Bart Unplugged: Rapid-Fire Answers on the Apostle Paul

Summary

Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman
Episode: Bart Unplugged: Rapid-Fire Answers on the Apostle Paul
Date: November 4, 2025
Host: Megan Lewis
Guest: Dr. Bart Ehrman

---

Overview

In this special "Bart Unplugged" episode, host Megan Lewis and renowned New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman tackle a series of listener-submitted rapid-fire questions about the Apostle Paul. The episode explores Paul's influence on early Christianity, his relationship to Jesus' teachings, his connection with the apostles, core theological concepts, and even challenges to his historicity. Ehrman sheds light on both scholarly and popular perspectives, often referencing New Testament scholarship and his decades of research. The tone is engaging, candid, and often peppered with humor and thought-provoking insights.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Are Paul’s Teachings So Different from Jesus’?

[06:04–11:10]

• Different Genres & Agendas: Paul wrote personal letters addressing problems in churches; the Gospels are narrative accounts about Jesus.

• Mutual Ignorance: Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels, but there’s little evidence that Gospel writers read Paul's letters.

• Common Theology: Paul's thoughts on atonement were not unique—other early Christians held similar ideas.

• Variation Among Early Christians: Different writers had different aims, communities, and theological emphases (e.g., Paul vs. Matthew on the Jewish law).

• Notable Quote:

  “They didn't have to pass qualifying exams to get into the Bible. They were just writing their books and they lived in different places at different times with different views.” — Bart Ehrman [09:12]

• Luke as a Case Study: Although Luke writes Acts with Paul as a hero, he doesn't seem to share Paul's atonement theology.

2. Were the Gospels Responses to Paul? (Matthew’s 'Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing')

[11:10–12:49]

• Matthew’s Opposition?: Possible but unproven that Matthew’s warnings target Pauline teachings.
• Context Uncertain: Matthew insists Jesus’ Jewish followers keep the law, which may indirectly oppose Paul, but it’s unclear if Gentiles are included.
• Conclusion: It’s plausible the Gospels respond to Paul, but there's no direct evidence.

3. Why Was Paul So Influential Despite Opposition?

[13:02–15:56]

• Controversial Figure: Paul faced more opposition than support during his life; his letters frequently address critics.
• Posthumous Importance: In the 2nd century, Paul was seen by some (like Tertullian) as the "apostle of the heretics" due to his appeal to groups like Gnostics.
• Adoption by Orthodoxy: Proto-Orthodox Christians eventually championed Paul, using his writings to combat heretical ideas.
• Prolific Writer: His survival and prominence in the canon are partly due to the sheer number and popularity of his letters.

4. Is Paul the Source of the Lord’s Supper?

[15:56–18:36]

• Paul’s Claim: In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul reports receiving the tradition “from the Lord,” but it's ambiguous if this means a vision or church tradition.
• Interpretation: The Lord’s Supper likely predated Paul; he did not invent it but was the earliest to record its ritual in writing.

5. Does Paul Teach Incarnational Christology?

[18:36–21:59]

• Philippians 2 and 2 Corinthians 8: Bart argues these texts support a “high” Christology: Jesus existed in a divine form, became human, and was exalted.
• Alternative View: Some scholars reinterpret these passages as presenting Jesus as a Second Adam, not explicitly incarnational, but Ehrman favors the traditional view.
• Notable Quote:

  “This is a high Christology... an understanding of Christ... in the heavenly realm who became human.” — Bart Ehrman [20:30]

6. How Did Paul Convince the Other Apostles of His Authority?

[24:53–26:37]

• Paul’s Self-Report: He believed he had seen the resurrected Jesus, a claim others accepted.
• Unknown Details: It's unclear how convincing Paul’s account was, but his authority was accepted, albeit with ongoing disputes (e.g., over Gentiles following the law).

7. When Did Paul’s Letters Gain Scriptural Authority?

[26:37–28:36]

• Early Canonization: References in 2 Peter 3:16 show Paul’s letters were viewed as “scripture” by late 1st–early 2nd-century Christians.
• Interpretive Blending: As scripture, Paul's and Jesus’ teachings were read together; only in modern scholarship are differences emphasized.

8. Was Paul an ‘Inside Agent’ Against Christianity?

[28:36–29:26]

• Historiographical Consensus: No credible historians accept this conspiracy theory. All evidence indicates Paul was a genuine convert.

9. Did Paul Ever Meet Jesus in His Lifetime?

[29:26–30:34]

• Lack of Evidence: Ehrman finds no reason to believe Paul met Jesus before his death; geography and language barriers make this unlikely.

10. Could Paul’s Vision of Jesus Have Happened Post-Conversion?

[30:34–31:17]

• Pure Hypothesis: It's possible in theory, but there is no evidence Paul became a Christian before having his vision; hypotheses need direct support.

11. Was Paul a Mythical Figure?

[31:17–34:09]

• Historical Evidence: Consistent letter style, external attestations, and references by contemporaries all confirm his existence.
• Notable Quote:

  “Maybe Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist... but how would you make the argument?” — Bart Ehrman [33:17]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Academic Debates:

  “Almost always it’s with somebody who has the crowd completely on their side... I'll get 300 people hoping I get creamed!” — Bart Ehrman [04:48]
  “If you’ve got three people in the room who are open to another thing, it can make a big difference.” — Bart Ehrman [05:32]

• On How the New Testament Was Written:

  “They didn't have to pass qualifying exams to get into the Bible. They were just writing their books and they lived in different places at different times with different views.” — Bart Ehrman [09:12]

• On the Historicity of Paul:

  “I think that’s a dead end, frankly... it's better to deal with the actual data and the actual information.” — Bart Ehrman [33:47]

---

Key Timestamps

• [06:04] – Why Paul’s teachings and the Gospels differ
• [11:10] – Are Gospels a response to Paul?
• [13:02] – Why was Paul so influential?
• [15:56] – Is Paul the origin of the Lord's Supper?
• [18:36] – Does Paul teach incarnational Christology?
• [24:53] – How Paul’s apostleship was recognized
• [26:37] – When did Paul's letters become Scripture?
• [28:36] – The “Paul as inside agent” conspiracy
• [29:26] – Did Paul ever meet Jesus?
• [31:17] – Is Paul a mythical figure?

---

Bart’s Book Recommendation

[35:43–37:57]
Book: The First Urban Christians by Wayne Meeks

• Focuses on the social history of early Christian communities, moving beyond doctrine to explore rituals, community structure, and lived experience.
• Notable as a foundational work for understanding the real social and economic dynamics of Pauline churches.

“What did it be [to be] a Christian community in an urban setting? How did Christian communities come together... these are kind of issues about real-life Christianity as opposed to the ethereal world of belief.” — Bart Ehrman [36:47]

---

Conclusion

This rapid-fire Q&A episode offers a concise yet sweeping survey of the major problems, debates, and scholarship surrounding Paul the Apostle. Ehrman’s answers are rooted in historical-critical methods, highlight both scholarly consensus and open questions, and regularly deflate popular misconceptions about Pauline Christianity. For listeners, the episode serves as an example of how evidence, context, and critical thinking can illuminate (and complicate) our understanding of early Christian history.

---

Transcript

[A]

This summer, don't squeeze in. Spread out.

[B]

Find homes big enough for your whole

[A]

guest list on vrbo.

[B]

From family reunions to trips with friends,

[A]

VRBO has spacious summer stays for every group size and budget. That's vacation rentals done right.

[B]

Start exploring on VRBO and book your next day. Now.

[A]

You.

[B]

Have you ever submitted a question to the Misquoting Jesus podcast? Have you ever heard your answer? Today Bart and I are going to be doing an entire episode covering listeners questions on the topic of the Apostle Paul. So keep listening and you we might get to yours. Welcome to Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman, the only show where a six time New York Times best selling author and world renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating little known facts about the New Testament, the historical Jesus and the rise of Christianity. I'm your host, Megan Lewis. Let's begin. Hey everyone, Megan Lewis here with some big news if you haven't heard. Bart will be retiring this December from uncle to celebrate his retirement, Bart will be giving his final public lecture at UNC Chapel Hill before retiring and you're invited. It's going to be a special evening where Bart reflects on his decades of teaching, the greatest discoveries of his career, and the lessons that have shaped his life as a scholar. Many familiar faces from our podcast and courses will be there along with members of our team, including myself. And best of all, it's totally free to attend. Just head to bartehrman.com lastlecture to register. And here's a fun During November, anyone who buys a [e-mail] courses will be entered into a drawing to join Bart and the team at an exclusive after party, dessert, drinks and a great conversation to celebrate his retirement. You'll get one entry for every course you purchase and if you're an active member of the Biblical Studies Academy, you'll automatically get five entries. We will draw 10 winners at the end of November, so go register for the [e-mail] Lastlecture. Grab a course or sign up for [e-mail] as always, be sure to use the code mjpodcast for an additional discount at checkout. Maybe you'll be raising a toast to Bart. Welcome back to Misquoting Jesus where today we are answering listeners questions about the Apostle Paul. We've also got a book recommendation from Bart so make sure you stop by for that Bart before we get to Paul, how are you doing?

[A]

Yeah, well, I'm doing well. We're getting into the semester about halfway now and it's fun watching the students, because the beginning of the semester, right after summer, they're filled with vim and vigor and even in an 8 o' clock class they're raring to go and now they're kind of dragging themselves in trying to get awake. So you have to really kind of be a little bit more entertained just to kind of keep things going at this stage of the semester. But it's all good work.

[B]

Extra hard to get their eyes to open.

[A]

Yeah, it's all good. Yeah. How you doing?

[B]

Yeah, similarly dragging actually. I like, I like the cooling down of the weather, I really like autumn, but the being dark in the morning, I really struggle with pulling myself out of bed, which is necessary because otherwise I get jumped on by two very small, very excited children.

[A]

Right, yeah.

[B]

Which is fun. But occasionally a knee will land on a rib cage which is, you know.

[A]

Yeah. Well, there's only so much fun a person can stand.

[B]

This is true. Especially at 5:30 in the morning.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

Now before we get to listeners questions, I have an intro icebreaker type thing. Do you enjoy the public debates that you do or do you consider them more just part of the job?

[A]

Ah, ah, well I'll tell you, they're not part of the job because most people don't do that. Most academics don't do them and refuse to do them and there's no way in the world they're going to do them. And so, you know, I, when I was in high school I was into debate, so I kind of like debate. And the thing is these debates, it really depends whom I'm debating, but I rarely during the time do I think they're fun. What I'll usually do is I'll get all pumped up for one and go into one. And about 20 minutes in I writing notes to myself saying why are you doing this?

[B]

Never again.

[A]

Well, and part of it is because, you know, like almost always it's with somebody who has the crowd completely on their side. You know, I'll go into a, I'll have a debate with somebody, I've done this a number of times. I'll go in and it'll be an evangelical apologist or an evangelist or something and there'll be a crowd of three or 400 people and I'll start off by asking how many of them are evangelical Christians? And everybody will raise their hand and then I'll say how many of you here to see me get creamed? And everybody raises their hand. It's like oh my God, so what's the point of this? But, but the the point is, seriously though, is that I, I really do want people to see that you can have another point of view that is honest and sincere and well thought out, and that it's not just out to destroy somebody's faith, but that it's, but that it is actually, it's worth thinking about. And my experience is that even if you've got 300 people in the room, if there are, if they're just three people who are kind of sitting on the fence or who are open to another thing, it can make a big difference. It can make a big difference. And so, so I do it really, but it's, it's more of a public service than passion.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, I believe it. I believe it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay, Paul. And we said at the end of the last episode that we get a lot of listeners, questions in. So we're going to start doing maybe once a quarter an episode where we are just trying to address the questions that you will send in because people have been waiting for a while to hear answers to some of their questions. We are doing themed episodes just to make it a little bit easier for organization and for, honestly, my brain to keep track of everything. And we're opening with Paul. So why are the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels so different to the teachings of Paul? I thought that being written decades later, the Gospels would teach the same thing as Paul or at least be consistent with him, but they are completely different. Why is that?

[A]

You know, I think there's a problem that most people have reading the New Testament who understand it historically that Paul's our. Paul gives us our earliest writings and he's writing before the Gospels. And most people reading the New Testament who know that, including lots and lots of scholars, simply assume that the Gospel writers must know Paul. I mean, of course, I mean, we know Paul. Why wouldn't they know Paul? They were writing the Bible. And I think that it wasn't like that. I don't, I'm not. You know, there are scholars who argue vehemently that, that you know this author, new Paul, or new Paul's writings, or this author. And I'm not completely sure. I think that to show that one author knew another, knew another's writings, you can't just happen to have two authors living near each other in terms of time and who have kind of basically similar ideas. That doesn't mean they knew each other and so. Or that one had read the writings of the other. So I think there's, there's a high bar of evidence. So I'm not Sure that, that the writers did know Paul's letters. The other tricky thing about this is when we say, did somebody know Paul? What scholars always mean is they agree that we have seven undisputed letters. And their question is, did the Gospel writers know these seven letters? And for me, that question is just the wrong question in part because Paul must have written hundreds and hundreds of letters. His ministry lasted 30 years. He had 25, 30 churches. He's writing them regularly. How many hundreds of letters did he write? And we have seven. And so what would make you think that the author of Mark knew one of these seven as opposed to some other seven or opposed to like. I mean. So I just think, you know, unless you've got really compelling evidence, I think there is some. There are some things to suggest that maybe Mark understood Paul's thinking, his theology, but I don't know any evidence. He read his letters. And the thing is, what Paul's theology was, was common theology at his time. He's not the only one who thought that the death and resurrection of Jesus brought about an atonement. I mean, lots people thought that. So the fact that Mark thinks that and Paul thinks that doesn't mean that Mark used Paul. So this question though is why are they so different? Not why are they so similar? Well, they have different agendas. Paul is actually writing letters. These are pieces of personal correspondence. He's not writing a narrative about Jesus, life, death and resurrection, which is what the Gospels are. And so they have different aims. Paul seems to be completely uninterested in Jesus, life, death and resurrection. He said he only reports three of Jesus teachings. What he said at the Last Supper that you shouldn't get divorced and you ought to pay your preacher. Those are the only teachings he says, doesn't mention anything about Jesus, parables, doesn't say anything about his miracles, his casting out of demons. There's millions of things he doesn't say, so he's just not. He's writing letters to deal with problems. But given that, why are his views so different in many ways? Well, his views are different in some ways. Matthew and Paul seem to be at odds, in my judgment. They seem to be at odds about whether the Jewish law is still in force or not. Paul certainly thought Jews should keep the Jewish law, but he didn't think Gentiles should. Matthew says that every followers of Jesus have to keep the law. So that seems to be different. Why would they be different? Well, because they have different views. I mean, why do modern Christians today have different views? We tend to think that if it's in the Bible, everybody has to have the same view, you know, but they didn't have to. They didn't have to pass qualifying exams to get into the Bible. They were just writing their books and they lived in different places at different times with different views. And so they, so they were different. But it, but I would say that Matthew is at odds with Paul. I think the most interesting case is the Gospel of Luke because whoever wrote Luke also wrote the book of Acts and Paul is the hero of Acts. But Luke does not show evidence of knowing Paul's theology. In fact, Paul is very strong that Jesus death brought in atonement for sins. And Luke gets rid of all the atonement language from the Gospel of Mark. And in the book of Acts, when the apostles preach, they do not teach that Jesus death brought an atonement for sins. And so that's, that's a particularly interesting case.

[B]

I would say this is a similar question, but from a slightly different angle. Is it possible that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were a response to the gospel that Paul preached, specifically Matthew, chapter six or when he warns against a wolf in a sheep's clothing?

[A]

Well, I don't know. I mean, we don't know who. What Matthew had in mind about the wolf in sheep's clothing, except for that it was somebody who's teaching something contrary to him. I think you can make a case that I don't know that Matthew actually knew Paul's writings or that he knew about his life. He may well have done. I don't know. We don't know who Matthew was. We don't know who this author is. We don't know where he lived. He's almost certainly in some kind of major urban area where there was a large Jewish congregation population and a large Christian population. And so someplace like Antioch is sometimes suggested or could be most any major city. And if it's a place like Antioch, he must have known about Paul. But the thing about Matthew is that some of the things that he says do seem to be directed against the idea that Paul advanced that Gentiles don't have to keep the law. It's not completely clear that Matthew thinks that Gentiles have to keep the law. It's actually pretty tricky trying to figure that out what his view about Gentiles was. But Matthew does insist on following the law, that Jesus followers keep the law. But he's talking, you know, in the Gospel, Jesus is talking to Jewish followers. And so I don't know what Matthew's view was. Was Matthew A response to. To Paul. It's absolutely possible, but we don't, we

[B]

don't really know what made the Apostle Paul so influential. It's clear from his writings there were different variants of Christianity that he preached against. So why was he so persuasive to so many people so quickly?

[A]

It's a great question. And I think to follow up on the kind of sub point this person was making, it doesn't look like he was that influential during his lifetime. This seems weird because we all think that Paul was the guy. You know, you have Jesus, then you got Paul. But when you actually read Paul's letters, it's quite clear he has more enemies than friends among the Christians. Every one of his, just about every one of his letters is dealing with people who have a different view from his or that are attacking him and he has to defend himself. And sometimes, of course, that's the same thing and there are different issues. The letter to the Galatians is attacking those who say that Gentiles have to become Jewish. And that was a dominant view. And lots of people disagreed with Paul on that. There are indications that he didn't get along with Peter and James about the implications of his Gentile mission. In Galatians in Corinth, the issue is that people have a different understanding of the future resurrection of the dead, which for Paul is a central theme, and they have a different understanding from his. And when you read all these letters, he's dealing with Christians who are saying contrary things. Very rarely does he mention somebody that like an entire group of people agree with him on everything. And when he says that, it's always with contingencies. I mean, he says that he and the apostles will agree on this, that and the other thing, and on some things they do, but other things not. So why was Paul the most influential? There have been lots of theories over time since the 19th century that in the 2nd century Paul was not particularly influential. The Church Father Tertullian calls him the apostle of the heretics because he was beloved of the Marcionite Christians who believed that there were two gods and that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus and claimed Paul as a support. He's beloved of many Gnostic groups who understood him to be proclaiming a kind of gnostic gospel. And so, so there were. And so Tertullian called him the God, the apostle, the heretics. In more recent times, scholars have tried to show. In fact, no, no, he, he was influential in orthodox, proto Orthodox circles as well. Why does he become the important figure. In part, it's because he was his teaching. His writings could be used to oppose various kinds of views that orthodox considered to be heretical. And so. And so people started championing him. And he is quoted early on, and it's just probably because he, you know, he wrote a lot, wrote a lot of letters, and people knew about them.

[B]

The earliest reference to the Lord's supper is in First Corinthians 11, where Paul states that he received it from Jesus. Since this ritual is something Paul claims to have been revealed to him, is it possible that he himself is the source of the Lord's Supper and it became part of the Christian tradition and the Gospels through him?

[A]

It's possible. He doesn't say, I got it from Jesus. He says, I got it from the Lord. And that could mean a variety of things. I think a lot of people just kind of assume it means that Jesus told him about it sometime, like maybe when he converted. But that seems implausible to me. I don't think that Jesus was giving him extensive instruction. What Paul says is that Christ appeared to me. He doesn't say that he instructed me. So I. And. Or that let alone gave him a biography of his life or what he did the last night or anything like that. When Paul says he's learned this from the Lord, it's, you know, as I said, it can mean a range of things. People today say, you know, the Lord's teaching me X, Y, and Z, or the Lord heard my prayer, or the Lord and said to me, and they don't mean that they went up to heaven to talk for Jesus for a while. Sometimes they might mean that, but that's not normally what they mean. And so to hear something from the Lord could mean that something's come in your head and you realize that this has been an inspired thought. It could mean that in Paul's churches, it could mean that a prophet was speaking and a prophet declared something. Thus saith the Lord. Anyone who's been in a charismatic group, as I was for a while, or a Pentecostal group, is accustomed to prophets speaking the word of God and that those are messages coming from the Lord or those who speak in tongues whose message is interpreted. These are messages from the Lord. And so it's not. It's not. It's not clear what he means by that. He is the first one to give these words at the lord's supper in First Corinthians 11 his. So, yeah, so he is the first to give that. There are variations of These words among the Gospels, his form of it is, is similar to what you get in Luke, Matthew, Mark have different kind of a different form of it. But did Paul start it? Well, I don't think so. I mean, when I think Paul's, Paul's communities were practicing this. But I think that, I think that the idea that there's a commemorative meal where people were remembering what Jesus said at the Last Supper probably predates Paul certainly his letters. So I don't think he started it.

[B]

Do comments from Paul that Jesus was found in the form of God and that he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, reflect an incarnational Christology? And what could Jesus prior richness and subsequent exaltation otherwise meaning giving that his standing in this world was always lowly?

[A]

It's a great question. This is referring to a passage In Philippians chapter 2, verses 6 through 10, where principally that, but also Second Corinthians, chapter 8, 9, which says that even though he was rich, he became poor for our sake. So just to start with that one, it's a very brief passage. Paul is trying to instruct the Corinthians that they need to provide funds for that he's raising for the, the saints in Jerusalem who are, are having real, real trouble because there's a drought and he's trying to provide funds for them so they can support themselves. And so he's trying to get the Corinthians to donate and he's reminding them that Jesus, even though he's rich, became poor for our sake. And he's not talking about like Jesus being a wealthy man in Nazareth, you know, who gives up his penthouse so that he can give to the poor. He's talking about. He's, it appears to mean that he, he had the wealth of heaven and he became human and support for that. Is this passage in Philippians chapter two, one of one of the most commented on passages of the entire New Testament by scholars, which starts off by saying that, that Christ, even though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, something to be grasped after. But he emptied himself and came, became a human and became a slave. And then he died on the cross for others. And therefore God highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that's above every name. I mean, he acquired the name of God at that point, at the exaltation. And so I think this is an incarnation Christology. It's an incarnation Christology is an understanding of Christ, a Christology that has Christ beginning in the heavenly realm and become a human. And so it's high because it starts up there as opposed to the idea that Christ started out as a human and became a divine being. This is a high Christology. The, the question asked, how else could it be understood? Well, it is understood in different ways. And I, you know, I got a question on my blog yesterday about just this thing on my blog. Somebody asked, is it, you know, what about these scholars who say that this is not about an incarnation, that it's actually portraying Christ like Adam, that Adam, who was made in the image of God, tried for equality with God by eating the fruit. And Christ did just the opposite. He was in the form of God and he didn't grasp after equality with God. And so Christ was exalted and Adam sinned. And so the idea there would be that in this Philippians things, Paul is not talking about incarnation, he's talking about Christ as the second Adam. So it could be interpreted that way. It has been interpreted that way by scholars. I don't think so, though. I think it's clear that he's talking about Christ in a pre incarnate form as having somehow being like God. In the Bible, there are, there are supernatural beings with God up in heaven and this is saying Christ was one of those before he became a human.

[B]

Thank you very much. We're going to take a brief break to. Sorry. We're going to take a brief break to have some announcements and we'll be right back with more questions about Paul. So the reason I asked you at the beginning of the episode about whether or not you enjoyed public debates is because you do actually have one coming up with Dr. Mike Lacona. There's going to be a live in person debate between you and Mike, who's a Christian apologist. And that is happening on Thursday, the 20th, 20th of November. And the debate topic is who wrote the Gospels? Bart, what can you tell us about this?

[A]

Well, I've debated Mike a number of times not on this topic. And I, you know, among the people I debate, I, I like Mike. I don't like everyone. Mike and I are friends and so, but we disagree on, on a lot of issues when it comes to the New Testament. And so. Well, you know, they're called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Were they written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or how would we know? And I can assure you Mike's going to probably be arguing, yes, they are. And I'm going to say, yeah, what makes you think so? Because I don't think so. And here's why I don't think so. One thing is these guys did not write Greek and so, so it's that kind of thing. So we will both be presenting our cases about what, what we think. And you know, the idea is so people can see both sides and then make a decision. The problem is that I pointed out is that he'll have his fans there and people, you know, follow my stuff will be there and like they're already going to think things. But I hope people approach it with an open mind. Even though Mike and I probably will not be like, the reality is I've, I don't know about Mike. I've thought about this issue since I was 17 and so I, this is, you know, I, so I have reasons for what I think and I'm sure Mike has his reasons.

[B]

This is going to be an in person event. It's taking place in Boston. You can also attend virtually if you can't make it up to Boston. So for details and tickets you can visit bart erman.com boston and we also have a very quick reminder. Bart is going to be recording his earliest Christian heresies course this weekend, that Saturday and Sunday the 8th and 9th of November. So this is your last chance to attend live and participate in the Q and A. You can go to bartlettman.com forward/heresy that's H E R E S Y to sign up. And we are back for more questions about Paul. How did Paul the Apostle convince the already existing apostles, particularly Peter, to accept the authority of his own apostleship? To the extent where Paul rebukes Peter publicly? What is your angle? Assuming that Paul received no detail revelation and no apostle witnessed a resurrected Christ.

[A]

Wait, give me that last part.

[B]

What, what's my, what, what is your, your angle, your explanation? If we assume that Paul didn't receive any revelation and that no one witnessed a resurrected Christ?

[A]

Well, I, I think Paul thought he did see the resurrected Christ. I mean, I, I'm pretty sure about that. I think that Paul believed that he saw Jesus. He doesn't tell us anything about that encounter other than he saw Jesus and he says God revealed his Son to me. So it could mean anything. I mean, it could mean a wide range. It could mean anything. It could mean a wide range of things. It could mean that he had a hallucination. It could mean that he saw somebody in the distance that he assumed was Jesus. It may be a mistaken identity. He may have been dreaming. It may have been Jesus appeared to him. If you're a Christian, you say, well, yeah, Jesus appeared to him. So it could be any range of things. How did he convince the other apostles? I don't know. But my sense is that he insisted he saw him and they believed him and that he, the way he described his experience was comparable to what they themselves were claiming about themselves. And. And they believed him. And so how did he, how did he convince. I don't know. I. We don't know. We don't know. He. The bigger problem for Paul was convincing them that his message about that Gentiles don't have to be Jews to be followers of Jesus. The big, the big struggle was getting them to accept that he says that he did succeed in that. But then later, Peter drew implications about that that Paul didn't draw, about whether it was okay then for Jews and Gentiles to be sharing meals together. Peter thought probably not. Paul thought absolutely yes. And so they did have conflicts over that one.

[B]

At what point historically do the letters of Paul begin to triumph over the supposed words of Jesus? And are they there? Any early writings known that ask the obvious question, essentially, Paul, who are you that didn't walk with Jesus to be telling us what to believe?

[A]

My sense that Christians would, throughout history would never say that Paul triumphed over Jesus, but it is the case, I think that Paul taught that Jesus death and resurrection are brought, but brought salvation. Whereas Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is coming soon and people need to repent of their sins so that God will forgive them. Those are different messages, even though even today people don't realize those are different messages. Jesus did not teach that somebody has to die for sins. The historical Jesus didn't teach that. And so we know, we start finding evidence that Paul's letters are being treated as scriptural authorities as being the word of God. Going back to New Testament times. 2nd Peter 3:16. An author who claims to be Peter almost certainly was not Peter. But this person claiming to be Peter says that his opponents have twisted the meanings of Paul's letters as they do with the rest of the Scriptures. And so he seems to be seeing Paul's letters as scripture, they begin to be quoted as Scripture. And so the idea was that not only did Christ appear to Paul, but that God inspired him to write his letters. And if they're inspired, then they're authoritative. And if you've got authoritative writings of Paul and you have authoritative gospels and you think they're all authoritative, you don't pay that close attention to where the contradictions are. You look at where they're similar and you read them in light of each other and that's what Christians have always done until the modern period where scholars pointed out actually these are different and they're saying different things.

[B]

I believe it is possible that Paul never actually converted. Rather he continued his persecution of Christians by trying to undermine Christianity from within. Has any historian believed that this was the case and do you think that it is plausible?

[A]

I don't know of anybody who said historians said that. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody said it because most things somebody said at some point or another. I don't think it's plausible. No, I don't. I, I think that there's no evidence of it. Every piece of evidence we have points in the other direction. So if we had only one piece of direct, one piece of evidence, it'd be one thing but like everything points the other way. And so I, I, including Paul's writings of course, but including, you know, the book of Acts or references to, I mean, so I think it's pretty clearly no.

[B]

I am reading Stanley Porter's book When Paul Met Jesus in which he argues that it is more probable than not that Paul had a face to face encounter with Jesus during Jesus earthly life. What do you think is the likelihood that Paul met, heard of or had an encounter with Jesus during his lifetime?

[A]

I haven't read Stanley's book. He's a, he's a smart guy, he knows a lot. He's an evangelical scholar. I don't know of any evidence that that's the case. Jesus was ministering in Galilee for his entire ministry until the last week. He spoke Aramaic. He was in the countryside, he was in small villages and hamlets, he wasn't in big cities and he didn't speak Greek. Paul shows no evidence of knowing Aramaic. Paul shows no evidence of having traveled in Israel. And so Paul says nothing about this. The Gospels say nothing about it. The Book of Acts says nothing about it. And so I think that it's an interesting hypothesis, but I, I don't think there, I can't imagine what actual evidence there would be for it.

[B]

Is it possible that for that Paul converted to Christianity and then had a vision of Jesus afterwards?

[A]

Yeah, it's possible. I mean, I don't know what would make you think so, you know all, you know when, when people come up with hypothetical things again I think it's, it's really important to come up with hypotheses to explain history because if you don't have a hypothesis, you can't pursue it to find out. Oh actually that's true. But once you have the hypothesis, it's not a question of just saying, could this have been? I mean, you can't ask. Of course, you should ask that if it's a hypothesis. But in order to believe it's right, you have to find evidence. And I don't know of any evidence of that. And so, and so if somebody has evidence, they have to mount the case and then see whether it holds up or not.

[B]

Thank you. And our final question for today. Is it likely that Paul was a mythical figure who did not exist?

[A]

No. I mean, okay, so we, we have a group of letters that all claim to be written by the same person who, with a consistent writing style, consistent theological views, consistent, consistent perspective on things, ethics, doctrines and such. They're written by somebody. They're claimed to be Paul. This person is known to other authors. He is mentioned by other authors independently of his writings. He is mentioned by authors of the New Testament. His death is known about by, by a Roman somebody living In Rome, around there 95, who speaks about him dying, being martyred. We have, so we have, have, we have extensive references to him and writings apparently by him. And so if somebody thinks he didn't exist, well, what's the evidence he didn't exist? I can't think of any evidence. I know people say this, mythicists sometimes mythicists say this because they, when, when somebody points out that one really good evidence that Jesus existed is that Paul knew his brother and his closest disciple, Peter. And so, like, if Paul knew these people and, you know, and spent time with them, then, you know, if Jesus didn't exist, you'd think they would know. Right? And people say, yeah, well, you know, the deal is that, you know, Paul actually didn't write that letter, you know, or Paul never said that, or Paul didn't exist himself. Well, okay, you know, maybe Abraham Lincoln didn't exist. I mean, I don't know. I mean, how would you make the argument, though? Of course, they got pictures and things, but with how would you make the argument? And so, I don't know. I don't think, I don't think that. I don't think there's really. I think that's a dead end, frankly. And, you know, I think one of the problem with a lot of these kind of hypotheses, I think again, we should propound them and try and find evidence for them. But I think one difficulty is that often they're propounded by people who want to, who have like a reason to want to disprove Christianity. And the way to do that is to say yeah, Paul never really. There was never a Paul. There was never a Jesus. And that's a way of kind of showing that the whole thing is built on myth. And for me, it's not the best approach because you're not going to convince anybody like that who doesn't want to be convinced already. So if your goal really is to show the problems of Christianity, I think it's better to deal with the actual data and the actual information and to show why. Why the actual information we have is problematic rather than than coming up with a hypothesis that most people aren't going to buy.

[B]

Bart, thank you very much. AUDIENCE thank you also for your questions. We're going to be doing another one of these in a couple of months, so if we didn't get to yours, we'll get there eventually. Think you've got Jesus parables all figured out? Think again. These aren't just simplistic, moralistic tales. They're some of the most enigmatic and provocative teachers teachings in all of scripture. But if you're only seeing them through a modern lens, you're missing half the story. Rediscover these stories as they were originally understood in their historical and cultural context with New Testament and Jewish studies scholar Dr. Amy Jill Levine. In her intriguing course, the Parables of Jewish Insights into Gospel Ethics, Humor and Provocation, you'll explore the teachings of Jesus, examining the social, ethical and economic implications that are often overlooked today. If you're ready to dive into the real meaning behind the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and more, this four lecture series will take you deeper than you've ever gone before. Visit barterman.comparables that's P A R A B L E S To learn more or sign up today. And don't forget to use discount code MJ Podcast for a special offer. All right. Our bonus this week is Bart's Books, where Bart gives us a recommendation for an influential book on the New Testament or early Christianity that he thinks we should read. Bart, what are you recommending this week?

[A]

Well, so since we just had a Q and A session on Paul, I thought I'd recommend a book on Paul. There are millions of books written about the Apostle Paul, and many of them are very good. There was a change in the understanding of how to approach Paul in the 1980s, where for almost all of time when people studied Paul, they were really interested in his theology. What were his views about Christ, about salvation, about God, about everything. What were his views? And in the 1980s, there started to be a movement toward what was called Social History of Early Christianity, where people got interested in more kind of sociological issues about like, what Christianity really was. And there's a very important book written by Wayne Meeks, M E E K S that was called the First Urban Christians. And it, it was, it was a book that kind of helped drive the social history question. And the book is, the book does deal somewhat with what Paul's, what Paul's faith beliefs were, but he's interested in other things. What did it be? A Christian community in an urban setting? What, how did, how did the communities come together? Like, just like, you know, actually on the ground? How did Christianity work? How did they, how did they practice their rituals? What do the rituals mean? As kind of, as kind of sim social symbols of something. And how, what, what kind of people were in these churches? What were their economic levels? What were their education levels? What were they, how many people were slaves, how active were women? And so these are, these are kind of issues about like real life Christianity as opposed to the ethereal world of belief. So this book had a huge impact. Wayne Meeks was a professor at Yale University, was one of the really prominent scholars at the end of this, of the 20th century. Brilliant, brilliant man who. This book is very interesting. And so that, that's book I would highly recommend. Wayne Makes the First Urban Christians.

[B]

Thank you very much, Bart. AUDIENCE thank you all for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. If you did, please subscribe to the podcast to make sure you don't miss future episodes. As a reminder, all the details for Bart's upcoming debate with Mike Lacona can be [e-mail] Boston Remember that you can use the the code mjpodcast for a discount on all of Bart's courses over at www.barterman.com. and misquoting Jesus will be back next week. Bart talking about next time.

[A]

Yeah, well, so next time. You know, a few times we've talked about Gnosticism on the podcast and we're going to have a more targeted issue, which is one of the really interesting ones, which is what did, what did Gnostics generally think about Jesus? What, I mean, who was he? And you know, was he God? Was he human? Was he both? Was he two things? Was he what, what was he? And Gnostic had an unusual view that most people will not have heard of. And so we'll get to that.

[B]

Drop by and join us to find out more. Thank you all and goodbye. This has been an episode of Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. We'll be back with a new episode next Tuesday. So please be sure to subscribe to our show for free on your favorite podcast listening app or on Bart Ehrman's YouTube channel so you don't miss out. From Bart Ehrman and myself, Megan Lewis, thank you for joining us.