Was Corinthians written before the Gospels?

[Frankenfurter]

I heard from a reliable source that Paul’s letter to the Christians in Corinth Greece was written before the Gospels were written.

I was wondering if this is true and how we know that.

If this is true, then I have to wonder why it wasn’t put before Romans in the bible. Or perhaps Romans was also written even earlier?

 

[PatrickSebast]

Chronologically a lot of books including Romans, as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians are believed to have been written prior to the earliest Gospel (supposedly Mark).

The Gospels appear earlier than the letters because they are of primary importance to the NT and their contents describes events that occurred prior to the letters (and which the letters were based upon).

The letters are then sorted primarily by the traditionally held author, and finally by believed chronological order.

 

[jmcrae]

Chronologically a lot of books including Romans, as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians are believed to have been written prior to the earliest Gospel (supposedly Mark).

Some say that the Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew came first - but of course, it has been lost - we only have the Greek translation, which was made after the Gospel of Mark. But this is the reason that Matthew is put first in order.

The letters are then sorted primarily by the traditionally held author, and finally by believed chronological order.

This one is also debatable - I was taught many years ago that the Pauline epistles are actually sorted in order of their length, from longest to shortest. I am also under the impression that I Thessalonians is considered the earliest of the writings of the New Testament.

The Gospels were certainly written down after the Pauline Epistles, since none of them had been written prior to his death. It was only after his death that the Church began to realize that some kind of written record was going to be needed, since Christ’s Second Coming was not, after all, immanent, as they had assumed.

 

[Hboggs]

The introduction to the New Testament Letters in my St. Joseph NAB states on page 1997-1998: "Four of the letters in the Pauline corpus (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Phileomon) are called ‘Captivity Epistles’. … Three others (1-2 Timothy and Titus) are known as the ‘Pastorial Epistles’… The letters of the Pauline corplus are arranged in roughly descending order of length from Romans to Philemon, with Hebrews added at the end. … The catholic letters, like those of the Pauline corpus, are also arranged in roughly descending order of length, but the three Johannine letters are kept together and Jude is placed at the end.

The genuine letters of Paul are earlier in date than any of our written gospels. The dates of the other New Testament letters are more difficult to determine, but for the most part they belong to the second and third Christian generations rather than the first."

 

[po18guy]

From Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. (I highly recommend it):

Matthew AD 43-70
Mark AD 60 +/-
Luke AD 64 +/-
John AD 70-90
Romans AD 58
1 Corinthians AD 57
2 Corinthians AD 57

The dates of Romans and 1 & 2 Corinthians are quite certain. The others are the subject of much debate.

 

[steve53]

Google “Eusebius” and “pauline epistles” and see what you get.

Eusebius is the best ancient source realistically for things like this, and puts it all together.

 

[thistle]

I heard from a reliable source that Paul’s letter to the Christians in Corinth Greece was written before the Gospels were written.

I was wondering if this is true and how we know that.

If this is true, then I have to wonder why it wasn’t put before Romans in the bible. Or perhaps Romans was also written even earlier?

If a “reliable source” told you this then why are you asking us?

 

[Frankenfurter]

These are great responses and I thank you all.

Regarding my original source, it was Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s casual comment when he mentioned that Corinthians was written before the Gospels on one of the call in shows.

This interested me because I was reading Corinthians and I noted how Paul seemed to be saying that there was a sens of urgency. This sense of overall urgency is not as present in Romans, so it makes sense to me that Romans comes after, sort of after the anticipated urgency had passed.

 

[po18guy]

These are great responses and I thank you all.

Regarding my original source, it was Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s casual comment when he mentioned that Corinthians was written before the Gospels on one of the call in shows.

This interested me because I was reading Corinthians and I noted how Paul seemed to be saying that there was a sens of urgency. This sense of overall urgency is not as present in Romans, so it makes sense to me that Romans comes after, sort of after the anticipated urgency had passed.

The gradual lessening of the sense of urgency also occurred to Peter, who realized that the Lord might not return in their lifetimes (2 Peter 3). The Apostles’ sense of Jesus’ imminent return was first displayed at the Ascension, when they stood gazing at the sky for so long that two angels had to ask them what they were looking for (Acts 1:9-11). We can see a lessening of this urgency as the later Epistles and Gospels were composed.