New NIV 2010 Online

Just discovered something. Apparently, the 2010 edition of the NIV is now on www.biblegateway.com. (As far as I know, it’s currently not in print, but it is available online.)

If you have time, here are the translators’ notes (where they describe what changes they made): http://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf.

Compare the older (1984) edition of the NIV’s translation of Romans 3:27 to see a sample of one of the changes:

• · 1984 NIV translation of Romans 3:27: “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.”

• · 2010 NIV translation of Romans 3:27: “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.”

I highlighted the biggest difference between the earlier NIV and the later one. The 1984 NIV committee translated the Greek word νόμος (nomos, literally, “law”) as “principle” in the phrase “On what principle?” But the 2010 NIV committee translated νόμος as “law” and used “because of” for the Greek διὰ (dia, which literally means “through” in this case—they’re interpreting what “through” means with the phrase “because of”).

This is significant because Protestant scholars have long had anxiety about the word “law,” and they felt that Paul’s theology discarded the law and embraced the new “law-free gospel.” There are still many scholars today who do not hesitate to describe Paul’s theology as “law-free.” In one sense, it is “law-free” in that we cannot be saved by the works of the law, but if you read on to Romans 3:31, it is clear that Paul is not interested in disposing of the law.

Perhaps the 1984 NIV translators were worried that if they translated it as “law,” then readers would conclude, “Oh, the law of faith must still somehow be ‘works-based’—because it’s a law.” But I don’t think there’s any reason to introduce the word “principle” into the text. That’s a reflection of someone’s theological editing of the text, in my opinion. But I think the new 2010 NIV brings out what Paul means well and therefore fends off any such potential confusion when they rearranged the 1984 rendering to say, “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith” (emphasis in bold mine).

By νόμος or “law,” Paul is referring to the תּוֹרָה (Torah, or the Mosaic Law, the first five books of the Bible— תּוֹרָה can be translated as “instruction”). It is not in our ability to keep the instruction or תּוֹרָה, but it is in the faithfulness of God and our faith in him that justifies us (this is the thrust of the argument of Romans 3:21-31). That is, in the תּוֹרָה, works are required, but first and foremost is faith. (Works are evidence of our faith or trust in the One who is faithful.) As Paul later argues in Romans 4, Abraham was justified by faith and not by works (circumcision came after God declared Abraham righteous, not before!). In the book of Exodus, God was faithful to Israel by delivering them from Egypt even before he gave them the תּוֹרָה! Grace preceded commandments.

So I think that תּוֹרָה was never intended to justify the ungodly. In fact, the whole point of the argument Paul gives in Romans 2–3 is that all are under sin and that no one is righteous. Furthermore, no one can sin against the law of God and then claim to be able to use the law of God to redeem herself (or himself). If you are truly guilty of murdering someone, you cannot say to the judge, “But Your Honor, I paid my taxes and obeyed the law tons of other times—surely, that will save me, right?” So the law is not the problem. We are.

Thankfully, God sent his Son to redeem us, so that we might believe in the One “who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5 NIV). That is the beauty and power of the gospel.

On the Title of This Blog

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (1995 edition).
The phrase "when faith and culture collide" might seem a bit odd. Isn't faith part of culture? Webster defines culture this way:
"the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also: the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time."
According to Webster (which is reflecting common usage), the parameters of culture encompass "religious" groups as well as social ones.
Culture often shapes faith, but that doesn't mean it should. We have influences all around us, and it's always tempting for us to let the world dictate our theology to us. We might find the Bible to be a bit uncomfortable in some of what it says to us, so we sometimes treat it like Play-Doh and mold it to conform to what the world expects of us.
If you've been following this blog, you may have wondered what the Hebrew in the title (וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה) is all about. It's from Habakkuk 2:4, a verse quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11.
After Habakkuk complains to God about His people's wickedness and God's subsequent decision to raise up a wicked people to punish them, God gives him this answer (the English translation of וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה is set in bold):
"Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; but the righteous will live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).
Paul doesn't translate the 3ms pronominal suffix ḥolem vav (the וֹ ["his"] in בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ ["by his faith"]). If he had, you would have expected to read the Greek translation as follows: Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως αὐτοῦ ζήσεται ("but the righteous one by his faith will live").
Intriguingly, Paul leaves out the αὐτοῦ ("his"), which would otherwise translate the וֹ at the end of בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ. Instead, Paul simply renders the verse this way: Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται ("but the righteous one by faith will live"—no "his").
Also, get this: Paul would often use the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament done by Jews before the time of Jesus) to quote from the Old Testament, as would most Jews of Paul's day. After all, most people (Jew or Gentile) in the time of Paul spoke Greek. Think of the Septuagint as the "NIV" of its time. The New Testament in general often uses the Septuagint.
But in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11, Paul doesn't use the Septuagint. The Septuagint (LXX for short) curiously offers a different rendering even from our oldest available Hebrew manuscripts: Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ
πίστεως μου ζήσεται ("but the righteous by my faith will live").
I can't prove this, but I think Paul—having been trained as a Pharisee—knew the original Hebrew of this passage, and he was offering his own translation. Of course, it's possible that the Septuagint's translation actually reflects older Hebrew manuscripts now lost to us. But we have no way of knowing this unless older manuscripts end up popping up. So my best guess is that Paul is just rejecting the LXX's μου ("my") and deciding to leave out αὐτοῦ ("his") in his own translation.
But to make matters worse, the mysterious author of Hebrews quotes from this passage as well and places the μου after δίκαιος (thus making it read "my righteous one will live by faith"). (See Hebrews 10:38.)
So which one's right? Maybe it's not so much a matter of which one (the author of Hebrews or Paul) is right, but what did each intend to say by referring to this Scripture? Maybe another post can tackle the Hebrews 10:38 usage of Habakkuk 2:4. But for now, let's focus on what Paul meant by his translation:
Habakkuk complains to God about the problem of human evil, and God gives a powerful response: "The righteous shall live by his faith." In Romans, Paul is using this Scripture with reference to the "good news" of Jesus the Messiah.
Perhaps Paul thought that if he put an αὐτοῦ ("his") in the text, that would distract the recipients of his letter from the intended message of Habakkuk 2:4. That is, just as maybe the LXX was giving an interpretive rendering ("by my faith" meaning "by God's faith/faithfulness a righteous one will live"), Paul was also giving an interpretive rendering ( "by faith a righteous one will live"). "So Habakkuk meant," Paul says, "that a person is justified by faith…period—I don't even need to say 'his faith' because I just want you to know that it is by faith that the justified one lives."
In Galatians 3:11, Paul uses this verse to say that no one is justified by the works of the Law. It is instead "by faith." It may not have hurt for Paul to include a "his" (and if it weren't for the fact that his culture was patriarchal, why not a "her"?) but again his point was to focus on one word…faith. We aren't justified before God by our own keeping of the works of the Law. That does nothing for us. It is by faith.
None of this is our own doing. It is all God's doing. We have faith (or believe) in the one whom He has sent, and it is only by His grace that we can be saved from the wrath our sin makes us deserve. That's the gospel.
So what does all this have to do with the phrase "when faith and culture collide"? When we have faith in/believe in Jesus, that inevitably causes culture collisions. People develop customary ways of doing things—a culture. And sometimes that culture rubs up against our faith in a hostile way. (Example: "What? Saved by grace? That's not how we do things in America! We earn good things here!") But other times when culture collides with our faith, it is more receptive to what it finds.
Webster's definition of culture (by including "religion" in the umbrella of any given "culture") reflects the popular notion that Christianity is simply part of Western culture. And in the Webster's dictionary sense, it is. But the deep truths of Christianity cannot be confined to Western culture. In fact, they often bump against much of what makes us "Western." After all, the faith we get from the New Testament's proclamation originated from a non-Western source. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is confined to non-Western cultures either. If Christianity is true, it bumps against aspects of all cultures, while finding friendly reception in other aspects of every culture.
That's why, on Mars Hill, some sneered at Paul when he told them about Jesus and the resurrection, but others wanted to know more.
Let's just not make the mistake of editing our faith to conform to the culture. Instead, our faith is to transform the culture.

They Were Never “True” Christians

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (1995 edition).
When I was in middle school, I discovered Internet message boards. My parents had purchased one of the America Online early versions (when dial-up was the only thing available), and I discovered a whole new world of discussion boards where people would post what they thought online. And they would often disagree. That was when I first started dialoguing with non-Christians—people who didn't already believe the same things I did.
I was one of those naïve evangelical kids who had been taught that anyone who claimed to be a "former Christian" was never really a Christian to begin with. That is, they never truly understood that one had to be saved by grace, not by works.
So to show off my obviously "Christian-exclusive" knowledge and maybe save some souls in the process, I got into a conversation with a self-proclaimed "ex-Christian" on a discussion board that concerned the topic of religion. She said she once believed in Jesus but could no longer do so. Having been taught that such people weren't true Christians to start with, I protested and arrogantly posted something in response like, "Nah. You were never a true Christian. Look, I dare you to try and describe what Christians believe about how we get saved. Go ahead. I'd be surprised if your answer is correct."
When I posted the comment, I leaned back in satisfaction. She's probably going to say that Christians are saved by the works of the Law or something. She couldn't possibly understand that true Christians believe we're saved by grace. So when she gives me the wrong answer, I'll explain to her what Christianity is really all about!
A couple hours later, I checked back for her response. She had written, "According to Protestant Christianity, a person is saved by grace through faith. Jesus supposedly died on the cross for our sins, and it is only by believing in Jesus that one can be saved from the fiery pits of hell. Yeah, right. I'm so glad I don't believe that anymore."
I didn't respond. But I knew she had nailed me. I suppose I could have written back, "Ha! I knew you were going to say that! But did you really believe it?" Of course, then I would have made an even bigger idiot out of myself.
Think about this: Does it help for us to say, "You were never really true Christians to begin with" to people who say they used to be Christians? Why do we say this? Is it because that's what we think we're "supposed" to say? Do we have any good reasons to say it?
Some relevant verses to consider:
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who had given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29).
"They went out from us [Christians], but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame" (Hebrews 6:4-6).

Maybe you think one of the above verses (or some other verse) proves that anyone who claims to have once been a Christian never really was one to begin with—except maybe for that last one. Or maybe you think that the last one is hypothetical, and if you keep reading, you'll see that the writer of Hebrews is really saying that anyone who believes has assurance of salvation.

Whether some people were "true Christians" (is this the same as saying someone was "truly saved," or is it questioning whether they "truly were Christians" in how they treated others and what they believed?) or not is beside the point, though. They certainly thought they were Christians. You might quote 1 John 2:19 to them and insist based on that passage that they never really were Christians, but that won't get you anywhere. Many of them will articulate the same things that you believe as a Christian. You might rationalize it all away by saying, "Oh, they're just parroting what they heard. They never really believed it! If they had, they wouldn't be atheists now."

What if we listened to people better? Listening doesn't mean compromising. But it does mean actually hearing what the other person is saying to you, whether you agree with what they're telling you or not.

Consider this atheist's video on this topic, for example. Go to the 2:34 mark, and you'll hear this interesting statement:

I believe Christians are scared to admit there are actual former Christians. They just don't see any way they could stop believing themselves; therefore, there's no way someone else could stop believing. Making this hateful statement helps them feel high and mighty and feel that they are above others because they're God's "chosen ones." But this pompous attitude is the opposite of the humbleness [that] the religion teaches.

That last line should sting us: "But this pompous attitude is the opposite of the humbleness [that] the religion teaches." Are we considering others better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3) when we make such statements? If we have favorite verses we use to tell "ex-Christians" that there is no such thing as an "ex-Christian," have we considered the verses themselves carefully? How do we know we're applying them correctly? I leave you with these questions to ponder.

Common Evangelical Clichés

I think a lot of people like top-ten lists, so I'm including a top-five one here today instead, just to do something different. Also, it's easier to think of just five things. Following is a list of five evangelical clichés you may have heard at your churches. If you've said any of these (or if you say any of these on a regular basis), please don't be offended by my inclusion of them. But if you're particularly attached to any one of them, feel free to disagree with me, and I'll be happy to have a discussion about it. If you grew up in the evangelical world, you probably are pretty familiar with these statements by now:

1. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Believer-turned-skeptic and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman observes, "Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads: 'God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.' My response is always, What if God didn't say it? What if the book you take as giving you God's words instead contains human words?" See Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 13–14. Sound bites like "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" don't help discussions very much. If an atheist were to say, "God doesn't exist, I don't believe in Him, and that settles it," would you find this particularly helpful? I wouldn't.
   
    
2. "God wants to deliver us from religion"/"Christianity is not a religion—it's a relationship." I put these two together because they make the same fundamentally annoying error. They redefine the word religion, creating a new "Christianese" kind of communication: When many evangelicals say religion, they tend to mean anything that looks like us trying to get up to God rather than God reaching down to us. Everyone else doesn't understand the word religion this way. (I think most people would say that Christianity—even though we define it as a relationship in which God reaches down to us out of His grace and we do nothing to get to Him—is clearly a religion.) Also, consider James 1:26-27. How can there be such a thing as "pure and undefiled religion" in Christianity if "God wants to deliver us from religion"?
   
    
3. "Don't intellectualize the gospel." What does "intellectualizing the gospel" even mean? Are we trying to allude to Paul's teaching that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough" (Galatians 5:9)? If so, then that's an epic fail. Let's stop using the word intellectual as though it meant the same thing as heretic or infidel. What's wrong with thinking deeply? Did C.S. Lewis "intellectualize the gospel"?
   
    
4. "The Bible is a collection of God's love letters to you and me." I am not one to underemphasize God's love (and we are the bride of Christ, after all), but using love-letter language to describe the Bible is hugely problematic. What things come to your mind when you think of the term love letter? Maybe the letters that Noah wrote Allie in The Notebook, right? Romantic imagery. Does this story from the Bible come to mind? I hope not.
   
    
   I understand what people mean when they say they're reading God's love letters, but think about it: Suppose you're a Christian who hasn't really read the Bible but has been told that the Bible contains God's love letters to you, and then you start reading the Bible for the first time. And because you trust the well-meaning Christians who told you this was God's love letter to you, you're going to take along with you some contemporary love-letter assumptions about what the Bible is going to look like.
   
    
   Let's say you're on the standard read-the-Bible-in-a-year track. You might think it's odd that a "love letter" contains a story about the origins of humanity and God's covenants with people named Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but you continue thinking, "How is this a love letter again?" Once you get to God ordering mass executions (see, for example, Numbers 31:2,17-24), you might start to say to yourself, "Wait, I was expecting this to be a love letter! This doesn't sound very loving to me!"
   
    
   To be sure, God is love (see, for example, 1 John 4:8), but God is also dangerously holy (see Exodus 19), and He also smites people who oppose Him or His people (see Numbers 31, referenced earlier). In other words, God is not a Care Bear. Also, the Bible was not written to you (or me) personally. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the Bible is unintended for you and me. In a deeper sense, it is quite correct to say that the Bible was written as an act of love on God's part for all of humanity—which includes you and me. But the apostle Paul wasn't sitting down one day and thinking, "You know, I should write Becca a letter today. I'll just randomly claim I'm writing to the Galatians instead, but I'm really writing for Becca. And it isn't really even me who is writing this. It's ultimately God's love letter. Word."
   
    
   Furthermore, if you read Galatians, it's a pretty harsh letter. Sure, we could argue that Paul was being loving toward the Galatians, but when you write a "love letter" (in the romantic way we think of love letters), do you call the intended recipient of your letter "foolish" (see Galatians 3:1)? The Greek word translated as "foolish"—ἀνόητος—could also imply a lack of intelligence. So "you stupid Galatians" might even be an acceptable translation there. Hmmm… I'm not so sure Noah ever said to Allie that she was "stupid" in his love letters to her—unless, of course, he was being playful. But the context of Galatians doesn't allow for Paul being playful. He was quite serious. (Read Galatians. It's an important letter about the grace Jesus provided for us on the cross.)
   
    
   So all that to say that this is an unhelpful cliché. The Bible is simply not God's collection of love letters to us—it does contain His revealed message to humanity, but our contemporary term love letter carries connotations that simply don't accurately describe the Bible. In fact, I would contend that the Bible's greatness goes beyond the paramaters of the term love letter—it talks of the one who has the power to bring us from death to life (see John 5:24).
   
    
5. "got faith?" Got creativity?

Why Doesn’t Hebrew Get Any Love?

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (1995 edition).

Watch this excellent music video on YouTube by some students at Biola University called “All Things Are Better in Koine,” referring to the original language of the New Testament: κοινή (koine—pronounced koy-NAY—or “common”/“everyday”) Greek. (The song is written and recorded by Derek North, and the rap section is composed by Sam Casucci. The video was directed and edited by Nick Casucci.)

The video is extremely well done and is pretty funny. There is even a reference to D.A. Carson, a well-known New Testament scholar. In the video description, it is described as “tongue-in-cheek.” The video often points out that Koine Greek communicates what the Bible is actually saying, and that’s true—at least what the New Testament is actually saying, anyway.

I found this great comment in the “Comments” section (video accessed June 25, 2010): “Where’s the ancient Hebrew video?...Why doesn’t Hebrew get any love?”

Indeed. Why doesn’t Hebrew get any love? Greek seems to be the popular kid on the block.

Note what scholars Richard Goodrich and Albert Lukaszewski say:

One of the most interesting trends of the past decade has been the resurgence of interest in learning biblical Greek. While Classics departments in major universities suffer budget cuts or outright closure for lack of students, publishers of biblical Greek teaching materials report increasing sales and expanding product lines. Seminaries and Bible colleges have found their Greek courses attracting more students. Beyond the walls of the academy we can find countless numbers of small groups of independent learners, meeting weekly in homes and churches to learn the language of the New Testament. The pool of students contending for mastery of this language is both large and expanding. [See Richard J. Goodrich and Albert Lukaszewski, “Introduction,” A Reader’s Greek New Testament: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 7.]

I’m certainly pleased to hear about this trend. On the same page, the authors observe, “This renaissance is even more amazing when we consider the difficulty of the task. For most, the acquisition of a second language requires a great deal of time and effort. Moreover, Koine Greek is not one of the easier languages to learn.” At least there is renewed interest in learning the original language of the New Testament (and these people are actually learning the language itself—not just committing to memory a few transliterated words without any meaningful knowledge of the language). I heartily applaud the people who are making the effort to learn Koine Greek.

But compare that with the comments by Hebrew scholars A. Philip Brown II and Bryan W. Smith, editors of the companion Reader’s Hebrew Bible:

As teachers of the biblical languages, it has been our observation that less than 20 percent of the students who study Hebrew in college or seminary actually maintain a functional use the language. The percentage that remains functional in Aramaic is, sadly, miniscule. Although Bible software has made tremendous strides in making the original languages accessible, we believe there is still a great need for a tool to aid students in gaining and retaining knowledge of the biblical languages, there is no better way to maintain a functional knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic than to read the text of the Hebrew Bible regularly. [See A. Philip Brown II and Bryan W. Smith, “Introduction,” A Reader’s Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), xii.]

So if “All Things Are Better in Koine,” why not make a music video that says “Biblical Hebrew Is So Cool”? (Yes, the title’s lame, but at least it has the same number of syllables.) Of course, evangelicals often retain Greek more than Hebrew because (1) they end up preaching more from the New Testament than they do from the Old, and (2) Greek comes easier for many people than Hebrew.

I took biblical Hebrew at a public university from an excellent professor who made sure we knew the language well before the end of year. She drilled it into us with the goal that we would be able to actually read major portions of the biblical text—with the help of the standard Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon—completely on our own. Then I took a year of biblical Greek. Hebrew is still my favorite, but I also really enjoy Greek.

Having taken both languages, I passionately think that no substitute exists for the study of Hebrew and Greek with respect to gaining a deeper understanding of the biblical text. Think about it: Let’s say that you’re a native Spanish-speaker who doesn’t know English (in which case, you wouldn’t be reading this blog), and you wanted to study Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit. Would you get the most out of your study of Little Dorrit by studying a Spanish translation of the book? Of course not! The book was originally written in nineteenth-century English. So the answer should be obvious—you would need to learn how to read nineteenth-century English in order to really get at what Dickens is saying.

But the topic of this blog post is the fact that more people in the church are learning Greek than Hebrew. Learning Greek is great, but even if your goal is just to read the New Testament in its original language, you’re missing out if you don’t know Hebrew. Why? The New Testament constantly quotes the Hebrew Bible. And the LXX (Septuagint) is a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew—Greek is not the original language of the OT. And the New Testament doesn’t always use the Septuagint when it quotes the OT (cf. Rom. 1:17 with Hab. 2:4, for example).

To prove why learning Hebrew is also useful, here is a quotation from Exodus 34:6:


“Then the LORD passed by in front of him [Moses] and proclaimed, ‘The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth’” (Exodus 34:6).


The Hebrew term for “slow to anger” is אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם (’erekh ’apayim), which literally means “long of nose.” The picture here is of a God whose nostrils are so long that it takes a long time for them to flare—it’s long before He gets angry. Says something pretty amazing about our God!

Did Paul Make Jesus Up?

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (1995).

Many people like to make the claim that Paul was the founder of Christianity. Some admit that Jesus must have existed, but they claim that Paul corrupted His teachings. Others aren’t quite ready to admit even that Jesus existed as an historical person in the first place, and they claim that Paul actually made Jesus up.

“Now, how on earth can they make such a ridiculous claim?” you ask. Simple: Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels, but they don’t contain many biographical details about Jesus’ life. Therefore, it is claimed, Paul invented Jesus—whom he understands to be more of a spiritual being than a physical one—and the Gospel writers eventually found it necessary to fabricate more details about Jesus’ life in order to smooth out the invention process.

As goofy as this thesis sounds (and it is goofy), a surprising number of people still believe it. Do a casual Google search of “Paul founded Christianity,” and you’ll get quite a whole mess of hits.

In his DVD The God Who Wasn’t There, a film which argues for the conspiracy theory that Jesus never even existed, skeptic Brian Flemming thinks that Paul didn't understand Jesus to be an actual historical human being:

Paul wrote lots of letters about Christianity. In fact, he wrote 80,000 words about the Christian religion. These documents represent almost all we have of the history of Christianity during this decades-long gap [between the alleged life of Jesus and when the first Gospels were written]. And here’s the interesting thing: If Jesus was a human who had recently lived, nobody told Paul. Paul never heard of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Herod, John the Baptist—he never heard about any of these miracles. He never quotes anything Jesus was supposed to have said. He never mentions Jesus having a ministry of any kind at all. He doesn’t know about any entrance into Jerusalem, he never mentions Pontius Pilate, or a Jewish mob, or any trials at all. Paul doesn’t know any of what we would call the story of Jesus except for these last three events: [the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension.] And even these Paul never places on earth. [For a clip, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6THwSYY_aU.]

Blatant inaccuracies plague the above paragraph. First of all, it is true that Paul does not say much about the life of Jesus in his letters. But we shouldn’t expect such things from him. Paul was responding directly to issues faced by the individual churches to whom he was writing. Most of them probably already knew the story. Second of all, Flemming is flat-out wrong when he says, “If Jesus was a human who had recently lived, nobody told Paul.” I can’t even begin to put into words how absolutely irresponsible and fundamentally incorrect that statement is. And Paul actually does give some rather important details about Jesus’ life—not just His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. So here are my responses to his points, one by one:

1. Did Paul hear of Mary? It sure seems like he did. If he didn’t know Mary’s name, he sure knew that Jesus was born of a woman (see Galatians 4:4). In fact, he goes a step further in his letter to the Romans, calling Jesus God’s “Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3). (Some scholars think that Jesus’ genealogy in Luke could be Mary’s genealogy, since it differs from Matthew’s genealogy, which traces Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through His step-father Joseph.) Hmmm… for a guy who allegedly didn’t know that “Jesus was a human who had recently lived,” Paul sure seems to think that Jesus was actually physically born into history.

2. Did Paul hear of Joseph? Paul never talks about Joseph in the letters we have, but I don’t think that means Paul “never heard” of the guy. It simply means that Paul had no reason to mention him in any of his letters. If Joey writes Sally a letter telling her why he thinks American history is important to study, but he doesn’t mention Abraham Lincoln, do we then assume that Joey has never heard of Abraham Lincoln? No. Lincoln was an important part of American history, but one can make a point about American history without mentioning Lincoln.

3. Did Paul hear of Jesus’ birth being in Bethlehem? See #2. The same principle applies here.

4. Did Paul hear of Herod? Most likely. Josephus definitely heard of Herod (see Ant. 18.5.1), so why wouldn’t Paul have heard of the guy? Again, you don’t have to mention someone in a text in order to have heard of that someone. Is Flemming trying to argue that Herod never existed?

5. Did Paul hear of John the Baptist? Paul never does mention John the Baptist in his letters, but see Acts 13:24-25. Evidently, Luke (who wrote Acts) thought that Paul had heard of John the Baptist, since he quotes Paul as referring to John.

6. Did Paul hear about any of Jesus’ miracles? See #2. Again, the same principle applies.

7. Did Paul ever quote anything Jesus was supposed to have said? Yes! In Acts 20:35, Luke quotes Paul, who was quoting Jesus to make a point: “In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (This saying is paralleled nowhere in the Gospels, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus did not say it. See John 21:25.) Paul also directly quotes Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, referring to His famous remarks about the bread and wine representing His body and blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:17-20). Also, Romans 12 has many parallels with the Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 5. For example, compare Romans 12:14 with Matthew 5:44 (love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you). In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul alludes to Jesus’ teaching on marriage (see Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9). Also, compare 1 Timothy 5:18 with Luke 10:7 (see also Matthew 10:10). (I am aware that some scholars do not believe 1 Timothy to have been written by Paul. But I have not yet been given any compelling reason to doubt that this letter was the product of the mind of Paul.) Also, Paul may be quoting Jesus directly when he uses the intimate expression about God, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6; cf. Mark 14:36). (The Aramaic term abba [אבא] means “papa” or “daddy.” It’s the intimate form of the term ab [or av], which in most Semitic languages means “father.”) I could list many more examples.

8. Does Paul mention Jesus having a ministry of any kind at all? Paul doesn’t mention Jesus’ ministry explicitly in his epistles, but according to Luke, Paul was certainly aware of Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 13:31).

9. Does Paul know about Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem? “For many days He [Jesus] appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:31).

10. Does Paul ever mention Pontius Pilate? Flemming says that Paul “never mentions Pontius Pilate.” Again, Flemming appears to have done very little homework: “Though they [the Jewish religious leaders] found no ground for putting Him [Jesus] to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed” (Acts 13:28). “I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of [Messiah] Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus [Messiah]” (1 Timothy 6:13-14).

11. Does Paul know about a Jewish mob? Yes, according to Luke, he did (Acts 13:27-28). (Important note: Some people accuse the New Testament of anti-Semitism because it speaks of a Jewish mob calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. Let me be clear: The NT makes little fuss over the fact that this mob was “Jewish”—most people in Jerusalem (including Jesus) were Jewish. The NT records intra-Jewish disputes, so it makes sense that some mobs would be Jewish. It is anachronistic to read Christian anti-Semitism of later ages back onto the pages of the NT, which is itself a very Jewish collection of documents. Also, Paul was a Jew, a fact that is getting increasing attention in both Jewish and Christian scholarly circles. I’ve been quoting a lot from Acts 13, and it’s important to point out that in the context of that passage, Luke is reporting Paul’s speech in a synagogue. Paul would still go to synagogue on Sabbaths, reasoning with his fellow Jews there, trying to convince them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah [see Acts 17:2].)

12. Does Paul know about any trials at all? Again, see Acts 13:27.

13. Does Paul place the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension on earth? In other words, does Paul believe Jesus to have been crucified on earth as an actual human being? Of course (see 1 Corinthians 2:8). What about His resurrection? Yup (see 1 Corinthians 15). Ascension? He alludes to it, but not directly, and he doesn’t talk about the event as it took place on earth. Still, so what? I refer you, dear reader, again to my answer to #2.

So Flemming is monumentally wrong when he says that Paul did not know anything about Jesus’ historical life. I should also mention that earlier in the clip, Flemming makes the common error of saying that Paul was formerly “Saul.” “Saul” was merely Paul’s Jewish name, one which he retained long after he placed his faith in Jesus. “Paul” was his Greco-Roman name, one which he probably had as a Roman citizen. Acts 13:9 is the first place where Luke refers to him as “Paul,” and he says that this is simply what he was “also called.” Not that his name changed.

But Flemming also blows it when he says, “Just like the other savior gods of the time, Paul’s Christ Jesus died, rose, and ascended all in a mythical realm.” Then, a quote from Hebrews 8:4 appears on the screen: “If Jesus had [emphasis is Flemming’s] been on earth, he would not even have been a priest” (Hebrews 8:4; Earl Doherty’s translation). Then he says this: “Paul doesn’t believe that Jesus was ever a human being. He’s not even aware of the idea.”

Two things:

1. Flemming quotes Hebrews to back up a baseless point he’s trying to make about Paul. No one knows for sure who wrote Hebrews.

2. Note that Flemming uses Earl Doherty’s translation of Hebrews 8:4. Earl Doherty is the author of The Jesus Puzzle, which also advances this crazy conspiracy theory that Jesus never existed. Earl Doherty's arguments that Jesus never existed fuels most of the material for Flemming's arguments against the historical existence of Jesus. (For a good refutation of Doherty’s argument on this passage, which Flemming is alluding to, see Mike Licona’s excellent review of Flemming’s film at the following address: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87.)

In conclusion, Paul was a faithful follower of Jesus who truly believed that there was a man named Jesus who both lived and died and rose again in history. This is absolutely fundamental for Paul. If Jesus was not a real person, then Paul might as well have been talking about Dionysus, or Mithras, or any of the so-called “savior gods” that Flemming tries to compare Jesus to.

If you want to know more about whether Paul founded Christianity or was simply being a faithful follower of Jesus, see David Wenham’s excellent book Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? For a more recent study with a variety of scholarly contributors, see Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate, edited by Todd D. Still.

Paul did not believe in a Gnostic, incorporeal Jesus. He would have been aghast at such a suggestion. Paul believed in the Jesus of history—a Jesus without whom both he and those to whom he preached would be lost. Paul saw Jesus as the promised mashiach—the Messiah, Anointed One, Christ. And we should thank God for using Paul to spread the message of Jesus as he did.