The Bible and Beyond Podcast Episode
Did Paul Really Say That?
Who Is Paul, and What Did He Really Write That’s in the Bible?
An Interview with Dr. Nina Livesey
Dr. Nina Livesey, photo Shevaun Williams and Associates
Have you ever been reading the New Testament and wondered, “Did Paul really say that?”
Dr. Nina Livesey, a scholar on Paul and his writings in the Bible, explains what scholars think Paul must have written and what he probably didn’t write. She agrees with recent scholarly consensus that these letters hold together with common theological perspectives, concepts, and vocabulary. But she pushes a bit farther, describing how Paul’s rhetoric is more intentionally strategic than people have thought. His letters also demonstrate his ethical implications for faith.
Nina E. Livesey, Ph.D., is Professor of Religious Studies in the College of Professional and Continuing Studies at the University of Oklahoma. Her scholarly work focuses largely on Paul and his letters, with a more recent turn to Christian origins from a rhetorical perspective. Her scholarship includes Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol (Mohr Siebeck 2011), Galatians and the Rhetoric of Crisis: Demosthenes-Cicero-Paul (Polebridge 2016), and many published articles. At present, she is working on a third monograph that pertains to Paul and his interpreters. She serves as co-chair of Westar’s Christianity Seminar Phase II and co-edits Westar’s journal Forum.
More Information: Visit Dr. Livesey’s website.
I learned a lot. I guess there is a lot more to study.
I found this podcast relating to the apostle Paul to be quite interesting. It did bring up a question about Dr. Livesey’s comment that Acts is a work of fiction. She did not provide any support or explanation of this comment. It isn’t that I believe every narrative in the Bible to be historically factual. But I would love to know Dr. Livesey’s reasoning behind her off-the-cuff comment, as if it were a well known fact. I’ve never heard anyone make that claim before. Thanks so much for these terrific interviews, Shirley.
Thank you for your question. I am dismayed that scholarship on these issues has not been made more accessible, as it should, to readers like you.
Already in 1845, the highly influential New Testament scholar F. C. Baur argued against the historicity of Acts (“Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre”; ET: “Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ,” 1873–1875). Noticing that the letters of Paul (namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians) differ with regard to Acts on the characterizations of Paul, Baur assessed the letters as more historically reliable than Acts. More recently, these insights were taken up by Richard Pervo (“The Mystery of Acts,” Polebridge, 2008) and at Westar through the 10-year Acts Seminar, which culminated in a volume: Dennis Smith and Joseph Tyson, “Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report,” Polebridge, 2013. Yet these scholars are not alone in their assessment of Acts.
What I am most interested in is the scholarship behind the statement of which letters are authorized as actually written by Paul. Instead of just referring to general scholarship as accepted, why are some letters recognized and other letters doubted. Specific examples would be very helpful. If it is writing style what is it in the style.
There has been wide scholarly consensus since the early twentieth century that the seven letters (Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon) are authentically Pauline. The history of how that consensus was reached is rather complicated and beyond what I am able to post here. (I am working on another book and address some of that history there.)
The Authentic Letters of Paul well expresses the recently developed criteria used to determine the status of the fourteen letters. Arthur Dewey et al. note, “Comparative analysis of the letters reveals that not all of them are from the same hand. By focusing on the vocabulary, phrases, social situation, Christology and ecclesial understanding of the letters, scholars can detect earlier and later voices (p. 2, italics are my own).
You can observe something of the style of the seven authentic letters from their openings, all of which share common terms, phrases, and theological understandings.
2 Corinthians (considered to be an authentically Pauline letter) is typical of the openings found within the seven letters. It begins:
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 1:1–2, NRSV)
By contrast, Titus, not considered to be written by Paul, has a letter opening that is different in terms of content and theology.
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that is in accordance with godliness, in the hope of eternal life that God, who never lies, promised before the ages began—in due time he revealed his word through the proclamation with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior. (Tit 1:1–3, NRSV)
The language “for the sake of God’s elect” and the “knowledge of the truth that is in accordance with godliness” are expressions not found within the group of seven letters. And the notion that Paul has been entrusted with the proclamation is also an expression not found in the seven letters. The latter is perhaps implied, but not made explicit in those terms.
This is simply one example of the types of things scholars have analyzed to determine which letters are likely from the same hand. The example addresses both language (phraseology) and theology.
Thank you for this excellent answer. I found it very helpful.
As a late-comer to these engrossing podcasts, I find myself with a big, unanswered question regarding the statement by Dr. Livesey in January 2021 that the book of Acts is fiction. I’d really appreciate knowing the background reasoning for this. I didn’t find Dr. Livesey’s reply to M. Griffith’s question of the same nature as mine to help me understand this claim.
In my response to M. Griffith, I laid out a brief account of the question of the historicity of Acts, stating that already in the mid-nineteenth century F. C. Baur doubted Acts as historically reliable. As do the majority of NT scholars today, Baur noticed inconsistencies between the book of Acts and various letters attributed to Paul. According to him, historical truth could not be present in both Acts and the letters; he chose the latter as historically reliable and subsequently assessed only four Pauline letters as genuinely Pauline and historically trustworthy (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians).
But back to your question: Why have scholars assessed Acts as in the whole undependable as history? We determine this through an investigation of its style and purpose. From the perspective of the latter—an overview approach to Acts—one can observe that it paints an idealized and mythical picture of earliest Christianity. Another way of responding to your question is to say that the portrait that Acts paints of Christian beginnings is “too good to be true.” Some events have no historical basis, such as divine intervention in the replacement of Judas as apostle, various divine visions, and miracles. It is likewise historically unlikely that the earliest adherents would be so united in their views. Other events appear as staged, such as the consistent resistance, depicted similarly, by Jews of the teachings. The Apostle Paul three times (for emphasis) dramatically reports of his conversion away from Judaean to Christ belief. The latter is surely one of the key teachings of Acts. For another, there is literary borrowing. Acts depicts twelve male apostles as leaders, in likely imitation of the twelve tribes of Israel. Patterning after authoritative scripture lends weight to these newer teachings. Rather than historical facts, the events in Acts serve purposefully to advance the plot in directions favorable to the biblical teachings being proposed. In their 2013 Acts and Christian Beginnings—a book I highly recommend, as in chapter after chapter it addresses this question—Smith and Tyson define Acts as a “charter myth” (p. 17).
Religious movements and even nations, like Rome, often begin with originating or foundation myths, Christianity is no different.