Something to keep in mind
There is an old canard that has been handed around for many years that goes something like this. Jesus was just a simple rabbi (alternatively, Jesus preached a simple message of love and peace), and then people like Paul came along and made everything complicated and burdensome. A philosophy was manhandled into becoming a religion. I recently heard a version of this from a Jewish historian (who got it from a former Catholic priest), in his attempt to explain the process of separation and the oncoming of hostility between Jews and Christians.
Well, let's take a better look at this. First of all, most, if not all, of the letters of Paul are EARLIER than any of the Gospels. If you want to know what early Christianity was like, especially before it had fully separated itself from Judaism and before Judaism had re-ordered itself in order to exclude Christian teaching, then you've got to start with Paul. Paul's letters were written across a span of ten or twelve years from c. AD 50-60 or so. The first Gospels started appearing about the 60s, as the apostles' generation began to fade from the scene. That means the Gospels -- especially the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) function as prequels: written later, recalling a time before. But "primitive Christianity" IS Pauline.
Meanwhile, when the Gospels got around to recording the most important sayings of Jesus, we begin to see that the most uncompromising things -- including most of the references to hell -- are all put in Jesus's mouth. Paul comes across as the guy who is trying to make a life that works out of the clash of irreconcilable absolutes. Paul is the reasonable guy here: Where Jesus says, "but I say unto you," Paul says more than once, I got no command from the Lord here, just giving you my best advice.
Paul is also fully alive to the tension between being both Jewish and Christian. If you want to see a supersessionist argument like what the rabbi was complaining about, you need to check out the Letter to the Hebrews. This is another argument in favor of Paul not writing Hebrews.
At the same time, the Book of Acts is closer in time and richer in guaranteed eyewitness testimony than most of the Gospels, including that of Luke. Luke was an eyewitness to much of the events in Acts, having taken up with Paul in Troas before his first crossing into Europe. The early chapters of Acts are also far more concerned with doings among the Jews-who-are-also-Christians than anything else in the New Testament. Again, if you want to know what early Christianity looked like, you'll find it in the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts.
The Synoptic Gospels look back thirty years to Jesus's earthly ministry, and sixty or so years to recall his birth. That doesn't mean they're unreliable, but it means they're telling you the parts you didn't already know. The Gospel writers can assume you know what the Church teaches and how it operates. It's going to give you the backstory before all the principals who saw it happen are gone. They're not writing a primer on Christian doctrine: that's what Paul did. They're filling you in on the past with one eye on the present. Establishing exactly what the writers' point of view is is thus way more complicated than most people are aware.
Well, let's take a better look at this. First of all, most, if not all, of the letters of Paul are EARLIER than any of the Gospels. If you want to know what early Christianity was like, especially before it had fully separated itself from Judaism and before Judaism had re-ordered itself in order to exclude Christian teaching, then you've got to start with Paul. Paul's letters were written across a span of ten or twelve years from c. AD 50-60 or so. The first Gospels started appearing about the 60s, as the apostles' generation began to fade from the scene. That means the Gospels -- especially the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) function as prequels: written later, recalling a time before. But "primitive Christianity" IS Pauline.
Meanwhile, when the Gospels got around to recording the most important sayings of Jesus, we begin to see that the most uncompromising things -- including most of the references to hell -- are all put in Jesus's mouth. Paul comes across as the guy who is trying to make a life that works out of the clash of irreconcilable absolutes. Paul is the reasonable guy here: Where Jesus says, "but I say unto you," Paul says more than once, I got no command from the Lord here, just giving you my best advice.
Paul is also fully alive to the tension between being both Jewish and Christian. If you want to see a supersessionist argument like what the rabbi was complaining about, you need to check out the Letter to the Hebrews. This is another argument in favor of Paul not writing Hebrews.
At the same time, the Book of Acts is closer in time and richer in guaranteed eyewitness testimony than most of the Gospels, including that of Luke. Luke was an eyewitness to much of the events in Acts, having taken up with Paul in Troas before his first crossing into Europe. The early chapters of Acts are also far more concerned with doings among the Jews-who-are-also-Christians than anything else in the New Testament. Again, if you want to know what early Christianity looked like, you'll find it in the letters of Paul and the Book of Acts.
The Synoptic Gospels look back thirty years to Jesus's earthly ministry, and sixty or so years to recall his birth. That doesn't mean they're unreliable, but it means they're telling you the parts you didn't already know. The Gospel writers can assume you know what the Church teaches and how it operates. It's going to give you the backstory before all the principals who saw it happen are gone. They're not writing a primer on Christian doctrine: that's what Paul did. They're filling you in on the past with one eye on the present. Establishing exactly what the writers' point of view is is thus way more complicated than most people are aware.