Transcription
Jesus and the Apostle Paul are two of the most important figures in Christianity. One is the Son of God and savior of the world. The other is a founding figure of the church and a man whose teachings and writings continue to inform the theology of modern Christianity. Surely Paul's writings teach Jesus' message, don't they?
Today, we're exploring the differences between the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and why many Christians will tell you that actually, they teach the same thing. Stay tuned for all of that and much more. Welcome to Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman, the only show where a six-time New York Times best-selling author and world-renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating, little-known facts about the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the rise of Christianity. I'm your host, Megan Lewis. Let's begin.
Ask most Christians, and they'll likely tell you that Jesus and Paul teach the same things about salvation and how to attain it. Ask a critical scholar of the New Testament, and they'll probably tell you something else. How and why did Paul change Jesus' message? To answer those questions, we have, as always, Bart Ehrman. But before we get to that, but hello, how are you today?
Doing pretty well today. The, uh, we've had kind of rough weather here for a while, and the sun is out today. And, uh, so when this is done, I'm going to take my dog for a long walk. And, uh, she, she, my, my dog is a, it's a golden, she's a golden doodle who, um, is, you know, Doodles are, I, Poodles are, are dog water retrieving dogs. And this is a dog who doesn't like water. Not just rain, but like, she won't swim. And so, so any, it's a sunny day, I'll take her out. So how are you doing? Do you have pets?
Do you have pets? We have cats and, yeah, I do. I have children. We have a couple of cats and multiple fish. Um, and I grew up, yeah, I grew up with Labradors, who are absolutely water animals. And anytime we took, we lived in a very rural area with a lot of like ponds and lakes and fields that we could go and romp through. So anytime we took the dogs out, someone would come home soaking wet.
Yeah, then you just have wet dog smell for the rest of the day. Well, that's it. And, you know, it's not easy to dry off dogs, and it's like, it takes a while, and they do, yeah, it does create an olfactory sensation. It really does. It's very on the pungent side. Yeah. Right. So I was wondering, you and I both go back and forth to the UK and, and between the UK and the US quite regularly. And I am a very food-oriented person. And there are certain foods that when I'm in the UK, I will either make sure that I eat or make sure that I buy to bring home to the US. So I was wondering if there's anything that, that you either take from the US to the UK to sustain yourself during your summer trips or bring from the UK back to the US?
Um, I, I, I almost never take anything over. It's a good, it's a good question because it's, uh, but I, I almost never take anything over. Uh, it used to be that, and part of the reason was because the thing that I really didn't like about England when I first started going there, about, uh, whatever that would be, 30 years ago, is you couldn't get good coffee. I mean, it was like instant coffee. You'd go to a, you'd go to a place to get coffee, like you'd buy, you'd be buying coffee, and they'd put instant coffee in a cup and add water. And I, this, what is this? So, but finally, you know, they caught on. And now it's, it's an amazing place for, for coffee and for food. You know, people, people have always kind of bad-mouthed the Brits for like boiling their vegetables to death and like not knowing how to cook. And man, has that ever changed? It is a foodie place. And so I don't, I don't take anything over. And there are things there that I prefer. To hear is, you know, for a long time, it was hard to get good chocolate here. Uh, you know, you could, but like not in stores so much. But now it's fantastic here. But in England, always had much better chocolate. And even things like, you know, I don't eat candy much, but like a Kit Kat or a Malteser. Oh my God, those are amazing. And so like, oh, those. So in terms of what I bring back, though, I do bring something back, but it isn't like a snack. Um, the, uh, the airports, international airports at, um, uh, in England have very fine whiskey selections. So, so, uh, much better than I can get here in North Carolina. It's so always bringing back one, a bottle of some kind of really, really nice single malt Scotch. Which, uh, I, I, I don't drink. I don't drink as much now as I, as I used to. I was never, you know, I was never a complete alcoholic or anything, but, but, but I've cut back here as I'm getting older. But I still, I really like having a single malt whiskey sometimes at night. And, uh, and the variety, quality is so good over there that, yeah, that's what I bring back.
Excellent. Not the answer I was expecting, but a fantastic, uh, response. Yeah. Well, do you, I, do you, do you bring things back, really, from England?
I do, actually. And on the, uh, on the misquoting vegetables note, my grandmother boiled vegetables until she was certain they were dead. Yeah. Um, made fantastic roast potatoes, but the vegetables were always very, very soft. Um, no, when I'm coming back, I, uh, I have, I have a huge sweet tooth and I miss, uh, what I would call biscuits. Not American biscuits, they're cookies. But for people who haven't had British biscuits, they're harder than your average American cookie. Uh, so there are certain biscuits that I'll bring home. And, um, I have a huge weakness for green apple flavored candy, which is quite tricky. Yeah. It's quite tricky to find here. Um, and there are these pencils, these long sticks of, of green apple candy. So I, I bring those home with me. Yeah.
Well, you know, apple varieties are different too. I mean, like, what are they? Bramley? What, what's the kinds you cook? Apple pies. The really, really tart ones. They're tarter than, um, than, um, Granny Smiths here. And they're fantastic for pies. Yeah. So it's, it's actually fun going back and forth because the cuisine does, does differ. And, and it used to be in London, you couldn't get any good food except for, uh, Indian, if you went out to eat. And now, now, man, it is a foodie place.
No, it was good. My, my oldest daughter is having, uh, next week, I think she has to cook some kind of British food for her classmates. And I'm like, well, I can do it. We can do a curry, or we can do Toad in the Hole. Or her favorite is curry. So I think we might end up making a curry, which doesn't strike people as a particularly British food. But, um, curry is everywhere. Colonial age. It was okay.
We should, we should get off food because otherwise people will start telling us off for for talking not enough about, uh, the New Testament and early Christianity. Right. But we're talking today, as I said, about the teachings of the Apostle Paul and how they compare to Jesus, and, and kind of why they differ. And this is a subject we've touched on before, but I think we're going to be coming at it from a slightly different angle than we have done. So it's going to be, uh, more information, new information. To start out with, though, why do you think it's important to consider the teachings of Paul?
Well, you know, there, there are a lot of people today still who would say that Paul's the founder of Christianity. Um, I don't, I don't agree with that, but, um, at all. But I see why they say it because, um, it, uh, kind of goes back to this old adage that you found in scholarship in the early 20th century, which was that, um, Christianity is the religion about Jesus rather than the religion of Jesus. In theological circles, especially in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, um, in the early 20th century, people started realizing that when you reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, he's not preaching what the apostles preached. And the, the apostle we know best in terms of his preaching is Paul. And that Paul's message was different from Jesus' message. And so that was a, um, that was a thing. And in the early 20th century, there were kind of these debates, do you go, you know, do you, are you interested in the Jesus of history or the Christ of faith? And the idea is that those are very different things, and that Paul preaches the Christ of faith, and Jesus, the historical Jesus, is, is a different thing.
So if you don't see Paul as being a founder of Christianity, what role did his writings play in the formation of the religion, and what role do they continue to play in, in modern Christianity?
Well, Paul's writings are huge. I mean, the, there are 27 books in the New Testament. 13 of them, nearly half of them, claim to be written by Paul. Scholars don't think, the critical judgment generally is that six of those 13 actually were not written by Paul, but by people claiming to be Paul. Um, which is something we could do episodes on later. Um, but at least 13 claim to be written by Paul. One other book was accepted into the New Testament, the book of Hebrews, because church fathers came to think it was written by Paul, even though it wasn't. One other book, the book of Acts, is written about Paul, mainly, he's the main character in Acts. And other books are responding to Paul, the Book of James, probably the, the Gospel of Matthew. And so like, well over half, probably two-thirds of the New Testament, in one way or another, is related to Paul. And so his writings have, um, shaped the theology of Christianity, um, in ways that nothing else has. So I, I would say that sometimes people talk about Paul as a co-founder of Christianity. I think that's a little bit too extreme, but too, but I think he's certainly the most important figure of Christianity after Jesus, ever. And nobody's ever going to top Paul when it comes to that. And so he's absolutely fundamental for understanding how Christianity developed after Jesus' death.
So switching gears slightly to look at Jesus, what would you say are the most important messages in his teachings that are preserved in the Gospels?
So, you know, part of the task of historical scholarship is to separate out, um, what Jesus actually said from what he's reported to have said. Uh, that, it may sound kind of artificial to people, or it may sound like, you know, you're just making stuff up. But there, there are really good reasons for thinking that people were putting sayings of Jesus on his lips, things that he didn't really say. And in fact, nobody doubts that, because we have these other Gospels from outside the New Testament that nobody thinks Jesus said these things that are in these Gospels. And so people, people were saying things and saying that Jesus said them. And it looks like that's happening in the New Testament as well, because there's all sorts of things that there are, there are very solid reasons for thinking he didn't say. And so the task is to figure out what did he say. And it's not an easy task. People, many people have spent their careers trying to figure it out, decades of their lives, having learned Greek and Aramaic and and other languages to try and figure it out. My, so put, put my view in the, you know, 22nd nutshell is, um, I think that Jesus' main teaching, I think his main teaching was the God's kingdom was soon to appear on Earth. People needed to turn their lives around. They needed to repent and turn back to God because the, the day of judgment was coming soon. And when the day of judgment came, God would destroy all of his enemies and everybody who was opposed to him. And he would reward those who sided with him and who worked to do his will by giving them an eternal kingdom here on Earth, a utopian place that would be kind of like paradise was originally for Adam and Eve. It's what God had intended for people, and it's what he still intends for people, a paradise kind of existence for those who obey him. And so Jesus, Jesus knew full well that many people, most people, did not obey God. And so he was urging people to repent so that God would forgive them for the sins they committed and allow them to enter into the kingdom. I think that's the thrust of his message: repent, uh, because the kingdom of God is near. As it turns out, that is exactly what he says in his first recorded words, Mark chapter 1, verse 15. Mark is our earliest Gospel. These are the first things that Jesus says, and he says exactly that: the kingdom's almost here, uh, you need to repent, uh, and prepare for it.
How does that compare to Paul's main messages and main teachings that come through in the writings that we know are from him?
Yeah, you know, it, look, um, I think it's pretty clear when you study the sayings of Jesus and see what he really taught, that his main emphasis was on the need to return to God so that he will forgive you. And so, for example, even in the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus says, Jesus says in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Well, how do you forgive a debtor? So if somebody owes you money and you forgive them the loan, they don't have to pay the loan. You, you just forgive the loan. And it doesn't mean that somebody else pays for them. It doesn't mean that, um, you know, that you, you get your money back somehow or other, or you restructure the loan, or you delay the, you, you forgive the loan. And Jesus thinks of God as somebody who forgives our moral debt to him. So it was all about forgiveness. Paul does not talk about forgiveness. People don't notice this, but the idea of "repent and you will be forgiven" is not in Paul. Paul's view is that Jesus' death brought about an atonement for sin. That, that, um, people had sinned and they incurred a penalty. The penalty is death. "For the wages of sin is death," says Paul. And the penalty has to be paid because God is just. But Jesus paid the penalty for others. Jesus died in the place of others. His death is a substitute for the death of others. And so it's a substitutionary atonement, a sacrificial act that makes somebody right with God. God, Paul did not think that God forgave people. He thought that God accepted the atonement of Jesus. Um, and so it's a different, it's a different conception of how salvation comes about. I, I, I want to say that I don't think Paul invented this idea. In other words, if he had invented the idea, I'd be more inclined to say that he's the co-founder of Christianity. Uh, but he didn't invent the idea. He was persecuting Christians before he converted, precisely for saying this. They were already saying that Jesus' death is an atonement for sins. He finally came to realize that that was true for him and, um, converted and became the biggest proclaimer of that that we know of, and who developed the theology of it more than anyone we know of. But he didn't invent the idea. But so that, it just means this is why this is why the early 20th century scholars were saying things like, you know, people follow that the religion of Jesus is forgiveness, and the religion about Jesus is atonement.
Thank you. We're going to take a very quick break, and then we'll be right back to talk about exactly how one gets to be saved, uh, depending on who you are asking that question of.
Jesus and Paul are the two most important figures in the history of Christianity. But did they even agree with one another? Join acclaimed scholar Bart Ehrman in his online course, Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide. Where you'll dive deep into the complex relationship between Paul and Jesus, explore their differing views on crucial issues, and uncover the profound impact of their teachings on the early Christian faith. In this eight-lesson course, you'll gain valuable insights into the historical context of Jesus and Paul's beliefs, their views on salvation, and their understanding of the Jewish law. Don't miss out on this unique opportunity to enrich your understanding of these influential figures. Visit BartEhrman.com/paul to learn more or sign up today. And remember to use discount code MJ podcast for a special offer. Once again, that's BartEhrman.com with the discount code MJ podcast.
So if we're looking at salvation and atonement and all those kinds of ideas, if someone had asked Jesus what they had to do in order to be saved, what would his answer have been?
Oh, yeah. You know, it's a good question because it turns, as it turns out, uh, we have an episode that exactly is exactly that in the Gospels. And, um, you know, it's, it's very hard, just as with the sayings of Jesus, it's very hard to know whether the episodes of things that he did are historical or not. Um, and so I don't know if the exact episode happened, but the, what Jesus, how Jesus reacts certainly, uh, bears, is very, very close to what we know about Jesus otherwise. So I think something like this is absolutely what he thought. So there's a, there's a man who comes up to Jesus. This is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This man comes up to Jesus and he says to Jesus, "What, what do I have to do to have eternal life?" And Jesus has an immediate response. He says, "Keep the commandments." Uh, you know, and, and in one of the Gospels, he lists them. Uh, you know, "Don't, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, don't bear false witness, honor your father and mother." You know, he goes through this list of commandments. In, in another Gospel, the man says, "Well, which ones?" And then Jesus lists them. But he's listing, he's listing the Ten Commandments. He's telling them, "Obey what God tells you to do in, in the, in the scriptures." And so that's how you have eternal life. And so the man says, the man's feeling a little guilty about it, apparently, or something. And he says, "Well, you know, I've done all those things." So Jesus, Jesus tells the man that the way to get into, uh, eternal life, the way to be saved, is by keeping the commandments. But if he really wants the five-star hotel experience, you know, he needs to sell everything and give to the poor, and then he'll have treasures in heaven. And, um, so, uh, you know, the whole idea is that God, for Jesus, like, you know, most, most Jews of the time, God wants you to obey him. And obedience is, is what God wants. And that God will, uh, forgive people if they return to, returned to him in, in repentance. Uh, and so, you know, in some ways, that doesn't sound very radical. But in another way, it is kind of radical in ancient Judaism because Jesus doesn't say anything about like having to perform sacrifices. He doesn't say about the temple cult. And there are other reasons for thinking that Jesus was not a big fan of what was happening at the temple, uh, or the Jewish leaders, uh, who were emphasizing the sacrificial system. And so in, in that way, it was a radical teaching. But it's also radical because it's just, you know, it's like, you know, if your child does something wrong, you forgive them. You don't, you know, you might punish them, but you don't need to punish them. And God isn't somebody who wants to punish you. He wants to forgive you. He's that kind of parent. He's willing to forgive you. And so, uh, so that, you know, so that was Jesus' teaching.
If the same question was asked of Paul, would he have given the same answer, or would he have said something different?
Oh, my God, would he say something different? You know, I, so I like this, this exercise I give, I used to give my students, but they just never seemed to like, about half of them just didn't get it. So my exercise was this: I would say, okay, now the same, the same person who came up to Jesus, you know, so he, he walks away, he can't do it, he can't sell everything, he's rich, he's got a lot of money, there's no way he's gonna sell everything. So he walks away, and he's kind of upset. So I say, okay, now to my students, I say, so suppose 20 years later, Jesus has, has died, and, and this person comes up to Paul, and he, the same guy, and he says, "Uh, teacher, what, what must I do to have eternal life?" Does Paul say, "Keep the commandments"? No. Paul's whole point is that following the Jewish law is not going to make you right with God. You can't be right with God by following the law. Of course, you should keep the commandments, but it's not going to give you salvation. And so Paul says, "Believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus died for your sins. Accept him and believe in the resurrection and be baptized, and you'll be saved." Nothing about keeping commandments or selling all your goods. Um, and so it, it is really, it's not just a different answer, it is, it is a contrary answer. And so this is, this is, this is the problem that scholars have talking about Paul and Jesus is because it looks like they, in fact, are preaching different messages.
If they are preaching different messages, which, based on your answers, it definitely seems that they are, why is it that people struggle to see these two things as, as different and distinct?
Well, um, it's, you know, because they, people, people want Jesus and Paul, of course. I mean, people just naturally assume they're on the same page. These are the two most important figures in Christianity. They're both in the New Testament. They both are teaching about God. Um, and so, you know, they, I think it's beyond people's conception they could possibly be saying something else. They don't notice that Paul doesn't say things like, um, you know, "repent and God will forgive you your sins." He says, "Believe in Christ." Uh, and he doesn't say, "Keep the commandments." He says, "The commandments won't save you." I mean, you should keep them, but they're not going to save you. And so people just don't notice this because people tend to think of the Bible as being a solitary thing, right? There's this, there's this book, and it's between two covers, and it's got one author. And so what one, what's set in one place is the same as some other place, even though they use different words, they're using different words, but this is basically, it's the same thing. And they don't, they don't have this kind of, uh, this critical stance that scholars developed starting in the Enlightenment, where you realize that different authors might be saying different things. But once you, once you realize that, you realize, yeah, this is different.
So how do people try and take these different messages and reconcile to make them the same?
Well, um, there's several ways to do it. Um, many, many readers of the New Testament, of course, would know that in the Gospels, Jesus says that he has to go to Jerusalem and be rejected and be crucified. And that he says things like, um, "The Son of Man came not to, uh, be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." And so they notice that in fact, Jesus does talk about an atonement. And, um, in the Gospels, that's right, at least in Matthew, Mark, and John, Jesus does talk about giving his life for others. Um, but the problem is that when scholars talk about the difference between Jesus and Paul, they're not talking about the differences between the Gospels and Paul. The Gospel writers, who are Christians, who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, who are writing 40, 50, 60 years later, of course, understood that Jesus would have said the same thing that they believe. And so, uh, scholars, critical scholars, typically doubt that Jesus was talking about him giving himself as an atonement. Um, but if you think that the Gospels are historically accurate in everything they say, then, then there's not a problem there. Other people, uh, who are a little bit more, um, critical about it, would say, look, yes, it's, it's right, Jesus didn't talk about atonement, Paul did. But Jesus is living before his death, and Paul's living after his death. And so it's natural that they're going to be saying the same thing because the whole point is his death. And Jesus can't be preaching the salvation brought by his death because he hasn't died yet. And so during his life, he's telling people to keep the commandments. And so that's, that's, that's an interesting way to reconcile it. I had seminary professors who reconciled it that way. But it, it does create a problem because if Jesus was right that God would forgive you if you repented, then why did he have to die? God could just forgive you. And, um, and when you think about it logically, there's no reason God couldn't just forgive you if he wanted to. And so, so if, if Jesus was right, then there's no reason for him to have died. And so that's, so Paul, you know, Paul's theology is rooted in something that happened, but it's not the same theology.
Would Paul have viewed himself as changing Jesus' message?
Oh, now that's a good one. Because, um, you know, we had, we had one of our earlier episodes was kind of about that, like, I guess we, we had this episode about what did Paul know about the teachings of Jesus? And that's a very interesting topic because Paul hardly says anything about what Jesus taught. And, you know, when he quotes the sayings of Jesus, he actually quotes only three sayings of Jesus where he actually says, "This is something Jesus said." All three are in the book of First Corinthians. It's chapter 7, chapter 9, and chapter 11, as it turns out. Um, so, chapter, so the three sayings are: one is that you should not get a divorce. That's chapter 7. The other is you should pay your preacher. That's chapter 9. Okay, so that's not really kind of getting to the heart of Jesus' teachings, but it's two of the three things that he quotes. And then in chapter 11, he does quote the say, the words at the Last Supper, as he knows them, where Jesus, takes the Passover meal and he says, "This is my body that's given for you, and this is the cup of the New Covenant in my blood." Those are atonement words. Um, and so Paul is quoting, you know, writing 25 years after the event, he's saying what Jesus said at his last meal. There are very good reasons for thinking this is not something Paul would have known Jesus actually said at the last meal, that this is the tradition in Christianity, that this is what the last meal was all about, that it developed after Jesus' day. Um, so, uh, Paul doesn't say anything about Jesus' teachings of, um, forgiveness or repentance, or to keep the commandments, or, you know, or the, you know, so he doesn't teach about, he, he doesn't ever quote Jesus for the things that look like were the central elements of Jesus' teachings.
Do you see any commonalities between what Paul teaches and, and what we think Jesus said?
It's very interesting, actually, to list the similarities and the differences. You know, if there were just differences, then anytime you do a comparison, there have to be some similarities, or there's no point in doing the comparison, right? So you've got to have both similarities and differences. And the similarities are really quite striking as well, but they tend to be more kind of broader overview issues. Uh, so Paul and Jesus were both Jews living in the first century. They both were, uh, familiar with the Jewish Torah. They both were teachers. Uh, they were, uh, they both held apocalyptic views. This is a key point. Jesus thought that the end was coming soon. Paul thought the end was coming soon. Jesus thought God was going to be judging the world. Paul thought God was going to be judging the world. Um, they, they both thought there's a kingdom that's coming. Uh, Jesus thought the kingdom would be brought by this figure that he called the Son of Man, which I think is not a reference to himself in his own teachings. It, it is a reference to himself in the, in the Gospels in places, but, but I think what Jesus taught about the coming Son of Man, he wasn't teaching about himself coming on the clouds of heaven. He was teaching about this figure, the, the coming Son of Man. Paul thought that Jesus was the one who was coming. Paul doesn't, weirdly, Paul doesn't call him the Son of Man, but the way he describes Jesus coming on the clouds is the description of the Son of Man. He, Paul doesn't call Jesus the Son of Man because that's a Jewish term that is kind of a technical Jewish term within Jewish apocalyptic circles, and Paul's writing Gentiles who have never heard of this kind of thing. So, um, so they have these similarities. They're Jewish men committed to Torah who are, um, who believe that God is soon to intervene, uh, in, in a day of judgment. The difference is that Jesus thinks it's going to happen soon in his day. Paul thinks it's going to happen soon in his day, but Jesus is the one who's going to be coming.
Are any of their instructions to their followers contradictory, or is it possible to follow them both?
Oh, now that's an interesting question. Are there any instructions that are contradictory? There, um, there might be, well, there, that's a good question. I don't know of any actual, like ethical instructions that Paul gives that contradict Jesus' instructions. Um, they're usually talking about different things, that's why. So when Jesus, look, Jesus is talking to rural Jews, mainly in Galilee, and then some in Jerusalem, um, and he's instructing them what to do so they can enter into the coming kingdom. Most of Paul's ethical teachings aren't really about that. Paul is living, is writing 25, 30 years later, and he's dealing with situations in his churches that have arisen among Gentiles who have become followers of Jesus, and problems have arisen. So problems, for example, in the city of Corinth, where there are divisions in the church, and there are people engaged in spiritual one-upmanship, and there are problems of immorality there, men who are, um, visiting prostitutes and thinking that's okay as a Christian, and a man who's, who's, uh, cohabiting with his stepmother, and people who are like engaging in the speaking of tongues too often in their church. And so like, there are these things that are coming up in Christianity that simply were not within Jesus' purview at all. And those are, those are what Paul is most interested in when he's dealing with ethics some decades later. And so I don't know that they actually contradict each other. And they, they say many of the similar things. They both say that "love your neighbor" is the main part of the Torah, and that if you love your neighbor as yourself, you're fulfilling Torah. And so they both, there are things they have in common that way. I don't know of any contradictory ethical teachings. I would say their teachings about salvation, though, are at odds.
Thank you. Okay, so final question, question before we go to, uh, our next segment. If you had to pick a side in the great battle between Jesus and Paul, which one would you be going with?
I'll tell you, I, um, right. Well, the big difference, of course, for me, is this thing I was pointing out, the difference between forgiveness and atonement. Um, and I, I think that, I think the doctrine of the atonement that developed, that Paul inherited and then developed, made a lot of sense given the fact that Jesus, Jesus was thought to be a Messiah. He didn't do what the Messiah was supposed to do. Instead, he got arrested and put on trial and publicly executed. And, um, you know, it, that isn't, you know, so the followers of Jesus had to figure out why he got crucified. And because he was obviously the one favored of God, because God raised him from the dead, and so they came up with this idea that his death must have been planned by God as atonement for sins. And that's what Paul then accepted. And so it makes, that makes sense to me for what happened within Christianity. But given the difference between a doctrine of atonement that somebody, a human, you need a human sacrifice for the sins of others, or God, you cannot be reconciled with God unless somebody is tortured to death. I find that distasteful. And, uh, I don't, I don't like the doctrine of atonement at all, in any of its various ways of being explained. There are lots of ways people have tried to explain it away, and I don't find any of them acceptable. For me, the idea that God is a loving father who will forgive you if you ask for forgiveness, you generally are sorry for what you did, and, you, you meant to do it, you, you know, you intentionally did it, but you did it anyway, but you're now, you regret doing it, you're sorry, and you, you promise to change your ways, and God forgives you. That's a much more paternal understanding, I think, of the divinity. And I think that it's a much better way to understand religion. It's a religion of love and, uh, care for others and forgiveness. It's not, it's not a religion of blood vengeance. And so I think for me, I, so yeah, I'm more a Jesus guy than a Paul guy.
Thank you so much. But we are going to take a very quick ad break, and we'll be back with news of upcoming events.
This is Bart's Weekly Update, where we get to catch up on all the latest about Dr. Ehrman's book releases, speaking engagements, blog.org happenings, and online course launches. So we have a couple of reminders for people this week. First is The Parables of Jesus course that Amy Jill Levine will be teaching, uh, on July 20th and 21st.
Yeah, this is one to look forward to. So Amy Jill is, is, you know, she's a, she's a professor in Christian theological seminaries and, and she taught at Vanderbilt Divinity School, teaching ministers as a, you know, as a non-Christian Jew. And she, but she is very open to, um, uh, religious faith and to, she, she, she, she teaches and numbers her churches. She gets invited all around the country to churches, Christian churches, and, and she, she's wonderful. And she's also extremely knowledgeable and very engaging. And this, this course on The Parables is going to be very interesting because there, there are lots of issues connected with The Parables. People, you know, people are familiar with things like the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Prodigal Son. These, these parables are actually a lot more complicated than people would think, just giving them a simple read. And once you start seeing some of the complications and seeing what they really are all about, it just opens up what these things are really saying in ways you wouldn't expect. And she's going to go into that. She'll be talking about both of those parables and a number of the other ones that are really significant, as well as, you know, did Jesus teach these? And what, what's it, you know, and, and really teach them or, and so, so this will be a really important course, I think, for anybody's interested in the New Testament and the historical Jesus. This is a good course to take.
It sounds really fascinating. Uh, and if people are interested, there is more information and you can register at BartEhrman.com/parables. That's P-A-R-A-B-L-E-S. And the other reminder, and I don't actually think we've spoken about this particular course before, the Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide course. Maybe we did speak about it a while ago, I don't remember. Um, but given what we've been talking about today, it seemed like a, a pertinent thing to be, uh, letting you all know about. So that's eight lectures that are 30 to 40 minutes each. What kinds of things do you discuss in that?
Oh, man, that, yeah, that was a lot of fun, that course. That was, uh, I mean, you know, we just did this in this kind of short episode for our, you know, whatever that was, 30 or 40 minute talk, but I, I gave these, I gave eight lectures on this topic and really went into it. And because this is the biggest issue, I mean, this, for me, for early Christianity, and for maybe for most New Testament scholars, this is the issue about Paul and Jesus and what did Jesus really teach and what did Paul really teach and were they on the same page or not? What are their similarities? What are their differences? What do you do with all this? So I, I, I, I had the leisure of having eight lectures to cover it, uh, with Q&A. And so this is a course people ought to, yeah, this, this is another one they ought to get. Of course, you got to get all the courses, but if you want like a big one, this, this Paul and Jesus course is a, I think, a fundamental course for understanding the New Testament and early Christianity. And there's more information, and again, you can register at BartEhrman.com. And always, the code MJ podcast will get you a discount on everything over, uh, on the website. So definitely take a look.
We are going to go now to Bart's Soap Box. Always a joy. Dr. Ehrman has written six New York Times best-selling books and holds a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary. It's not often you'll see him made a fool, but it doesn't hurt to try. It's time for Outsmart Bart!
[Music]
But what are you on your soapbox about today?
Um, you know, I, um, politics are really hot these days, of course, and it's heating up. And, um, you know, the country is becoming very divided, and, uh, you know, crazily divided. And, um, as a biblical scholar, it's always interesting for me to hear how the Bible gets invoked in, uh, various, various debates. And my soapbox is about how people misuse the Bible just in order to score points and in order to kind of, uh, promote their own agenda. And, um, you know, I think sometimes that's perfectly appropriate because sometimes the Bible does say things that are relevant. But what really ticks me off is when people say that the Bible says something in order to support their view, which is not at all what the Bible says, and sometimes just the opposite of what the Bible says. And it's like they haven't read the Bible. This is especially bad with people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians, but they don't, they don't seem even know what's in the text. And it just, it drives me nuts. And so we had this episode a few weeks ago, um, maybe a month or so ago, where, uh, Congress, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was, um, she's, she's opposed to this legislation that came out that that dealt with, uh, kind of defining anti-Semitism. And I'm not taking a stand on that on the legislation, uh, here per se. They're like, all legislation, it's problematic, and you can see, I try to see both sides of political issues. I really do try to see both sides, unlike most people I know. I try to see both sides. So I'm not going to take a stand on that. But what really upset me, Marjorie Taylor Greene said that this legislation cannot pass because if this legislation passes, then she will not be able to to assert what the Bible itself says, that Herod, King Herod, handed Jesus over to the Jews to be killed. And she said, "I won't be able to say that because, uh, you know, that's what the Bible says. And because of this, this legislation that makes it illegal to, that defines anti-Semitism, that would fall under that definition. So I can't say what the Bible itself says." When I heard that, I just started scratching my head, saying, "What in the world? What Bible is she reading exactly?" I mean, she's not reading any Bible. Somebody told her that's what the Bible says, and it doesn't say that. In fact, just the opposite. In the trial of Jesus, there are four accounts of the trial of Jesus in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In Matthew, Mark, and John, Herod is not mentioned. This is not the Herod, by the way, who killed the babies in Bethlehem. This is his son, Herod Antipas, who was the king of Galilee when Jesus was ministering in Galilee. He's not mentioned in the trial scenes as somebody who handed him over to the Jews to be killed. In Matthew, Mark, and John, he does show up in the Gospel of Luke. Herod is involved in the trial scene. The Gospel of Luke, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, does not think Jesus is guilty, but everybody's insisting that he kill him. And so he doesn't know what to do, so he turns him over to Herod, who happens to be in town for the Passover, so that he'll condemn him to death. But Herod can't find anything wrong with him either. He finds him innocent and he sends him back to Pilate. Then Pilate orders him to be killed. The Romans ordered the Roman governor ordered him to be killed. Herod did not find him guilty and did not hand him over to the Jews. And the Jews did not kill him. So where does this come from that Herod handed him over to the Jews to be killed? So the Jews killed Jesus. That is, that is, I'm sorry, that is anti-Semitic because it's not even what the text says. And, um, you know, there can't, I don't think there should be a law against, you know, not interpreting the Bible correctly, but I do think, you know, if, if I had my way, people who would quote the Bible would at least know what it says. And, you know, and at least say what it says instead of saying just the opposite of what it says, so that you can win some kind of debate about legislation. How's that for a soapbox?
It's an excellent soapbox. I like it. I definitely think that, uh, the world would be a slightly different place if people who quoted the Bible read what it was they were quoting and understood what they were quoting.
Yeah, I mean, I'm not even asking for, you know, understanding things from a scholarly point of view. I'm just saying, basically, just, like, at least say what it says. You know, and then maybe it would help to actually learn something about it. There are experts in these things. And so, you know, so apart from all that, just at least don't weaponize the Bible like this. I, I was telling, I was telling you before, I think we need to have an episode on weaponizing the Bible because it really is not a, it's not good. It's just not good.
I agree. And it is actually on the schedule. So everyone can stay tuned for that. Now, but before we finish for the week, would you just summarize what we spoke about?
Yeah, so in this, this episode, we were talking about, um, the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul and seeing if they actually line up. It's an issue most people haven't thought about because you just assume they're both in the Bible, they're both key to Christianity, they must be saying the same thing. But when you actually analyze the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul, you realize that they have a very different understanding of how a person acquires salvation. And, um, much so that many scholars have long thought that they conflict with each other. And so it's worth at least thinking about whether people are persuaded by that or not. It's worth thinking about because it really does seem like a stark difference.
Thank you, Bart, for sharing your time and your expertise with this audience. Thank you all for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. And if you did, please subscribe to the podcast to make sure you don't miss future episodes. Remember, you can use the code MJ podcast for a discount on all of the, uh, all of Bart's courses over at www.barthehrman.com. And Misquoting Jesus will be back next week. Bart, what are we talking about?
Oh, well, we're moving back in time to the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. And, um, Isaiah is a very important book, and it was a very important book for the early Christians. And so in part, we're going to be talking about, uh, about the use of the book of Isaiah, uh, in the New Testament and in early Christianity. We'll see you next week. Thank you all. And goodbye.
This has been an episode of Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. We'll be back with a new episode next Tuesday, so please be sure to subscribe to our show for free on your favorite podcast listening app or on Bart Ehrman's YouTube channel so you don't miss out. From Bart Ehrman and myself, Megan Lewis, thank you for joining us.