Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always think it is important to note here that Paul’s letters the earliest documents we have from Christians. And the first written explicit explanation of the gospel of Jesus is in 1 Cor 15 (The earliest Gospel is Mark, written in 70 and 1 Cor is written in the 50’s). So, “did Paul hijack Christianity?”There is no way of knowing, because what we have all was written after him.
Like him or hate him, Christianity likely wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Paul. Thus, interpreters must reckon with him.
A lot of the perceptions about Paul being narcissistic, manipulative, a jerk, and all that kind of thing are usually reading Paul with modern and western eyes. Those things we perceive as manipulative or selfish bloviating or whatever are writing practices that are more reflective of ancient rhetoric and style, and not really reflective of someone’s character. In other words, it would be odd if Paul didn’t write the ways that he did. Similar to the way this Reddit has community guidelines, Paul wrote as he was expected to write.
If you’re wanting to engage him academically, there is loads to read. An introduction to Paul would be very helpful.
These books will introduce you to the main players in Paul scholarship:
[How to Read Paul](https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Paul-Introduction-Theology/dp/1506471447/ref=pd_aw_sim_m_sccl_2/147-0212908-3100648?psc=1&pf_rd_p=da34e2ab-0a26-45ab-822b-257c30932778&pf_rd_r=MQWNEACVSM776SADEZPV&pd_rd_wg=nU5ek&pd_rd_w=VZ11U&content-id=amzn1.sym.da34e2ab-0a26-45ab-822b-257c30932778&pd_rd_r=79e36897-8717-4cc6-aebc-4ef000fd3100&pd_rd_i=1506471447&psc=1)
[Navigating Paul](https://www.amazon.com/Navigating-Paul-Introduction-Theological-Concepts-ebook/dp/B00935IMXK)
[Perspectives on Paul](https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Paul-Views-Scot-McKnight/dp/1540960757/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=1HO566F5MRV20&keywords=perspectives+on+Paul&qid=1705979114&sprefix=perspectives+on+paul%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1)
[Paul’s Gospel, Race, Empire, Ethnicity](https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Gospel-Empire-Race-Ethnicity/dp/1666731870)
[Practicing with Paul](https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07C8BWKBZ/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=)
[The power of the word](https://www.amazon.com/Power-Word-Scripture-Rhetoric-Empire/dp/0800638344/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=14JBO8T25KAHW&keywords=the+power+of+the+word+elisabeth+schussler&qid=1705980472&sprefix=the+power+of+the+word+elizabeth+schussler%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1)
The most critical of Paul is likely the last book in this list. Less an introduction to Paul, and more an introduction to Paul and feminist criticism. That said, Schüssler Fiorenza is excellent, dense though, but I had to include her here.
If I was going to tell you what book to start with, it would likely be one of the first two. They both would intro you to Paul scholarship well. Then the others in any order.
> n other words, it would be odd if Paul didn’t write the ways that he did. Similar to the way this Reddit has community guidelines, Paul wrote as he was expected to write.
>
>
This is interesting - is there a 'classic example' of this, where Paul seems like he's being a blow-hard (for lack of a better term) but in fact it's a convention he's utilizing?
Great question.
There are many examples of Paul’s language matching rhetorical and stylistic expectations. But, one that is particularly “blow-hard”esc is Gal 3:1, “oh, you foolish Galatians.” H.D. Betz, the scholar who generated a lot of research on Paul and ancient rhetoric writes about this phrase, “this insult, however, should not be taken too seriously. Such addresses were commonplace among the diatribe preachers in Paul’s day” (Betz, Galatians, 130). The diatribe being a common rhetorical form used in speeches by philosophers, rhetoricians, politicians, and more. Comparing Paul to the Stoic and Cynic diatribes was actually the topic of Roudolf Bultmann’s dissertation in the early 1900’s, needless to say, scholars have been studying this for a very long time.
Continuing on in Gal 3:1, Paul writes, “who has bewitched you?” Betz writes, “the following question is ironic or even sarcastic … a usage common at least since Plato. Its purpose was to characterize opponents and their sophistic strategies. … One of the goals of the ancient orator was to deliver his speech so vividly and impressively that his listeners imagined the matter to have happened right before their eyes” (131). Betz cites many ancient sources here, Plato, Demosthenes, Philo, and I could go on. The point of this kind of rhetoric is to make the discourse “vivid,” a technical term in style and rhetoric, where the writer or speaker dramatizes the discourse to give it vivaciousness and drama. This is like today in movies how people don’t talk like people really talk in reality, like how in a comedy movie there are quips and come backs that few would ever say in reality. Or in a musical where a character breaks into song. Or when a Romcom has banter that is waaay to cheesy. Paul is writing in a way that is larger than life because the literary genre expects it.
So, Paul uses this kind of harsh speech not because he is a jerk, but because he is writing with style and panache.
If you want to learn more about rhetoric and the NT, I would recommend this as a intro to the topic [New Testament Rhetoric](https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Rhetoric-Second-Introductory/dp/1532689683), by Witherington and Meyers.
Actually, a perfect way of describing Paul’s letter writing is the letter writing scene from [A Knights Tale](https://youtu.be/mXz39lQAEmY?si=VIJBib26dOvuHrhL). There is an author, writing with a hive mind of people, and he writes the best thing he could ever imagine alongside others (which Paul definitely did). And their letter is so audacious and fantastic, it reads like poetry. While Paul doesn’t always read like poetry, or Chaucer, his letters fit literary expectations, and it is similarly larger than life at times.
Thank you this is fascinating.
It makes me wonder who Paul's peers actually were at the time. He's clearly highly educated.
Who were the elite Jewish people in the Roman Empire at the turn of the millennium, and how did Paul fit into that world?
And how did they fit into the larger non-jewish Roman elite world?
Your questions are great ones, but would require quite a bit of typing, haha. If I was going to recommend a book on how Paul fit in the world as an educated person, it would be the book mentioned above about NT Rhetoric by Witherington.
And, the book listed above on “Perspectives on Paul” will have chapters about Paul and Judaism that will explain how he fits in the world as a second temple Jew.
This book would also be a good one to consider: [Jesus is Lord Caesar is Not](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lord-Caesar-Not-Evaluating-ebook/dp/B00C7UKJ8E/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=3VSS2VMPOYBFG&keywords=Jesus+is+Lord+Caesar+is+Not&qid=1706060614&sprefix=jesus+is+lord+caesar+is+not%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-1). It’s about more than Paul, but it will frame how second temple Jews who followed Jesus existed amid imperial oppression.
When I think of Paul being a blowhard, these aren't the things I think of. I think more of his humble bragging. He casts himself as the most humble of all the servants of god, but he does it in this "Oh, I'm actually super awesome in my humble way."
Yeah, the authentic Pauline letters are much more palatable, when it comes to women (these would be discussed in an introduction to Paul). I have a two part video series on women and Paul’s letters. I left out the whole idea of disputed Pauline letters because saying Paul didn’t write certain letters doesn’t really stop people from using them to construct theology. That said, it certainly informs the discussion. See the videos [here](https://youtu.be/62zxwzazYYE?si=4Gxr33lpEdpgojwu).
This website is curated by the Society of Biblical Literature, which is an academic organization that basically every Bible scholar is a member of, myself included. So, you can trust any article on here to be legit scholarship.
Paul and Authorship[https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/paul-and-authorship/](https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/paul-and-authorship/)
[This video has a screenshot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-blVgAyOW0) in it that gives an idea of the scholarly consensus, though McClellan admits that the conference where this was conducted has a slightly conservative bias.
“real scholars” is an interesting description. Those are indeed NT scholars. That said, anyone who has taken a decent intro to NT class knows about the disputed letters. That’s very old news in NT scholarship. So much so that no one even really debates it anymore. So, discussing the disputed Pauline letters is hardly a credential for being a “real scholar.” Haha
>Those are indeed NT scholars, who has no training in NT at all
Except Carrier
>that no one even really debates it anymor
Don't know, there's been some discussion about 2 Timothy being authentic.
Yeah, placing Carrier alongside Goodacre and Ehrman is really interesting. I would agree that Carrier is definitely in a different category than the other two. But because he has a PhD in ancient history, and is published in biblical studies, he is still categorically an NT scholar.
And Bible scholars are always going to debate things. But what I am saying is that everyone is well aware of the debate and its legitimacy. So much so that the argument is old and tired. Commentaries shrug it off, articles just put it in a passing footnote, and so on. It’s not a centered debate, say like how Paul understands the Law, or something like that.
Is it possible that the texts likely dating after Paul are at least partly independent of him? I am no scholar, but I have seen it here said that Paul's Christology is markedly higher than the Christology of Mark (and the other Synoptics? Even Luke), which from my laymen's eyes, could reflect that the author of Mark was theologically independent of Paul, no? Or the Johannine canon reflecting an even higher Christology than Paul, and seemingly being surprisingly similar to the Qumran community? Admittedly, iirc, there is evidence that Mark knows of the Pauline epistles, but would that necessarily make Mark dependent on Paul? Could he be using the Pauline canon to express parts where he agrees with Paul, but still feels free to disagree and write positions independent of Paul?
All great questions. You will find answers in this book. [Jesus Paul and the Gospels](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Paul-Gospels-James-Dunn/dp/080286645X), by James Dunn.
To give you a short answer, I don’t think the gospel authors are dependent on Paul. But they are likely aware of Paul. The author of Luke-Acts was also potentially a ministry companion of Paul’s. So, those texts a definitely aware of Paul. It’s more like they all exist in the same theological movement with differences and overlap between them. So, there are moments where the gospels agree with Paul, moments where they differ, and so on.
>Those things we perceive as manipulative or selfish bloviating or whatever are writing practices that are more reflective of ancient rhetoric and style, and not really reflective of someone’s character.
Can you explain? What's the scholarship behind this?
So, this is where Paul's tendency to claim he is better than everyone else is actually rhetoric? I mean, if the perceived faults of Paul are just standard rhetoric, why don't we think more ancients were blow hards etc?
I don’t know why people don’t recognize this in others, but I do know that most people haven’t read ancient discourses on rhetoric and style, nor have many read ancients writing about themselves outside of the Bible (In fact, loads of NT scholars haven’t, and it often shows in their research). So, when people talk or write about themselves, it is not uncommon to see audacious writing.
For example, here is what Seneca reports Emperor Nero says,
Have I of all mortals found favour with Heaven and been chosen to serve on earth as vicar of the gods? I am the arbiter of life and death for the nations; it rests in my power what each man’s lot … all those many thousands of swords which my peace restrains will be drawn at my nod; what nations shall be utterly destroyed, which banished, which shall receive the gift of liberty (libertatem dari), which have it taken from them, what kings shall become slaves and whose heads shall be crowned with royal honour, what cities shall fall
and which shall rise—this it is mine to decree. With all things thus at my disposal, … a dread but all too common use of great and lordly power. With me the
sword is hidden, nay, is sheathed; … sternness I keep hidden, but mercy ever ready at hand. I so hold guard over myself as though I were about to render an account to those laws which I have summoned from decay and darkness into the light of day (ex situ ac
tenebris in lucem ). (1.2–4 [Basore, LCL])
Nero here thinks very highly of himself. He sounds like a jerk and speaks of himself audacious in ways that no one would ever do today. The dude controls the light and darkness. lol. But, this is the expectation.
Similar here is how Philo describes Caesar Augustus.
Again, consider him who in all the virtues transcended human nature (φύσιν ὑπερβαλὼν
ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς ἀρεταῖς), who on account of the vastness of his imperial sovereignty as
well as nobility of character was the first to bear the name of the August or Venerable, a
title received not through lineal succession as a portion of its heritage but because he
himself became the source of the veneration which was received also by those who
followed him (ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸς γενόµενος ἀρχὴ σεβασµοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἔπειτα); … the great
regions which divide the habitable world, Europe and Asia, were contending with each
other for sovereign power … the whole human race exhausted by mutual slaughter was on the verge of utter destruction (ταῖς ἀλληλοκτονίαις εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἀφανισθῆναι), had
it not been for one man and leader (ἄνδρα καὶ ἡγεµόνα) Augustus whom men fitly call
the averter of evil (ἀλεξίκακον). This is the Caesar who calmed the torrential storms on
every side (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Καῖσαρ ὁ τοὺς καταρράξαντας πανταχόθι χειµῶνας εὐδιάσας),
who healed the pestilences common to Greeks and barbarians (ὁ τὰς κοινὰς νόσους
Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων) … This is he who not only loosed but broke the chains which
had shackled and pressed so hard on the habitable world (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὰ δεσµά, οἷς
κατέζευκτο καὶ ἐπεπίεστο ἡ οἰκουµένη, παραλύσας). This is he who exterminated wars
(οὗτος ὁ καὶ φανεροὺς καὶ ἀφανεῖς πολέµους) … This is he who reclaimed every state to
liberty (οὗτος ὁ τὰς πόλεις ἁπάσας εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἐξελόµενος), who led disorder into
order (ὁ τὴν ἀταξίαν εἰς τάξιν ἀγαγών) … the guardian of the peace (ὁ εἰρηνοφύλαξ).
(Philo, Legat. 143–47 [Colson, LCL]; emphasis added)
In both these instances, these texts present people in audacious ways, and this is seen as normal and expected in the ancient world. These are just two examples of ancients presenting themselves or others as “better than everyone else,” and those were just the first two to come to mind because they were fresh in my research about a completely different topic. In other words, this is common.
There are certainly many ways people can critique Paul, no doubt, but we have to be sure we situate his discourses in their historical and literary context first. There are whole discourses on how to write letters, how to write speeches, how to make a narrative like real life and more. Paul and others conform to these genre expectations all the time.
If this is something that interests you, I would recommend checking out Witherington’s book cited in my previous linked post.
It's more probable that Christianity hijacked Paul.
We cannot help but read into Paul what we know from later writings without knowing the validity of such an action. At the same time post-Pauline letters have been attributed to Paul, Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastorals, 2 Thes. Even parts of those letters we consider genuine were not written by Paul.
(Did Paul, who argued vigorously for the one gospel in Gal 1, really talk of two gospels in Gal 2:7, one to the circumcised and another to the uncircumcised? Or is Gal 2:7-8 an orthodox addition, noting that while Paul uses the name Cephas elsewhere, the best manuscripts show only here is it Peter.)
J.C. O'Neill wrote an important essay "Paul Wrote Some of All, But Not All of Any", in **The Pauline Canon**, S.E. Porter (ed), Brill 2004. This attempts to show that Paul didn't write all the content we now find in the letters. In the same volume Wm O. Walker listed the many possible interpolations in the letters, "Interpolations in the Pauline Letters".
The language that Paul uses, such as the term εκκληςια (="assembly"), gets read as later Christian terminology.
Can we really get a grasp of Paul until we read him independently from what came later?
James Tabor's "[Paul's Ascent to Paradise](https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Ascent-Paradise-Apostolic-Experiences/dp/B08GB52LTN)" tries to do just that. It looks at Paul’s self-understanding of his mission and his gospel message, set within its broader Jewish and Hellenistic contexts.
>In this book Paul's Ascent to Paradise becomes an entrée into his whole world of Hellenistic mystical religious experience. This "history of religions" approach to Paul supersedes the dogmatic approaches of Christian theology and dogma.
Many moons ago I read New Perspective by James Dunn (a good read on this topic). Essentially, the argument was Paul is more influential in the broader Christian community because he was an advocate for evangelizing outside the Jewish population and was therefore much more widely known. St James was more rooted to his Jewish roots and Paul was more willing to sluff them off. Paul did regularly return to Jerusalem to convene with James, Peter, and John (the core of the Church at that time) and make sure the original Jerusalem branch approved of what he preached.
> Paul did regularly return to Jerusalem to convene with James, Peter, and John (the core of the Church at that time) and make sure the original Jerusalem branch approved of what he preached.
What's the reason for thinking he made a habit of this?
Damm why so many dislikes? Ask for refrence or point out if im wrong on somthing.
If its the first sentence that seem personal i remind you omission is type of lai and taking a vow you are asked to take proof to what you didn't say or omitt sed thingh is definitely a lai.
He laid to then and toke edvantige of there good will. From when they receive news he is preaching the law is not to be fallowed by the gentiles and jews in Galacia. They tell him to take the Nazareth vowe to proof it's not true amd these are baseless claim. Insted of telling them about his vision to demoscus and what he being "instructed to do" he takes it the oath. And never again steps in Jerusalem never intill they all mett with death if i remember correctly. Unsure of last point so feel free to correct me
Personally I love Paul the catty queen. I take the view that he founded Christianity (Bart view's > THERE CAN BE NO doubt, historically, that some of Jesus’s followers came to believe he was raised
from the dead—no doubt whatsoever. This is how Christianity started) 1 and formed the major elements that would drive religious doctrine, even if the church of Rome became the ruling church. Paul advocated (successfully, obviously) in the strive towards conversion of gentiles.
> But Paul himself then had some kind of visionary experience of Jesus (Gal. 1:15– 16; 1 Cor. 15:8– 11) and changed from being the Christian movement’s chief adversary to being its chief advocate, transformed from persecutor to proclaimer. Specifi cally, Paul saw himself as the apostle of Christ to the Gentiles. Early on in Paul’s efforts to take the gospel to the Gentile mission field, a major problem emerged. Gentiles, of course, were “pagans,” that is, polytheists who worshiped numerous gods. To accept the salvation of Jesus, they had to renounce their former gods and accept only the God of Israel and Jesus his son, whose death and resurrection, Paul proclaimed, put them in a right stand ing with God. But in order to worship the God of the Jews, did they not have to become Jewish?
Ehrman, Bart D.. Lost Christianities : The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2005.
> Do we know if the other disciples agreed or disagreed with him?
A famous disagreement.
In Galatians 2:11-
> But when (Peter) Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood selfcondemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
(footnoes)
> 2.11– 14: Paul’s confrontation with Peter at Antioch. Some interpreters of the Jewish law, e.g., rabbis in the more liberal school of Hillel, allowed the table fellowship of Jew and non-Jew at the time of Paul. It was possible for Jews to observe dietary and purity laws while eating with Gentiles. Biblical stories of Jews refusing to eat Gentile food take place in hostile or foreign environments where the observance of the dietary laws could not be guaranteed (Dan 1.8– 16; Tob 1.10– 13; Jdt 10.5). Sharing, or not sharing, a meal was a strong indication of acceptance or nonacceptance (Acts 10.14; 11.3,8). 12: The people . . . from James, messengers from the Jerusalem apostle who insisted on a stricter interpretation of the law, forbidding such table fellowship. 14: Paul a acks Peter’s behavior because it might compel the Gentiles to live like Jews. Although the ban on table fellowship did not prohibit Gentiles from being members of the Christian community, it could have relegated those who did not choose full conversion to Judaism to second-class status.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha : New Revised Standard Version, edited by Michael D. Coogan, et al., Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2010.
> Did Paul hijack Christianity?
Depends how cynical you'd like to get. He became the major source of Christianity's victory firstly over Judaism and then the Roman world entirely, including the major evolutions that occured within early Christianity in the relationship between Christ and divinity.
> ...one of the great turnarounds in religious history—arguably the most significant conversion on record—Paul changed from being an aggressive persecutor of the Christians to being one of their strongest proponents. He eventually became a leading spokesperson, missionary, and theologian for the fledgling Christian movement. He later claimed that this was because he had had a vision of Jesus alive, long after his death, and concluded that God must have raised him from the dead...
> Arguably, Paul’s greatest contribution to the theology of his day was his hard-fought view that this salvation in Christ applied to all people, Jew and gentile alike, on the same grounds: faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Being Jewish had nothing to do with it.
(inclu footnote 1) How Jesus became God : the exaltation of a Jewish preacher from Galilee / Bart D. Ehrman.
Certainly he changed and influenced Christianity significantly. One could argue that it, as a emerging religious tradition, could have died out in a generation if it was not for the efforts of Paul as did the other doomsday movements of the day.
> Are there any books/authors you could recommend- either directly on the topic or indirectly to form my own opinions?
Paul & Jesus by James Tabor is basically this directly, comparing and contrasting Jesus and Paul using their own words, backgrounds and so forth.
I was telling a friend last week that I wonder if Peter said to Paul, after Paul trashed him in one of his letters "Did I mention that I walked on water with Jesus Christ?"
I find his stuff off putting for some of the reasons mentioned but also agree that he probably is responsible for it becoming so wildly successful. I just find a lot of his stuff catty.
BTW, I'm not a practicing Christian but used to be and have been reading the bible to just immerse myself back into it out of curiosity so I wouldn't claim to have an opinion that's worth anything.
My disaffection started as a young teen for a couple of reasons. First was my realization that the impending apocalypse as taught in my church wasn't happening as predicted and each missed prediction was promptly replaced with a new prediction.
probably more important was that I was in a very volatile homelife and became a rebellious teen where I abandoned all the trust I had in authority. That was a character flaw on my part.
Finally, as time went by and I read more about different religions, my faith faded until I just didn't feel it anymore.
Life and circumstances brought me back to my small hometown and all of my high school friends are very strong Christians. I see the comfort their faith gives them and I decided to read the entire bible and do the thing to see if I could find it but its just not there. I don't feel it.
I consider myself a Buddhist and that speaks to me and I think works better for my personality. I guess you can see by this long winded answer that I don't mind talking about it.
Thanks for the reply. I’m sorry for how you’ve been lied to. It’s wonderful that you’ve studied other religions from this experience though. It’s a shame how little the average Christian knows about other faiths.
We come to different conclusions with our faith, but I respect your journey as I am on one myself🫡
I went from Baptist, to non-denominational, to now what I believe is messianic Judaism. Thanks again for sharing your story.
Jesus brother James and other disciples seemed to disagree with Paul and at times, Paul appeared to be playing games on two fronts.
I do think he hijacked the original teachings of Jesus which seem to be lost now somewhere as the church teaches to look at Bible from Paul’s perspectives. Book by Dr James Tabor, Paul and Jesus.
Here’s channel Blogging Theology which gives several references of books to read, topic [Was Apostle Paul the founder of Christianity](https://youtu.be/yDGCcbkUR-8?si=ZXILYsNZCb2GDR1i) by Dr James Tabor (Christian scholar).
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here.
If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of what he's supposed to have written, he didn't write, to be fair to him. He sounds dreadful in the NT, but once you take away some of the stuff he definitely didn't write, and start wondering what's a forgery and what isn't, what the actual writers were trying to do by impersonating Paul, etc, I'm not so sure he hijacked things. At worst, I'd say he was one of several rival hijackers, all trying to outdo one another and gain control of the group.
I mostly seem to post Bart Ehrman links in here, but I do genuinely enjoy his podcast for good overviews of topics like this one:
https://youtu.be/u3PnD1TScw4?si=NCmy5-0hypS0gbO0
https://youtu.be/GXJUVnlGmI8?si=I4FSIwsKYS7mNOdu
You should read The First Paul by the scholars Marcus J Borg and Dominic Crossan. They contextualise the Pauline epistles and explain how they’re actually not far off from Jesus’ teachings.
There is also [Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Paul-Gospels-James-Dunn/dp/080286645X), by James Dunn. Definitely worth checking out.
Do read The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby, for more negative stuff about Paul. Maccoby mostly considered fringe, but he was a scholar.
Also read Paul & Jesus by James Tabor.
A related question, but... Was Paul's posthumous success due to his efforts as a church planter in gentile nations, amplified by the Romans wiping out Jerusalem (and, presumably, the Jerusalem church; the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus)?
How the Jewish eyewitnesses and direct disciples of Jesus actually perceived him seems to be a huge, gaping hole in our knowledge.
If you are interested in the idea of Paul Hijacking Christianity, I highly recommend the book James the brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman. It's one of the better books advocating the Paul hijacking theory. And does a lot to tease out the historical Jesus arguing that James was Jesus successor and that James, Jesus and the apostles were essentially Ebionites. That's a very quick and dirty summary.
He gets a little to into the weeds in some places but overall I think his main thesis is solid.
Major criticisms of him are his dating of the dead sea scrolls and discussion of the community at Qumran. I think most of these are pretty fair.
The other his his rating of the Book of Acts and the Psuedo-Clementines as equally historical. I find his arguments for this pretty convincing but you'll have to read the book to see if you do.
Ok I’m going to have to read through this, or maybe look through threads on Paul and manipulation. I’ve thought for some time that he seems kind of manipulative. Would love to see this further explored.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always think it is important to note here that Paul’s letters the earliest documents we have from Christians. And the first written explicit explanation of the gospel of Jesus is in 1 Cor 15 (The earliest Gospel is Mark, written in 70 and 1 Cor is written in the 50’s). So, “did Paul hijack Christianity?”There is no way of knowing, because what we have all was written after him. Like him or hate him, Christianity likely wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for Paul. Thus, interpreters must reckon with him. A lot of the perceptions about Paul being narcissistic, manipulative, a jerk, and all that kind of thing are usually reading Paul with modern and western eyes. Those things we perceive as manipulative or selfish bloviating or whatever are writing practices that are more reflective of ancient rhetoric and style, and not really reflective of someone’s character. In other words, it would be odd if Paul didn’t write the ways that he did. Similar to the way this Reddit has community guidelines, Paul wrote as he was expected to write. If you’re wanting to engage him academically, there is loads to read. An introduction to Paul would be very helpful. These books will introduce you to the main players in Paul scholarship: [How to Read Paul](https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Paul-Introduction-Theology/dp/1506471447/ref=pd_aw_sim_m_sccl_2/147-0212908-3100648?psc=1&pf_rd_p=da34e2ab-0a26-45ab-822b-257c30932778&pf_rd_r=MQWNEACVSM776SADEZPV&pd_rd_wg=nU5ek&pd_rd_w=VZ11U&content-id=amzn1.sym.da34e2ab-0a26-45ab-822b-257c30932778&pd_rd_r=79e36897-8717-4cc6-aebc-4ef000fd3100&pd_rd_i=1506471447&psc=1) [Navigating Paul](https://www.amazon.com/Navigating-Paul-Introduction-Theological-Concepts-ebook/dp/B00935IMXK) [Perspectives on Paul](https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Paul-Views-Scot-McKnight/dp/1540960757/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=1HO566F5MRV20&keywords=perspectives+on+Paul&qid=1705979114&sprefix=perspectives+on+paul%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1) [Paul’s Gospel, Race, Empire, Ethnicity](https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Gospel-Empire-Race-Ethnicity/dp/1666731870) [Practicing with Paul](https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07C8BWKBZ/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=) [The power of the word](https://www.amazon.com/Power-Word-Scripture-Rhetoric-Empire/dp/0800638344/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=14JBO8T25KAHW&keywords=the+power+of+the+word+elisabeth+schussler&qid=1705980472&sprefix=the+power+of+the+word+elizabeth+schussler%2Caps%2C83&sr=8-1) The most critical of Paul is likely the last book in this list. Less an introduction to Paul, and more an introduction to Paul and feminist criticism. That said, Schüssler Fiorenza is excellent, dense though, but I had to include her here. If I was going to tell you what book to start with, it would likely be one of the first two. They both would intro you to Paul scholarship well. Then the others in any order.
> n other words, it would be odd if Paul didn’t write the ways that he did. Similar to the way this Reddit has community guidelines, Paul wrote as he was expected to write. > > This is interesting - is there a 'classic example' of this, where Paul seems like he's being a blow-hard (for lack of a better term) but in fact it's a convention he's utilizing?
Great question. There are many examples of Paul’s language matching rhetorical and stylistic expectations. But, one that is particularly “blow-hard”esc is Gal 3:1, “oh, you foolish Galatians.” H.D. Betz, the scholar who generated a lot of research on Paul and ancient rhetoric writes about this phrase, “this insult, however, should not be taken too seriously. Such addresses were commonplace among the diatribe preachers in Paul’s day” (Betz, Galatians, 130). The diatribe being a common rhetorical form used in speeches by philosophers, rhetoricians, politicians, and more. Comparing Paul to the Stoic and Cynic diatribes was actually the topic of Roudolf Bultmann’s dissertation in the early 1900’s, needless to say, scholars have been studying this for a very long time. Continuing on in Gal 3:1, Paul writes, “who has bewitched you?” Betz writes, “the following question is ironic or even sarcastic … a usage common at least since Plato. Its purpose was to characterize opponents and their sophistic strategies. … One of the goals of the ancient orator was to deliver his speech so vividly and impressively that his listeners imagined the matter to have happened right before their eyes” (131). Betz cites many ancient sources here, Plato, Demosthenes, Philo, and I could go on. The point of this kind of rhetoric is to make the discourse “vivid,” a technical term in style and rhetoric, where the writer or speaker dramatizes the discourse to give it vivaciousness and drama. This is like today in movies how people don’t talk like people really talk in reality, like how in a comedy movie there are quips and come backs that few would ever say in reality. Or in a musical where a character breaks into song. Or when a Romcom has banter that is waaay to cheesy. Paul is writing in a way that is larger than life because the literary genre expects it. So, Paul uses this kind of harsh speech not because he is a jerk, but because he is writing with style and panache. If you want to learn more about rhetoric and the NT, I would recommend this as a intro to the topic [New Testament Rhetoric](https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Rhetoric-Second-Introductory/dp/1532689683), by Witherington and Meyers. Actually, a perfect way of describing Paul’s letter writing is the letter writing scene from [A Knights Tale](https://youtu.be/mXz39lQAEmY?si=VIJBib26dOvuHrhL). There is an author, writing with a hive mind of people, and he writes the best thing he could ever imagine alongside others (which Paul definitely did). And their letter is so audacious and fantastic, it reads like poetry. While Paul doesn’t always read like poetry, or Chaucer, his letters fit literary expectations, and it is similarly larger than life at times.
Thank you this is fascinating. It makes me wonder who Paul's peers actually were at the time. He's clearly highly educated. Who were the elite Jewish people in the Roman Empire at the turn of the millennium, and how did Paul fit into that world? And how did they fit into the larger non-jewish Roman elite world?
Your questions are great ones, but would require quite a bit of typing, haha. If I was going to recommend a book on how Paul fit in the world as an educated person, it would be the book mentioned above about NT Rhetoric by Witherington. And, the book listed above on “Perspectives on Paul” will have chapters about Paul and Judaism that will explain how he fits in the world as a second temple Jew. This book would also be a good one to consider: [Jesus is Lord Caesar is Not](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Lord-Caesar-Not-Evaluating-ebook/dp/B00C7UKJ8E/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=3VSS2VMPOYBFG&keywords=Jesus+is+Lord+Caesar+is+Not&qid=1706060614&sprefix=jesus+is+lord+caesar+is+not%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-1). It’s about more than Paul, but it will frame how second temple Jews who followed Jesus existed amid imperial oppression.
Thank you!
When I think of Paul being a blowhard, these aren't the things I think of. I think more of his humble bragging. He casts himself as the most humble of all the servants of god, but he does it in this "Oh, I'm actually super awesome in my humble way."
I think you should mention half of his work is pseudo-epigraphy. This is very important the anti women agenda isn’t his work.
Yeah, the authentic Pauline letters are much more palatable, when it comes to women (these would be discussed in an introduction to Paul). I have a two part video series on women and Paul’s letters. I left out the whole idea of disputed Pauline letters because saying Paul didn’t write certain letters doesn’t really stop people from using them to construct theology. That said, it certainly informs the discussion. See the videos [here](https://youtu.be/62zxwzazYYE?si=4Gxr33lpEdpgojwu).
Great video. Thanks!
Could you point me to a good source that gives an overview of which works are pseudo-epigraphic and by whom?
This website is curated by the Society of Biblical Literature, which is an academic organization that basically every Bible scholar is a member of, myself included. So, you can trust any article on here to be legit scholarship. Paul and Authorship[https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/paul-and-authorship/](https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/paul-and-authorship/)
[This video has a screenshot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-blVgAyOW0) in it that gives an idea of the scholarly consensus, though McClellan admits that the conference where this was conducted has a slightly conservative bias.
Real scholars can tell you. Mark Goodacre, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman.
“real scholars” is an interesting description. Those are indeed NT scholars. That said, anyone who has taken a decent intro to NT class knows about the disputed letters. That’s very old news in NT scholarship. So much so that no one even really debates it anymore. So, discussing the disputed Pauline letters is hardly a credential for being a “real scholar.” Haha
>Those are indeed NT scholars, who has no training in NT at all Except Carrier >that no one even really debates it anymor Don't know, there's been some discussion about 2 Timothy being authentic.
Yeah, placing Carrier alongside Goodacre and Ehrman is really interesting. I would agree that Carrier is definitely in a different category than the other two. But because he has a PhD in ancient history, and is published in biblical studies, he is still categorically an NT scholar. And Bible scholars are always going to debate things. But what I am saying is that everyone is well aware of the debate and its legitimacy. So much so that the argument is old and tired. Commentaries shrug it off, articles just put it in a passing footnote, and so on. It’s not a centered debate, say like how Paul understands the Law, or something like that.
It’s irrelevant if I like him we’re talking about Paul and the 3 concur. Relax guys. I didn’t quote Ayatollah Homemi
Saying Carrier is not an NT scholar isn't acting like you quoted the Ayatollah. Liking him has nothing to do with his expertise.
This is exactly why I didn’t mention it in my first response. Haha.
Which means the case is more like others hijacked Christianity from Paul. :p
Is it possible that the texts likely dating after Paul are at least partly independent of him? I am no scholar, but I have seen it here said that Paul's Christology is markedly higher than the Christology of Mark (and the other Synoptics? Even Luke), which from my laymen's eyes, could reflect that the author of Mark was theologically independent of Paul, no? Or the Johannine canon reflecting an even higher Christology than Paul, and seemingly being surprisingly similar to the Qumran community? Admittedly, iirc, there is evidence that Mark knows of the Pauline epistles, but would that necessarily make Mark dependent on Paul? Could he be using the Pauline canon to express parts where he agrees with Paul, but still feels free to disagree and write positions independent of Paul?
All great questions. You will find answers in this book. [Jesus Paul and the Gospels](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Paul-Gospels-James-Dunn/dp/080286645X), by James Dunn. To give you a short answer, I don’t think the gospel authors are dependent on Paul. But they are likely aware of Paul. The author of Luke-Acts was also potentially a ministry companion of Paul’s. So, those texts a definitely aware of Paul. It’s more like they all exist in the same theological movement with differences and overlap between them. So, there are moments where the gospels agree with Paul, moments where they differ, and so on.
Interesting, ty!
>Those things we perceive as manipulative or selfish bloviating or whatever are writing practices that are more reflective of ancient rhetoric and style, and not really reflective of someone’s character. Can you explain? What's the scholarship behind this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/WkH39TQZvx
So, this is where Paul's tendency to claim he is better than everyone else is actually rhetoric? I mean, if the perceived faults of Paul are just standard rhetoric, why don't we think more ancients were blow hards etc?
I don’t know why people don’t recognize this in others, but I do know that most people haven’t read ancient discourses on rhetoric and style, nor have many read ancients writing about themselves outside of the Bible (In fact, loads of NT scholars haven’t, and it often shows in their research). So, when people talk or write about themselves, it is not uncommon to see audacious writing. For example, here is what Seneca reports Emperor Nero says, Have I of all mortals found favour with Heaven and been chosen to serve on earth as vicar of the gods? I am the arbiter of life and death for the nations; it rests in my power what each man’s lot … all those many thousands of swords which my peace restrains will be drawn at my nod; what nations shall be utterly destroyed, which banished, which shall receive the gift of liberty (libertatem dari), which have it taken from them, what kings shall become slaves and whose heads shall be crowned with royal honour, what cities shall fall and which shall rise—this it is mine to decree. With all things thus at my disposal, … a dread but all too common use of great and lordly power. With me the sword is hidden, nay, is sheathed; … sternness I keep hidden, but mercy ever ready at hand. I so hold guard over myself as though I were about to render an account to those laws which I have summoned from decay and darkness into the light of day (ex situ ac tenebris in lucem ). (1.2–4 [Basore, LCL]) Nero here thinks very highly of himself. He sounds like a jerk and speaks of himself audacious in ways that no one would ever do today. The dude controls the light and darkness. lol. But, this is the expectation. Similar here is how Philo describes Caesar Augustus. Again, consider him who in all the virtues transcended human nature (φύσιν ὑπερβαλὼν ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς ἀρεταῖς), who on account of the vastness of his imperial sovereignty as well as nobility of character was the first to bear the name of the August or Venerable, a title received not through lineal succession as a portion of its heritage but because he himself became the source of the veneration which was received also by those who followed him (ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸς γενόµενος ἀρχὴ σεβασµοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἔπειτα); … the great regions which divide the habitable world, Europe and Asia, were contending with each other for sovereign power … the whole human race exhausted by mutual slaughter was on the verge of utter destruction (ταῖς ἀλληλοκτονίαις εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἀφανισθῆναι), had it not been for one man and leader (ἄνδρα καὶ ἡγεµόνα) Augustus whom men fitly call the averter of evil (ἀλεξίκακον). This is the Caesar who calmed the torrential storms on every side (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Καῖσαρ ὁ τοὺς καταρράξαντας πανταχόθι χειµῶνας εὐδιάσας), who healed the pestilences common to Greeks and barbarians (ὁ τὰς κοινὰς νόσους Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων) … This is he who not only loosed but broke the chains which had shackled and pressed so hard on the habitable world (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὰ δεσµά, οἷς κατέζευκτο καὶ ἐπεπίεστο ἡ οἰκουµένη, παραλύσας). This is he who exterminated wars (οὗτος ὁ καὶ φανεροὺς καὶ ἀφανεῖς πολέµους) … This is he who reclaimed every state to liberty (οὗτος ὁ τὰς πόλεις ἁπάσας εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἐξελόµενος), who led disorder into order (ὁ τὴν ἀταξίαν εἰς τάξιν ἀγαγών) … the guardian of the peace (ὁ εἰρηνοφύλαξ). (Philo, Legat. 143–47 [Colson, LCL]; emphasis added) In both these instances, these texts present people in audacious ways, and this is seen as normal and expected in the ancient world. These are just two examples of ancients presenting themselves or others as “better than everyone else,” and those were just the first two to come to mind because they were fresh in my research about a completely different topic. In other words, this is common. There are certainly many ways people can critique Paul, no doubt, but we have to be sure we situate his discourses in their historical and literary context first. There are whole discourses on how to write letters, how to write speeches, how to make a narrative like real life and more. Paul and others conform to these genre expectations all the time. If this is something that interests you, I would recommend checking out Witherington’s book cited in my previous linked post.
It's more probable that Christianity hijacked Paul. We cannot help but read into Paul what we know from later writings without knowing the validity of such an action. At the same time post-Pauline letters have been attributed to Paul, Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastorals, 2 Thes. Even parts of those letters we consider genuine were not written by Paul. (Did Paul, who argued vigorously for the one gospel in Gal 1, really talk of two gospels in Gal 2:7, one to the circumcised and another to the uncircumcised? Or is Gal 2:7-8 an orthodox addition, noting that while Paul uses the name Cephas elsewhere, the best manuscripts show only here is it Peter.) J.C. O'Neill wrote an important essay "Paul Wrote Some of All, But Not All of Any", in **The Pauline Canon**, S.E. Porter (ed), Brill 2004. This attempts to show that Paul didn't write all the content we now find in the letters. In the same volume Wm O. Walker listed the many possible interpolations in the letters, "Interpolations in the Pauline Letters". The language that Paul uses, such as the term εκκληςια (="assembly"), gets read as later Christian terminology. Can we really get a grasp of Paul until we read him independently from what came later?
James Tabor's "[Paul's Ascent to Paradise](https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Ascent-Paradise-Apostolic-Experiences/dp/B08GB52LTN)" tries to do just that. It looks at Paul’s self-understanding of his mission and his gospel message, set within its broader Jewish and Hellenistic contexts. >In this book Paul's Ascent to Paradise becomes an entrée into his whole world of Hellenistic mystical religious experience. This "history of religions" approach to Paul supersedes the dogmatic approaches of Christian theology and dogma.
Many moons ago I read New Perspective by James Dunn (a good read on this topic). Essentially, the argument was Paul is more influential in the broader Christian community because he was an advocate for evangelizing outside the Jewish population and was therefore much more widely known. St James was more rooted to his Jewish roots and Paul was more willing to sluff them off. Paul did regularly return to Jerusalem to convene with James, Peter, and John (the core of the Church at that time) and make sure the original Jerusalem branch approved of what he preached.
> Paul did regularly return to Jerusalem to convene with James, Peter, and John (the core of the Church at that time) and make sure the original Jerusalem branch approved of what he preached. What's the reason for thinking he made a habit of this?
Are the five trips mentioned in acts considered historical?
Damm why so many dislikes? Ask for refrence or point out if im wrong on somthing. If its the first sentence that seem personal i remind you omission is type of lai and taking a vow you are asked to take proof to what you didn't say or omitt sed thingh is definitely a lai.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I dont realy know of anything that confirms it other then the whats writen or opposes it
I believe they are and Dunn thought they were.
He laid to then and toke edvantige of there good will. From when they receive news he is preaching the law is not to be fallowed by the gentiles and jews in Galacia. They tell him to take the Nazareth vowe to proof it's not true amd these are baseless claim. Insted of telling them about his vision to demoscus and what he being "instructed to do" he takes it the oath. And never again steps in Jerusalem never intill they all mett with death if i remember correctly. Unsure of last point so feel free to correct me
Personally I love Paul the catty queen. I take the view that he founded Christianity (Bart view's > THERE CAN BE NO doubt, historically, that some of Jesus’s followers came to believe he was raised from the dead—no doubt whatsoever. This is how Christianity started) 1 and formed the major elements that would drive religious doctrine, even if the church of Rome became the ruling church. Paul advocated (successfully, obviously) in the strive towards conversion of gentiles. > But Paul himself then had some kind of visionary experience of Jesus (Gal. 1:15– 16; 1 Cor. 15:8– 11) and changed from being the Christian movement’s chief adversary to being its chief advocate, transformed from persecutor to proclaimer. Specifi cally, Paul saw himself as the apostle of Christ to the Gentiles. Early on in Paul’s efforts to take the gospel to the Gentile mission field, a major problem emerged. Gentiles, of course, were “pagans,” that is, polytheists who worshiped numerous gods. To accept the salvation of Jesus, they had to renounce their former gods and accept only the God of Israel and Jesus his son, whose death and resurrection, Paul proclaimed, put them in a right stand ing with God. But in order to worship the God of the Jews, did they not have to become Jewish? Ehrman, Bart D.. Lost Christianities : The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2005. > Do we know if the other disciples agreed or disagreed with him? A famous disagreement. In Galatians 2:11- > But when (Peter) Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood selfcondemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (footnoes) > 2.11– 14: Paul’s confrontation with Peter at Antioch. Some interpreters of the Jewish law, e.g., rabbis in the more liberal school of Hillel, allowed the table fellowship of Jew and non-Jew at the time of Paul. It was possible for Jews to observe dietary and purity laws while eating with Gentiles. Biblical stories of Jews refusing to eat Gentile food take place in hostile or foreign environments where the observance of the dietary laws could not be guaranteed (Dan 1.8– 16; Tob 1.10– 13; Jdt 10.5). Sharing, or not sharing, a meal was a strong indication of acceptance or nonacceptance (Acts 10.14; 11.3,8). 12: The people . . . from James, messengers from the Jerusalem apostle who insisted on a stricter interpretation of the law, forbidding such table fellowship. 14: Paul a acks Peter’s behavior because it might compel the Gentiles to live like Jews. Although the ban on table fellowship did not prohibit Gentiles from being members of the Christian community, it could have relegated those who did not choose full conversion to Judaism to second-class status. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha : New Revised Standard Version, edited by Michael D. Coogan, et al., Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2010. > Did Paul hijack Christianity? Depends how cynical you'd like to get. He became the major source of Christianity's victory firstly over Judaism and then the Roman world entirely, including the major evolutions that occured within early Christianity in the relationship between Christ and divinity. > ...one of the great turnarounds in religious history—arguably the most significant conversion on record—Paul changed from being an aggressive persecutor of the Christians to being one of their strongest proponents. He eventually became a leading spokesperson, missionary, and theologian for the fledgling Christian movement. He later claimed that this was because he had had a vision of Jesus alive, long after his death, and concluded that God must have raised him from the dead... > Arguably, Paul’s greatest contribution to the theology of his day was his hard-fought view that this salvation in Christ applied to all people, Jew and gentile alike, on the same grounds: faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Being Jewish had nothing to do with it. (inclu footnote 1) How Jesus became God : the exaltation of a Jewish preacher from Galilee / Bart D. Ehrman. Certainly he changed and influenced Christianity significantly. One could argue that it, as a emerging religious tradition, could have died out in a generation if it was not for the efforts of Paul as did the other doomsday movements of the day.
> Are there any books/authors you could recommend- either directly on the topic or indirectly to form my own opinions? Paul & Jesus by James Tabor is basically this directly, comparing and contrasting Jesus and Paul using their own words, backgrounds and so forth.
I was telling a friend last week that I wonder if Peter said to Paul, after Paul trashed him in one of his letters "Did I mention that I walked on water with Jesus Christ?" I find his stuff off putting for some of the reasons mentioned but also agree that he probably is responsible for it becoming so wildly successful. I just find a lot of his stuff catty. BTW, I'm not a practicing Christian but used to be and have been reading the bible to just immerse myself back into it out of curiosity so I wouldn't claim to have an opinion that's worth anything.
What caused you to leave Christianity, if you don’t mind me asking? I won’t ask a follow-up question. Just curious.
My disaffection started as a young teen for a couple of reasons. First was my realization that the impending apocalypse as taught in my church wasn't happening as predicted and each missed prediction was promptly replaced with a new prediction. probably more important was that I was in a very volatile homelife and became a rebellious teen where I abandoned all the trust I had in authority. That was a character flaw on my part. Finally, as time went by and I read more about different religions, my faith faded until I just didn't feel it anymore. Life and circumstances brought me back to my small hometown and all of my high school friends are very strong Christians. I see the comfort their faith gives them and I decided to read the entire bible and do the thing to see if I could find it but its just not there. I don't feel it. I consider myself a Buddhist and that speaks to me and I think works better for my personality. I guess you can see by this long winded answer that I don't mind talking about it.
Thanks for the reply. I’m sorry for how you’ve been lied to. It’s wonderful that you’ve studied other religions from this experience though. It’s a shame how little the average Christian knows about other faiths. We come to different conclusions with our faith, but I respect your journey as I am on one myself🫡 I went from Baptist, to non-denominational, to now what I believe is messianic Judaism. Thanks again for sharing your story.
[удалено]
Similar question in : https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/130hv6k/did_paul_invent_christianity/
Jesus brother James and other disciples seemed to disagree with Paul and at times, Paul appeared to be playing games on two fronts. I do think he hijacked the original teachings of Jesus which seem to be lost now somewhere as the church teaches to look at Bible from Paul’s perspectives. Book by Dr James Tabor, Paul and Jesus. Here’s channel Blogging Theology which gives several references of books to read, topic [Was Apostle Paul the founder of Christianity](https://youtu.be/yDGCcbkUR-8?si=ZXILYsNZCb2GDR1i) by Dr James Tabor (Christian scholar).
[удалено]
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here. If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate. For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read [this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_r.2Facademicbiblical_.7C_rules_.28detailed.29). If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of what he's supposed to have written, he didn't write, to be fair to him. He sounds dreadful in the NT, but once you take away some of the stuff he definitely didn't write, and start wondering what's a forgery and what isn't, what the actual writers were trying to do by impersonating Paul, etc, I'm not so sure he hijacked things. At worst, I'd say he was one of several rival hijackers, all trying to outdo one another and gain control of the group. I mostly seem to post Bart Ehrman links in here, but I do genuinely enjoy his podcast for good overviews of topics like this one: https://youtu.be/u3PnD1TScw4?si=NCmy5-0hypS0gbO0 https://youtu.be/GXJUVnlGmI8?si=I4FSIwsKYS7mNOdu
You should read The First Paul by the scholars Marcus J Borg and Dominic Crossan. They contextualise the Pauline epistles and explain how they’re actually not far off from Jesus’ teachings.
Wait, do we have the gospel of Jesus? How are you establishing what Jesus taught in order to make the comparison?
Jesus’ supposed teachings.
There is also [Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Paul-Gospels-James-Dunn/dp/080286645X), by James Dunn. Definitely worth checking out.
Thank you!
Can you elaborate further?
Do read The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby, for more negative stuff about Paul. Maccoby mostly considered fringe, but he was a scholar. Also read Paul & Jesus by James Tabor.
A related question, but... Was Paul's posthumous success due to his efforts as a church planter in gentile nations, amplified by the Romans wiping out Jerusalem (and, presumably, the Jerusalem church; the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus)? How the Jewish eyewitnesses and direct disciples of Jesus actually perceived him seems to be a huge, gaping hole in our knowledge.
If you are interested in the idea of Paul Hijacking Christianity, I highly recommend the book James the brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman. It's one of the better books advocating the Paul hijacking theory. And does a lot to tease out the historical Jesus arguing that James was Jesus successor and that James, Jesus and the apostles were essentially Ebionites. That's a very quick and dirty summary. He gets a little to into the weeds in some places but overall I think his main thesis is solid. Major criticisms of him are his dating of the dead sea scrolls and discussion of the community at Qumran. I think most of these are pretty fair. The other his his rating of the Book of Acts and the Psuedo-Clementines as equally historical. I find his arguments for this pretty convincing but you'll have to read the book to see if you do.
Ok I’m going to have to read through this, or maybe look through threads on Paul and manipulation. I’ve thought for some time that he seems kind of manipulative. Would love to see this further explored.
Someone on this thread mentioned James Tabor. I looked up his channel on YouTube and have found his lectures extremely informative
Yeah, I’ve listened to some of his lectures. He’s excellent.