Paul and Jesus: How much did Paul know about the

historical Jesus?

The Light ProjectSession 7

Clint Heacock

“Since the beginning of the critical era, the titans of biblical scholarship have declared that Paul struck off in his own idiosyncratic direction, ignorant or disobedient to the intentions of Jesus, the one he claimed to serve.”

Barrett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus, 11.

“One of the most remarkable features of Paul’s teaching is that very rarely, if at all, in his extensive letters, does he ever seem to allude specifically to any of the sayings that we associate with Jesus through the gospels or even in any of the gnostic or non-canonical sources.

It is as if Paul never read any of it or if he had, was not interested. But unless the gospel teachings never actually originated with Jesus, they must have been extant at that time and the absence from his letters of almost anything that can be attributed to Jesus can only be accounted for either by his lack of knowledge of it or his lack of interest.”

Davidson, The Gospel of Jesus, 145-6.

“In general these noted scholars as well as lesser-known Continental scholars had warm feelings about the historical Jesus (as they saw him) while regarding Paul as a misguided zealot who sent Christianity off in a direction that was far from the mind of its true founder.”

Barrett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus, 12

• Do you believe this statement is a true reflection of Paul, his gospel (allegedly by revelation) and his use (or non-use) of Jesus’ teachings?

• What if it were true? • What sorts of implications might that

have for our understanding of Paul and of the gospel message as set forth in his epistles?

The ‘historical Jesus’

• Toward the end of the 19th century many Continental scholars emphasized Paul’s isolation from Jesus.

• The teachings of the ‘historical Jesus’ (not necessarily the one portrayed in the Gospels) were claimed to be:– Simple– Attainable– Ethical

The ‘Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’ emphasized the ‘real’ and everyday aspects of the historical Jesus.

John Everett Millais, Christ in the House of His Parents, 1850.

The Bible written by those who portrayed the ‘Christ of faith’ and not necessarily

the true Jesus of history

The ‘historical Jesus’ reconstructed from evidence to give a

composite picture of the ‘real Jesus’

Histo

rical-C

ritical M

eth

ods

Impact of NT Scholar W Wrede (1907)• No element of continuity existed

between Jesus and Paul• The similarities between Jesus and

Paul were superficial• The distinctions between Paul’s

religion and his theology were false• Paul’s substitution of a ‘religion of

redemption’ for the simple ethical and eschatological teachings of Jesus was a novel and dramatic departure

• Paul = ‘the second founder of Christianity’ who had a stronger (but not necessarily better) impact upon Christianity than Jesus

S.G. Wilson, “From Jesus to Paul,” 4.

Impact of NT Scholar Bultmann (1929)

• Paul’s teachings show neither an interest in, nor were influenced by, the teachings of Jesus

• There are similarities between the two (law, human sinfulness, etc) but these are merely verbal

• Jesus waited for the kingdom while Paul proclaimed that it had arrived

• Paul showed no interest in the how or what of Jesus’ life but rather in the that of it (theological rather than historical).

S.G. Wilson, “From Jesus To Paul,” 6.

Gospels(The Historical Jesus)

Pauline Epistles(Exalted Christ)

‘Christ Jesus’

F.F. Bruce’s conception of the different emphases between the Gospels and the

Pauline Epistles

Points to Ponder

1. Few scholars address the chronological closeness between Jesus and Paul

2. When Jesus came to Jerusalem, Paul had already been living and studying there for at least 10 years

3. Paul’s ‘Damascus event’ must have occurred not long after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (34 AD)

4. There is little evidence to suggest Paul was unduly evidenced by a ‘Hellenistic religious context’

What exactly did Paul know about the historical details of Jesus’ life?

1. Paul lived in Jerusalem during the span of Jesus’ ministry.

2. His participation in the trial and stoning of Stephen, combined with his persecution of ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Hellenist’ Jews in Jerusalem must have contributed to his understanding of Christ.

3. After his Damascus Road experience, his association with Ananias and other believers in Damascus would have contributed to his knowledge of Jesus.

4. Within two years of the Damascus event he spent 2 weeks in Jerusalem with Peter, and met James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1.18-20).

5. Paul also had a lengthy association with Barnabas, an early disciple in Jerusalem.

How much of Jesus’ actual teachings did Paul know?

• At times he will directly quote the sayings of Jesus (1 Cor. 11. 23-25).

• At times he will allude to the sayings of Jesus (1 Thess. 4.15; 1 Cor. 7. 9-11; 9.14)

• At times he will adapt Jesus’ teachings (1 Thess. 4.1-4)

• Moreover, Paul is clearly familiar with the major details of Jesus’ Davidic lineage, life, teachings, crucifixion and resurrection

Conclusions• Recall that when Paul wrote his letters, neither

Acts nor the Gospels were written yet! • Realistically, how much written material was

actually available to Paul beyond that of oral and eyewitness testimonies?

• Paul’s letters do reflect an extensive global and sequential knowledge of Jesus’ life.

• To a significant extent his letters quote, adapt and echo the words of Jesus.

• Conclusion: From the evidence, there is no discernible ideological or theological ‘wall of separation’ between Paul and Jesus, but rather more of a ‘level ground’ between the two.