but it seems to me that, at least by implication, Paul must have taught that too because, if he taught eternal life, then, by implication, wouldn’t he have been teaching that one’s sins had been washed away enough by JC’s blood to be given eternal life? Hope this is clear enough. Comments?
Sorry — I’m not following the question. It’s not clear if you’re asking about the technical meaning of the words “saved” “salvation” or if you’re asking about Paul’s theology.
Did Paul mean that, if you make it to the second coming without being destroyed, you’ll have eternal life to boot? Was eternal life implied in Paul’s understanding of “salvation” as “the deliverance Jesus’ followers would experience when the rest of the world was destroyed at the second coming”? I’d been thinking (I thought because of the way you had portrayed the development of the idea of Salvation) that the idea of gaining eternal life by having your sins cleansed away by the blood of Christ and his resurrection (“saved from the wages of sins/sinfulness”) was a post-Pauline development. Has that been a mistake on my part?
My sense is that Paul thought that the kingdom of God would come to earth where people would live forever.
Did Paul persecute all the Christians all the time, or some Christians all the time, or some Christians some of the time? I ask because your post on Jesus’ death and resurrection says “Early Christianity was an enormously diverse affair. Different groups had different understandings of God, Christ, salvation, the creation, the afterlife, and most everything else. And each group thought that it was right and the others were wrong. Only one group won.”
I’m guessing Paul had a hand in that somewhere…
Surely he persecuted some of the Christians some of the time. But I don’t think the enormous diversity of later centuries was found, yet, in the first couple of years.
I wish you would explain why you are so certain that Paul persecuted the followers of Jesus? This assertion seems to be bedrock for your historical understanding of Paul and early Christianity. If there is evidence for this other than Paul’s word, I would respectfully request that you provide it. Thank you.
Because he says so explicitly and our only other source says the same thing. He certainly was not saying so to make himself attractive to his readers!
The only other source in unreliable Acts. I would say that Paul could be doing what is done all the time today…”look at how horrible I was and look what God did with and for me. None of you are as bad as I was so just think what God can do for you.”
Paul always seemed to brag about how bad he used to be or how bad he was treated after the conversion.
The Melchizedek Scroll, 11Q13, deals with apocalyptic ” theories ” by linking previously unrelated scriptures. This scroll talks about “the messenger” in Isaiah, who is linked with a “servant”, who will die to atone for everyone’s sins. And seems to attempt to link this servant with the messiah of Daniel 9 who also dies about the time an end to sin will come. And the day sin is ended will be the great day of atonement, which will absolve all the righteous. And then God and his savior will conquer the devil and his demons….
Sounds a bit familiar… At least some Jews were expecting a dying messiah…. This seems to be at odds with your theory.
No, 11Q13 doesn’t refer to a suffering messiah who atones for sins. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information!
I read this in Dr. Carrier’s book On The Historicity Of Jesus, section 5 of background information…. This isn’t the only argument for a dying messiah idea circulating in Judea at the time. The point is that Paul persecuting Christians because he didn’t believe a man executed by the Romans could be the messiah might not be only possibility…
I have been reading Paul since this thread started. Besides my interest in what really happened at the beginning, I am touched by his writing about love and compassion. Perhaps this is why he was so successful in his ministry!
Yes, if you’ll read the fragment for yourself you’ll see that what he says about it simply isn’t true. That’s the case with every piece of evidence he cites. It’s why there aren’t any experts who agree with him.
You have to admit Paul at least thought Jesus’ atoning death was prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures, because he said “3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).”
I have read the scroll for myself… On the surface it seems straight forward ( I have a book on the dead sea scrolls )… but the references to scripture are telling. Carrier himself admits that this is a controversial interpretation among scholars, but sometimes thinking outside of the box is a good thing. And it is quite funny because ” my box ” has largely been defined by reading your books Dr. Ehrman.
I am perplexed by Paul’s timeline… He claims to have received his revelation of Christ by himself, and that it was 3 years before he actually met any church fathers… In the meantime he founded several churches! Where was he getting his information from?
Also, on the subject of Paul persecuting Christians, in 1 Galatians, Paul states that he went after the Christians mercilessly , hunting them down and doing his best to get rid of them all… Paul seems to be a bit more than a Rabbi…What was his occupation? Apparently it involved travel…
My sense is that calling it controversial is a bit of an understatement. Not because it’s *highly* controversial but because there really isn’t much controversy.
He got his information from Jesus! (I’m not saying he really did; I’m saying that’s what he’s claiming)
I get that Paul was claiming divine revelations for his knowledge, that’s the point of my question. Obviously either Paul was lying or was schizophrenic … My feeling is that he really believed this… But he began founding churches of the basis of his revelations! I find it hard to believe that he gained significant Christian doctrine from those he was hunting down and eliminating ( he sounds more like the Terminator here )… Or else he invented his own theology, and the pillars in Jerusalem just went along with it when they met him three years later because he was so successful in gaining converts!
That clown Richard Carrier strikes again! Dr. Richard Carrier has done more damage to the secular population’s understanding of the historical Jesus than just about any man. I can understand why Dr. Ehrman would refuse to sit down with such an odious man as Dr. Carrier, but I wish he would, because Carrier simply has to be stopped before he kills again.
He’s got himself in a pickle right now, so I’d say other things are on his mind at the moment. The only reason I know that is because I checked my twitter account the other day and realized I forgot to unfollow him. His blog post popped up, and I thought–wow, drama.
Clown is not a term that befits any highly educated man. You are welcome to call me a clown , I have a high school education, but.you wouldn’t do to my face… Just like you wouldn’t say it to Dr. Carrier’s face for different reasons… This whole study of very early Christianity is largely speculation, there is so little real evidence… I am open to the views of anybody who has spent the time and energy to become educated in this realm. I wouldn’t even have heard of his work had it not been for Dr. Ehrman mentioning him as a qualified expert in Did Jesus Exist on mythicism, and that his work would have to stand on it’s own merits. Obviously there are fundamental differences in which these two scholars interpret the evidence. Who am I to judge? I just enjoy trying to get to the truth of it, iit is a great thing to think about.
I found a link that has a transcription of the fragment.
https://otstory.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/melchizedek-in-11q13-11qmelch/
Bart, I’m just wondering: how do you go about putting a date or time frame of “just three years or so after the Jesus’ death” for Paul’s conversion ?
I discussed the issue in my post on May 30.
But even if Paul came to think that the death of Jesus, after all, could fit in with a Jewish “theology”, how does it explain that Paul changed from being a zealous pharisee into having a relaxed relationship to the Law? Why did he not stick to the strictness of phariseeism, being a judaizing Christian, something like what James is said to have been?
I’ll be getting to that — probably tomorrow!
How do you think Paul tried to stop the Christians? Flogging and/or throwing them in jail? I find it hard to believe that Paul went so far as to kill Christians.
See today’s post.
What did the Pharisees believe about the Messiah?
Probably a range of things!
I’m guessing this will be in the next post but how did Paul persecute the Christians? I thought Pharisees mainly debated issues. Acts wants us to believe he was involved in violence against the Christians.
Yup, that’s today’s post!
hello Bart
how the future or the teaching of christianity would look like , if Paul did not exist
thanks
Someone said you didn’t have enough evidence to be sure this was why Paul had persecuted the Christians. I assume that in your next post, you’re going to explain how he’d first interpreted that Biblical passage about someone “hanged from a tree”? And how his thinking was changed by what he believed was his realization of what it actually meant? (To me, that seems more believable than his “vision.”)
Dr. Ehrman, is it possible that you might be over-exaggerating Paul’s disdain for the Christians? The way Paul’s actions are described by himself and by Luke in Acts, it sounds as if Paul was working as an agent of a greater authority, possibly the Jewish religious authorities (Pharisees of the city, Sadducees of the Temple, Sanhedrin, et al.), possibily the secular authorities (Roman garrison, Jewish nobility) — possibily both. They talk about Paul “destroying” the church (ἐπόρθουν, ἐλυμαίνετο), but commonsense tells us that one man cannot destroy an organization of many people. Paul was obviously working with and for others, and I can’t imagine those others cared one way or another what the Christians specifically believed, especially if the Christians kept those beliefs to themselves. If we could only know who that greater authority was, that would tell us a great deal about what was actually going on.
My sense is that the Jerusalem church had raised the suspicions of the local authorities by preaching in and around Jerusalem, especially to pilgrims during the festivals, and so the authorities saw them as inciting sedition via arousing messianic expectations. And that’s why the Jerusalem church was persecuted, not because of their specific beliefs but because of their specific actions (i.e. inspiring messianic expectations in and around Judea). However, since we only know of the events from the Christian perspective, in the minds of the Christians who tell us about those events it looked to them that they were being persecuted for their unorthodox beliefs.
A modern analogy might be how today’s Evangelical Christians in America are under the impression that they are being persecuted for what they believe (cf. the God’s Not Dead movies), when in fact, if anything, Evangelical Christians in America are being pushed back against because of their overt actions against the civil and natural rights of fellow Americans (LGBT, women, non-believers, et al.). In the deluded minds of Evangelicals they’re being persecuted for their beliefs, when in reality no one cares what Evangelicals believe as long as they keep those beliefs to themselves and don’t try to force them on others.
https://youtu.be/NG7L85LpUTQ
One of my nagging questions about this period: Were Jews looking for a Messiah or a Savior to save them from eternal hell? Did Paul believe in eternal hell while he was persecuting Christians? At what point did Paul believe in hell? Did early Christians believe they had to be saved from hell? Since being “saved” is of paramount importance in Christianity, it seems like a central question is when did religious people in the Middle East start fearing hell?
The idea of an eternal hell entered into the Christian tradition at a later time. I’ll probably write some posts on it down the line, but I deal with it briefly in my book Jesus Interrupted, in a chapter called Who Invented Christianity?
According to imam Nasser Mohamed Alyamani who possess a divine inspired understanding of the word of God and as such gives accurate declaration of Quran; he points out that the anti christ or the false messiah is Satan himself and he was named false messiah because he is going to appear to mankind in our life time with his offspring and will claim to be God with a partner fallen Angel who is going to be his son or they reverse role but the idea is that both fallen angels will claim one to be God and the other Son Of God to descieve mankind after the passing of planet Nibru that will cause the sun to rise from the west in our life time. What I concluded from imam Nasser Muhammad blog that for sure Satan had to plot using his advocates to infiltrate all Abrahamic religion,Judaism and Jesus supporters to God(early Christians) and Islam, so in order to do so he sends men who later will be highly regarded figures that wrote and pushed toward certain doctrines to pave the way for ruling of false messiah who is a person who will say to people that he is Jesus and he is God. But the plot is revealed in Holy Quran and it will be diffused by the unseen God who have nothing unlike him and he neither beget or begotten.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Do historians know whether first century Palestinian Jews differed from first century diaspora Jews, with respect to ideas about the messiah?
My impetus for this question is, did Paul’s background as a diaspora Jew make it easier for him to believe in Jesus as divine, whereas, a Palestinian Jew might not have believed such a thing?
Also, I have read that Judaism always viewed the messiah as a human who would usher in an era of peace and rescue Israel. Is this belief discussed in the Hebrew Bible or Talmud, or is this just a belief that developed after the law and was transmitted culturally from generation to generation.
Thanks
I”m afraid we don’t know if there were hard and fast differences. As to belief in Jesus’ divinity, that’s what my book How Jesus Became God is about.
pauls says 500 + people witnessed jesus raised from the dead, why then does he say the following :
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
he is making an argument as if he has no witnesses in his pocket.
Dr Ehrman,
How did Paul, a Pharisaic Jew, become a Roman citizen?
Hope your back is better….I feel your pain.
Thanks!
Much better — virtually 100%! Thanks.
Glad to hear your feeling well.
What about Paul’s Roman citizenship? See my original post.
Paul doesn’t give any indication that he was a citizen; Acts says that, but I don’t see any other evidence for it, so I tend to doubt it.
What I don’t understand though is why such a small if not tiny minority was deemed threatening enough to persecute? I get the theological why (blasphemous). Do we have any idea if Paul was among a small group of persecutors or was it wide spread within his Jewish sect?
My sense is that most of the Roman imperial authorities didn’t think to persecute Christains because they had never heard of them. But they did persecute trouble makers wherever they made trouble!
OK I understand this and thank you. But then why did Paul deem them such a threat too when they formed such a tiny if not motley fringe?
He may not have thought they would spread much, but wanted to keep the faith pure maybe?
I’m reading A.I. Baumgarten’s “The flourishing of Jewish sects in the Maccabean Era” and am at the point where he discusses millenialism, and I’m having trouble distinguishing between Paul’s apocalypticism and pharisaic millenialism. Can you include something in this ‘tapestry’ you’re weaving for us?
Is millenialism then the subject of the apocalyptic message?
Paul’s apocalyptic views came to him from his Pharisaic background; so far as we know, most Pharisees held such views.
Dr. Ehrman. Surely you have read Hyamm Maccoby and James Tabor. I do not believe Paul was a pharasee. He is clearly not well versed in the Hebrew Bible for many reasons. His claim of persecuting Christians is a complete fabrication and only writes of this for self serving reasons. Have you seen Rabbi Michael Skobac’s work and Rabbi Tovia Singer’s work? I feel your readers miss out on the Jewish perspective on the New Testament.
No, I haven’t
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
I am wondering – can we get in touch through email communication and eventually an online conversation?
There are few topics which I would really appreciate to hear your opinion on.
I’m afraid I am unable to have email conversations about important topics, though I wish I could! But I get hundreds of emails a week and just don’t have hundreds of hours in a day! So any issues you have are best raised here. That has the advantage as well of allowing other people to see your questions and how I respond to them.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Thanks for your answer! You are right, I expected that kind of answer 🙂
Let me start with first topic:
I know you are not a scholar and expert of Islam, but for sure you have a lot more knowledge and observations than me(I am a software engineer – completely different field).
In your latest debate with Mike Licona, you used Islam as an example of how any religion can get many followers as long as they convince them that it is true.(That is not citation of your words, but I think you’d agree with my interpretation).
My question is basically:
Per your knowledge, can you summarize how Islam got spread? Was it by using the sword, i.e. forcing conversions(I am from Bulgaria and as many neighboring countries we’ve been under Ottoman Empire’s control for many centuries. It is clear from our history that muslim soldiers were killing whoever rejects to convert to Islam)? Didn’t Muhammed gathered army and conquer Mecca from the beginning?
Sub questions:
1. Is Islam’s way of spreading any similar to how early Christianity was spreading up to Constantine time?
2. Are you familiar in general of any other beliefs that was spread in a peaceful manner(like Christianity), i.e. not forced?
Thanks!
I’m afraid I’m not an expert on Islam and so, as a rule, try not to say much about it as a scholar (since my views are not hard-earned scholarly views). Sorry!
I see, yes.
Even if you are not a scholarly expert on something, I would still be appreciating your personal opinion, if you are willing to write it of course 🙂
Are you willing to give your opinion/knowledge on the sub question:
Are you aware of other religions/beliefs that was successfully widely spread in an environment where they were completely revolutionary and contrary to the current beliefs?
Actually, is my description of early Christianity correct – revolutionary even for the Jews and spreading in a hostile environment?
Yes, certainly Islam and Christianity fit that bill. My sense is that Islam did not conquer by the sword any more than Christianity did. And yes, both were revolutionary and spread in hostile enviroments.
Thank you for your answer!
Just to clarify :
“My sense is that Islam did not conquer by the sword any more than Christianity did.”
I missed to specify the period in my question, sorry for that.
I meant the period of early Christianity up to Constantine(in the first ~300 years) as a comparison.
Was Christianity spreading peacefully during that period per your knowledge?
Yes it was.
Since Paul’s relatives Andronicus and Junia were Christians before Paul and prominent among the apostles, Romans 16:7, how did they escape Paul’s prosecution?
There’s nothing to suggest that Paul persecuted everyone who believed in Jesus; he could only be at one place at a time! For all we know he simply attacked people he ran across calling themselves believers in Jesus. (Possibly just by taking them oput and beating them up e.g.)
That’s true, but there’s also nothing to suggest he didn’t go out of his way to find and prosecute believers as his actions in Acts 8:1:3 suggests, and in going out of his way to gain authority to prosecute Christians in Damascus. From what little we know about his physical stature he probably wasn’t the local bully.
In Romans 16:3-20 Paul appears to mention his relatives in the process of bragging about his prominence and networking in promoting Christianity. As far as we know Paul had little or nothing to do with the church in Rome, which appeared to be thriving without him. Paul probably didn’t know what their beliefs were. In Romans Paul appears to be letting the Roman Christians know what their beliefs should be.
Though as far as we know the church in Rome had not gained influence, if the Roman Christians had been Jews before converting, Paul might have been hoping for Christian assistance for his trial. I’ve gone off the subject here.
I would be wary of assuming that everything we read in Acts is to be taken as veracious. This is a much later work and written with a specific purpose. It also [as Pervo noted] shares some similarities with ancient Hellenistic novels.
Did Paul come from Tarsus? Did he have a conversion on the road to Damascus? Paul never mentions either event.
The incident with Stephen [if it occurred] could have been a lynching. And his “speech” in Acts 7 must be considered a narrative embellishment. Nor do we have a date for that event. If pre 41 CE then Judaea was still under direct Roman control and the Sadducees had the duty of dealing with “native” affairs. A Jewish Messianic sect may have been perceived as a threat to the status quo. Again, if a group was entering synagogues and preaching something that was considered potentially disruptive [and we do not actually know what was being preached as we only have the accounts in Acts] and risked trouble for the Jews generally it might well have caused resentment and anger among some.
Yup, I believe you’re agreeing with me! (Although I don’t find Pervo’s argument about novels compelling). And there are, of course, other things: was Paul a Roman; was he educated in Jerusalem under Gamaliel; could he speak Aramaic? I think no to all these.
Dear Dr Ehrman
Thank you for your reply. We must agree to disagree over Pervo’s view on Acts 🙂
However, my “bone of contention” is that from Paul’s authentic epistles it seems clear there were some “disagreements” between himself and those followers of the real man. I also find it hard to accept that a Galilean Jewish charismatic saw himself as the “Lord of glory” or as some kind of redemptive sacrifice for humankind’s sins. And so on this issue, I must again disagree with you. I hold that fledgling Christianity bore very little resemblance to what [as far as we know] may have been preached by Jesus but was premised on Paul’s own personal speculations about the salvic significance of Jesus’ death for humankind.