Bart D. Ehrman: Did Paul Follow the Teachings of Jesus?

The relationship between the Apostle Paul and Jesus of Nazareth has long been a subject of scholarly debate, theological reflection, and historical inquiry. One of the most influential voices in this conversation is Bart D. Ehrman, a prominent New Testament scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman, known for his accessible writings and critical approach to early Christianity, has contributed significantly to the question: Did Paul follow the teachings of Jesus?

Ehrman's answer is nuanced. In his books and lectures, he argues that while Paul considered himself a devoted follower of Jesus, he often reinterpreted Jesus' message in ways that diverged significantly from what the historical Jesus likely taught.

Paul and Jesus: Different Missions?

Bart Ehrman frequently points out that Jesus and Paul operated in very different contexts with distinct goals. Jesus, according to Ehrman and many historical scholars, was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who preached about the coming of the Kingdom of God. His message was primarily directed toward his fellow Jews, urging repentance and righteousness in anticipation of God’s imminent intervention in history.

Paul, on the other hand, was a Greek-speaking Jew who never met Jesus during his lifetime. He only encountered the risen Christ in a visionary experience (described in Acts 9 and Galatians 1). After this, Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles, preaching a gospel centered on faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus as the pathway to salvation.

Ehrman emphasizes that while Jesus preached about God’s Kingdom coming to earth, Paul focused on personal salvation and union with Christ. In other words, Jesus proclaimed a transformation of the world, while Paul preached a transformation of the individual soul through Christ.

The Teachings of Jesus vs. The Theology of Paul

One of Ehrman’s central claims is that Paul rarely quoted Jesus or directly referred to his teachings. When Paul discusses morality, ethics, or theological ideas, he seldom appeals to what Jesus said during his earthly ministry. This omission has led some scholars, including Ehrman, to suggest that Paul was more influenced by his own revelations and theological reflections than by the actual teachings of the historical Jesus.

For example, consider the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, which contains Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence, loving one’s enemies, and the importance of inner purity. These themes are largely absent in Paul’s epistles. Instead, Paul focuses on issues like justification by faith, the role of the Jewish Law, and the mystical union with Christ.

To Ehrman, this shift represents a significant theological development. Paul was not merely passing on Jesus’ teachings—he was reinterpreting Jesus’ significance in light of the crucifixion and resurrection, which Paul saw as world-changing events. This led to a new religion centered around Christ himself, not just his moral teachings.

Did Paul Know What Jesus Taught?

A further complication, as Ehrman often notes, is that Paul likely didn’t know much about Jesus’ earthly life. In his letters—our earliest Christian writings—Paul says little about Jesus’ parables, miracles, or ethical instructions. Most of his biographical references are limited to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and sometimes his Jewish identity.

Paul does refer to some teachings that align with Jesus, such as love being the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:8-10), or abstaining from retaliation (Romans 12:17). But even these are not direct quotations, and they reflect general Jewish ethical values that were not unique to Jesus.

This has led Ehrman to suggest that Paul’s understanding of Jesus was filtered through theological reflection, early Christian tradition, and possibly some oral reports from Jesus' original followers. While Paul may have known certain sayings or traditions, he was not a biographer—he was a theologian and missionary with a specific agenda.

Paul’s Influence on Christianity

One of Ehrman’s more provocative claims is that Paul essentially founded Christianity as we know it. While Jesus taught within a Jewish context about God’s kingdom on earth, Paul developed a theology that made Jesus himself the center of salvation. Paul’s message was that through faith in the risen Christ, both Jews and Gentiles could be reconciled to God, apart from the works of the Jewish Law.

This doctrine of justification by faith would later become the cornerstone of Christian theology, particularly in the Protestant tradition. Ehrman and other scholars argue that Paul’s vision reshaped Jesus' message into a new religion that could spread across the Greco-Roman world.

As Ehrman puts it, “Without Paul, Christianity might have remained a small sect within Judaism.” It was Paul’s theological innovations, his missionary journeys, and his prolific writing that laid the groundwork for Christianity to become a global faith.

Was Paul Faithful to Jesus?

So, did Paul follow the teachings of Jesus? According to Bart Ehrman, it depends on how you define "follow."

If “following” means adhering to Jesus’ ethical teachings and apocalyptic worldview, then Paul diverged in several key areas. He reinterpreted Jesus’ role, shifted the focus from the kingdom to the cross, and created a theology that would have been foreign to many of Jesus’ original Jewish followers.

However, if “following” means being committed to Jesus as Lord, then Paul certainly considered himself a follower. He saw himself as chosen by God to spread the message of Jesus' resurrection, and he dedicated his life to that mission—often at great personal cost.

Ehrman does not suggest that Paul was insincere or deceitful. Rather, he sees Paul as a brilliant and passionate interpreter who, like many religious leaders, reshaped his tradition in light of new revelations and experiences.

The Broader Scholarly Context

Ehrman's views are not without debate. Some scholars argue that Paul did preserve elements of Jesus’ teachings, and that the apparent differences are more about emphasis than contradiction. Others suggest that Paul’s silence on certain issues may be due to his writing style or the specific concerns of his audiences.

Yet, the general consensus among critical scholars is that Paul and Jesus had different messages, shaped by different contexts. Ehrman’s contribution lies in making this complex relationship accessible to modern readers, and in challenging us to think critically about the origins of Christian theology.

Conclusion

Bart D. Ehrman’s exploration of Paul’s relationship to Jesus opens up essential questions about the foundation of Christianity. His central argument—that Paul did not simply transmit Jesus’ teachings but transformed them into something new—has profound implications for theology, history, and faith.

Whether one agrees with Ehrman or not, his work invites a deeper engagement with the New Testament and the development of early Christian thought. Paul may have followed Jesus, but in doing so, he helped create a new religious movement—one that would shape the world for centuries to come.

Bart D. Ehrman: Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions

In the world of biblical scholarship, few figures are as influential—or as controversial—as Bart D. Ehrman. A former evangelical Christian turned agnostic, Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and historian whose work has challenged traditional views on the Bible’s accuracy and historical reliability. Among the many topics he has tackled in his prolific writing and teaching career, one of the most significant and often debated is the question: Are the Gospels historically reliable?

For Ehrman, a major obstacle to affirming their reliability lies in the presence of contradictions within the Gospel accounts. Through careful textual analysis, he argues that these inconsistencies are not minor discrepancies but serious challenges to the view that the Gospels are historically accurate narratives of Jesus’ life.

From Faith to Skepticism

To understand Ehrman’s critique of the Gospels, it’s helpful to know a bit about his background. Ehrman began his academic journey at the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, institutions known for their conservative Christian theology. He initially believed in the inerrancy of Scripture—the idea that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms.

However, during his doctoral studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman began to wrestle with the complexities of the biblical texts, especially the New Testament. The more he examined the manuscripts, the historical context, and the literary features of the Gospels, the more he saw problems that could not be reconciled with the view that the Bible was divinely preserved in a literal sense. His transition from fundamentalist belief to agnostic scholarship is documented in several of his popular books, including Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted.

The Nature of the Gospels

One of Ehrman’s central points is that the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are not eyewitness accounts written shortly after the events they describe. Rather, they are theological narratives written decades after Jesus’ death by authors who were not present during his ministry.

According to mainstream scholarly consensus, which Ehrman echoes and popularizes, Mark was likely written around 70 CE, with Matthew and Luke following in the 80s or 90s, and John possibly even later. This means there was a significant gap—40 to 60 years—between Jesus’ life and the recording of his story in written form.

During this period, stories about Jesus were transmitted orally, often shaped by the needs, beliefs, and theological agendas of early Christian communities. Ehrman argues that this process of oral tradition, combined with the authors’ unique theological aims, helps explain why the Gospels sometimes contradict each other.

Examples of Contradictions

Ehrman often draws attention to specific contradictions between the Gospel accounts to support his case. Some of the most commonly cited examples include:

1. The Birth Narratives

• In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE), and the family flees to Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre of infants.

• In Luke, Jesus is born during a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, which occurred around 6 CE—approximately ten years after Herod’s death.

These timelines are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile, raising questions about the historical accuracy of either account.

2. The Resurrection Accounts

Each Gospel offers a different version of what happened at the empty tomb:

• Who went to the tomb? One woman (John), two women (Matthew), or three or more (Mark, Luke)?

• Was the stone already rolled away or not?

• Did they see one angel (Matthew, Mark) or two (Luke, John)?

• Did Jesus appear to the disciples immediately (Matthew) or much later (Luke, Acts)?

Ehrman argues that these are not minor variations, but conflicting accounts that challenge the idea of a single, coherent resurrection narrative.

3. Jesus’ Last Words

Each Gospel records different final words of Jesus:

• Mark and Matthew: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

• Luke: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

• John: “It is finished.”

For Ehrman, this isn’t just poetic variation—it’s indicative of each Gospel author’s theological agenda and literary independence.

Why Contradictions Matter

Some apologists and theologians argue that contradictions in the Gospels are only apparent and can be harmonized. However, Ehrman contends that the effort to harmonize often leads to ignoring or distorting what each Gospel writer actually says. He believes the contradictions reflect genuine differences in how early Christians understood Jesus, his mission, and his message.

Ehrman also emphasizes that the presence of contradictions challenges the view that the Gospels are historical biographies in the modern sense. Instead, they should be read as theological reflections shaped by faith and community tradition—not as objective, journalistic reports.

Historical Core vs. Theological Overlay

While Ehrman is critical of the Gospels' historical reliability, he does not claim that they are entirely fictional. In his more scholarly works, like Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, he argues that a historical core can be extracted from the Gospel accounts using tools of historical-critical analysis.

He believes Jesus was a real, apocalyptic Jewish preacher who believed the end of the world was imminent—a view that aligns with certain sayings in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Mark 13). However, Ehrman contends that the theological overlay of the Gospels often obscures this historical figure, particularly in later texts like John, where Jesus is portrayed as a divine being from eternity.

Reactions and Criticisms

Ehrman’s work has sparked intense debate, especially among Christian apologists and theologians. Critics argue that he overstates the contradictions and underestimates the capacity of ancient writers to use literary and symbolic devices. Others accuse him of presenting a biased view that doesn't fairly represent alternative scholarly perspectives.

However, even some of his critics acknowledge that Ehrman has done a service by encouraging broader public engagement with the complexities of the New Testament. His accessible style and willingness to challenge assumptions have made him a key voice in contemporary discussions about faith, history, and Scripture.

Conclusion: A Challenge to Certainty

Bart D. Ehrman’s exploration of contradictions in the Gospels serves as a powerful challenge to traditional views of biblical reliability. For him, the inconsistencies are not merely interpretive puzzles but indicators of the complex, human, and evolving nature of the Gospel texts. While his conclusions are not universally accepted, they force readers to engage deeply with the texts and to consider what it means to claim that the Bible is historically "true."

Whether one agrees with Ehrman or not, his work invites a more nuanced and historically grounded approach to understanding the New Testament—an approach that resists easy answers but ultimately seeks a more informed and honest view of one of the most influential collections of writings in human history.