Paul and the Gospels

Radagast said:

Well, no, it's not actually. Most of what he says is false.

I an astounded that you should recommend him to Christians, when there are so many reliable, Christian scholars to refer to.

Click to expand...

Sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on this point his expertise in history is highly respected. He addresses Christian groups frequently on his speaking engagements.

disciple Clint said:

Sorry I am going to have to disagree with you on this point his expertise in history is highly respected.

Click to expand...

By whom? Not by any theologians I know.

disciple Clint said:

He addresses Christian groups frequently on his speaking engagements.

Click to expand...

Not any reputable Christian groups that I'm aware of.

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

God inspired scripture and it's what he planned.

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

Paul knew Jesus, by direct revelation, essentially meaning that Paul knew in a very intimate manner the nature and will of God. And he certainly was aware of the high points of Jesus life on earth, the cross and resurrection being the most obvious. Paul knew how to apply what he knew of Christ-of Who He is-and teach from that single, simple, enormous font of knowledge. As far as the gospels were concerned they attested to that same Christ who inspired them while physically here on earth. But whether Paul knew individual teachings or not from that source, he knew Christ.

Andrewn said:

I've always been amazed by the lack of contradiction between the Gospels and Paul's Epistles. Considering that the Gospels had not been written, he must have been familiar with their contents in an oral form.

Click to expand...

Apparently, if a non-Christian reads the NT, they'll find so many contradictory teachings between the Gospels and epistles of Paul.

There are plenty of Atheists / unbelievers who will never accept Christianity because of it.

Of course, Atheists don't know how to interpret the Bible properly... Ironically, neither Christians provide convincing arguments.

The fact is bringing damnation to Atheists. There is a proper interpretation however BUT only FEW Christians have figured it out.

timewerx said:

Of course, Atheists don't know how to interpret the Bible properly... Ironically, neither Christians provide convincing arguments. The fact is bringing damnation to Atheists. There is a proper interpretation however BUT only FEW Christians have figured it out.

Click to expand...

There are worderful commentaries available on BibleHub.com. If anyone is truly interested in understanding the Bible, they can check there. Unfortunately, when you ask an average Christian, for example in the CF, they will give their personal opinions rather than studying the subject. Add to this denominational differences and it is difficult to know whom to listen to.

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

He knew about the Life of Jesus, but His major emphasis was on the God Man now resurrected and enthroned on high!

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

As I see it, his writings are letters to churches that he had already preached to. They had already heard the gospel. What they needed was encouragement to persevere and guidance to remain on the Christian path. Each letter is unique, addressing the issues facing each particular church.

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

Well to put it succintly.

1. The gospels were written during his lifetime. Paul was alive when Jesus ministered and died and rose.
2. Much of the gospel message was to show and bring Israel to accept or reject Jesus as Messiah. They chose to reject and after that point, Jesus taught the disciples for the task of building the church.
3. Remember that Paul was commissioned by Jesus to be the Apostle to the gentiles. So much of the gospel narratives would not have been especially pertinent outside of the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. It is astonishing that Paul, the earliest Christian writer, does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul implies here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.


If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit in Matthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.


Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testament references. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.


Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.


1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.


Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.


One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple in the first century and had not been used for over 200 years. They had been replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value. It would also appear that Matthew in mentioning this was using the literary technique of haggadic midrash in referencing Zechariah 11:12-13.

JackRT said:

Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul implies here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.

Click to expand...

You can certainly continue to believe that. As I explained in my previous message, it is incorrect.

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

A good understanding of the whole Bible is necessary to answer your good question. The Old Testament looks forward to and predicts the coming of the Messiah. The gospels describe Jesus' ministry from four different viewpoints and audiences. The letters explain the meaning of Jesus' ministry to various churches to meet their spiritual needs. Revelation in very symbolic form describes Jesus' rule over the earth and human existence between his first and second comings.

Therefore, Paul's letters concentrate on the deep meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection for the churches he established for their and our benefit.

JackRT said:

Many years ago I took a red-letter KJV Bible and mined the epistles of Paul for words attributed to Jesus. I found about 100 words but nothing of any real consequence. There are two gospel stories that Paul seems to be completely unaware of. The first is the birth of Jesus. The closest Paul comes to reference it is when he says it was "according to the flesh" which I interpret to mean "perfectly natural" or "nothing remarkable". The second is the actions of Judas. He does not refer to Judas directly at all but does suggest that "the twelve" were all witnesses to the resurrection. But the suicide of Judas took place before that. This would suggest that the Birth Narratives and the Judas Narratives did not enter Christian tradition till some forty to fifty years after the crucifixion.

Click to expand...

I agree about the birth narratives, but "the twelve" is a generic term referring to the chief apostles rather than the specific 12 men who followed Jesus around. Matthias was elected to 'the twelve' at the beginning of Acts because he was a disciple and he had witnessed the resurrection.

Radagast said:

He is an apostate who has rejected Jesus and become an atheist (Hebrews 6:4-6). Not the best source of theological advice.

Click to expand...

He might be reasonable for historical advice though? Having said that I found his history interesting but his conclusions from that history were completely skewed in favour of his thesis.

Ehrman's NT textbook is generally helpful (though conservatives wouldn't like it), but he's got a problem that shows there and in other works. He thinks Jesus was a failed prophet who expected an immediate second coming. That view was common earlier in the 20th Cent, but isn't as common now. It's pretty clear that Jesus expected both a present and a future Kingdom. At least some of the language about the future could well be a reference to the events of 70, which actually did come fairly soon. He shows concern about how Jews were responding to the Romans, and I think it's historically reasonable to think he foresaw a disaster if they didn't change their approach. Saying that all of his Kingdom language referred to a quick end to history (which of course didn't come) seems like bad exegesis.

I've got a couple of his books. They often start with good points, but he has a tendency to push them beyond the evidence into ideology.

I agree that there's been lots of work on the literary history of the Gospels, but Ehrman is not one I'd point to as the best source.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

He might be reasonable for historical advice though?

Click to expand...

Not particularly, because his atheism colours and distorts his conclusions.

And it isn't like there aren't good sources of historical advice.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

He might be reasonable for historical advice though? Having said that I found his history interesting but his conclusions from that history were completely skewed in favour of his thesis.

Click to expand...

As I understand it he's an expert textual critic, but less than an expert when it comes to the culture of NT times. Some fragments from Prof. Ben Witherington's review of Dr. Ehrman's book "Jesus, Interrupted":

It is understandable how a textual critic might write a book like Misquoting Jesus, on the basis of long study of the underpinnings of textual criticism and its history and praxis. It is mystifying however why he would attempt to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted which frankly reflect no in-depth interaction at all with exegetes, theologians, and even most historians of the NT period of whatever faith or no faith at all. A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveal mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in—for example Raymond Brown and E.P Sanders, the former long dead, the latter long retired.

Click to expand...

Prof. Witherington then describes some examples where Dr. Ehrman just hadn't kept up with current scholarship.

Ben Witherington: Bart Interrupted--- A detailed Analysis of 'Jesus Interrupted' Part One

ChetSinger said:

As I understand it he's an expert textual critic

Click to expand...

Not even that. His textual criticism work has also been heavily criticised by experts.

Ben Witherington alludes to that, in passing, in his review that you linked to.

Radagast said:

Not even that. His textual criticism work has also been heavily criticised by experts.

Ben Witherington alludes to that, in passing, in his review that you linked to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true. But he is a qualified textual critic and I wanted to be kind.

Vital Forces said:

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Click to expand...

The verse that you are looking for is this 2 Cor 5

16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Paul is careful to preach Christ according to the mystery, which is him crucified to bring the Body of Christ, where Jews and Gentiles are equal (Ephesians 3:9).

Jesus's earthly ministry was for the circumcision (Romans 15:8), so it makes sense for Paul not to focus on that period. Jesus raised him to be an apostle to the Gentiles.