The Apostle Paul not Mentioned in the Gospels?

[Coder]

If the Gospels were written in the decades after the resurrection, one might wonder why is there no mention of St. Paul in the Gospels.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Gospel narrations ended just before before the ascension. Paul, then Saul the persecutor, probably had not started yet or if he did, just barely. He would not figure in the Gospel time line.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If the Gospels were written in the decades after the resurrection, one might wonder why is there no mention of St. Paul in the Gospels.

Why would you expect to find mention of him in the Gospels?

The Gospels are concerned with the life of Christ and, above all, His public ministry.

Two Gospels begin with an infancy narrative and two have no infancy narrative. All four end their narratives after the Resurrection. It is the third Gospel’s writer who continues, in the Acts of he Apostles, the narrative concerning the Church from the Ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

The Lord’s intervention to save the Church under threat by Saul as well as to convert Saul by a theophany in which He manifests His identity and power is properly related at that point it occurs in the Church’s historical self-narrative in the Acts of the Apostles.

 

[JurisPrudens]

If the Gospels were written in the decades after the resurrection, one might wonder why is there no mention of St. Paul in the Gospels.

The consensus is that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author, at roughly the same time. St. Paul is very prominent in the Acts.

 

[Coder]

The Gospels are concerned with the life of Christ and, above all, His public ministry.

Thank you, I can see that point to some extent. Yet, a key part of Jesus’ public ministry is the founding of the Church and the commissioning of the Apostles. The commissioning of the Apostles is a basis for Church authority (e.g. “the Rock”, “I send you”) and belief in the Apostolic Church is an article of faith. No other Apostle has so many writings that are considered Sacred Scripture, and he’s not even mentioned as commissioned by Jesus in the Gospels like the other Apostles?

 

[Garyjohn2]

That’s kind of like asking why Andrew Jackson is not mentioned in a biography of George Washington – even though the biography was written after Andrew Jackson was alive. The story does not involve him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you, I can see that point to some extent. Yet, a key part of Jesus’ public ministry is the founding of the Church and the commissioning of the Apostles. The commissioning of the Apostles is a basis for Church authority (e.g. “the Rock”, “I send you”) and belief in the Apostolic Church is an article of faith. No other Apostle has so many writings that are considered Sacred Scripture, and he’s not even mentioned as commissioned by Jesus in the Gospels like the other Apostles?

Not commissioned by Jesus?

Acts 9:1-6
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

Further, Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Therefore, we might say that one of the gospel writers DID mention Paul extensively in part two of his two-volume account of the origins of Christianity.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you, I can see that point to some extent. Yet, a key part of Jesus’ public ministry is the founding of the Church and the commissioning of the Apostles. The commissioning of the Apostles is a basis for Church authority (e.g. “the Rock”, “I send you”) and belief in the Apostolic Church is an article of faith. No other Apostle has so many writings that are considered Sacred Scripture, and he’s not even mentioned as commissioned by Jesus in the Gospels like the other Apostles?

It’s all about the timeline.

Remember that the book of the Acts of the Apostles is the continuation of the Gospel of Luke. In a sense, they are one book in two parts.

Paul became a Christian after the Ascension and after the martyrdom of Stephen the deacon.

Before those events (meaning, during the time Christ was still on earth) Paul was alive, but had nothing to do with the events of the time. So there is nothing to record.

 

[Coder]

That’s kind of like asking why Andrew Jackson is not mentioned in a biography of George Washington – even though the biography was written after Andrew Jackson was alive. The story does not involve him.

If one reads the Gospels, the Apostles are chosen by Jesus and sent forth. There seems to be a stage set. It just seems one would not expect that a majority of subsequent volumes of Scripture would be written by one who wasn’t originally commissioned by Jesus.

 

[porthos11]

If one reads the Gospels, the Apostles are chosen by Jesus and sent forth. There seems to be a stage set. It just seems one would not expect that a majority of subsequent volumes of Scripture would be written by one who wasn’t originally commissioned by Jesus.

He may not have been ORIGINALLY commissioned by Christ, but he WAS commissioned by Christ.

He probably wrote volumes because he was also probably the smartest of the bunch.

Why isn’t that good enough?

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you, I can see that point to some extent. Yet, a key part of Jesus’ public ministry is the founding of the Church and the commissioning of the Apostles. The commissioning of the Apostles is a basis for Church authority (e.g. “the Rock”, “I send you”) and belief in the Apostolic Church is an article of faith. No other Apostle has so many writings that are considered Sacred Scripture, and he’s not even mentioned as commissioned by Jesus in the Gospels like the other Apostles?

I just noticed your stated religious preference.

Since you might be very new to this, it looks like we need to go over some more basic elements of the conversation.

First, re-read the opening sentences of the Gospel of Luke and the opening of the book of Acts. Note that the two books are actually part-1 and part-2 of a single account, which take the form of letters written to someone named Theophilus.

Paul had nothing to do with the Christian community before the Ascension of Christ. He simply was not there. We know from his own writings that he never actually met Christ on earth.

It was not until after the Ascension (indeed, after the first Pentecost) that Paul would know anything about Christianity. He did not learn about it until the Apostles and other followers began teaching about Christ (again, after Pentecost).

All of the Gospel books end before the first Pentecost (I’m writing about the timeline here). As such, none of them would record anything about Paul, even though he was alive at the time. He was not following Christ, either as a believer or a persecutor, or anything else in between. At the time, he was probably making tents in Tarsus (that was his profession), which the Gospel writers would hardly have recorded.

 

[FrDavid96]

If one reads the Gospels, the Apostles are chosen by Jesus and sent forth. There seems to be a stage set. It just seems one would not expect that a majority of subsequent volumes of Scripture would be written by one who wasn’t originally commissioned by Jesus.

Well, yes. That’s the point exactly. It’s unexpected. It’s out of the ordinary.

Paul himself often makes reference to that very fact. See 1 Corinthians 15:8. Paul first saw Christ after the Ascension, when Paul himself was converted when he was struck from his horse.

If Paul had been a follower (not necessarily a believer, but just one who met Christ on earth, such as the many Pharisees who knew Him but never believed in Him) then the entire history of Paul would be markedly different. He would not have been the same person.

 

[Coder]

Thank You FrDavid96

Paul had nothing to do with the Christian community before the Ascension of Christ.

Yes, I do know that. (I’m not at all new to Christian Scriptures, however rather than focus on my particular journey, I like to simply as I say: “seek truth” )

At the time, he was probably making tents in Tarsus (that was his profession), which the Gospel writers would hardly have recorded.

My understanding is that the Gospel’s were written several decades into the 1st century e.g. 50 to 80. One might think that St. Paul, having worked with Peter would be known by the Gospels writers.

Also, my post #10 here is part of my point.

 

[Coder]

Well, yes. That’s the point exactly. It’s unexpected. It’s out of the ordinary.

Paul himself often makes reference to that very fact. See 1 Corinthians 15:8. Paul first saw Christ after the Ascension, when Paul himself was converted when he was struck from his horse.

Yes. When a Church presents its Scriptures to the nations for belief one could propose (respectfully) that this seems contrived/“fishy”. Why the ***relative ***silence in the post-Gospel Scriptures from all the original Apostles?

 

[Della]

My understanding is that the Gospel’s were written several decades into the 1st century e.g. 50 to 80. One might think that St. Paul, having worked with Peter would be known by the Gospels writers.

Also, my post #10 here is part of my point.

Your questions are a prime reason to place the Gospels much sooner than “several decades into the 1st century.” That idea comes from the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation–a modern construct that emphasizes anything miraculous or anything they thought not historically accurate. IMHO, that method has deep flaws.

The Early Church Fathers place the Gospels much earlier. As they were the closest in time to the writing of the Gospels, and the whole NT, I go by their timeline.

We have to remember that God may do what he pleases when he pleases. Jesus most certainly chose twelve men to be his Apostles, and the remaining 11 replaced Judas with Mathias, but God may call anyone he wants when he wants. Jesus knew that he wanted Saul, but in his own time and for his own reasons. Perhaps to assure us that the successors of the Apostles would have the same authority as the original Twelve had been given? In any case, Jesus called Paul when he wanted to. Paul, no less than the others, was called and appointed by Christ himself. The other Apostles agreed to this when they met with Paul and affirmed his election.

Catholics are not “people of the book” like our Protestant brethren or even Muslims. Rather, we are people of Christ. For Christ established his Church and still calls those who wants to serve him as his bishops and priests. It’s an ongoing ministry, not a static one, you see.

 

[porthos11]

Your questions are a prime reason to place the Gospels much sooner than “several decades into the 1st century.” That idea comes from the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation–a modern construct that emphasizes anything miraculous or anything they thought not historically accurate. IMHO, that method has deep flaws.

But internal evidence can at least place Luke late in the first century because it’s clear his two works are pretty much in close continuity with each other. John is also most likely a late composition too, given that John lived to a full old age, dying close to the opening of the second century.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the historical-critical method. It’s an extremely useful tool, but just as a hammer can be used to pound nails and build a house, it can also be used to crack a person’s skull. Like any tool, the historical-critical method can be misused and cause great harm.

But it is not a reason to dismiss the method altogether.

 

[Della]

But internal evidence can at least place Luke late in the first century because it’s clear his two works are pretty much in close continuity with each other. John is also most likely a late composition too, given that John lived to a full old age, dying close to the opening of the second century.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the historical-critical method. It’s an extremely useful tool, but just as a hammer can be used to pound nails and build a house, it can also be used to crack a person’s skull. Like any tool, the historical-critical method can be misused and cause great harm.

But it is not a reason to dismiss the method altogether.

I didn’t dismiss it all together. I merely pointed out its flaws. A flawed premise will have flawed results. That’s my point. There’s some merit, but not all of the conclusions are trustworthy–or at least too confusing for the average lay person.

Coder:

Yes. When a Church presents its Scriptures to the nations for belief one could propose (respectfully) that this seems contrived/“fishy”.

But the Church hasn’t presented the Scriptures to anyone for belief. That wasn’t the purpose for compiling the canon of Scripture. It was primarily so all the dioceses would be using the same canon for the Church’s liturgies.

The Bible is not a proof-text for Church teachings. It is one witness to God’s interaction with man. Some of the canon’s books are historical and others not. It’s not a single volume but a collection of writings. The Church’s teaching are derived from Sacred Tradition (all that God has reveals through the patriarchs and prophets from Adam through the Apostles), Sacred Scripture (which is a witness to much of that history, but not all), and the Magisterium (the living witness to Christ in the persons of the bishops in union with the pope). The Bible is not meant to be used to “prove” this or that, you see.

Why the relative silence in the post-Gospel Scriptures from all the original Apostles?

Because they probably didn’t write anything. Really, it’s that simple. St. Paul happened to be quite a prolific writer. He traveled all around the Mediterranean area, establishing churches (dioceses in modern terms). He was primarily an evangelist. He would write to the churches he had established to correct them, encourage them, and let them know about his ministries. The others didn’t. St. Peter wrote a couple of letters, as did St. John and James, but the others didn’t. Either that or their writings were lost to history.

Paul isn’t mentioned in the Gospels because the Gospels were written by men interested in telling Jesus’ story up through the Ascension. Paul was called to ministry after that. He simply didn’t come into the picture until after the Church had been established at Pentecost. Why should the Gospel writers mention him when he played no part in Jesus’ ministry during Jesus’ earthly life? There’d be no good reason for doing so when their focus was on Jesus during his life among them.

 

[Coder]

Thank You Della,

But the Church hasn’t presented the Scriptures to anyone for belief. That wasn’t the purpose for compiling the canon of Scripture. It was primarily so all the dioceses would be using the same canon for the Church’s liturgies.

It seems that the Scriptures are a central reference for evangelization.

The Bible is not a proof-text for Church teachings.

I think almost all Church commentary on its teachings references Scripture. (Simply read a Vatican document). (I’m not a “Bible-only” Christian BTW).

St. Paul happened to be quite a prolific writer.

Can’t debate that.

Paul isn’t mentioned in the Gospels because the Gospels were written by men interested in telling Jesus’ story up through the Ascension.

Fair enough. It’s just that as I alluded to before (and of course, as you mentioned God can do whatever He decides) - one might think that since he was such an influential Apostle (e.g. writing majority of “apostolic” Scriptures) that he might be mentioned in the Gospels since Jesus appeared to Paul and the commissioning of Apostles was an important part of the Gospels.

Is there a teaching on whether the Gospel authors knew of St. Paul at the time the Gospels were written?

 

[Della]

Thank You Della,

It seems that the Scriptures are a central reference for evangelization.

You’re welcome. Of course, Scripture is a great resource and most certainly can be "used’, if that’s the proper word, for evangelization. But, it’s not the end-all and be-all of the Christian faith. As St. Paul wrote:

2Tim3:[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The Scriptures are not a doctrinal treatise, per se. They’re a testimony and a resource.

I think almost all Church commentary on its teachings references Scripture. (Simply read a Vatican document). (I’m not a “Bible-only” Christian BTW).

Decidedly so, but the Scriptures are not the only source for what we know and believe.

Fair enough. It’s just that as I alluded to before (and of course, as you mentioned God can do whatever He decides) - one might think that since he was such an influential Apostle (e.g. writing majority of “apostolic” Scriptures) that he might be mentioned in the Gospels since Jesus appeared to Paul and the commissioning of Apostles was an important part of the Gospels.

What we have to keep in mind is the intention of the authors of the Gospels. They didn’t know we’d be reading them centuries later. They wrote them for the people of their day–to tell them about the life, teachings, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus the Christ. For example, Mary isn’t mentioned very often and she certainly was a part of Jesus’ life, but the authors weren’t concerned with her life, but with that of her Son. The Gospels have to be understood and read within the context of their times and the intentions of their authors. The CCC talks about the senses of scriptural interpretation in paragraphs #115-119.

Is there a teaching on whether the Gospel authors knew of St. Paul at the time the Gospels were written?

I have never heard of any. I don’t think it would even have occurred to them to mention St. Paul when they left out so much else we’d like to know. But then, they weren’t writing for the ages and our desire to know more than they wrote.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

My understanding is that the Gospel’s were written several decades into the 1st century e.g. 50 to 80. One might think that St. Paul, having worked with Peter would be known by the Gospels writers.

Also, my post #10 here is part of my point.

Fair enough, he might have been known by some of the Gospel writers. In fact, since Paul was present at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) we can almost take that as a given.

However, keep in mind the timeline. The events of the Gospels happened before St Paul entered into the scene. With regard to the time when the Gospel events were happening, nothing Paul did at the time had any relevance or relation to those events. There’s nothing to write about.