Hard Questions Are Necessary

In my previous post on the Knights Templar, I argued that the problem is not curiosity. The problem is what happens when curiosity loses discipline. Sensational claims often follow a recognizable pattern: confidence beyond the evidence, narrow source selection, selective engagement with opposing views, dramatic conclusions, and a tendency to treat mainstream scholarship as naïve, compromised, or complicit.

Those same warning signs can show up in many other subjects. They can show up in history, politics, health claims, conspiracy theories, theology, and biblical interpretation. The topic changes, but the habits of thought often remain the same. That is why I want to move from the Knights Templar to a different and much more important debate: the relationship between Jesus and Paul.

My interest was first drawn by the title of Katheryn Greenleaf’s article, “100 Reasons Christians Should Follow Jesus — Not Paul.” That title struck me as odd. After all, Paul himself rejects the idea that Christians should divide into parties around human leaders. In 1 Corinthians, he rebukes the Corinthians for saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas.” His point is not “follow me instead.” His point is that Christ is not divided. Paul was not crucified for them. They were not baptized into the name of Paul.

When Paul does call people to imitate him, he qualifies the imitation: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” In other words, Paul does not present himself as a rival to Jesus. At least on the surface, the title “Follow Jesus — Not Paul” already raises a methodological question. Is the article correcting a genuine theological confusion, or is it framing Paul as a villain before the evidence has been carefully weighed?

That does not mean questions about Paul are illegitimate. They are not. Christians have wrestled with Paul for centuries. Some Pauline texts are difficult. Some are easy to misuse. Some raise serious questions about law, grace, works, women, slavery, empire, church authority, judgment, and the relationship between faith and obedience. Anyone who has read Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, or the disputed Pauline letters with any seriousness knows that Paul is not always easy. Sometimes he is brilliant. Sometimes he is dense. Sometimes he is pastoral. Sometimes he is severe. Sometimes he makes us stop, reread, and ask, “What exactly is going on here?”

That is not a bad thing. Hard questions are necessary. Minority scholarship deserves a hearing. Scholars who challenge inherited interpretations can help us see blind spots. Outsiders can sometimes notice assumptions insiders have stopped noticing. The mainstream can be wrong. Traditions can become defensive. Institutions can protect themselves. We should not be afraid of difficult questions simply because they disturb familiar answers.

So this post is not a defense of Paul at all costs. Nor is it an attack on asking difficult questions. My concern is methodological, not merely theological. Certain patterns in these articles raise concerns about whether the discussion is functioning as careful inquiry or as polemical argument. There is a difference between asking, “How do Jesus and Paul relate?” and arranging the evidence so that Paul is convicted before the investigation begins.

So, what should our goal be? Are we trying to find the truth about the apparent differences between Jesus and Paul, or are we trying to influence people toward an alternative view? Those are not the same task. Truth-seeking asks hard questions and allows the answers to be complicated. Polemic asks questions in a way that guides the reader toward a verdict.

Not everyone will take the time to peer review, if we can call it that, something they read online. Most people will not open the sources, check the context, compare the claims, examine the counterarguments, or ask whether the strongest opposing scholarship has been addressed. But some of us must. Even if no one listens. Even if only a few people care. People who seek truth will care, and they will research.

That is the spirit in which I want to proceed. The question is not whether Paul can be questioned. He can be. The question is whether Paul is being questioned fairly. The question is whether the articles handle the evidence responsibly, speak with appropriate humility, engage the wider field, and distinguish between legitimate critique and rhetorical prosecution. And if we are going to ask whether Paul is faithful to Jesus, we should at least begin by being faithful to truth.

Why Tone Matters in Scholarship

In this post, I am going to look at two articles by Katheryn Greenleaf:

• “100 Reasons Christians Should Follow Jesus — Not Paul,” published January 10, 2026. https://katheryngreenleaf.substack.com/p/100-reasons-christians-should-follow
• “Investigating Biblical Contradictions, Part 2, No. 5: The Irreconcilable Gospels of Jesus vs Paul,” published May 20, 2026. https://substack.com/home/post/p-198621029

Right off the bat, the tone is hard to miss. The tone is often the first warning sign. It does not settle the question, of course. A calm argument can still be wrong, and a passionate argument can still contain truth. But tone tells us something about how the author is approaching the subject. Is the writer inviting careful inquiry, or moving quickly toward a verdict? Is the argument making room for uncertainty, or is it closing the door before the reader has had time to examine the evidence?

In serious scholarship, authors usually speak in degrees of confidence. That is not weakness. It is intellectual honesty. Words like “may,” “suggests,” “probably,” “plausibly,” “possibly,” “appears,” and “remains disputed” are not signs that the scholar lacks courage. They are signs that the scholar understands the limits of the evidence.

Academic hedging is normal because evidence comes in degrees. Some claims are strongly supported. Some are likely. Some are plausible but uncertain. Some remain debated. Some are possible but weak. A careful writer helps the reader understand where each claim belongs on that scale.

That is especially important when discussing Paul. The relationship between Jesus and Paul is not a simple subject. And we should not pretend that it is. It involves the historical Jesus, Second Temple Judaism, the early Jesus movement, the Jerusalem church, Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, the meaning of Torah, the resurrection, justification, kingdom, grace, ethics, ecclesiology, personality, and the development of early Christian theology. Anyone who speaks about these matters with total certainty should give us pause.

The language in these articles often moves in a different direction. We encounter phrases such as “fundamentally incompatible,” “irreconcilable,” and “cannot be reconciled.” The reader is given the impression that Paul did not merely develop, apply, or interpret Jesus’ message in a new post-resurrection context. Rather, Paul becomes the one who replaces Jesus, contradicts Jesus, or constructs a rival spiritual system. That is not merely critical language, it is prosecutorial language.

This is also why the language of “cannot be reconciled” is so risky. Once an author claims that two ideas are irreconcilable, the burden becomes very high. The argument is no longer merely saying, “There is tension here,” or “This is difficult to harmonize.” It is saying no reasonable reconciliation exists. But if even one plausible explanation can account for the tension without distorting the evidence, then the absolute claim collapses. The whole house of cards depends on proving not only that the author’s interpretation is possible, but that every reasonable alternative is impossible. That is a much harder case to make.

Again, that does not automatically make the argument false. Sometimes strong conclusions are justified. Sometimes evidence does lead us to say, “This cannot be reconciled.” But the stronger the conclusion, the heavier the burden of proof becomes. If someone claims that Jesus and Paul have different emphases, different missions, or different vocabularies, that is one level of argument. If someone claims that Jesus and Paul represent two fundamentally incompatible religious worlds, that is a much larger claim.

A larger claim requires larger evidence. This is where proportional confidence matters or spectrum of certainty as I often call it. Certainty should rise only as high as the evidence allows. If the evidence is mixed, the conclusion should be cautious. If the scholarship is divided, the tone should acknowledge the division. If major counterarguments exist, the argument should engage them before announcing victory.

The old saying is useful here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would add that the stronger the claim, the greater the burden of proof. A sweeping conclusion cannot be carried by selective quotation, narrow source selection, or rhetorical force. It must account for the full range of evidence, including the evidence that complicates the thesis.

This is one reason tone matters. Tone can reveal whether an argument is still listening. A truth-seeking tone leaves room for correction. It says, “Here is the evidence as I understand it.” It says, “This is my conclusion, but I recognize the complexity.” It says, “Here are the strongest objections.” It says, “This remains disputed.” It allows the reader to think.

A prosecutorial tone often does something else. It gathers the most damaging evidence, arranges it in the most persuasive order, and presses the reader toward conviction. It may contain facts. It may quote sources. It may even raise real questions. But the goal feels different. The goal is not exploration. The goal is persuasion toward a verdict.

That is my concern here. The problem is not that Greenleaf asks whether Paul and Jesus differ. They do. The problem is not that she raises hard questions about Paul. Those questions are worth asking. The problem is that the tone of these articles often suggests that the case has already been decided. Paul is not being examined so much as prosecuted.

And when critique becomes prosecution, scholarship begins to lose its humility. Truth does not need us to lower our standards in order to defend it. If Paul really contradicts Jesus, then careful evidence should show that. If Paul is fundamentally continuous with Jesus, careful evidence should show that too. Either way, the method matters.

The Difference Between Inquiry and Prosecution

There is a difference between inquiry and prosecution. Inquiry asks, “What best explains all the evidence?” It is curious, patient, and willing to be surprised. It wants to know what is true, even if the truth complicates our preferred conclusion. Inquiry asks: What are the strongest arguments on each side? Where are the tensions? What evidence supports the claim? What evidence challenges it? What would make me revise my view?

Prosecution asks a different question: “How do I prove my suspect guilty?” That is not always a bad thing in a courtroom. A prosecutor has a role to play. But scholarship should not begin by treating the subject as a criminal defendant. When it does, the evidence is no longer being weighed so much as arranged. The writer starts looking for the most damaging material, the sharpest contrast, the most suspicious motive, and the most emotionally persuasive framing.

That is where many arguments begin to go wrong. A prosecutorial argument gathers only incriminating evidence. It highlights every text that makes Paul look harsh, authoritarian, divisive, or unlike Jesus. It dwells on curses, discipline, confrontation, conflict, hierarchy, and judgment. But then it fails to give equal attention to evidence that complicates that portrait: Paul’s teaching on love, reconciliation, humility, forgiveness, generosity, mutual service, the fruit of the Spirit, and union with Christ.

For example, if an article emphasizes Paul’s curse in Galatians but does not adequately reckon with Paul’s claim that “faith works through love,” then the reader is not seeing the whole Paul. If it highlights church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5 but neglects Paul’s later call to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm love, then the reader is being given a partial portrait. If it contrasts Jesus’ love ethic with Paul’s supposed harshness while barely engaging Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5, or Philippians 2, then the evidence has been filtered before the reader receives it.

That does not mean the difficult texts disappear. They do not. Galatians 1 is still severe. 1 Corinthians 5 is still difficult. Romans 13 still raises political and ethical questions. The household codes still require serious discussion. Paul’s rhetoric can be sharp, and his authority claims should be examined carefully. But inquiry asks us to examine all of that in context. Prosecution does not.

This is why the two articles frequently read less like an investigation and more like a prosecutorial brief. Paul is placed in the dock. Jesus is presented as mercy, healing, humility, and love. Paul is presented as domination, conflict, exclusion, hierarchy, and control. Then the evidence is arranged to make that contrast feel obvious. The result is rhetorically powerful. But is it fair? That is the question.

A fair inquiry would ask why Paul sounds different from Jesus at certain points. It would consider genre: Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels are not the same kind of writing as Paul’s pastoral letters to troubled churches. It would consider historical sequence: Jesus preached before the cross and resurrection, while Paul preached after them. It would consider audience: Jesus’ earthly ministry focused primarily on Israel, while Paul’s mission centered on Gentile inclusion. It would consider context: Paul is often writing to communities in crisis, not giving a complete summary of everything he believes.

A fair inquiry would also engage the strongest counterarguments. It would ask whether Paul’s gospel may be a post-resurrection proclamation of Jesus’ kingdom rather than a replacement for it. It would ask whether “works of the law” refers to moral obedience in general or to Torah boundary markers in the Jew-Gentile question. It would ask whether Paul’s emphasis on faith excludes obedience, or whether Paul understands faith as allegiance that produces love. It would ask whether Paul’s discipline is domination, or whether it reflects pastoral concern for communities he believes are spiritually endangered.

These are not minor details. They are central to the debate. But when opposing scholars are absent, when exculpatory evidence is minimized, and when the conclusion is announced before the investigation is complete, the reader is not being invited into careful scholarship. The reader is being guided toward conviction.

That is why the prosecutorial analogy matters. A prosecutor can make a person look guilty by presenting only the most damaging evidence. But truth requires more than a case for the prosecution. It also requires cross-examination. It requires the defense. It requires context. It requires testing the theory against the strongest evidence on the other side. If Paul is guilty of replacing Jesus, then the case should be able to survive that kind of scrutiny. If it cannot, then we are not dealing with a proven conclusion.

Echo Chambers and Source Selection

Before we look at what the articles argue, we need to look at how they use sources. Sources matter, but the presence of sources does not automatically make an argument balanced or reliable. A bibliography can create the illusion of breadth while still remaining narrow. The question is not simply, “Are there citations?” The better questions are: What kind of sources are being cited? Are they peer-reviewed? Are they representative of the field? Are they being used carefully? And just as important, which major voices are missing?

That is why I want to separate this discussion into two related concerns. First, the sources used in these articles appear to cluster too narrowly around a Jesus-versus-Paul or Paul-as-founder stream of interpretation. Second, the sources missing from the discussion are too important to ignore. Those are not identical problems. One concerns the shape of the bibliography itself. The other concerns the scholarly conversation the reader is not allowed to hear.

The next two sections will address these issues directly. First, I want to look at the sources the articles actually use and ask whether they cluster too narrowly around one interpretive stream. Second, I want to look at the voices that are missing. If an argument makes sweeping claims about Jesus and Paul while leaving out major scholars who have spent their lives working on that very question, then the reader is not being given the full conversation. The problem is not merely what is included. It is also what is left out.

Narrow Source Clustering: When a Bibliography Looks Broader Than It Is

Sources matter. I actually appreciate when writers give references, because too many articles, news stories, online claims, and social media arguments ask us to trust them without showing their work. Transparency is important. If someone is making a serious claim, especially about history, theology, medicine, politics, or public life, then I want to know where the claim comes from. I want to see the sources. I want to know whether the author has done the work.

But the presence of sources does not automatically make an argument balanced. A bibliography can create the illusion of breadth while still remaining narrow. A long list of citations may look impressive, but if most of those sources cluster around the same conclusion, the reader may not be seeing the field. The reader may only be seeing one stream within the field. That distinction matters. The question is not simply, “Does the article cite sources?” The better questions are: Are the sources representative? Are they being used carefully? Are they being cited in context? Do they mostly reinforce one interpretive direction? Are disputed or minority positions being presented as if they settle the matter?

This is where the two articles raise a significant concern. The articles cite a mixed set of scholars and writers, but they lean heavily toward a Jesus-versus-Paul or Paul-as-founder stream of interpretation. That does not mean every cited scholar is fringe. That would be an overstatement, and it would be unfair. Some of the names cited are serious, mainstream, and field-shaping scholars. Others are more radical, revisionist, highly disputed, or fringe-adjacent in their reconstructions of Paul.

The problem is not that minority voices are cited. Minority voices can be useful. They can raise neglected questions, challenge stale assumptions, and force a field to sharpen its arguments. The problem is that the bibliography appears stacked in one direction, and that creates a high risk of bias. The first article’s reference list includes Robert Eisenman, Gerd Lüdemann, Hyam Maccoby, E. P. Sanders, and James D. Tabor. The second article adds John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, and Paula Fredriksen. It is worth noting that this is not a source-free argument, however, more importantly, it is also not a balanced map of Pauline scholarship.

E. P. Sanders is different. He is not a fringe figure. He is a mainstream, field-shaping scholar whose work helped redefine the study of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. His contribution is especially important because he challenged the old caricature that Judaism was simply a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. But that is exactly why his presence in this bibliography feels awkward. Sanders may see real differences between Jesus and Paul in mission, emphasis, and religious pattern, but he does not support the crude claim that Paul betrayed Jesus or invented an anti-Jesus religion. He belongs in serious Pauline scholarship, but he should not be pulled into a polemical conclusion he does not actually support. From what I can see, the article does not demonstrate much awareness of Sanders’ actual position. In that sense, he is the odd one out.

Paula Fredriksen is a harder one to pin down, and that is part of the point. She is a serious critical scholar, especially important in discussions of Paul within Judaism. She does not fit neatly into either the “Paul betrayed Jesus” camp or the traditional evangelical continuity camp. In many ways, she occupies a more nuanced middle position, though she leans strongly toward continuity at the historical level. She would not support the claim that Paul invented a religion fundamentally opposed to Jesus. But from what I can see, the article does not really demonstrate awareness of that nuance. Fredriksen seems to be used more for what she opposes than for the full shape of what she actually argues.

Bart Ehrman is a prominent New Testament scholar whose original academic specialization was textual criticism, though his work has extended broadly into historical Jesus research and the history of early Christianity. He is also a highly successful popularizer whose conclusions are often more skeptical than traditional Christian interpretations. Ehrman has identified real differences between Jesus and Paul, and those differences deserve serious scholarly discussion. But his work still needs to be read carefully and in context. His views have developed over time, and even where he emphasizes discontinuity, that does not automatically support the much stronger claim that Jesus and Paul proclaimed irreconcilable spiritual worlds. Some scholars have also criticized aspects of Ehrman’s popular presentations, such as his use of the telephone-game analogy for oral tradition, arguing that it can oversimplify the complexity of early Christian transmission and risk giving lay readers a misleading impression of the evidence.

Hyam Maccoby is one of the clearest examples of a more problematic source on Paul. His thesis that Paul invented Christianity and was not genuinely Pharisaic is not mainstream Pauline scholarship. His reconstruction has been widely criticized as polemical and historically weak. When an argument depends heavily on Maccoby for Paul’s identity, psychology, background, or supposed invention of Christianity, the reader should slow down. Maccoby may raise provocative questions, but provocative is not the same as persuasive.

James D. Tabor is more complicated. He is a credentialed scholar, and I would not dismiss his work simply because it is revisionist. He raises real historical questions about Jesus, James, Paul, and the development of early Christianity. But his stronger argument that Paul transformed Christianity in a direction significantly different from Jesus is contested and is not the mainstream consensus. Tabor is more nuanced than the crude claim that “Paul invented everything.” He has distinguished between saying Paul “founded” Christianity and saying Paul “transformed” it. Still, his work clearly belongs within the discontinuity stream, and that matters when it is placed inside a bibliography already leaning heavily in that direction.

John Dominic Crossan is another important but controversial historical Jesus scholar. He was also one of the most prominent figures associated with the Jesus Seminar, serving as a former co-chair alongside Robert Funk. That matters because the Jesus Seminar was influential in popular religious culture and in some streams of critical scholarship, but it was also sharply contested for its assumptions, methods, bead-voting process, and highly skeptical conclusions. Crossan’s work on Jesus, empire, violence, social practice, and the kingdom of God can still be useful, even where one disagrees with parts of his reconstruction. But his emphasis on Jesus’ kingdom practice does not, by itself, prove that Paul betrayed Jesus or created a rival religion. That connection still has to be argued. A serious article would need to show how Crossan’s reconstruction of Jesus fits into the wider debate about Paul, not simply use Crossan to make the contrast between Jesus and Paul feel sharper.

Gerd Lüdemann was a well-known historical-critical scholar, and he should not simply be dismissed as fringe as a person. But his claim that Paul deserves to be seen as a founder of Christianity, and that Paul’s theology differs significantly from Jesus’ preaching, represents a radical minority position. It is not the center of Pauline scholarship. Lüdemann was also associated with the Jesus Seminar as a fellow, which places him within a highly skeptical stream of historical Jesus research. That association does not make him automatically wrong. But it does matter when we are evaluating source clustering. The Jesus Seminar was controversial, not because it asked hard questions, but because many scholars challenged its assumptions, its voting method, and the degree of certainty it attached to highly skeptical conclusions. Lüdemann may be worth reading, but he should not be presented as though his view settles the question.

Robert Eisenman is also a difficult foundation for strong claims about Paul. His reconstructions involving Paul, James, Herodian networks, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are highly speculative and not mainstream. This does not mean every question he raises is worthless. But when an article uses Eisenman to support claims about Paul as a Herodian-aligned figure or as someone operating within elite Roman power structures, the argument needs much more evidence than suggestive connections and historical possibility. Possibility is not proof.

The Jesus Project also matters here because it shows how closely related some of these sources are. Gerd Lüdemann, Robert Eisenman, and James Tabor were associated with the Jesus Project, which was not the same thing as the Jesus Seminar but stood in a similar orbit of highly critical historical-Jesus research. You might call it a successor, or at least a cousin, to the same kind of revisionist project. That does not make their arguments automatically wrong. I want to be careful about that. The issue is not guilt by association. The issue is source balance.

If an article leans heavily on Jesus Project or Jesus Seminar-adjacent voices while giving little attention to major Pauline scholars who would complicate or challenge the thesis, then the reader may be getting a narrower conversation than the bibliography first suggests. The Jesus Seminar itself was widely criticized for its assumptions, its methods, its voting process, and its highly skeptical conclusions. So when several voices from that same general stream are cited together, it can create the impression of broad scholarly support when it may actually represent a narrow and contested corner of scholarship. Again, the point is not that these scholars should be ignored. The point is that their claims should be weighed with methodological caution and tested against the wider field before making sweeping claims about Paul and Jesus.

That is the point I am trying to make. The articles rely heavily on a narrow cluster of scholars and writers who tend to emphasize discontinuity between Jesus and Paul. Some of the most forceful anti-Paul claims depend on sources whose reconstructions are highly disputed or outside the mainstream consensus, especially Maccoby and Eisenman. Lüdemann and Tabor are credentialed scholars, but they still represent radical or revisionist minority streams. Sanders and Fredriksen are mainstream and important, but their work does not support the article’s extreme conclusion that Paul and Jesus taught irreconcilable religions. Taken together, this creates a source-clustering problem. The bibliography may look broad at first glance, but much of it leans in the same direction, while the wider Pauline conversation is largely left unheard.

A bibliography can look impressive and still function like an echo chamber if the sources mostly confirm one another while avoiding the strongest scholarship on the other side. Several authors can be cited, but if they are all pulling the reader toward the same Jesus-versus-Paul conclusion, then the bibliography may create a false appearance of breadth. It may look like the field has been consulted when, in reality, only one corner of the field has been amplified.

The articles are not making a modest claim. They are not simply arguing that Jesus and Paul had different emphases, different vocabularies, or different historical missions. That would be a fair and important discussion. The claim is much stronger. The articles argue that Jesus and Paul represent fundamentally incompatible messages, ethical systems, and spiritual worlds. A claim that large cannot rest on a narrow cluster of sources, especially when many of those sources lean in the same direction. It has to be tested against the full field of Pauline scholarship.

Missing Major Voices: The Debate the Articles Do Not Engage

The larger problem is not only who gets cited, but who gets left out.

And by “left out,” I do not only mean missing from the bibliography. No article can cite everyone, and a scholar’s name does not need to appear every time Paul is discussed. The deeper issue is whether the ideas are actually engaged. If someone makes the sweeping claim that Jesus and Paul are fundamentally incompatible, then that claim needs to wrestle with the major scholars who have argued otherwise. It needs to engage those who see continuity, development, covenant fulfillment, new creation, apocalyptic deliverance, Paul within Judaism, participation in Christ, and other more nuanced ways of relating Jesus and Paul. Otherwise, the argument is not really engaging the debate. It is talking around it.

This is where the articles feel less like careful scholarship and more like polemic. And polemic has its place. There is nothing wrong with arguing strongly for a position. But even a polemic should know what it is arguing against. In this case, I am not sure the articles even set up a straw man. A straw man at least gives you some version of the opposing argument, even if it is weak or distorted. Here, much of the opposition is not really constructed at all. It feels more like debating a phantom. The strongest opposing views are not meaningfully presented and then answered. They are mostly absent.

That matters because Pauline scholarship is not a single narrow road. It is more like a spectrum, or maybe several overlapping spectrums. Some scholars emphasize continuity between Jesus and Paul. Others emphasize development. Some read Paul primarily within Judaism. Others focus on grace as gift, union with Christ, apocalyptic deliverance, justification, new creation, participation, ecclesiology, or the work of the Spirit. These scholars disagree with one another on many important points. But they generally do not land at the extreme conclusion that Paul created a religion fundamentally opposed to Jesus.

Major scholars who would not accept the strong “Jesus versus Paul” thesis include:

• E. P. Sanders
• James D. G. Dunn
• N. T. Wright
• John M. G. Barclay
• A. Andrew Das
• Thomas Schreiner
• Luke Timothy Johnson
• Brant Pitre
• Joseph Fitzmyer
• Raymond Brown
• Ernst Käsemann
• Douglas Campbell
• Richard B. Hays
• Gordon Fee
• Craig Keener
• Ben Witherington III
• Beverly Roberts Gaventa
• Michael J. Gorman
• Larry Hurtado
• David Wenham
• Nijay K. Gupta

This is not an exhaustive list. These are simply scholars I am familiar with whose work would complicate the claim that Paul and Jesus are irreconcilable. And to be clear, the point is not to win by having more names. Scholarship is not measured by bibliography by the pound. The majority can be wrong. Paradigms can become stale. Minority views can sometimes see what the mainstream has missed. But if someone wants a contrary view to be taken seriously, then that view has to contend with the strongest arguments against it.

That is where these articles fall short. They make a maximal claim, but they do not meaningfully engage the wider field. They cite a narrow band of authors clustered toward one end of the Pauline spectrum, then write as though that narrow band represents the debate. It does not.

A good starting point for seeing the range of mainstream Pauline interpretation is Perspectives on Paul: Five Views. It is not exhaustive, but it gives readers a useful entry point into serious scholarly disagreement. The book includes John M. G. Barclay representing the Gift Perspective, Douglas A. Campbell representing the Apocalyptic Perspective, A. Andrew Das representing the Lutheran Perspective, Brant Pitre representing the Catholic Perspective, and N. T. Wright representing the New Perspective. These scholars disagree with one another, sometimes sharply. But that is exactly why the book is useful. It shows that rigorous Pauline scholarship is not monolithic. It also shows how far removed the extreme “Paul versus Jesus” thesis is from much of the serious conversation.

I know most readers will not go all the way down this rabbit hole. I probably went farther than most people want to go. But someone has to check the map before we follow the trail. If the claim is that Paul led Christianity away from Jesus, then we cannot responsibly evaluate that claim while ignoring major scholars who have spent their lives studying Paul, Jesus, Judaism, grace, Torah, resurrection, and early Christianity.

Observations

Before turning to my specific observations, I want to place this discussion in a wider scholarly frame. The question is not whether there are differences between Jesus and Paul. There are. The real question is what those differences mean.

Some scholars emphasize discontinuity and argue that Paul substantially transformed the message of Jesus. Others, including many who are not simply conservative harmonizers, see Paul as developing Jesus’ kingdom proclamation in light of the cross, the resurrection, the Gentile mission, and the wider world of Second Temple Judaism. In other words, the debate is not “people who ask hard questions” versus “people who refuse to think.” The debate is much broader and more serious than that.

In this section, I want to compare those streams of scholarship and show why the strongest “Paul versus Jesus” claims should not be treated as though they represent the whole field. My notes are not meant to settle every question about Paul. That would require far more than one blog post. My goal is more modest: to show that the debate is broader, more complex, and more nuanced than these articles suggest.

1.) Methodological Problem: Selective Sources, Selective Conclusions

A serious article arguing for “Jesus versus Paul” should not only cite scholars who already lean toward a strong discontinuity between Jesus and Paul. It should also engage the strongest arguments against that conclusion. Otherwise, the reader is not really being shown the field. They are being shown a selected slice of it.

That creates several methodological problems:

1. Selection bias — choosing sources that already support the desired conclusion.
2. Suppressed evidence — leaving out major scholars whose work would complicate or challenge the thesis.
3. Straw-manning by omission — making “Pauline Christianity” look weaker than it is by not addressing its best defenders.
4. False appearance of consensus — citing several writers from a similar discontinuity stream can make a fringe or minority view look broader than it is.
5. Failure to engage live academic debate — the article does not seriously interact with New Perspective, apocalyptic Paul, gift/grace studies, Paul-within-Judaism, Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, or narrative-theological readings.

This is why I do not see these articles as merely critical of Paul. They are selectively critical while bypassing much of the major scholarly conversation about Paul. If the goal is to persuade readers toward a point of view, then dissenting voices need to be represented fairly. Without that, the argument becomes less like open inquiry and more like guided persuasion. At its worst, selective presentation can become intellectually coercive, not by force, but by narrowing the reader’s field of vision until only one conclusion appears reasonable.

2.) From Difference to Contradiction

There is a legitimate scholarly question underneath these articles: How much continuity is there between Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God and Paul’s gospel of Christ crucified and risen? That is a real question, and it deserves serious attention. Scholars have wrestled with it for generations and have not all reached the same conclusion. Some emphasize continuity. Others emphasize development. Others see real tensions. That debate is legitimate, and I think it is worth having.

My concern is that these articles move well beyond that careful discussion. They lean heavily on the Paul-versus-Jesus discontinuity thesis, especially the more radical “Paul as founder” or “Paul as inventor of Christianity” stream associated with writers such as Hyam Maccoby, Gerd Lüdemann, Robert Eisenman, and, in a more moderate form, James Tabor. These writers can be read. They can raise questions worth examining. But they represent one stream within a much larger conversation, not the consensus of Pauline scholarship.

Then the articles take an even stronger step. Paul is no longer presented as merely different from Jesus. He becomes corrupt, coercive, sociopathic, Herodian, anti-Jesus, and spiritually opposed to Christ. That is not a small claim. That is much stronger than saying Jesus and Paul had different emphases, different audiences, different missions, or different historical contexts.

This is where I think the argument shifts from critical scholarship into polemic. The problem is not that hard questions are being asked. They should be. The problem is that the articles repeatedly move from tension to contradiction, from difference to opposition, and from historical disagreement to character indictment without carrying the evidentiary burden those claims require. Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary care. And the stronger the accusation, the stronger the evidence needs to be.

3.) Tendentiousness and Text-Selectivity

This concern is not unique to my reading of Greenleaf’s articles. James D. G. Dunn made a similar methodological criticism in his review of James Tabor’s Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity. Dunn argued that Tabor’s thesis suffered from “tendentiousness and text-selectivity.” I think that phrase is helpful because it names two dangers that can show up in any historical argument, especially when the evidence is complex and contested.

Tendentiousness happens when the evidence is consistently pushed in the direction of a preferred conclusion. The conclusion starts to lead the evidence instead of the evidence leading the conclusion. Text-selectivity happens when the passages that support the thesis are highlighted, while the passages that complicate or challenge it are minimized, explained away, or left out altogether.

Those are not necessarily accusations of bad faith. I do not need to claim that Greenleaf is intentionally misleading anyone. The issue is methodological. Is the reader being given a fair account of the evidence, or only the evidence that makes Paul look guilty?

In my judgment, the same concerns Dunn raised about Tabor appear repeatedly in Greenleaf’s treatment of Paul. Paul’s harshest texts are brought to the front: curses, discipline, confrontation, authority, exclusion, and conflict. But Paul’s teachings on love, reconciliation, humility, the Spirit, new creation, unity, generosity, and life in Christ are often minimized or left out. The result is not a full portrait of Paul. It is a curated portrait.

That matters because these problems reinforce one another. A narrow bibliography can lead to narrow conclusions. Strong language can turn difference into contradiction. And tendentiousness, combined with text-selectivity, can make a conclusion feel obvious even when the evidence has not been weighed fairly.

That is how polemic often works. It does not always invent evidence. Sometimes it simply selects the evidence most useful for conviction and leaves the rest outside the courtroom.

4.) Ignoring the Scholars Who Asked the Same Question

Dunn’s criticism of Tabor leads naturally to another concern: the absence of scholars who have directly addressed the very question these articles raise. One of the most striking omissions is David Wenham. He has written extensively on the relationship between Jesus and Paul, including Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? The title alone shows how directly his work speaks to this debate.

Wenham does not deny that Jesus and Paul speak in different contexts or with different emphases. That would be too simplistic. But he argues that Paul is best understood as a faithful interpreter and follower of Jesus, not as the founder of a new religion opposed to Him. Whether one agrees with Wenham or not, his work belongs in the conversation.

That makes his absence significant. If an article claims that Paul distorted Jesus, invented a different gospel, or created a rival religious system, then it should engage scholars who have directly examined that claim. Otherwise, the reader is not seeing the debate. They are seeing one side of it, arranged as though the other side has nothing serious to say.

That is the problem. Ignoring this kind of work makes the argument look less like balanced inquiry and more like a selective case built around one side of the evidence.

5.) The Problem with a One-Word Paul

This selective approach also creates a second problem: Paul gets reduced to a label. Paul, like most human beings, is more complex than any single category can contain. We recognize today that people are shaped by overlapping identities, contexts, pressures, loyalties, and experiences. Yet when it comes to Paul, some arguments flatten him into one dimension: authoritarian Paul, imperial Paul, anti-Jesus Paul, or founder-of-Christianity Paul.

Luke Timothy Johnson’s warning is helpful here: “Any adjectival Paul is a diminished Paul.” In other words, the moment we reduce Paul to one controlling label—Lutheran Paul, apocalyptic Paul, Jewish Paul, political Paul, feminist Paul, or imperial Paul—we risk shrinking him to fit our interpretive agenda. My concern is that Greenleaf’s articles essentially construct the “authoritarian” Paul. Once that label controls the reading, Paul’s rebukes, conflicts, and disciplinary texts are emphasized, while his love ethic, suffering, humility, theology of the Spirit, concern for unity, and vision of new creation are pushed to the margins.

Ernst Käsemann is useful here because he represents the apocalyptic Paul tradition without turning Paul into a one-dimensional figure. Käsemann emphasized Paul’s apocalyptic theology, the righteousness of God, and Christ’s lordship over the powers. His work acknowledges the complexity of Paul. Even where one disagrees with Käsemann, his reading reminds us that Paul is multidimensional. He cannot be responsibly reduced to a villain in a theological morality play.

6.) This Is Not Just an Old Debate

Paul should not be reduced to a single label, and neither should Pauline scholarship. The field is not frozen in some old battle between traditional Christianity and radical critics of Paul. It is still active, complex, and diverse.

Nijay Gupta is a good example of the fact that the debate is not over. He represents a younger generation of Pauline scholarship, which means my concern is not simply an appeal to older authorities or inherited traditions. Serious contemporary scholars are still reading Paul carefully. They are still debating faith, grace, law, ethnicity, women, empire, mission, and the shape of early Christianity. They are still challenging simplistic caricatures of Paul from multiple directions.

That is the point I want to make. The problem with Greenleaf’s articles is not that they question Paul. Paul should be questioned carefully. The problem is that they do not adequately engage the breadth of Pauline scholarship. A responsible critique should interact not only with major figures such as Sanders, Dunn, Wright, Fitzmyer, and Hays, but also with current scholars who continue to refine the conversation. Gupta’s work reminds us that the field is still alive, still debating, and still far more nuanced than a simple “Jesus versus Paul” framework allows.

In other words, this is not a settled contest between “people who follow Jesus” and “people who defend Paul.” It is an ongoing scholarly conversation about history, theology, Judaism, mission, grace, ethics, and the earliest Christian communities. Any article that wants to make a sweeping claim about Paul needs to enter that conversation, not step around it.

7.) Paul as New Covenant Fulfillment, Not Betrayal

Brant Pitre, along with Michael Barber and John Kincaid, provides another important counterweight to the strong “Paul versus Jesus” thesis. In Paul, a New Covenant Jew, they argue that Paul is best understood as fully Jewish, but also centered on Jesus the Messiah and the new covenant. That directly challenges the simplified claim that Paul rejected Judaism, abandoned Jesus’ message, or created a religion opposed to the historical Jesus.

This matters because their work does not deny development in Paul’s thought. Paul clearly addresses questions Jesus did not address in the same way, especially Gentile inclusion, the meaning of the cross and resurrection, and the status of the Mosaic covenant after Christ. But Pitre, Barber, and Kincaid interpret that development as new covenant fulfillment, not betrayal.

That distinction is important. Paul can be read as deeply rooted in Israel’s Scriptures, Israel’s hopes, and Israel’s covenant story while also proclaiming Jesus as the decisive fulfillment of that story. In that reading, Paul is not an anti-Jewish innovator or a rival founder of Christianity. He is a Jewish apostle trying to explain what the death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah means for Jews, Gentiles, Torah, covenant, and the people of God.

8.) Context Before Character Judgment

Craig Keener is especially useful here because one of his greatest contributions is methodological. He consistently reminds readers that Paul cannot be understood apart from his first-century world: Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman rhetoric, patronage systems, honor and shame culture, Roman law, synagogue life, ancient letter writing, and first-century politics. That matters because many weak readings of Paul treat his letters as isolated proof texts, or worse, as easy windows into his personality, rather than as occasional writings shaped by real historical situations.

This directly supports my concern with Greenleaf’s articles. Too often, the argument collapses context. Jesus’ pre-Easter ministry is compared directly with Paul’s post-resurrection Gentile mission. Pastoral correction is treated as domination. Conflict in Acts is treated as proof of Paul’s character without enough attention to Luke’s narrative, Roman power, Jewish opposition, local civic tensions, or ancient rhetorical conventions.

Keener’s work helps slow the reader down. Before we decide that Paul contradicted Jesus, we first have to ask whether we have understood Paul in his own historical, social, literary, and political context. Without that context, we may not be interpreting Paul at all. We may only be reacting to a flattened version of him.

9.) Serious Disagreement Without Irreconcilable Opposition

Thomas Schreiner provides another important counterbalance because he represents a traditional Reformed or Protestant reading of Paul, especially on justification by faith, the law, grace, and union with Christ. Schreiner does not simply repeat the same conclusions as New Perspective scholars such as Sanders, Dunn, or Wright. He disagrees with them at significant points, and those disagreements show that Pauline scholarship contains real internal debate.

But that is exactly the point. Even with those disagreements, Schreiner does not conclude that Paul preached a religion fundamentally opposed to Jesus or that Paul invented Christianity. He may read Paul differently than Wright, Dunn, Sanders, Barclay, or Campbell, but he is still working within the broader scholarly conversation about how to understand Paul faithfully and historically.

That helps illustrate the larger issue. Scholars can disagree profoundly about Paul’s meaning, especially on law, grace, justification, covenant, and works, without reducing the debate to “Jesus versus Paul.” Including a voice like Schreiner reminds us that the field is much broader and more nuanced than the narrow discontinuity framework presented in these articles. The disagreement is real, but it does not require the extreme conclusion that Jesus and Paul preached irreconcilable messages.

10.) Historical Criticism Without Radical Discontinuity

Joseph A. Fitzmyer provides another useful counterbalance to the strong “Paul versus Jesus” thesis. Fitzmyer was not a simplistic harmonizer trying to protect Paul from difficult questions. He was one of the most respected Catholic biblical scholars of the twentieth century: a Jesuit priest, Semitic linguist, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, and major commentator on Romans and Galatians. His work represents careful historical-critical scholarship within the Catholic tradition. Fitzmyer recognizes real historical development, genuine interpretive tensions, and the complexity of Paul’s relationship to Judaism. But he does not conclude that Paul founded a religion opposed to Jesus.

Fitzmyer is important precisely because he does not fit the easy categories. He is not a conservative proof-texting harmonizer, but he is also not a radical revisionist. He brings together historical criticism, Catholic theology, Second Temple Jewish context, linguistic expertise, and deep familiarity with the Dead Sea Scrolls. In that sense, he models the kind of scholarship missing from the articles I am critiquing: careful, contextual, and disciplined by the evidence.

His presence in the broader Pauline conversation reminds us that scholars across a wide spectrum may disagree sharply about Paul while still rejecting the extreme claim that Paul and Jesus represent two incompatible spiritual worlds.

11.) A Maximal Claim on a Narrow Foundation

This is why I do not think the articles are merely “critical of Paul.” They are selectively critical while bypassing much of the major scholarly conversation about Paul. They make sweeping claims such as “Paul did not teach Jesus’ teachings,” “Jesus and Paul represent two incompatible spiritual ecosystems,” and Paul’s “behavioral profile” resembles “sociopathy.” Yet the bibliography leans heavily on a narrow stream of Paul-critical writers such as Eisenman, Lüdemann, Maccoby, and Tabor, with Sanders cited in a way that does not seem to reflect the full nuance of his position. That is a very narrow evidentiary base for such a large claim.

This matters because the articles are not making a modest argument. They are not simply saying that Jesus and Paul had different emphases, different contexts, or that some Pauline texts are difficult. That would be a fair discussion. They are making a maximal claim: that Paul is fundamentally opposed to Jesus. A claim that large has to engage the strongest scholarship against it.

The omission is especially serious because Paul has strong themes of love, humility, reconciliation, mutuality, and new creation. His writings include major claims about love, unity, life in the Spirit, and the breaking down of ethnic, social, and gender divisions in Christ. If an article highlights only Paul’s harshest texts while minimizing or ignoring those themes, then the reader is not being given a full portrait of Paul. The reader is being given a curated portrait.

So my strongest criticism is this: the articles fail both academically and historically. Academically, they ignore major interpretive streams in Pauline studies: New Perspective, Traditional Protestant, Catholic, Apocalyptic/Post-New Perspective, Paul-within-Judaism, Gift Perspective, narrative-intertextual, pneumatological, and patristic readings. Historically, they ignore the long reception of Paul across Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and early Christian traditions. This is not balanced scholarship. It is a stacked bibliography presented as though it represents the field.

Major Voices Conclusion

This is not the whole of my critique. It is only my critique of the way these articles engage sources. There are other issues I will address later in this post, and some will need their own follow-up article. But source selection is a major weakness because it shapes everything that follows.

If someone claims that Paul distorted Jesus, they must engage the scholars who have spent entire careers arguing the opposite or offering more nuanced accounts. Otherwise, the argument becomes an echo chamber. Maccoby confirms Eisenman. Eisenman confirms Tabor. Tabor confirms Lüdemann. Sanders is cited, but his actual nuance is not followed. The result may look like scholarship because it has references, but the deeper question is whether those references represent the field fairly. In my judgment, they do not.

Mainstream Scholarship Is Not Infallible

At this point, someone might object: “But mainstream scholarship can be wrong.” Yes. It can.

I want to be very clear about that because this is where intellectual humility matters. I am not arguing that the majority is always right. I am not arguing that scholars with university positions are automatically trustworthy. I am not arguing that peer review is a magic shield against error, bias, ideology, or institutional pressure. Scholars are human beings. Academic fields are human communities. They have habits, assumptions, incentives, blind spots, rivalries, and sometimes a strong preference for the status quo.

That is one reason I brought up Thomas Kuhn in my previous post on the Knights Templar. Kuhn’s work on paradigms is helpful here. A paradigm is a shared framework that shapes how a field sees its subject. It influences which questions seem important, which methods seem legitimate, which explanations seem plausible, and which anomalies are taken seriously. Paradigms make scholarship possible because they give researchers a common language and set of tools. But they can also create inertia. A field can become so used to seeing things one way that it resists evidence pointing in another direction.

So yes, mainstream scholarship can have a status quo bias. But it does not mean every outsider is a Galileo. It does not mean every minority view is courageous truth-telling. It does not mean every radical claim deserves the same confidence as a conclusion supported by generations of serious scholarship. The fact that the mainstream can be wrong does not make the alternative right. This is where proportional confidence and holding things tentatively becomes essential.

We should not trust experts blindly. But we also should not automatically prefer the outsider simply because the outsider sounds bold, fresh, or forbidden. Both moves are intellectually lazy. Blind trust says, “The experts have spoken, so I do not need to think.” Blind rebellion says, “The experts are probably hiding something, so I will trust the person challenging them.” Neither posture is careful enough. The better posture is disciplined humility. What is boring to most people!

We give weight to serious scholarship because expertise matters. Years of language study, historical training, textual analysis, peer criticism, and engagement with primary sources should count for something. But we also hold our conclusions tentatively because scholarship is not omniscience. We listen to minority views because they may raise important questions. But we do not let them bypass the burden of proof simply because they are provocative.

That is the balance I do not see enough of in the articles I am critiquing. If Greenleaf had written, “There are significant tensions between Jesus and Paul that deserve serious study,” I would agree. If she had written, “Some scholars argue that Paul developed Jesus’ message in directions Jesus Himself did not explicitly teach,” that would be a legitimate claim. If she had written, “There are difficult Pauline texts that Christians need to stop ignoring,” I would be right there with her.

But that is not the tone or level of claim being made. The articles move toward certainty: Paul and Jesus are fundamentally incompatible, irreconcilable, spiritually opposed, and part of two different religious worlds. That is a far stronger claim. And when a claim is that strong, humility requires more evidence, not less.

This is why my point about mainstream scholarship is not an appeal to authority in the lazy sense. I am not saying, “Major scholars disagree, therefore Greenleaf is wrong.” I am saying that a claim this large must seriously engage the strongest scholarship against it. If the majority is wrong, then show why. If the field has missed something, then demonstrate it. If the established paradigms are inadequate, then explain why the alternative explains the evidence better.

That is how scholarship moves forward. It does not move forward by dismissing the field as naïve, compromised, or irrelevant. It does not move forward by citing a narrow cluster of sympathetic sources and then writing as though the broader conversation has been answered. It does not move forward by replacing careful argument with dramatic certainty.

The mainstream can be wrong. But the alternative still has to be right. That is the humility I am trying to practice here. I do not want to overstate my case any more than I want Greenleaf to overstate hers. I am not claiming that every mainstream Pauline scholar has solved every tension between Jesus and Paul. I am not claiming that Paul is easy, simple, or beyond critique. I am not claiming that minority scholarship has nothing to teach us.

I am saying that confidence should be proportional to evidence. And if someone wants to claim that Paul distorted Jesus, founded a rival religion, or created a spiritual system fundamentally opposed to Christ, then that argument must do more than sound bold. It must do more than cite a narrow stream of scholars. It must do more than make Paul look guilty through selective evidence. It must carry the burden of proof.

The Problem of Theatrical Certainty

Another warning sign is what I would call theatrical certainty. By that, I mean the kind of certainty that does more than make an argument. It performs an argument. It uses sweeping conclusions, sharp contrasts, villain narratives, and emotionally loaded language to make the reader feel that the case has already been proven. The rhetoric becomes part of the evidence, or at least it starts to feel that way.

This is one of the dangers in the Jesus-versus-Paul framing. Paul is not merely presented as difficult. He is not merely presented as inconsistent, complicated, or historically distinct from Jesus. He becomes the villain in a theological morality play. Jesus represents mercy, compassion, restoration, nonviolence, and liberation. Paul represents hierarchy, exclusion, domination, empire, and control. This reminds me of Marcion.

Christianity has seen this kind of argument before. Marcion famously argued that the God of the Old Testament and the God revealed by Jesus were not the same God. Today, some writers make a different claim: that Jesus and Paul proclaimed fundamentally incompatible religions. The content is not identical, of course, but the pattern is similar. Both arguments notice real tensions and then move quickly to an irreconcilable divide.

That historical parallel should make us pause. Not every tension requires rupture. Sometimes apparent contradictions need to be understood within a larger story, a wider context, or a more coherent narrative than the simple opposition first allows.

The problem with this kind of framing is that it collapses complexity into a simple story. Instead of wrestling with the difficult relationship between Jesus’ kingdom proclamation and Paul’s post-resurrection Gentile mission, the reader is given a cleaner narrative: Jesus gave us the pure way; Paul corrupted it. Jesus healed; Paul harmed. Jesus restored; Paul excluded. Jesus liberated; Paul controlled. Once that structure is in place, nearly every Pauline text can be made to fit the pattern.

• Paul rebukes a church, and it becomes domination.
• Paul defends his apostleship, and it becomes narcissism.
• Paul gives instructions for church order, and it becomes hierarchy.
• Paul speaks of judgment, and it becomes fear-based religion.
• Paul suffers, and it becomes self-validation.
• Paul disagrees with others, and it becomes evidence of division.

Again, some of these texts are difficult. They deserve serious examination. Paul’s rhetoric can be sharp. His authority claims can make modern readers uncomfortable. His instructions on church order, gender, slavery, empire, and discipline require careful interpretation. I am not trying to soften the difficulty of those passages. But difficulty is not the same thing as guilt.

A theatrical argument does not always invent evidence. Often it selects real evidence, arranges it dramatically, and then tells the reader what to feel about it. That is why it can be so persuasive. It does not sound like nonsense. It sounds like pattern recognition. It feels like the hidden key has finally been found.

This is how villain narratives operate. They take a complicated historical figure and reduce him to a role. Once Paul is cast as the villain responsible for institutional Christianity, the rest of the story becomes easier to tell. The messiness of early Christianity, the tensions between Jewish and Gentile believers, the trauma of Roman power, the complexity of Second Temple Judaism, the diversity of early Christian communities, and the long development of doctrine all become simplified into one accusation: Paul changed everything. History is never that simple.

That may be emotionally satisfying, especially for readers who have been hurt by certain forms of institutional Christianity. I understand that. If someone has experienced authoritarian religion, spiritual manipulation, exclusion, or fear-based teaching, then a story that identifies Paul as the root of the problem may feel clarifying. It gives a name to the wound. It gives a historical target to the pain.

We have to be careful here. Institutional Christianity has real sins. Churches have abused power. Leaders have manipulated people. Scripture has been used to justify harm. Paul’s letters have sometimes been quoted in ways that crush people rather than form them in love. None of that should be denied. But it is a much larger leap to say that Paul himself is the source of the corruption, or that Paul created a system fundamentally opposed to Jesus.

That is where the argument becomes theatrical. Complexity collapses into a morality play. Jesus becomes the hero of pure compassion. Paul becomes the corrupting founder of institutional control. The Church becomes the system that followed Paul instead of Jesus. The reader is invited not simply to evaluate evidence, but to choose sides in a drama.

That may preach well, but good scholarship resists that kind of flattening. It allows Jesus to be more than a modern symbol of compassion detached from judgment, authority, eschatology, Torah, and messianic vocation. It also allows Paul to be more than an authoritarian institution-builder detached from love, suffering, humility, Spirit, reconciliation, and new creation.

Both Jesus and Paul are more complex than the theatrical version allows. Jesus is merciful, but He also warns, rebukes, judges, confronts, and calls for radical allegiance. Paul can be severe, but he also teaches that love fulfills the law, that faith works through love, that the fruit of the Spirit includes gentleness and self-control, that believers are one body, and that without love even the most impressive spirituality is nothing. If we ignore either side of that complexity, we are not doing justice to the texts.

Theatrical certainty is attractive because it gives us simplicity. It gives us a clear villain, a clean explanation, and a satisfying verdict. But truth is often less convenient. It asks us to hold tensions longer than we want to hold them. It asks us to examine evidence that complicates our instincts. It asks us to resist the pleasure of a story that explains too much too quickly.

That is why sweeping conclusions should make us pause. When an argument says Paul and Jesus are fundamentally incompatible, the burden of proof is high. When it says Paul’s religious world is opposed to Christ, the burden is higher still. When it labels Paul in psychological or moral terms that go beyond the evidence, we should slow down even more.

Conclusion

Hard questions are good. We should ask them. We should ask whether Jesus and Paul speak in the same way. We should ask whether Paul develops Jesus’ message, applies it, reframes it, or in some places creates real tension with it. We should ask about law, grace, faith, works, kingdom, resurrection, Gentile inclusion, women, slavery, empire, authority, and church discipline. None of those questions should be off limits.

Minority scholarship matters too. Sometimes minority voices notice things the mainstream has missed. Sometimes they expose assumptions that have gone unchallenged for too long. Sometimes they force the rest of us to sharpen our thinking. I do not want to dismiss an argument merely because it is unpopular, disruptive, or uncomfortable.

But difficult questions deserve careful methods. That is my central concern with these two articles. They identify a real historical and theological question: How do Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God and Paul’s gospel of Christ crucified and risen relate? That question deserves serious attention. But in my judgment, the articles answer it with an overstated and one-sided thesis. They move too quickly from difference to contradiction, from tension to rupture, and from critique to character indictment.

The warning signs are significant: theatrical certainty, narrow source clustering, missing major voices, selective use of texts, prosecutorial framing, and a tendency to turn Paul into the villain responsible for institutional Christianity. Those are red flags. They do not automatically prove the conclusion wrong, but they do warn us that things may not be as simple as the articles suggest.

Truth deserves better than theatrics. If Paul and Jesus are truly irreconcilable, then careful scholarship should be able to show that. If Paul distorted Jesus, the case should survive engagement with the strongest opposing scholarship. If the traditional or mainstream readings are wrong, then the alternative must explain the evidence better, not merely sound more dramatic.

But if the argument depends on selective sources, selective texts, and sweeping conclusions, then we should slow down. The goal should not be to defend Paul at all costs. The goal should not be to dismiss hard questions. The goal should be truth. And truth requires humility, patience, fairness, and a willingness to listen to the full conversation before reaching a verdict.

In the next post, I want to look more closely at the logic of the arguments themselves: the bias, fallacies, and construction of Paul as a villain. I may only be able to sample the issues, because there are many. But even a sampling should help us see whether the case against Paul is built on careful reasoning or on a persuasive arrangement of selected evidence.

References

• Barclay, J. M. G. (2015). Paul and the gift. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Bird, M. F., Gupta, N. K., & Scott, B. W. (Eds.). (2020). Perspectives on Paul: Five views. Baker Academic.
• Britannica. (n.d.). Biblical literature: The Pastoral Letters: I and II Timothy and Titus. https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-Pastoral-Letters-I-and-II-Timothy-and-Titus
• Crossan, J. D. (1994). Jesus: A revolutionary biography. HarperSanFrancisco.

• Das, A. A. (2001). Paul, the law, and the covenant. Hendrickson Publishers.
• Das, A. A. (2003). Paul and the Jews. Hendrickson Publishers.
• Das, A. A. (2016). Paul and the stories of Israel: Grand thematic narratives in Galatians. Fortress Press.
• Das, A. A. (2020). The traditional Protestant perspective on Paul. In S. McKnight & B. J. Oropeza (Eds.), Perspectives on Paul: Five views (pp. 83–106). Baker Academic.
• Dunn, J. D. G. (2011). Jesus, Paul and the Gospels. Eerdmans.
• Dunn, J. D. G. (2013, February 13). Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle transformed Christianity by James D. Tabor (Book review). Biblical Archaeology Society. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/paul-and-jesus/
• Ehrman, B. D. (2022, February 19). The messages of Jesus and Paul: Basically the same or fundamentally different? The Bart Ehrman Blog. https://ehrmanblog.org/the-messages-of-jesus-and-paul-basically-the-same-or-fundamentally-different/
• Eisenman, R. (1996). Paul as Herodian. Journal of Higher Criticism, 3, 110–122. https://robertheisenman.com/paul-as-herodian/
• Eisenman, R. (1997). James the brother of Jesus: The key to unlocking the secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Viking.

• Fee, G. D. (2009). God’s empowering presence: The Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. Baker Academic.
• Fitzmyer, J. A. (1993). Romans: A new translation with introduction and commentary. Yale University Press.
• Fitzmyer, J. A. (1993). According to Paul: Studies in the theology of the Apostle. Paulist Press.
• Fitzmyer, J. A. (2007). Paul and his theology: A brief sketch. Wipf & Stock Publishers.

• Fredriksen, P. (2014). Paul’s letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and pagan “justification by faith.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 133(4), 801–808.
• Fredriksen, P. (2017). Paul: The pagans’ apostle. Yale University Press.
• Gaventa, B. R. (2007). Our mother Saint Paul. Westminster John Knox Press.
• Gaventa, B. R. (2016). When in Romans: An invitation to linger with the gospel according to Paul. Baker Academic.
• Gorman, M. J. (2017). Apostle of the crucified Lord: A theological introduction to Paul and his letters (2nd ed.). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Gorman, M. J. (2009). Inhabiting the cruciform God: Kenosis, justification, and theosis in Paul’s narrative soteriology. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

• Greenleaf, K. (2026, January 10). 100 reasons Christians should follow Jesus—Not Paul: An invitation for Christians to rediscover the way of Jesus. Substack. https://katheryngreenleaf.substack.com/p/100-reasons-christians-should-follow
• Greenleaf, K. (2026, May 20). Investigating biblical contradictions, part 2, no. 5: The irreconcilable gospels of Jesus vs Paul. Substack. https://substack.com/home/post/p-198621029
• Gupta, N. K. (2023). Strange religion: How the first Christians were weird, dangerous, and compelling. Brazos Press.
• Gupta, N. K. (2023). Paul and the language of faith. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Hays, R. B. (2002). The faith of Jesus Christ: The narrative substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2nd ed.). Eerdmans.

• Hays, R. B. (2023). Echoes of Scripture in the letters of Paul (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
• Hurtado, L. W. (2003). Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Hurtado, L. W. (2005). How on earth did Jesus become a god? Historical questions about earliest devotion to Jesus. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Johnson, L. T. (1996). The real Jesus: The misguided quest for the historical Jesus and the truth of the traditional Gospels. HarperOne.
• Johnson, L. T. (2009). Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman religion and Christianity. Yale University Press.
• Johnson, L. T. (2010). The writings of the New Testament: An interpretation (3rd ed.). Fortress Press.
• Johnson, L. T. (2020). Constructing Paul: The canonical and apostolic Paul. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Käsemann, E. (1969). New Testament questions of today. Fortress Press.
• Käsemann, E. (1971). Perspectives on Paul (M. Kohl, Trans.). Fortress Press.
• Käsemann, E. (1980). Commentary on Romans (G. W. Bromiley, Trans. & Ed.). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Keener, C. S. (2009). Romans. Cascade Books.
• Keener, C. S. (2012–2015). Acts: An exegetical commentary (Vols. 1–4). Baker Academic.
• Keener, C. S. (2014). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (2nd ed.). IVP Academic.
• Keener, C. S. (2016). The mind of the Spirit: Paul’s approach to transformed thinking. Baker Academic.
• Lüdemann, G. (2002). Paul: The founder of Christianity. Prometheus Books.
• Maccoby, H. (1986). The mythmaker: Paul and the invention of Christianity. Harper & Row.
• Pitre, B., Barber, M. P., & Kincaid, J. A. (2019). Paul, a new covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline theology. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Sanders, E. P. (1977). Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A comparison of patterns of religion. Fortress Press.
• Sanders, E. P. (1985). Jesus and Judaism. Fortress Press.
• Schreiner, T. R. (2020). Paul, apostle of God’s glory in Christ: A Pauline theology (2nd ed.). IVP Academic.
• Schreiner, T. R. (2018). Romans (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.
• Tabor, J. D. (2012). Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle transformed Christianity. Simon & Schuster.

• Wax, T. (2008). Gospel definitions: N. T. Wright. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/gospel-definitions-nt-wright/
• Webster, D. (2020). Paul’s use of Jesus tradition in 1 Corinthians: Legitimate or otherwise? Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters, 10(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.5325/jstudpaullett.10.2.0215
• Wenham, D. (1995). Paul: Follower of Jesus or founder of Christianity? William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Wenham, D. (2002). Paul and Jesus: The true story. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Witherington, B., III. (1995). Conflict and community in Corinth: A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Witherington, B., III. (1998). The Paul quest: The renewed search for the Jew of Tarsus. InterVarsity Press.
• Witherington, B., III. (2004). Paul’s letter to the Romans: A socio-rhetorical commentary. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Wright, N. T. (1997). What Saint Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity? William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Wright, N. T. (1998). Paul’s gospel and Caesar’s empire. N. T. Wright Page. https://ntwrightpage.com/1998/01/01/pauls-gospel-and-caesars-empire/
• Wright, N. T. (2013). Paul and the faithfulness of God. Fortress Press.
• Wright, N. T. (2016). Jesus and the identity of God. N. T. Wright Page. https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/jesus-and-the-identity-of-god/
• Wright, N. T. (2016). Paul and his recent interpreters: Some contemporary debates. Fortress Press.

• Wright, N. T. (2016). New perspectives on Paul. N. T. Wright Page. https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/new-perspectives-on-paul/
• Wright, N. T. (2016). Paul. N. T. Wright Page. https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/paul/
• Wright, N. T. (2017). Learning from Paul together. N. T. Wright Page. https://ntwrightpage.com/2017/09/27/learning-from-paul-together/

• Wright, N. T. (2018). Paul: A biography. HarperOne.
• Wright, N. T. (2020). The New Perspective on Paul. In S. McKnight & B. J. Oropeza (Eds.), Perspectives on Paul: Five views (pp. 19–44). Baker Academic.

Excerpt

Hard questions about Paul and Jesus deserve serious attention. But when critique becomes polemic, selective sources, missing voices, and theatrical certainty can distort the discussion. This post examines whether recent “Jesus vs. Paul” claims pursue truth carefully or guide readers toward a predetermined verdict.

Not everything is as it seems