I’m posting here instead of GQ because of the religious nature of the question, but I’m not really looking for a debate or snarky “It’s all made up anyway” answers. OK?
I have some knowledge of the New Testament, with some fairly large holes in that knowledge. I think, other than the Gospels, big swaths of the NT are written by Paul and many of the current rules and guidelines come from letters from Paul. Is it ever explained where he came up with the rules? Was he supposed to have a line into J.C. or the Holy Spirit or something? Or, was it just his interpretation of the Gospels?
As far as I can tell, much of Christianity is really based on Paul’s letters and teaching. He was the driving force in spreading it to the Gentiles and expanding the religion. What was his authority?
I don’t think this is the best place to ask such a question, but I’m happy to have a go.
Paul didn’t need anyone’s authority to develop a new religion out of the Jesus cult which had a minor following amongst Jews in Palestine at the time. He just did it. I think the gospels were written later, influenced by Paul’s teaching rather than the other way around.
According to Paul himself, he got all his information from personal revelation and “not from any man.”
He also talks about having had some contact (if not much agreement with) the apostolic movement in Jerusalem (specifically with Peter, James and John, who he calls the “pillars”), and he also makes refernce to “the Twelve,” which indicates that there was at least some kind of pre-Pauline Jesus movement, though exactly what that group believed is not exactly known, and not well detailed by Paul. Whatever they believed, Paul’s own letters indicate that they stilll thought of themselves as Jews beholden to the law, rather than as a separate religion.
It’s probably worthwhile to note that Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, and that much of what the Gospels say about Jesus is absent from the Pauline corpus. Paul does not reference, for instance, the Virgin Birth, the empty tomb or any miracles besides the resurrection (and even his conception of the resurrection is ambiguous, and more suggestive of a spiritual event than a literal, physical one).
Well, he had at least one vision of Jesus, in which he was given his basic marching orders, oh, and struck blind. Then Ananias came and healed his sight. So Ananias may have been a sorce of information.
But he had been persecuting Christians as his day job for awhile at that point; so he would have had some familiarity with their basic stories and procedures.
That story is found in Acts, not by Paul himself, so it can’t be taken as a primary claim or as especially historically reliable.
It’s rather vague as to what he was really “persecuting.” Yes, the evidence suggests that some kind of sect or movement preceded Paul, but he doesn’t tell us much about what they believed and he insists that HIS gospel was received directly from Jesus:
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
(Gal 1:11,12)
So whatever he knew of them, he insists they didn’t teach him anything.
Ah, exactly the info I was looking for. OK, so he claims it came from Jesus through revelation.
What was confusing me was that it seemed like the laws in the Old Testament came directly from God to Moses and the stuff in the Gospels was straight from the Horse’s mouth, as it were, but I couldn’t figure out where Paul’s marching orders came from.
In the biographical sense, Paul tells us practically nothing about Jesus; just that
He came from Nazareth
He had a brother called James
He was crucified
Um, that’s about it, really.
It’s possible that Paul didn’t think that biographical details were important or interesting, or that he just didn’t know many of them.
As Diogenes points out, he does indeed say that the gospel he preaches was “received by revelation from Jesus Christ”, but he makes no explicit claim to direct, personal, private revelation. I read his claim here as being about the authority for the gospel he preaches, not about the mechanics of revelation, and the involvement of intermediaries is not inconsistent with divine revelation.
It’s true that the earliest NT writing we have are from Paul, but it’s not true that everything Paul wrote predates all of the canonical Gospels. Nor is it necessarily the case that the gospel writers were familiar with such of Paul’s writings as had been composed by the time they were writing.
At times Paul distinguishes explicitly between what Jesus taught and what he himself is adding by way of commentary or expansion, e.g in what he says about divorce in 1 Cor 7. Such a distinction makes little sense if Paul believed, or cynically asserted, that his own insights were miraculously inspired by Jesus. I think here Paul, and quite possibly Paul’s audience, are aware of an existing tradition about teaching by Jesus on the subject of divorce – the same tradition that gave rise Matt 5, Mk 10 and Luke 16.
So, how did Paul know anything about what Jesus taught, given that he wasn’t a disciple during the life of Jesus? The same way anyone else did – he learnt it from the nascent Christian community, which at the time did include many first-hand witnesses.
Diogenes questions the reliability of the story of Paul’s conversion in Acts. Fair enough. But in so far as the story point to Paul being instruceted by Ananias and the Christian community at Damascus, and this being a source of his understanding as to what Jesus taught, it strikes me as far more plausible that the idea that he simply made it up out of whole cloth, and credulously assumed or cynically asserted that he was directly divinely inspired to do so. Apart from anything else, there were far too many first-hand witnesses to the preaching of Jesus still around for this strategy to have succeeded.
I gave the quote from Galatians. The exact nature of Paul’s self-proclaimed revelation is not explained in his letters, so I can’t elaborate on the mechanics of it. Paul evidently thought Jesus talked to him, and he claimed that was the source of his “gospel.”
These seem like contradictory statements. You’re saying he learned it by someone else’s personal revalation? In 1 Corinthians, Paul does explicitly say thatJesus appeared directly to him.
Paul does not claim there were any intermediaries. He claims Jesus appeared directly to him, and he also says that he never even met an apostle until after his personal “revelation.”
Yes it is. The entirety of what is accepted as the authentic Pauline corpus was written ~10 years before the first Gospel. Paul was dead before any of the Canonical gospels existed.
As evidenced by the fact that some of what the gospels say contradict Paul.
How so? Paul says he got his gospel directly from Jesus, but that doesn’t have to mean he can’t express personal opinions about things.
I don’t think there’s any real evidence of that.
Paul doesn’t say anything about what Jesus taught. All he cared about was the crucifixion and resurrection, and he claims he got that info from personal revelation, nand explicitly denies that he “learned it from any man.” Paul says virtually nothing about Jesus’ actual ministry or teachings – he’s more concerned with what he perceives as Jesus’ identity than his teachings – and he never even quotes Jesus except to reference a (possibly interpolated) eucharistic formula.
I’m not alleging anything cynical. I’m pointing out that Paul himself claimed that he got his info directly from Jesus and “not from any man.” I think he sincerely believed that.
What is your basis for this claim? Paul was teaching outside of Palestine, mostly to gentiles and mostly to people who had never heard of Jesus.
Even inside Palestine, there is no reason to believe that Jesus was anything more than one obscure preacher among many, and even if Paul had ever encountered someone in his audience who had ever heard the living Jesus speak, so what? What was Paul saying that said person would dispute? Paul said “Jesus appeared to me after he appeared to the apostles.” So what? Why would a first hand witness of Jesus have a problem with that?
Since Paul didn’t mention finding some golden tablets somewhere with writing already on them, it’s pretty fair to say his letters were “made up” in the sense that he assigned himself personal authorship. It’s true, I’d say, that with the exception of the Gospels and Revelation (and, perhaps, Colossians ((? Paul’s)), James and Hebrews), most of the meat of the NT theology is Pauline in origin.
Paul’s “authority” rested on his personal comfort level that he had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
*“For I would have you know that the gospel which was preached by me, is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” *(Galatians 1:11-12) e.g.
“For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” ( 1 Thessalonians 2:13) e.g.
There’s a pretty fine distinction between a pretense that God is dictating words, inspiring the content, or some sort of loose precipitator of a general message. Which of those you think resulted in Paul’s writing sort of depends on your theological position on how the Bible came to be.
Conservatives frequently argue that God would not have allowed any mistakes and the Bible must be pretty much word for word God’s exact message; at the other end of the spectrum are some pretty liberal notions that it’s more or less a reflection of God’s interactions in the world–but nothing close to absolute Truth word for word.
I think it’s pretty clear Paul thought his message was more than just inspired in a general sense; the tenor of his writings suggests a comfort level with fairly authoritative positions that reflect a confidence he was getting the scoop straight from the chief. On the other hand, attendance at any modern day Christian church with a strong pastor would expose you to a message given with equal confidence about its veracity.
I rather doubt Paul would be comfortable that his writings eventually became absolute verbatim Gospel for the church through the ages, and I suspect he’d say he wrote as a man with human failings and human limitations. Just my opinion.
A larger question, which you did not ask, but which goes to the heart of the NT authority is: Why is the NT the NT? It turns out the answer to that question is that tradition, plus the occasional convention, decided that Paul’s (and a few other’s) works should assume a place in the NT canon.
There were also a handful of epistles written by others (usually referred to by the name of their author, such as the First Letter of John), and Acts seems to have been written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. Or are you saying that those other writings don’t have as much theology in them?
I think he was saying they reflect Paul’s particular Christology and are from the theological branch which originated with him, as opposed to say, Gnostic or Ebionite theologies. The Christian theological branch that “won” and essentially became accepted as orthodox was Pauline, and most of the epistles reflect, or at least don’t deeply contradict Paul’s particular movement.
Yes, to the last question. I don’t have a particular study in mind, nor any sort of quantitative evidence, but for the most part it seems to me the grand Christian themes are mostly from the Pauline epistles, with the exceptions I mentioned. That is to say, the extension of Christian theologic constructs beyond a belief in the historic narrative was more influenced by Paul than any other single author.
The gospels and Acts tend more toward historic narrative; Revelation is in kind of a nutty eschatalogical category all its own, and the other non-Pauline books (Colossians ((disputed, but prob not Paul)), Hebrews and James excepted) are sort of minor, theologically speaking. I’d say James is minor theology too, except that it generates such a marked contrast to Paul’s notion that faith and grace are paramount to works…I agree with Luther that it does not belong with the rest of the NT.