Granted, Paul never met Jesus “in the flesh.”
He never claimed to.
Yet Paul’s uncontested letters (-1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans) offer us a first-person glimpse at what faith in Christ meant before the destruction of the Temple and before the church was dominated by Gentiles.
Paul is the lone New Testament author whose identity is not in doubt.
Although we cannot date his letters as exactly as we would like, there is no serious doubt that he wrote the bulk of them during the 50s and that he died in the early 60s before the beginning of the war that climaxed with the destruction of the Temple (70).
If one wants to see “first-generation Christianity,” before it went “Roman” or “Orthodox,” there is no better source for it than the letters of Paul.
Yet many scholars who are interested in Jesus and early Christianity pay almost no attention to Paul but instead focus on the Four Gospels, which post-date at least some of Paul’s letters (and by most accounts post-date *all* of Paul’s letters).
I think that is a mistake.
What do you think?
posted by:
|
Boca Raton
|
-
Re: Paul and Jesus
Wed, April 9, 2008 - 1:02 PMOn this matter, what comes to mind is this:
"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
~ Carl Sagan, in a letter to Ken Schei -
-
Re: Paul and Jesus
Thu, April 10, 2008 - 8:20 AMSagan misrepresents what Jefferson did, for Jefferson removed much from the Gospels, which Paul had no hand in writing.
It's actually easy to excise Paul from the NT: remove his letters. That leaves the four gospels, Acts, the Catholic epistles, and Revelation (plus the letters attributed to Paul that one does not believe Paul himself wrote). -
-
Re: Paul and Jesus
Thu, April 17, 2008 - 11:06 AMTrue, but the influence of Paul is deep indeed in the crafting of the traditions of modern day Christianity... -
-
Re: Paul and Jesus
Thu, April 17, 2008 - 11:40 AMO, yes, Paul is incredibly influential. No question about that.
He is also perhaps the *earliest* Christian writer we have. (At least, a few of his letters are dated as the earliest documents in the NT.) So I'm disinclined to the view that Paul *changed* the gospel. Indeed, it seems that Paul wrote much before any of the Gospels were written.
-
-
-
-
Re: Paul and Jesus
Thu, April 17, 2008 - 11:55 AMThere was some tension between Paul and the Jerusalem Church in the 1st century. How significant that tension was is the subject of debate. It runs the spectrum from Pauline theology being totally foreign to the teachings of Jesus to a disagreement over the role of works. There is some evidence that Paul was from the Herodian family and part of a tradition of wandering evangelists. Those evangelists were not always known for their "orthodoxy" - if you'll pardon the anachronism. Being educated and possibly royal may have given him more of an influence. That said, I tend to think the difference between the practical aspects of Paul's theology and Jesus' teachings are overblown, though I do think he introduced the orthodox framework for soteriology.
