We often talk about which of Paul’s letters are contested, which ones aren’t, focusing on what he said in those letters. Rarely do we pay attention to what he doesn’t say, which matters as much, since the letters Paul wrote to churches around the Aegean are the oldest Christian documents anyone has.
Seven of them are accepted as his by historians working on the period, and all seven were written in the 50s, roughly two decades before the earliest gospel and a full generation before Matthew and Luke. If you want to know what people believed about Jesus while eyewitnesses were still alive to correct them, Paul’s mail is the only place to look.
The Birth That Nobody Wrote Home About
Paul never mentions a virgin birth. He never mentions Bethlehem, a star, shepherds, magi, an angel, or Herod. He never mentions Nazareth either, which is more striking than the miraculous material, because a hometown isn’t a theological claim. It’s a piece of ordinary biographical information that a follower would be expected to know.
What Paul does say about Jesus’s origin is short and unremarkable. In Galatians 4:4 he writes that Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law, which is how you’d describe any Jewish man who ever lived. In Romans 1:3 he says Jesus was descended from David according to the flesh, a normal genealogical claim about Messianic credentials that assumes an ordinary human father in the line.
The place this absence hurts most is Galatians, where Paul spends the entire letter fighting for his credibility. Rival teachers had come into his churches arguing that gentile converts needed to be circumcised and that Paul had no authority to say otherwise. He’s throwing everything he has at them. He recounts his conversion, his trip to Jerusalem, his confrontation with Peter at Antioch, his reading of Abraham. A miraculous conception, if he’d known about one, would have been ammo.
The conception story carries the weight of Jesus’s divinity in every telling that came after Paul. He either hadn’t heard it, or he’d heard it and left it out of letters where he was reaching for every argument within arm’s length. Which of those you pick tells you how you think the rest of the story got built.
A Resurrection With No Tomb In It
Paul cares about the resurrection more than any other topic. In 1 Corinthians 15 he says flatly that if Christ wasn’t raised, the preaching is empty and so is the faith. It’s the load-bearing wall of everything he believes.
Then he puts forward the evidence, and the evidence has no tomb in it. He says Christ died, was buried, and was raised on the third day (less than forty-eight hours by the way we’d count it), and then he moves straight to a list of appearances: to Peter, then to the twelve, then to more than five hundred people at once, then to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all to Paul himself. There’s no stone rolled back, no women arriving at first light, no guards or angel sitting where the body had been, and no Pilate signing off on a sealed grave.
Every gospel builds its resurrection around that tomb. It’s the scene that gives the claim its physical proof, the thing you could in principle go and check. Paul had every reason to lead with it if it were available to him, and he was writing to a congregation in Corinth that included people who doubted bodily resurrection outright. Instead he argues from visions, including his own, and treats his own experience on the Damascus road as the same category of event as Peter’s.
The Three Times Paul Quotes Jesus
The usual counter to all this is that Paul assumed his readers already knew the stories, so he saw no reason to repeat them. That would carry more weight if Paul were stingy with tradition generally, and he isn’t. He hands his Corinthians the Lord’s Supper words in full, prefaced by a formula saying he’d received them and passed them on. He gives them the resurrection appearance list the same way.
Beyond those, the sayings of Jesus in Paul’s letters can be counted on one hand. He cites a ruling on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, attributing it to the Lord rather than himself. He cites a principle in 1 Corinthians 9 that people who preach the gospel should make their living from it. That’s close to the entire inventory. There’s no Sermon on the Mount, no Good Samaritan, no prodigal son, no mustard seed, no walking on water, no Lazarus, no water into wine, no feeding of a crowd.
Paul is writing to communities riddled with the exact problems that Jesus’s remembered teaching addresses head-on. Corinth has lawsuits between members, factions, rich Christians humiliating poor ones at the common meal, and arguments about wealth and status. Paul solves all of it with his own reasoning and scriptural argument. A teacher’s own words on judging others, on serving rather than being served, on the impossibility of serving God and money, would have ended those disputes in a sentence. He doesn’t have them to use.
What the Dates Line Up With
Arguments from silence deserve caution, and historians who work on this material say so. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina who’s written extensively on how the gospels took shape, has made the point that Paul’s letters are occasional documents, written to address specific crises rather than to summarize a life.
The material Paul never touches is precisely the material that shows up latest in the written record. Mark, composed around 70 CE after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, has no birth narrative at all and ends with an empty tomb and frightened women. Matthew and Luke, writing in the 80s or 90s, each add a nativity, and the two accounts contradict each other on nearly every detail: different genealogies, different towns of origin, different reasons for the family to end up in Bethlehem, different sets of visitors. John, later still, opens with a preexistent Word and skips the infancy entirely.
Paula Fredriksen, a historian of ancient Christianity at Boston University, has described this growth as communities working out their claims in public over decades rather than preserving a fixed deposit. Read in sequence, the documents show accumulation. The earliest writer has a crucified and raised Messiah and an argument about grace. The later writers have a childhood, a hometown, a cast of named opponents, a body of teaching, and a tomb you could stand in front of.
That said, the Biblical scholars are as clueless as the next guy what the silence should mean, they just got a microphone and a Phd following their last name.
One thing to sit with is this: how would these questions about silence be answered if the figure were Muhammad instead? That’s typically where people’s realism starts to surface.
The bonus section below covers what Paul fills all those pages with instead, and why his actual priorities say more about the first Christian generation than his omissions do. Free subscribers can upgrade to read it.
Exclusive Content for Supporters
The Business Paul Was Running
What Paul focused on instead were two things: what the death of Jesus accomplished and how to keep a scattered set of house churches from tearing themselves apart.
As far as the second category is concerned….
Sources and Further Reading
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction
Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ and Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle
E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian JudaismGéza Vermes, The Resurrection
The authentic letters, read in likely order: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Romans
What if all the things Paul left out (in the letters of his we have) were common currency amongst the churches he dealt with and were not needed in what he was writing about.