Paul and the Gospels

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

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

However he, along with Bruce Metzger, are the world's foremost authorities on textual variants.

I don't like Ehrman, but it is extremely dangerous to read just those historians who already agree with your viewpoint.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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":

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

It's a fair point, but one of his books (Lost Christianities?) I found very useful for historical information that I'd not seen in Christian books. I didn't agree with his conclusions though. So he tells of how the gospel of Peter was condemned by a Bishop... but he is using that to imply that gospel of Peter was a genuine gospel, but the Bishop didn't condemn it until he had read it for himself. So clearly not genuine.

 

[Radagast]

However he, along with Bruce Metzger, are the world's foremost authorities on textual variants.

Not at all. There's a lot of experts; most of them much better than Ehrman.

With all the good Christian experts, I'm not sure why you specifically want everyone to listen to an atheist.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Not at all. There's a lot of experts; most of them much better than Ehrman.

With all the good Christian experts, I'm not sure why you specifically want everyone to listen to an atheist.

I don't specifically want everyone to listen to an atheist and never said anything of the sort.

However I do think we should listen to those with opposing views else we live in a bubble where nobody disagrees with us and you know from being on a debate forum that that is not true at all.

So in order to understand where we might be wrong, we should be looking at viewpoints that are not our own.

 

[Bob Crowley]

St. Paul was not one of the original disciples and therefore did not hear or see what Christ said or did in person. He would have heard stories from some or maybe even all of them (certainly Peter at least), but he was not an eye witness, whereas the Gospel accounts record Christ's actual sayings and actions.

St. Paul did not see himself as a chronicler of eye witness events during Christ's ministry, since he wasn't there, but rather as an interpreter of what those events meant, particularly to the gentiles who did not have a Jewish background.

Luke was not an apostle either, but he was interested in giving a record of Christ's words and actions, and investigated them by talking to those who had been there. He then continued to chronicle the actions of the very early Church in Act, with which he was involved himself.

If we use today's media as a parable, Luke was a sympathetic journalist who wrote about events after interviewing eye witnesses. Paul was a expert and qualified commentator explaining the significance of those events to people who were not of the same culture or background.

 

[disciple Clint]

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.

Paul said that when Christ called him, he did not go to Jerusalem to receive instruction from the apostles. Rather, he retired into Arabia for a time and not until three years later did he go to Jerusalem. Even then, the only apostle he met was Peter, and the only other leader he met was James, the presiding elder of the Jerusalem church. It has often been remarked that Paul clearly implied that he spent three years being taught by Jesus Himself (1:12), either directly or (perhaps more likely) through the study of the Word. Thus, like the other apostles, Paul studied with Christ for three years before beginning his ministry (compare Acts 1:21).
The Preparation of Paul

 

[Barney2.0]

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.

I’ve found no aspect of the story of Judas that are actually contradictory. Your rather correct in that there were Twelve Apostles who Christ appeared too, even though the actual seat of Judas as one of the Twelve was vacant at the time due to his miserable death, his place as one of the Twelve Apostles was taken up by Matthias who according to Acts 1:21-22 was also a witness to the resurrection. So yes Christ appeared to the Eleven Apostles and Matthias who later becomes one of the Twelve Apostles. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15:5 implies that Judas was a witness to the resurrection of Christ and didn’t die unless you take 1 Corinthians in isolation of the Acts of the Apostles, which is what your doing.

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.

Acts 1:18 describes him falling and bursting open, it doesn’t mention him actually dying or committing suicide by falling and being burst open. You don’t burst open unless you fall from quite a high place, this only makes sense as a literal event and not an embellishment if Matthews account is correct and that he hung himself from a tree which would have to have been quite a tall tree. Your attempting to make a contradiction where none truly exists.

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.

Acts 1:21-22 says he was a witness to the resurrection as he had been with them from the moment Christ was living among them from the moment he was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist to moment he was taken up to heaven:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.

Acts 1:23 further clarifies that Matthias was specifically considered as a replacement for Judas and a seat as one of the Twelve Apostles because he like the others must give a witness of the resurrection as preach the Gospel, this wouldn’t make sense unless he saw the resurrected Christ:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.

Your propose a lot of baseless assumptions, one of which is an argument from silence which is a fallacy, your whole claim that Paul did not know of Judas's betrayal or death is based on the lack of mention of the events in his writings. The only way for your assertions to be proven is if Paul mentioned Judas alive some how during his time explicitly. An argument of silence doesn’t do your claims any justice.

If the Early Christians were desperate to avoid persecution and deflect blame to the Jews, why have the Romans crucify Christ in the Gospels at all, why not just have the Jews stone him to death? You are aware that Christ the central character of Christianity bears the name and title of that so called “hated nation,” Revelation 5:5 isn’t a very good way to deflect blame to the Jews. If the early Christians were so desperate why even bother preaching against the divine worship of the Emperor or reject sacrifices to the Roman gods in the first place?

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.

That’s incorrect, pieces of silver that were minted as coins were used in the Temple in the first century, they were known as Tyrian Shekels:

Judas 30 pieces of Silver

Your simply attempting to butcher the narratives to create historical problems and contradictions when there are none, your beliefs are also inconsistent with orthodox Christianity and the doctrine of divine inspiration.

 

[JackRT]

That’s incorrect, pieces of silver that were minted as coins were used in the Temple in the first century, they were known as Tyrian Shekels:

Judas 30 pieces of Silver

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=808

In your referenced article the coins illustrated are Roman coinage illustrating a Roman Emperor (Nero?) and a Roman Eagle. This was secular gentile coinage and would never have been used as Temple coinage for reasons that should be obvious. "Pieces of Silver" are not minted coins but rather rough chunks of variable weights. By the first century these were mostly replaced by coinage. To determine value they would have to be weighed in a balance. In the Court of the Gentiles this what the money changers were all about, exchanging secular coinage and pieces of silver for Tyrian Shekles.

 

[Barney2.0]

In your referenced article the coins illustrated are Roman coinage illustrating a Roman Emperor (Nero?) and a Roman Eagle. This was secular gentile coinage and would never have been used as Temple coinage for reasons that should be obvious. "Pieces of Silver" are not minted coins but rather rough chunks of variable weights. By the first century these were mostly replaced by coinage. To determine value they would have to be weighed in a balance. In the Court of the Gentiles this what the money changers were all about, exchanging secular coinage and pieces of silver for Tyrian Shekles.

The religous authorities in that held the most power at the time were the Sadducees and Herodians who had no problem with Gentile influences and often encouraged them. Jews had very little choice, but to go along with it, attempts at making their own form of currency for the Temple Tax failed. Pieces of silver can also refer to minted coins which is why almost every Biblical commentator and historian state that the “pieces of silver” given to Judas were Tyrian shekels. The Talmud also states that whenever the currency or silvers is mentioned it refers to the Tyrian Shekel:

The Longest Week

See here for more information:

When Herodes saved the Tyrian Shekel: The prescribed currency to pay Temple Tax in Jerusalem was not abolished when Tyre lost Autonomy under the Romans in 20 B.C. | moneymuseum.com

 

[throughfiierytrial]

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.

Paul saw Jesus (after Christ ascended) and Jesus taught Paul personally...Galatians 1:11-24.) Paul's teachings align with Christ's and in some areas define and refine those teachings as Christians put them into practice more and more.
What is your main question or point...do you doubt the authenticity of Paul's writings as Christian?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Maybe its the other way around. Maybe the Gospel writers knew what paul had said, so they wrote the gospels to take into account many of pauls views.

That could hardly be the case...so much of the Gospels are Christ's own words either from quotes or paraphrased. You may be assuming or doubting Scripture? Also, we need to remember that although Paul penned his Epistles they are God's Words for Paul wrote under inspiration of God. We go awry when we try to ascribe Bible verses to a man as though the words belong only to him. The entire Bible is made up of God's words and His only (except where the Bible specifically states otherwise).

 

[disciple Clint]

Maybe its the other way around. Maybe the Gospel writers knew what paul had said, so they wrote the gospels to take into account many of pauls views.

We are failing to consider that the Gospels were also part of an oral tradition so the information contained in them for the most part was widely known by Christians prior to the time they were written in a formal way.

 

[disciple Clint]

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.

I found this very interesting and worth sharing Jesus vs. Paul - doctrine.org

 

[Shane R]

It's helpful to keep in mind that quotation was not expected to be as precise as our academic community demands today. In the NT and the early Christian writings that have not been deemed canonical (and have sometimes been deemed heretical) we see quotation, allusion, and textual influence. Let me explain textual influence a bit; what I mean is that it is fairly likely that an author was familiar with a particular text and is meditating carefully on its themes in a way that is consistent with the author's line of thought.

 

[Andrewn]

there were Twelve Apostles who Christ appeared too, even though the actual seat of Judas as one of the Twelve was vacant at the time due to his miserable death, his place as one of the Twelve Apostles was taken up by Matthias who according to Acts 1:21-22 was also a witness to the resurrection. So yes Christ appeared to the Eleven Apostles and Matthias who later becomes one of the Twelve Apostles.

This is obviously true. The question is when and at which geographical location did Matthias witness the resurrected Christ?

The easy answer to this is among the 500 people who saw Him in Galilee. But I think Matthias (and others) could have also been present in the Upper Room when Jesus appeared to the disciples 2 times: once without Thomas and once with Thomas. Church tradition is that the first time He appeared to 10 disciples and the second time He appeared to 11 disciples. But I don't see this in the Bible. There could have been more disciples present. Remember there were 120 disciples altogether. Many of them could have been present during these 2 appearances. Matthias also could have been one of the 7 disciples who met Jesus at the Lake of Galilee.

 

[Radagast]

This is obviously true. The question is when and where did Matthias witness the resurrected Christ?

We are told in Acts 1:21-22 that he was a witness: "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

That’s not at all correct. Indeed, St. Paul describes in greater detail than any of the three Synoptic gospels the most important miracle, that being the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11.

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.

That claim doesn’t really hold water, as even a cursory reading of the Book of Acts will show how St. Paul was welcomed into the family of the Apostles and went on to play a vital role in the spread of the Christian religion, with a specific focus on the evangelization of the gentiles, and was also a vital participant at the Council of Jerusalem jn Acts 15.

Furthermore, much of what Paul writes specifically correlates to the teachings of our Lord, for example, his instructions to Timothy on the qualifications for being a bishop echo what our Lord teaches us about leadership.

 

[disciple Clint]

That’s not at all correct. Indeed, St. Paul describes in greater detail than any of the three Synoptic gospels the most important miracle, that being the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11.



That claim doesn’t really hold water, as even a cursory reading of the Book of Acts will show how St. Paul was welcomed into the family of the Apostles and went on to play a vital role in the spread of the Christian religion, with a specific focus on the evangelization of the gentiles, and was also a vital participant at the Council of Jerusalem jn Acts 15.

Furthermore, much of what Paul writes specifically correlates to the teachings of our Lord, for example, his instructions to Timothy on the qualifications for being a bishop echo what our Lord teaches us about leadership.

Scholars believe that Timothy was not written by Paul.
Who Wrote the Letters to Timothy and Titus? | Biblical Foundations

 

[hedrick]

Scholars believe that Timothy was not written by Paul.
Who Wrote the Letters to Timothy and Titus? | Biblical Foundations

Yeah, and his letters make it clear that his acceptance by the Apostles was sort of mixed.

 

[Radagast]

Scholars believe that Timothy was not written by Paul.
Who Wrote the Letters to Timothy and Titus? | Biblical Foundations

Some don't. Some do. The evidence against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is weak. The evidence for is strong.