Gospels considered scripture

[dad2seven]

Hi

When were the Gospels considered scripture? I’ve got some verses from Pauls writings which seems to indicate he considered the gospels as scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:2-4 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
would appear scripture of the 4 gospels were already written, and in print. considering the gospels are where we are told jesus died, was buried, and rose again.

---

1 timothy 5: 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Luke 10 : 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.
Paul seems to be quoting luke and calls it scripture.​

*2 peter 3: 15 - 17 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.*Is Peter referring to Pauls writings as scripture?

Thanks
Steve

 

[MH84]

1 Corinthians 15:2-4 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
would appear scripture of the 4 gospels were already written, and in print. considering the gospels are where we are told jesus died, was buried, and rose again.

I think that it means that Christ died and was raised to life according to the prophecies of the Messiah that were in the Old Testament.

1 timothy 5: 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Luke 10 : 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.
Paul seems to be quoting luke and calls it scripture.

He probably was referring to Deuteronomy 25:4.

*2 peter 3: 15 - 17 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.*Is Peter referring to Pauls writings as scripture?

Yes, I’ve heard this too.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Dad,

The gospel was taught orally before it was written down. The fact that Paul and the gospel says the same thing does not mean that he is quoting them. Matthew’s Aramaic gospel is thought to have been the first (around 50) and Paul was starting his mission about that time. He wrote 1 Corinthians around 57. Mark’s gospel dates from about 65. Matthew’s Greek gospel is thought to have been published around 70, as well as Luke’s. It is probable that Paul read one or other of the gospels, but, as I say this does not mean that he is directly quoting them.

Verbum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Some of Paul’s writings were believed to have been written before any of the Gospels, but I’m not sure which ones. Clearly some of Paul’s letters were used for teaching person as the Peter cite shows.

Today, the majority position is that Mark was first sometime between 60-70 CE. though some are now putting it closer to the 70 than the 60 date. Matthew and Luke are dated closer to 80 CE and John closer to 100 CE probably slightly before.

This has been the configuration of most scholars for quite a few years. New analysis and discoveries may of course change this once again. But in any event, one poster I think was most accurate in stating that the much of this was conveyed orally for some time. I think that no later than 200CE there were collections of the gospels and at least some of Paul’s letters grouped together. In fact, as I understand the basic canon was there about this time, though I think it was Trent when the final stamp of canonicity was put down.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Today, the majority position is that Mark was first sometime between 60-70 CE. though some are now putting it closer to the 70 than the 60 date. Matthew and Luke are dated closer to 80 CE and John closer to 100 CE probably slightly before.

This majority you speak of, is only amongst scripture scholars who subscribe to a rationalist view, and includes mostly non-catholics.

What percentage of Catholic scripture scholars, who allow for the existence of revelation, miracles, and prophecy, agree with the dates and authorship order that you list? Just curious.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This majority you speak of, is only amongst scripture scholars who subscribe to a rationalist view, and includes mostly non-catholics.

**Oh really, please give the citation for this. It is the majority opinion. sigh…of course you don’t agree because you are a literalist. I personally don’t give a hoot which turns out to be correct. Time will tell. **

What percentage of Catholic scripture scholars, who allow for the existence of revelation, miracles, and prophecy, agree with the dates and authorship order that you list? Just curious.

I have no idea, why don’t you tell us with appropriate citation if you know.

Just curious, why do you attack me at every post?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Breath*Meadow,

I don’t “attack” you. I challenge your assertions, which are most often false, or erroneous.

Do you deny that a rationalistic viewpoint will alter the way somebody views the forms, and authorship dates of the gospels?

And I am not a “literalist”. I don’t believe every verse of the bible is to be understood in a literal sense. That’s crazy. But I am a traditionalist. I believe that 2000 years of tradition in the Roman Catholic Church should carry a lot of weight, and should be assumed correct, until proven otherwise. I believe that no 20th century statement, by any pope, has contradicted the beliefs of the previous 19 centuries in any way.

• or Wind.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Breath*Meadow,

I don’t “attack” you. I challenge your assertions, which are most often false, or erroneous.

HUh, well it sure comes off to me as superior acting. And of course I find your assertions usually false or erroneous.

Do you deny that a rationalistic viewpoint will alter the way somebody views the forms, and authorship dates of the gospels?

**There are an extraordinary number of ways of looking at scripture. First you need to define what rationalistic means to you and who you conceive of as being rationalistic in their scholarly approach. The same methodology used by modern exegetes of the bible is used by any other scholar decifering and giving a commentary on say Plato or Aristotle. Yet nobody complains of their methodology. **

And I am not a “literalist”. I don’t believe every verse of the bible is to be understood in a literal sense. That’s crazy.
**Super glad to hear that. **

But I am a traditionalist. I believe that 2000 years of tradition in the Roman Catholic Church should carry a lot of weight, and should be assumed correct, until proven otherwise. I believe that no 20th century statement, by any pope, has contradicted the beliefs of the previous 19 centuries in any way.

It’s so incredibly easy to say that and it sounds so reasonable…I mean 19 centuries versus 1, yeah it sure looks like your’re right. But its a little like fundies who try to argue that sola scriptura was the way of the 1st century church. That sounds fine, except their was no written bible for the masses practically speaking until the 18th century. So with your argument. You can’t use the ECF and tradition to prove what couldn’t have been discernable to most for the vast majority of that time due to the lack of hermeneutical tools that we have today. And of course we know the Church does not ever change her mind but she does “grow in understanding” wink wink