Were St Paul's letters before the Gospels?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave_B

Guest
Hi All

Having a faith wobble at the moment, and will be grateful for your help.

Does the Church teach that St Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels?

Should this matter, and what does it mean.

Thanks. Be grateful for some clear guidance, from the Catholic position.
 
Dave_B said:
Hi All

Having a faith wobble at the moment, and will be grateful for your help.

Does the Church teach that St Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels?

Should this matter, and what does it mean.

Thanks. Be grateful for some clear guidance, from the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
I could not follow: “before” or “after” where is the problem?
 
Most if not all of the NT letters are believed to have been written before the NT Gospel accounts were recorded.
That said, we cannot be sure that there was not an earlier Gospel account written. A number of Scholars look at the similarities of Mt, Mk, and Luke and suggest that there was an earlier and common document that each of the evangelists used as a source. This source is commonly referred to as “Q”. Here is a Wiki Article that might help explain.

I would not let this trouble me though…All of the Gospels were written while there were still many eyewitnesses available. Plus the Gospels contained in the NT were carefully selected by the Church in council and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James
 
Thanks for your repsonses.

I have also since found an interesting article on CA magazine which is helpful.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-st-paul-invent-christianity

And I liked this bit in particular 🙂

"There actually are many allusions in Paul’s writings to specific, historical details from the life of Jesus, including:
  • Jesus was “descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3; Gal 3:16).
  • Jesus was born and raised as a Jew (Gal 4:4).
  • The names of some of Jesus’ disciples, including Cephas (1 Cor 9:5)
  • The words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25)
  • The betrayal of Jesus (1 Cor 11:23)
  • Jesus was executed by being crucified (Phil 2:8; 3:18; 1 Cor 1:17-18; Gal 5:11; 6:12),
  • Jesus rose from the dead (Rom 1:4; 4:24-25; 8:11;1 Cor 6:14; 15:4-8; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1* After the Resurrection, Jesus “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5).
  • He also appeared, post-Resurrection, to “to more than five hundred brethren at one time, * Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles . . . " (1 Cor 15:6-7)”
 
agnes_therese said:
I’m puzzled as to why it would matter?
Click to expand...
I had been reading atheist websites claiming that the gospels were a fabrication, and that Paul the originator of Christianity. The Catholic Answers magazine article above presents a strong defence against this claim, so am feeling a lot happier.
 
Dave_B said:
I had been reading atheist websites claiming that the gospels were a fabrication, and that Paul the originator of Christianity. The Catholic Answers magazine article above presents a strong defence against this claim, so am feeling a lot happier.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, thank you.
 
It seems Paul may have had infused knowledge from God. Because when he began his preaching, he did not go to the Apostles, or disciples for his knowledge about Jesus and his public life and teachings. He just plain started him missionary work after his conversion explaining and preaching Jesus. It was only after about a year into his mission that he went to Jerusalem.

Just a thought, what do you think?
 
fred_conty said:
It seems Paul may have had infused knowledge from God. Because when he began his preaching, he did not go to the Apostles, or disciples for his knowledge about Jesus and his public life and teachings. He just plain started him missionary work after his conversion explaining and preaching Jesus. It was only after about a year into his mission that he went to Jerusalem.

Just a thought, what do you think?
Click to expand...
Paul also says somewhere that after his conversion he went into “Arabia”, tradition seems to say for 3 years before coming back to Damascus to preach…Though Scripture seems somewhat unclear on this.
The relevant passage in in Galatians reads:
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
Are there other passages where it is made more clear??

Peace
James
 
Yes, that was the quote.

I would have thought Paul would have some knowledge of Jesus early on, because he pursecuted Christians and also was a Pharasee. So some of his knowledge may have come from this previous experience. But it does sound as tho he did have some direct divine knowledge.

This is just a thought, but it would seem that Mary would also have been given this to some degree. But there is nothing to indicate this except for carring Jesus for nine months.
 
I’m one who thinks that Matthew was written before Paul’s letters for various reasons.

I think one clue is that Paul asks his readers to remember 'the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

Taken in isolation this would by very strange. What is the ‘Day of the Lord’ and why of all things would he compare it to ‘a thief in the night’?

bible.cc/1_thessalonians/5-4.htm

Paul doesn’t tell us. If we read Matthew though we can see where Paul gets his words from.

Matthew, especially 24:42-44 but within the context of the whole chapter.

realdouayrheims.com/files/matt24.pdf

Also if we look at Paul arguing that Gentiles should be exempt from the Law, on many occasions he looks like he is responding to Matthew’s Gospel. At one stage Paul writes rhetorically ’ What are we saying then, that faith has replaced the law?’ He then goes on to say no, but really if you read him in full he is pretty close to saying that.

bible.cc/romans/3-31.htm

This seems to be in response to Matthew’s writing saying the law has not been abolished.

bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm

Matthew also gives account of people being put right by their actions, faith if you like. Paul does not miss this opportunity to argue that faith is a justification amongst the gentiles and not Jewish law.

In fact if you read Paul’s letter to the Romans and count how many rhetorical questions Paul asks there it seems that he is certainly arguing against someone but in a very respectful and indirect manner. I think its Matthew’s gospel.
It is hard to see how Matthew could be written after Paul leaving open the ammunition Paul uses in his writings.

It is easier for me to see Paul trying to delicately tread around the authoritative writings of Matthew (and the other inner circle apostles) is arguing for his main thesis.
 
At that time, Damascus was under the control of an Arabian king. Aretas, I think. Later 30’s A.D.
 
abucs said:
I’m one who thinks that Matthew was written before Paul’s letters for various reasons.

I think one clue is that Paul asks his readers to remember 'the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

.
Click to expand...
abcs,

Historians and bible scholars all disagree with you. The Gospels were written after around 75AD. Pauls letters were written between about 55 to 65AD.

Pauls letters definitely came first. The other books of he NT were probably written after the apostles were long dead. Only Pauls first seven letters were written by him.
Peace, JohnR
 
highrigger1 said:
Originally Posted by abucs
I’m one who thinks that Matthew was written before Paul’s letters for various reasons.
Click to expand...
One thing that might account for the points brought up by abucs is the “Q” document.
For those who have not heard of this, it refers to a possible source document of sayings of Jesus (plus???) that influenced the synoptic Gospels. Thus it would have predated the Gospels but by how much…🤷

Peace
James
Click to expand...
 
Why is the date of the writing of the Gospels what’s in play here?

If the question is whether Paul’s letters were written before the Gospel stories were being told, then the answer is ‘no’.

If the question is whether Paul’s letters were written before the Gospel stories were put in writing, it would seem that we could get into a debate about Mark or Matthew. But, what would the point be?

It seems the OP is asking whether Paul influenced the Gospels to be written in a way that corrupted or modified them. There’s not any evidence that would support that thesis; moreover, it would be necessary to explain how multiple Gospel traditions didn’t result (since Paul didn’t travel to all the Christian Churches)…
 
  1. Paul had plenty of well-informed Christians to learn from in Damascus. Ananias was apparently knowledgeable enough to be chosen by Jesus Christ Himself to be Paul’s teacher in the Christian faith. What more do you want?
  2. The only thing Paul taught that seems to have been taught him directly by Jesus was that Jesus was talking about His Body the Church when He said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” That’s a pretty big chunk of knowledge. (Though I suppose you could reason your way to it, it’s a lot better to have it stated out loud and dramatically.)
  3. The only “infused” divine knowledge would seem to be Paul’s vision of Heaven. He apparently had certain prophetic and charismatic gifts also, but we don’t hear a ton about them.
  4. The whole point of Paul’s teaching was that He preached the Gospel, and that he did explanations and analysis and cross-referencing of the same Gospel everybody else knew, and of the same (Old Testament) Scriptures that everybody else knew. He was mostly acting as a rabbi, though he had charismatic/prophetic gifts to get people to do signs (miracles). The signs were mostly God getting people to listen to the rest.
 
highrigger1 said:
abcs,

Historians and bible scholars all disagree with you. The Gospels were written after around 75AD. Pauls letters were written between about 55 to 65AD.

Pauls letters definitely came first. The other books of he NT were probably written after the apostles were long dead. Only Pauls first seven letters were written by him.
Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
Hi Highrigger, I’ve sat in enough Theology classes to be quite aware of what different bible scholars say from many different perspectives.

I am more interested in their evidence or for the case in question, the severe lack of it.

youtube.com/watch?

preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html

markgoodacre.org/synoptic-l/derrenba.htm

Peace.
 
Dave_B said:
Hi All

Having a faith wobble at the moment, and will be grateful for your help.

Does the Church teach that St Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels?

Should this matter, and what does it mean.

Thanks. Be grateful for some clear guidance, from the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
An excellent resource in such situations is Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ. It gives a synopsis of each of the 73 books, including their believed date of composition, author, theology, a summary and an outline. Very useful.
 
JRKH said:
One thing that might account for the points brought up by abucs is the “Q” document.
For those who have not heard of this, it refers to a possible source document of sayings of Jesus (plus???) that influenced the synoptic Gospels. Thus it would have predated the Gospels but by how much…🤷

Peace
James
Click to expand...
The “Q” document is nothing but speculation with ZERO evidence to support it.

I find the concept of oral tradition to be much more plausible to explain the similarity in the synoptic Gospels than “Q.” The early Church did, after all, exist before the Gospels and even Paul’s writings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top