Were St Paul's letters before the Gospels?

[annem]

Timothysis:he “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.

Dear Timothysis, I agree. Much of the argument about a sayings gospel came from Bultmann’s idiotic idea of an existential Christ plus assuming the Gnostic Thomas sayings gospel had some early strands–pretty much all disproved and gone for good now.

The Second Temple Jews regarded their oral traditions as binding as scripture, as seen in Josephus-Antiquities 10.2.1 XIII,297.

When Paul talked about passing on tradition he used the word which indicated he was passing on formal oral tradition.

I could not agree more that oral tradition explains the synoptic problem much better than Q ever did. In fact, Q has been a wretched knotty black hole of a problem ever since it was first discussed, and no one has ever really suggested a clean solution.

I have been reading a lot of books recently on the newest research on oral tradition and orality and I keep hoping to find a really good book out by a reliable scholar using the newest research and trying to solve the synoptic problem using it. If anyone ever sees a book like that, please pass on the title.

Anyway, just wanted to tell you how much I agreed with you,

God bless, Annem

 

[Dave_B]

Who said that the date that something was written has anything to do with its importance? Read the prologue to Luke. Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. He already knew its contents and more, from the oral Apostolic tradition that he had already received - which Luke’s Gospel was intended only to confirm.

I was reading Luke 1 prologue this morning actually, and have missed that point. Thanks

 

[po18guy]

I was reading Luke 1 prologue this morning actually, and have missed that point. Thanks

I had to be hit on the head with a brick before I took note of it. It is like most preambles in that it is easily glossed over - yet, it establishes a firm foundation for the oral Apostolic Tradition in only two sentences. Neither Luke nor Theophilus were eyewitnesses to any of it, having been taught orally.

 

[patrick457]

Dear John R, Strikes me you have been reading some very iffy scholars. RAYMOND BROWN??? Yes, yes, I know Father Groeschel knew him and loved him and no doubt as a person and as a priest he was wonderful. As scholars go, however, I would call him simply dreadful at best. (And I am trying to be charitable) (Really).

As far as y our claim that “ALL serious historians disagree with your view” I am astounded you could have penned those words with a straight face.

:Sorry, it’s just not true. And I am very very familiar with historians and biblical scholarship.
’
God b less, Annem

I know quite a number of folks who don’t like Fr. Brown’s scholarship. To be honest though, I still think he’s pretty much a good example of the ‘midway’ position in current NT studies, especially when compared to ultra-radical sectors like the Jesus Seminar.

 

[patrick457]

Dear Timothysis, I agree. Much of the argument about a sayings gospel came from Bultmann’s idiotic idea of an existential Christ plus assuming the Gnostic Thomas sayings gospel had some early strands–pretty much all disproved and gone for good now.

Nope, the Two-source hypothesis (aka Q theory) is a relic of 18th-19th century Biblical scholarship as a solution to the Synoptic Problem. In its origins, it was first assumed that Matthew’s Hebrew Logia mentioned by Papias was perhaps a memory of a proto-Gospel available to all three Synoptic Evangelists. This was the opinion expressed by German theologian Friedrich Scheleiermacher in 1832 (as well as Herbert Marsh a few decades before and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in 1778). It would be Hermann Christian Weisse, writing just six years Schleiermacher, who fused the theory of the existence of a lost proto-Gospel source with the (independent) idea of Markan priority, thereby forming the genesis of the Two-source theory. Weisse’s idea would only become popular in academia due to the efforts of Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (who made it popular in German circles after Weisse) and B.H. Streeter (who wrote what is often considered to be the definitive analysis of the hypothesis in 1924).

Yeah, a lot of names to remember, most of them German.

 

[chosen_people]

A Jewish perspective:

The Epistles make no mention of the Gospels which strongly suggest that the Gospels did not exist until after the Epistles were written. Although this earliest Christian document was written much closer to the alleged lifetime of Jesus, the Epistles speak of a divine being with virtually no reference to physical events on earth or in history. There are no sayings of Jesus, or parables, or miracles or details about his life. There is no crucifixion mentioned, no empty tomb, no alleged rising from the tomb.

Although Matthew,Mark;Luke and John are the putative authors of their respective Gospels, only Matthew and John are mentioned as disciples and witnesses to events in the life of Jesus. Mark and Luke did not claim to be eyewitnesses to events in Jesus’ life.

Now we know that the Gospel of Mark (who was not an eyewitness) was the first synoptic Gospel since Matthew copied about 90% of the Gospel of Mark (600 out of 660 verses) and Luke copied over 50% of the Gospel of Mark. Now if Matthew really was a disciple and a witness to events why would he need to copy Mark and rely so heavily of Marks version of events ? (why would he refer to himself in the third person in Matthew 9:9?). Which leaves us with John which contains material not found in Mark, contradicts events reported in Matthew and Luke and contains none of the" historical material" contained only in Matthew and Luke such as infancy and childhood.To make matters even more complicated, whenever they reported "historical material"l not found in Mark (on whose Gospel they obviously relied) and although they were not eyewitnesses, they contradict each other and make alterations and additions to Mark’s Jesus story.

Although Christian scholars put forward that the Gospels existed in some form by the late first century of the common era, the first time there is a written reference to a Gospel is a reference to the Gospel of Mark in 125 c.e. and the first written reference to all four Gospels is in 175 c.e.

 

[patrick457]

There is no crucifixion mentioned, no empty tomb, no alleged rising from the tomb.

On the contrary, the epistles of Paul makes quite a number of references to the cross and Resurrection - which is really the core of his kerygma. There is some debate in certain circles as to the authenticity of certain letters attributed to Paul, but even if that proves true and we limit ourselves to the seven presently considered genuine by most scholars, the point still stands.

For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

(1 Thessalonians 1:9-10)

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!

(1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

(1 Thessalonians 4:13-14)

But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.

(1 Thessalonians 5:8-10)

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2:5-11)

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1 Corinthians 1:12-25)

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

(1 Corinthians 2:1-10)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

(1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

(1 Corinthians 15:3-11)

Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

(Galatians 1:1-5 ESV)

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

(Galatians 3:1-6)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

(Galatians 3:13-14)

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

(Galatians 4:1-7)

See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

(Galatians 6:11-16)

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

(2 Corinthians 4:7-15)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

(2 Corinthians 5:12-21)

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Romans 1:1-7)

But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

(Romans 4:23-25)

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

(Romans 5:1-14)

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

(Romans 6:1-11)

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

(Romans 8:1-4)

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

(Romans 8:9-11)

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

(Romans 8:31-34)

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

(Romans 9:1-5)

For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

(Romans 14:7-9)

For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name.”

And again it is said,
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”

And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and let all the peoples extol him.”

And again Isaiah says,
“The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope.”

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

(Romans 15:8-13)

I have only listed the seven (mostly) undisputed letters here; this list would be even longer if we included all the Pauline epistles.

Based from these quotes, we can infer from Paul (alone) that:

• Jesus was a Jew by origin, “descended from David according to the flesh”
• He was crucified in Judaea under “the Judaeans” and “the rulers of this age,” only to be raised by God from the dead three days afterwards, thereby glorifying Him
• Just before this, “on the night when He was handed over,” Jesus shared a last meal with His disciples, which in Paul’s time had become commemorated as “the Lord’s supper”
• Connected with Jesus were people named Cephas (Peter?), James and John, “who seemed to be pillars:” he explicitly claims that Cephas and James saw the resurrected Jesus. In addition, Paul also names related groups like “the brothers of the Lord,” “the twelve,” “the apostles” (he also identifies himself as one), and “more than five hundred brothers” who also saw Him post-resurrection at one time

 

[po18guy]

The particular Jewish aspect we have heard alleges basically, it would seem to me, that Christ was not the Messiah, and that the writings concerning him may have been based on a fabrication, and were supplemented either by plagiarism, or on the other hand, documents that were too unrelated to one another to be trustworthy. Distilled to its essence, it is saying, “I don’t believe the story”. Since the Gospel message was primarily oral, why would epistles, mostly sent to other geographical locations, refer to the basic Gospel message that had already been heard? They were often exhortations to keep a fledgling faith with an evolving organizational structure, assembled into a cohesive movement.

As a Christian, I would ask when the L-rd has ever left His chosen people scattered without a unifying leader, common territory or prophets to inspire them for over two millennia.

 

[patrick457]

The particular Jewish aspect we have heard alleges basically, it would seem to me, that Christ was not the Messiah, and that the writings concerning him may have been based on a fabrication, and were supplemented either by plagiarism, or on the other hand, documents that were too unrelated to one another to be trustworthy. Distilled to its essence, it is saying, “I don’t believe the story”. Since the Gospel message was primarily oral, why would epistles, mostly sent to other geographical locations, refer to the basic Gospel message that had already been heard? They were often exhortations to keep a fledgling faith with an evolving organizational structure, assembled into a cohesive movement.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. Chosen People is correct in pointing out that there isn’t as much biographic details about Jesus as we would like within the letters of St. Paul when compared to the gospels. However, it would help to remember that, as you point out, the kerygma was primarily transmitted orally and that these epistles themselves are occasional and contingent in nature.

Mark Goodacre once pointed out how people often underestimate how much ‘Jesus material’ there are within the writings of Paul. The reason mostly lies in the expectation that Paul’s letters would read like the gospels. It is true that Paul doesn’t give us a wealth of information, but it is easy to overstate the case: while Paul did not see the ‘earthly’ Jesus (he does claim to have seen Him - much later, “as to one untimely born”), he did know of and learned from people who do. For instance, he gives us quite a bit of his life story in the epistle to the Galatians:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Also, certain epistles like 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians are relatively rich in Jesus material, if you’ll look carefully.

Let’s face it, people are more familiar with the gospels than they are with Paul’s letters: the gospels are after all, read more often than the epistles (seriously, just how many people are there who choose to focus solely on Paul? ), and are placed first in the standard NT canon. As a result, the gospels tend to color people’s perspectives and sets up an (admittedly unreasonable) expectation about what to see in the Pauline epistles - to general disappointment.

 

[patrick457]

Although Christian scholars put forward that the Gospels existed in some form by the late first century of the common era, the first time there is a written reference to a Gospel is a reference to the Gospel of Mark in 125 c.e. and the first written reference to all four Gospels is in 175 c.e.

It is true that one of the earliest explicit references comes from the late 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1):

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus is writing here under the authority of Papias of Hierapolis, who wrote in the earlier half of the century. Eusebius quotes the latter in his own work (Church History, 3.39.15-16):

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.”

 

[patrick457]

For a moment, I’m going here with the idea that Mark indeed wrote first, as opposed to say, Matthew or Luke.

Why would people - the idea that the Gospels are written within the late 1st-century 2nd range are no longer the domain of ‘Christian’ or ‘conservative’ scholars; the recent general trend among academia is to assign earlier dates compared to the scholarship of a century or two ago, when people seemed keen to assign very late dates for the gospels - assume that they already existed “by the late first century of the common era”?

Let’s take Jesus’ prophecy in Mark 13:2 (cf. Matthew 24:1f.; Luke 23:5f.): “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” A problem with the literalistic reading of the prophecy here is, the Romans did not completely demolish the Temple walls. Much of it is still there in situ, supporting the Muslim holy area that now stands on the site: the Western Wall for example. Many scholars think that if the prophecy was penned way after the event - that is, when a later writer writes a bogus prophecy - you’d usually expect a perfect, highly-suspiciously flawless agreement between prophecy and event. (This is the same rationale behind many people claiming the supposed Prophecy of St. Malachy to be a 16th-century forgery: the prophecies suspiciously fit popes from before the 16th century - up to at least Urban VII - effortlessly like a hand in glove, but beyond that, you’d have to do a bit of squirming in order to make the prophecies fit their pope.) They say, supposing Mark wrote his gospel way after 70 and forged these predictions, you’d expect him to record something about the Temple being destroyed by fire (which is what happened), not some statement about the walls being completely torn down. They think that it is this prediction, and the Olivet discourse which follows afterwards, which contains many a historical allusion to the events of the First Jewish Revolt (some details of which are, according to them, suspiciously too accurate ), helps pin it to a date somewhere after the First Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70.

Added to this is the consideration of Papias’ tradition that Mark was a disciple of Peter. If the tradition of Markan authorship is accepted, Irenaeus implies that Mark was written after the ‘exodus’ of Peter (traditionally understood to mean his death), which would put it in or after the AD 64-67 range (when Peter is traditionally understood to have died). On the other hand, according to Dennis Nineham (The Gospel of Saint Mark, 1963) “those who are cautious about accepting the Papias tradition can hardly put the lower limit much earlier, for they must allow time for the oral tradition to have developed in the way described above.” In the theory of Markan priority, the terminus ad quem is set by the incorporation of Mark into Matthew and into Luke. If Matthew was written in the last two decades of the 1st century (Ignatius of Antioch from the late 1st-early 2nd century and other early writers already show some dependence on Matthew’s gospel through allusions, even if they don’t call it by name), the most probable range of dating for Mark is from AD 65-80. Luke is usually judged to be written at around the same time or slightly later, because of factors such as his use of Mark (and Matthew)‘s gospels or even an alleged knowledge of Josephus’ works, the possible authorship by a sometime companion of Paul, and the fact that the infamous Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85-160) already apparently had a version of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around AD 130. All this would necessitate a date of the 90s to the first decade of the 2nd century; if Luke did not use Josephus, then a date in the 80s is permissible.

John’s gospel is a more tricky case since it is usually thought to be independent of the Synoptics (though a camp currently claims that it is also in some way dependent on them). The usual range is AD 90-100, around the end of the 1st century to the beginning of the 2nd, though some would argue a date as early as AD 50-70. It is pretty likely that the gospel was already in existence by the 2nd century, perhaps in the earlier half, due to the existence of Papyrus 52, and the use of the gospel by Irenaeus, Tatian, and certain gnostic groups in the later half of the century.

 

[Dave_B]

Chosenpeople, your summary reads to me like an atheist perspective. There are many jewish atheists, but i think religious jews are of the opinion Jesus existed but as an ordinary man and not as God in the flesh.

 

[Dave_B]

Patrick, great posts. We can piece together so much of the Creed from Paul’s letters, as your quotes demonstrate.

 

[po18guy]

Patrick, great posts. We can piece together so much of the Creed from Paul’s letters, as your quotes demonstrate.

And, some surprising theology (and content of the creed) comes from Peter’s short letters. From the Apostles’s creed, “He descended to the dead” (or, into hell) is based mainly on 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. The descent and the preaching of the Gospel to the dead is not revealed in any other scripture, and was apparently a revelation made only to Peter.

 

[annem]

Patrick457: I know quite a number of folks who don’t like Fr. Brown’s scholarship. To be honest though, I still think he’s pretty much a good example of the ‘midway’ position in current NT studies, especially when compared to ultra-radical sectors like the Jesus Seminar.

---

Hi, thanks for commenting. I am thrilled to hear from someone with a background in biblical scholarship.

And, yes, you are right that Brown is regarded as a moderate. So many, many people respect him and cite from his books. Right now I am reading a book on John’s gospel by Craig Blomberg–a wonderful book, but, sure enough, Blomberg cites from Raymond Brown.

And that’s my problem with Brown! Because all these Protestants believe Brown is giving the Catholic slant on the gospels, whereas, in fact, Brown is a wishy washy moderate. Brown is simply not reliable as a Catholic. He most certainly doesn’t stand firm on what the Church teaches. He called the nativity story essentially a myth, for example. And have you read his book on the so-called community of John? Sigh. Anyway, Brown always leaves me with the feeling that he wants to hold onto the basic Catholic dogmas, but, just to be kind, he’ll agree with the liberals on some points.

The funny thing is that if Brown had been a Protestant I wouldn’t have any problem with him at all. It’s only because so many people cite his arguments as if they were the Catholic take on matters that I find myself longing to yell at the poor man. (And yet I do have a tape series by Father Groeschel mentioning what a perfectly good and holy priest the man was, and if anybody would be able to spot a holy priest, I would trust Father Groeschel to do so.)

As for the Jesus Seminar, I have no respect at all for Funk. Most of his arguments I find very weak indeed. I can’t believe he wouldn’t be squashed like a tomato in a debate with an orthodox scholar.

And as for Crossan, I find him deliberately malicious. Time and again I have seen on some series on the History Channel. They usually film him in front of a church. Crossan, in his charming Irish accent, announces that, “As a Christian, I believe–” and then starts to say something that is violently anti-Christian. The body of Jesus was eaten by dogs! Etc. What Crossan means by “As a Christian, I believe” is that Crossan believes Jesus was a Cynic who wanted to overthrow the Evil Empire of Rome, or some such nonsense.

I find this very malicious on Crossan’s part. It’s being deliberately deceptive. The man is a fallen away priest, now an atheist, and he is no more a “Christian” than Funk or Dawkinsl

Thanks for replying. I always long to talk to someone about biblical scholarship, but few people seem to have much interest in the subject,
’
God bless, Anne m

 

[patrick457]

Hi, thanks for commenting. I am thrilled to hear from someone with a background in biblical scholarship.

And, yes, you are right that Brown is regarded as a moderate. So many, many people respect him and cite from his books. Right now I am reading a book on John’s gospel by Craig Blomberg–a wonderful book, but, sure enough, Blomberg cites from Raymond Brown.

And that’s my problem with Brown! Because all these Protestants believe Brown is giving the Catholic slant on the gospels, whereas, in fact, Brown is a wishy washy moderate. Brown is simply not reliable as a Catholic. He most certainly doesn’t stand firm on what the Church teaches. He called the nativity story essentially a myth, for example. And have you read his book on the so-called community of John? Sigh. Anyway, Brown always leaves me with the feeling that he wants to hold onto the basic Catholic dogmas, but, just to be kind, he’ll agree with the liberals on some points.

The funny thing is, some on the left think he’s not too ‘liberal’ enough, since while he opposed fundamentalist literalism, which made him unpopular amongst more conservative circles, he did not carry his conclusions as far as many other scholars in the field. (Some writers have criticized Fr. Brown for what they saw as excessive caution, and for being too eager to secure an Imprimatur for his works - Géza Vermes once described him as “the primary example of the position of having your cake and eating it’.”) As for Blomberg: he is in the conservative Evangelical tradition, though he doesn’t shirk to challenge the evangelical status quo now and again. I have yet to read any of Fr. Brown’s works (I only know some of his stuff through osmosis) to form an actual opinion about his views; I’ll let you know as soon as I get my hands on one.

The funny thing is that if Brown had been a Protestant I wouldn’t have any problem with him at all. It’s only because so many people cite his arguments as if they were the Catholic take on matters that I find myself longing to yell at the poor man. (And yet I do have a tape series by Father Groeschel mentioning what a perfectly good and holy priest the man was, and if anybody would be able to spot a holy priest, I would trust Father Groeschel to do so.)

It’s a Catholic take on matters (though of course, something some of us would think to verge a bit too much on the left), but not the, thank God.

Oh, and BTW: what do you think about Fr. John P. Meier?

As for the Jesus Seminar, I have no respect at all for Funk. Most of his arguments I find very weak indeed. I can’t believe he wouldn’t be squashed like a tomato in a debate with an orthodox scholar.

As I mentioned, the Jesus Seminar is really in the far-left radical side of things: even scholars who are not exactly ‘conservative’ can’t help but point out the holes in their methodology.

And as for Crossan, I find him deliberately malicious. Time and again I have seen on some series on the History Channel. They usually film him in front of a church. Crossan, in his charming Irish accent, announces that, “As a Christian, I believe–” and then starts to say something that is violently anti-Christian. The body of Jesus was eaten by dogs! Etc. What Crossan means by “As a Christian, I believe” is that Crossan believes Jesus was a Cynic who wanted to overthrow the Evil Empire of Rome, or some such nonsense.

Crossan once expressed his opinion on how recent historical research into the life of Jesus has become turned into a sort of a scholarly joke, since in recent years academic researchers have offered us no fewer than seven different interpretations of Jesus and His life (which includes his own). He says, “this stunning diversity is an academic embarassment. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography.” In other words, the authors seem to be writing more about themselves than they are about Jesus. This is one of the few things I think that he got right.

Oh, if it’s of any interest: I’ve wrote a thread not too long ago about the problem with his idea of the Passion narratives being ‘prophecy historicized’. (A view which he likes to contrast with his characterization of Fr. Brown’s idea of them being ‘history remembered’.)

 

[patrick457]

Chosenpeople, your summary reads to me like an atheist perspective. There are many jewish atheists, but i think religious jews are of the opinion Jesus existed but as an ordinary man and not as God in the flesh.

Indeed. To me it kind of sounded like Chosenpeople is presenting a mythicist (Jesus as myth) view: at least I tend to hear the argument how Paul doesn’t talk much about details from Jesus’ life as we would like from such folks. I did notice that he labeled the post “A Jewish perspective,” not “the Jewish perspective.”