# What Paul didn't seem to "know" -- Complete list sought. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 20, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997 "2011-09-20T23:01:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/1 "2011-09-20T23:01:59Z")
I have heard it said here and elsewhere that the Epistles of Paul show a “disconnect” with many things presented as both “factual” and important in the Gospels. Of course, the consensus of scholarship is that the timing his writings actually preceded the Gospels. At least, we can say this of those Epistles without authorship dispute. And those are the ones which would be germane to skepticism. So it may well be expected, at least to skeptics, that he wouldn’t “know” certain things he “should have” known. I’m interested in a complete list, if extant, of examples where Paul either apparently disagreed with specific tenets of the 4 Gospels, or apparently would have been surprised to hear the tenets in the first place. I am aware 1 Corinthians 15 presents a list of witnesses of the Resurrection without a single mention of “certain women” or specific ones. This is in stark contrast to the Gospels which all indicate the priority of the grieving women seeing an empty tomb. To those of us with skeptical bent, this indicates that the various traditions incorporated into the 4 gospels came somewhat late, and Paul either had not heard of them at all, or did not credit them. ISTR that Paul never once mentions a “Virgin Birth” of Jesus (sometimes the “Immaculate Conception” of **Mary** is conflated into this term by confusion and ignorance). \*\*\*- The one True (Blue) Jack * * * ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/2 "2011-09-20T23:36:17Z")
Have a look at the works of G. A wells, Professor of German at Birkbeck University. He’s written a number of books on the historicity of Jesus (he doesn’t think Jesis actually existed), and he discusses the textual evidence at great length, including a lengthy discussion of Paul, since his works are the earliest. I don’t think he has a list, but, especially in _The Historical Evidence for Jesus_, he talks about what Paul and the other New Testament writers _do_ say. > **[The Historical Evidence for Jesus: Wells, G. A.: 9780879754297: Amazon.com:...](https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Evidence-Jesus-G-Wells/dp/087975429X)** > > The Historical Evidence for Jesus \[Wells, G. A.\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Historical Evidence for Jesus You’re right that Paul doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth – he does say that Jesus was born of a woman, and if he knew of the Virgin Birth, that would be the place to say it. He also doesn’t name the apostles, although he knows of a group called “the twelve”. Furthermore, he buttresses his arguments with citations from the Old Testament, rather than with the sayings of Jesus, suggesting that he was not aware of most of them. A notable exception is the formula for the Eucharist, which he _does_ quote. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/3 "2011-09-21T12:54:25Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Have a look at the works of G. A wells, Professor of German at Birkbeck University. He’s written a number of books on the historicity of Jesus (he doesn’t think Jesis actually existed), and he discusses the textual evidence at great length, including a lengthy discussion of Paul, since his works are the earliest. I don’t think he has a list, but, especially in _The Historical Evidence for Jesus_, he talks about what Paul and the other New Testament writers _do_ say. > > [The Historical Evidence for Jesus: Wells, G. A.: 9780879754297: Amazon.com: Books](http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Evidence-Jesus-George-Albert/dp/087975429X) > > You’re right that Paul doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth – he does say that Jesus was born of a woman, and if he knew of the Virgin Birth, that would be the place to say it. He also doesn’t name the apostles, although he knows of a group called “the twelve”. Furthermore, he buttresses his arguments with citations from the Old Testament, rather than with the sayings of Jesus, suggesting that he was not aware of most of them. A notable exception is the formula for the Eucharist, which he _does_ quote. Thank you for the recommendation, Cal. BTW, can you recall some place where Paul either lied or said that a lie he told was justified, so that more people would be saved? _ **- Jack** _ ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/4 "2011-09-21T14:05:32Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW, can you recall some place where Paul either lied or said that a lie he told was justified, so that more people would be saved? - Jack Doesn’t ring a bell with me. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/5 "2011-09-21T15:24:57Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > BTW, can you recall some place where Paul either lied or said that a lie he told was justified, so that more people would be saved? _ **- Jack** _ Well in the same paragraph (Gal 1:11-1:24) he says that he learned everything he knows about Christianity via direct revelation, but then says that he was famous for persecuting Christians back during his Jerusalem days, indicating that he knew the religion well enough to persecute it. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/6 "2011-09-21T15:59:31Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well in the same paragraph (Gal 1:11-1:24) he says that he learned everything he knows about Christianity via direct revelation, but then says that he was famous for persecuting Christians back during his Jerusalem days, indicating that he knew the religion well enough to persecute it. That doesn’t mean he knew much about it, or rather that he knew anything true about it. If anything it’s easier to persecute a group that you don’t know much about. Look at all the prejudice against various groups and all the “facts” justifying that persecution. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/7 "2011-09-21T18:37:40Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well in the same paragraph (Gal 1:11-1:24) he says that he learned everything he knows about Christianity via direct revelation, but then says that he was famous for persecuting Christians back during his Jerusalem days, indicating that he knew the religion well enough to persecute it. I’m sure that that was not what i was looking for. There was something about drawing people in through manipulation involving untruths. I’m heading for [the Skeptics Annotated Bible site](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) to see if I can spot something in the margins. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/8 "2011-09-22T05:58:53Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > BTW, can you recall some place where Paul either lied or said that a lie he told was justified, so that more people would be saved? _ **- Jack** _ You may be thinking of Romans 3, where Paul lays out an argument as follows. 1. Is it good to be a Jew, and to keep Jewish law? 2. Yes, because the Jews are God’s chosen people, and the people to whom God first reveals Himself. 3. What if Jews do not keep the Law? Does God cease to be faithful to His covenant with them? 4. No. God’s faithfulness is absolute, not conditional. This is seen in the fact that, despite the Jewish people’s periodic falling-away from or neglect of the Covenant, they remain the vehicle of God’s revelation [because Jesus is born a Jew]. 5. But if the periodic infidelity of the Jewish people mainly serves to highlight the constant fidelity of God, does that make infidelity good? Would be be unjust of God to be angry at infidelity? 6. No. One of God’s essential characteristics is right judgment. He cannot judge infidelity - a wrong - to be right. [Paul is implicitly saying that infidelity is intrinsically objectively wrong and, given that, infidelity cannot be justified simply by showing that it leads to good consequences.] And then to explain the point, Paul provides this parallel (at Romans 3:7-8): \*\*“You might as well say that if my untruthfulness makes God demonstrate his truthfulness, to his greater glory, then I should not be judged to be a sinner at all. In this case, the slanderous report some people are spreading would be true, that we teach that one should do evil that good may come of it. In fact such people are justly condemned.\*\* In other words, Paul says, people do in fact accuse him/his followers/Christians at large of telling lies that good might come, but those people are wrong. He doesn’t give any detail as to the lies he might be accused of telling, and accused of justifying by pointing to good consequences, but it’s not hard to hazard a guess. There’s evidence elsewhere that Paul could blow hot and cold on the necessity for followers of Jesus to observe Jewish dietary and other laws, depending on who he was talking to. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/9 "2011-09-22T06:06:44Z")
On the wider question, there’s lots of things that Paul doesn’t say about Jesus. It doesn’t necessarily follow that he doesn’t know them, though. In fact he tells us virtually nothing about the person, circumstances or life of Jesus. Pretty much everything he says on this subject can be summed up as follows: - Jesus came from Nazareth. - He had a brother called James. - He was crucified. - He rose. - That’s about it, really That’s obviously consistent with his knowing nothing more, and it is entirely possible that he did know little or nothing more than that. He wasn’t around during the public ministry of Jesus, and he doesn’t appear to have been close - to put it no higher - to the more prominent of the people who were. But it’s also consistent with the idea that he’s not terribly interested in these topics, and chooses to write on other topics. Of course, part of the reason for his not being interested in writing about these topics could be that he doesn’t know very much about them or, at any rate, that others know more about them, and can speak with more authority. But I don’t think we can assume that the limit of his knowledge is represented by what he put into his letters. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/10 "2011-09-22T15:34:59Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > He wasn’t around during the public ministry of Jesus, and he doesn’t appear to have been close - to put it no higher - to the more prominent of the people who were. He did evidently meet and know several of the Apostles, but he wasn’t terribly close to them as far as we know. > [@](#): > > Of course, part of the reason for his not being interested in writing about these topics could be that he doesn’t know very much about them or, at any rate, that others know more about them, and can speak with more authority. But I don’t think we can assume that the limit of his knowledge is represented by what he put into his letters. This is probably the case. We should remember that his letters were practical and theological advice, not generally instruction per se. He did that in person across the Roman Empire. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/11 "2011-09-22T16:08:35Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > I’m sure that that was not what i was looking for. There was something about drawing people in through manipulation involving untruths. > > I’m heading for [the Skeptics Annotated Bible site](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) to see if I can spot something in the margins. I don’t think it’s an untruth, but you might be thinking about the “unknown god” speech given in Athens (Acts 17:23 is where it starts). Paul finds a statute to an unknown god, then delivers a sermon saying, in effect, “My God is your unknown god, and now I’m here to tell you about him.” Wikipedia has a good page about this, describing how Paul’s speech played to the existing beliefs and conventions of the Greeks. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/12 "2011-09-22T16:30:26Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > You may be thinking of Romans 3, where Paul lays out an argument as follows. > > 1. Is it good to be a Jew, and to keep Jewish law? > > 2. Yes, because the Jews are God’s chosen people, and the people to whom God first reveals Himself. > > 3. What if Jews do not keep the Law? Does God cease to be faithful to His covenant with them? > > 4. No. God’s faithfulness is absolute, not conditional. This is seen in the fact that, despite the Jewish people’s periodic falling-away from or neglect of the Covenant, they remain the vehicle of God’s revelation [because Jesus is born a Jew]. > > 5. But if the periodic infidelity of the Jewish people mainly serves to highlight the constant fidelity of God, does that make infidelity good? Would be be unjust of God to be angry at infidelity? > > 6. No. One of God’s essential characteristics is right judgment. He cannot judge infidelity - a wrong - to be right. [Paul is implicitly saying that infidelity is intrinsically objectively wrong and, given that, infidelity cannot be justified simply by showing that it leads to good consequences.] > > And then to explain the point, Paul provides this parallel (at Romans 3:7-8): > > \*\*“You might as well say that if my untruthfulness makes God demonstrate his truthfulness, to his greater glory, then I should not be judged to be a sinner at all. > > In this case, the slanderous report some people are spreading would be true, that we teach that one should do evil that good may come of it. In fact such people are justly condemned.\*\* > > In other words, Paul says, people do in fact accuse him/his followers/Christians at large of telling lies that good might come, but those people are wrong. > > He doesn’t give any detail as to the lies he might be accused of telling, and accused of justifying by pointing to good consequences, but it’s not hard to hazard a guess. There’s evidence elsewhere that Paul could blow hot and cold on the necessity for followers of Jesus to observe Jewish dietary and other laws, depending on who he was talking to. Thank you for an especially good post. I had just recently come across Romans 3:7, together with some interesting observations about what Paul is quoted on in Acts, upon some online word searches. _ **- Jack** _ ---
**Author:** ![cjepson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9adbd/32.png) [@cjepson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cjepson)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/13 "2011-09-22T17:57:37Z")
He didn’t know why she had to go. (She wouldn’t say.) ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/14 "2011-09-22T18:10:43Z")
> [@cjepson](#): > > He didn’t know why she had to go. (She wouldn’t say.) That joke is so yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/15 "2011-09-22T18:16:40Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Have a look at the works of G. A wells, Professor of German at Birkbeck University. He’s written a number of books on the historicity of Jesus (he doesn’t think Jesis actually existed), and he discusses the textual evidence at great length, including a lengthy discussion of Paul, since his works are the earliest. I don’t think he has a list, but, especially in _The Historical Evidence for Jesus_, he talks about what Paul and the other New Testament writers _do_ say. I think that G.A. Wells has changed his position with regards to Jesus’s historicity. > [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > Thank you for the recommendation, Cal. > > BTW, can you recall some place where Paul either lied or said that a lie he told was justified, so that more people would be saved? _ **- Jack** _ I’m not sure that Paul said that, I think that people often have that impression of Eusebius - who was an early church leader. I haven’t done any extensive research so I can’t really comment on whether this is true or not, however, [Wiki notes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius#Church_History): > [@](#): > > In the 5th century, the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus described Eusebius as writing for “rhetorical finish” and for the “praises of the Emperor” rather than the “accurate statement of facts.”[43] The methods of Eusebius were criticised by Edward Gibbon in the 18th century.[44] In the 19th century Jacob Burckhardt viewed Eusebius as ‘a liar’, the “first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”[44] Ramsay MacMullen in the 20th century regarded Eusebius’s work as representative of early Christian historical accounts in which “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed…, matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence.”[45] As a consequence this kind of methodology in MacMullens view has distorted modern attempts, (e.g. Harnack, Nock, and Brady), to describe how the Church grew in the early centuries.[46] Arnaldo Momigliano wrote that in Eusebius’s mind "chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda "[47] Drake in the 21st century treats Eusebius as working within the framework of a “totalizing discourse” that viewed the world from a single point of view that excluded anything he thought inappropriate.[48] > > In his Church History or Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote the first surviving history of the Christian Church as a chronologically-ordered account, based on earlier sources complete from the period of the Apostles to his own epoch. This “historical account” has much of Eusebius’s own theological agenda intertwined with the factual text including his view on God, Christ, the Scriptures, the Jews, the church, pagans, and heretics. At the very beginning of the volumes, Eusebius makes a statement about Jesus being God and man along with other ideas about his preexistence. This is a very strange way to begin a historical narrative proving that Eusebius was attempting to push his own ideas regarding the church into a text because it would later be considered fact. He wrote that Matthew composed the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The time scheme correlated the history with the reigns of the Roman Emperors, and the scope was broad. Included were the bishops and other teachers of the Church; Christian relations with the Jews and those deemed heretical; and the Christian martyrs. Like many other Christian writers, he also claims that heresy began with Simon Magus, a figure whom receives mention in Acts 8:9-13 for being a magician from the city of Samaria. However, Eusebius takes it a step further saying that Simon had demonic qualities and performed black magic in order to convince others he was divine. Overall, Eusebius took stories from Acts, Justin, and Iraneous to portray heretical teachers in order to gain an understanding of heresey and its roots. I have a dim recollection of Eusebius writing something that suggested lying for the faith was a good thing - but take that with a grain of salt. This could be based on Gibbon’s interpretation of Eusebius based on a chapter heading as opposed to the actual text though (see [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius#Assessment) for details). ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/16 "2011-09-22T18:20:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I think that G.A. Wells has changed his position with regards to Jesus’s historicity. He now admits that _someone_ wrote down the quotations, but he still doesn’t think that a historical Jesus anything like the character generally accepted existed. He believes that the events og Jesus’ minstry and the Passion didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/17 "2011-09-22T18:55:43Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > He now admits that _someone_ wrote down the quotations, but he still doesn’t think that a historical Jesus anything like the character generally accepted existed. He believes that the events og Jesus’ minstry and the Passion didn’t happen. Ah, okay. I had thought it had changed, but I’m not really all that familiar with him. I’m more familiar with the Doherty strain of Jesus Mythicism. ---
**Author:** ![cjepson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a9adbd/32.png) [@cjepson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cjepson)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/18 "2011-09-22T18:57:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > That joke is so yesterday. Oh, I believe you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/19 "2011-09-26T00:25:01Z")
Okay, I’ve just come across something from an unusual source, “The Gospel According to Peanuts” by Robert L. Short. It was in the first chapter, and the book “surfaced” a short time after moving. It’s 1st Corinthians, 9:20-22. Here is the KJVersion of it: 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. This seems to be exactly what I’ve been looking for. > [@CalMeacham](#): > > He now admits that _someone_ wrote down the quotations, but he still doesn’t think that a historical Jesus anything like the character generally accepted existed. He believes that the events **og** Jesus’ minstry and the Passion didn’t happen. (emphasis added) Now, Cal, I didn’t say you could take my name in vain! 😉 _ **- The One, True Og** _ ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997/20 "2011-09-26T02:11:02Z")
Well, you were looking for an example of Paul “lying”. It seems a bit harsh to characterize Paul’s stance of being “all things to all men” as lying when Paul clearly drew a distinction between being all things to all men (good; 1 Cor 9) and lying (bad; Rom 3, 1 Tim 1, Col 3 and elsewhere). Whatever Paul means by “being all things to all men”, I doubt that he means lying; he describes himself as, despite being free, having become “a slave to everyone”. In other words, he tries to be the apostle that people need him to be. We’d need to know a bit more about how that played out in practice before we could accuse him of dishonesty. It’s fairly clear from the passage in Romans that I quoted earlier that he was accused of dishonesty, but also that he felt the accusation was unjust. I don’t think we should assume that his accusers were correct. And, if the issue is not whether Paul was dishonest but whether he defended dishonesty as being justified by the greater good, the answer has to be “no”. Paul defended his conduct in Rom 3 by saying that it wasn’t dishonest, not that its dishonestly was justified by the outcome. In 1 Cor 9 he doesn’t seem to me to be defensive at all. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-paul-didnt-seem-to-know-complete-list-sought/596997.md?page=2)