The Gospel of Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Paul of Tarsus wrote:
This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. God’s word is not chained. Therefore, I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

The gospel of God — the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. When the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption. Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: 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 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. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

For you, brothers and sisters became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out.

We preach Christ crucified; Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

He was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me as to one abnormally born.

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is interceding for us. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Amen.
There it is; the closest thing we have to a Gospel of Paul, a hypothetical construct created from everything Paul said about the itinerant preacher Jesus.

The Gospel of Paul has been a bit of a pet project of mine for quite some time now. I am aware that we do not have any such text — called the Gospel of Paul — but we have tantalizing glimpses of his underlying gospel message, a framework that can be gleaned and hypothesized from his extant letters. Whether Paul ever wrote a gospel himself is something we probably will never know; if such a thing ever existed it has been lost in the sands of time.

The interesting thing about constructing a theoretical Gospel of Paul, is how it links directly to the Gospel of Mark. The Markan Gospel is most probably the earliest gospel text, and there is but a decade or so between the last Pauline texts and the Markan Evangelion, some scholars say perhaps even less. The links can be striking; the wording of the Eucharist in Galateans is found almost verbatim in the Gospel of Mark, for example. There are of course numerous hypotheses how this has happened.

In any case, it has been said that the two most important authors in the NT are, indeed, Paul and Mark. Almost all of the rest of the NT are either extrapolations on them, rather trivial additions, or completely unnecessary stories about the apostles. It is entirely possible to summarize the entire Christian tradition and theology by using Paul and Mark alone.

Therein lies my interest.

What do we know about how the two authors can be linked up? What can we with certainty say about the provenance of the texts? We know Paul wrote for a mostly Hellenized/Romanized, Greek/Latin speaking, gentile audience. Then again, so did Mark, perhaps even more so. But what can we say about the manuscript histories? Do we have evidence of any contact between Mark and the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem, bar a few alleged, fleeting contacts via relatives of Mark?

Some thoughts.

Regards,
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by iskander »

They are ' impossible questions' to answer by ordinary people

Mark tells the story of a reformer , and Paul explains the deeper meaning of the reform . Do you agree ?
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by DCHindley »

JCarp,

That is quite a pastiche of passages. You know, that many of us here (ranging from mythicists to evangelical protestants) are quite familiar with the bible and how it has been interpreted. However, most of us will not be mixing Hebrews in with the Paulines, not accepting that it was written by Paul, and some will quibble with mixing the letters to churches with the pastorals. Many also think that the epistles are interpolated by later editors, although these speculations can differ a great deal one from another.

I am of this latter class of people. To me, Paul was not a Christian but a Hellenized Judean of the Diaspora, probably the son of a freedman of a large Judean (Herodian) household who had fully converted as part of his manumission, with Paul trying to assure gentile God-fearers that they too can share in the promised blessed age if they, like Abram, genuinely believe it will come to pass. He knew nothing of Christ or even Jesus. What about all those passages that speak of Jesus/Christ? Those were added by a later editor. Yes, all of them.

So, in my speculative and has-to-be-wrong POV, there are actually two gospels being expressed here, three if you include the one Paul was combating in Galatia and other places.

1a) One by Paul the Hellenized Jew trying to bring together gentile God-fearers with natural born and converted Judeans. This Gospel is "you can enjoy the promises God made to Abram on equal footing with Judeans, by having the same faith in their fulfillment as Abram had, without any need to circumcise oneself or follow the Mosaic laws." That was "good news" for these God-fearing gentiles who were simply not in a position to have themselves circumcised or even observe Mosaic laws due to their position in life (slaves & artisans, mainly).

1b) The one Paul combated was one that felt that gentiles would not inherit along with natural born Judeans unless they DID circumcise and follow the Mosaic laws. This was probably the POV of most natural born Judeans and many who had already converted to Judaism. This is certainly a "different kind of good news."

2) The good news of the editor, on the other hand, is that a divine redeemer preformed a vicarious sacrifice to erase the errors (sins) of mankind, if one accepts *this* form of absolution by faith.

If one was to bracket off the Christological statements and arguments related thereto, from the rest of the text of all the Pauline epistles, one can see the difference quite readily. The problem is that most folks just cannot get their head around the idea that Paul was not a Christian. "Surely the NT books of Paul are self explanatory!" To this day, after almost 2,000 years, nobody has successfully done that, as there is a direct contradiction between the POV of my hypothetical editor and that of the original Paul. Oil & Water.

The person who I think has come closest to reconciling these opposing threads is Mark Nanos in his books The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (1996) and The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (2002) and Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (2015). He thinks it is possible to understand a real life Paul with all his internal contradictions intact, but I have my doubts due to the unique characteristics of the Christological passages when compared to non-Christological passages.

If you care to, you can find my 2003 English only version of the analysis of these strata in all NT Pauline books (based on the original Greek) by going to a page in Ben Smith's Text Excavation website, where he was gracious enough to place them:
http://www.textexcavation.com/dch.html

DCH
JCarp wrote:
Paul of Tarsus wrote:
[NIV 2 Tim 2:8-9] ... This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. God’s word is not chained. Therefore, I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

[NIV Rom 1:1-4] ... The gospel of God — the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

[NIV 2 Tim 2:8] Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David [this is my gospel]

[NIV Gal 4:4-5] When the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption [to sonship].

[NIV Heb 2:14] Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.

[NIV Heb 5:7-9] During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

[NIV 1 Cor 9:5] Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

[NIV 1 Cor 10:16a] Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

[NIV 1 Cor 11:23-26] For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: 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 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. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

[NIV 1 The 2:14-15] For you, brothers and sisters became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out.

[NIV 1 Cor 1:25] We preach Christ crucified;

[NIV 1 Cor 5:7b] Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

[NIV 1 Cor 15:3] For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

[NIV Gal 3:13-14] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

[NIV Rom 10:9] If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

[NIV 1 Cor 15:5-7] He was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, he appeared to me as to one abnormally born.

[NIV 2 Cor 13:4] For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power.

[NIV Rom 8:34] Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is interceding for us.

[NIV 1 The 4:16] For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

[Rom 2:16] This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

[NIV Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33; 16:27; 1 Cor 14:16; 16:24; 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 1:5; 6:18; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20, 23; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21]Amen.
There it is; the closest thing we have to a Gospel of Paul, a hypothetical construct created from everything Paul said about the itinerant preacher Jesus.

The Gospel of Paul has been a bit of a pet project of mine for quite some time now. I am aware that we do not have any such text — called the Gospel of Paul — but we have tantalizing glimpses of his underlying gospel message, a framework that can be gleaned and hypothesized from his extant letters. Whether Paul ever wrote a gospel himself is something we probably will never know; if such a thing ever existed it has been lost in the sands of time.

The interesting thing about constructing a theoretical Gospel of Paul, is how it links directly to the Gospel of Mark. The Markan Gospel is most probably the earliest gospel text, and there is but a decade or so between the last Pauline texts and the Markan Evangelion, some scholars say perhaps even less. The links can be striking; the wording of the Eucharist in Galateans is found almost verbatim in the Gospel of Mark, for example. There are of course numerous hypotheses how this has happened.

In any case, it has been said that the two most important authors in the NT are, indeed, Paul and Mark. Almost all of the rest of the NT are either extrapolations on them, rather trivial additions, or completely unnecessary stories about the apostles. It is entirely possible to summarize the entire Christian tradition and theology by using Paul and Mark alone.

Therein lies my interest.

What do we know about how the two authors can be linked up? What can we with certainty say about the provenance of the texts? We know Paul wrote for a mostly Hellenized/Romanized, Greek/Latin speaking, gentile audience. Then again, so did Mark, perhaps even more so. But what can we say about the manuscript histories? Do we have evidence of any contact between Mark and the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem, bar a few alleged, fleeting contacts via relatives of Mark
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Hey David,

Paul was a Jew alright. The concept of "being a Christian" didn't even exist when he was penning/dictating his letters. I am also aware that Hebrews is for all intents not even a letter, neither is it probably even Pauline; I cannot with certainty categorize it to even my own satisfaction. It's neither a letter, nor is it a confessional. It is most probably only a fragment, as well. Plus the Greek is problematic in many places. It's nowhere near the usually eloquent style of Paul's.

And yes, the passages I have stitched together in Frankensteinian fashion are all the "Jesus/Christ passages" of the Pauline epistels. That said, whether the epistles were Pauline or not mattered little to the listener in the first century, anyhow. Few, if any, of the listeners were equipped with know-how about textual criticism or provenance theory.

Yes, we know not what the gospel of the "other Jesus" that Paul is railing against consisted of, neither do we know who founded most of the congregations Paul visited. Maybe apostels from the Jesus Movement in Jerusalem? Maybe Galilean converts? There's simply too little information to be gleaned from the texts we have in our possession.

I will however say that your view regarding the Pauline letters is interesting. It's not that different from my mega-pastiche; it's just from another vantage point.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Regards,
FelixAndor
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by FelixAndor »

One of the profoundest parts of the N.T. is Sermon on the Mount--Not contained in Mark or in Paul's writings.

Then there is the author of John, likely Mary Magdalene IMO.

And Hebrews, also possibly a woman, suggested to be Priscilla.

I am new to this list, but maybe I was mistaken is thinking that (most of) the scholars here (who have studied more than I have, to be sure) are actual Christians.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by iskander »

FelixAndor wrote:One of the profoundest parts of the N.T. is Sermon on the Mount--Not contained in Mark or in Paul's writings.

Then there is the author of John, likely Mary Magdalene IMO.

And Hebrews, also possibly a woman, suggested to be Priscilla.

I am new to this list, but maybe I was mistaken is thinking that (most of) the scholars here (who have studied more than I have, to be sure) are actual Christians.
Welcome Felix
Yes , the sermon on the mount is loved by many. It is nice that you should think the gospel of John was written by a woman.

Hebrews I have never read in its entirety, but now I will make an effort to finish it.
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Hey Iskander,
iskander wrote:They are ' impossible questions' to answer by ordinary people

Mark tells the story of a reformer , and Paul explains the deeper meaning of the reform . Do you agree ?
That is a decent characterization.

Yes, the Sermon on the Mount is an awesome piece. It's not entirely necessary for Christian doctrine, though.
QUAECUMQUE · SUNT · VERA
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by Blood »

Paul's gospel doesn't tell us when, where, or why "the Lord Jesus" was crucified. So that's a bit of a shortcoming.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by iskander »

Paul explains Mark. It is the absence of unnecessary repetition , of what has already been heard and possibly has already been read , that which makes his writings of value.
Last edited by iskander on Mon May 22, 2017 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JCarp
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The Gospel of Paul

Post by JCarp »

Blood wrote:Paul's gospel doesn't tell us when, where, or why "the Lord Jesus" was crucified. So that's a bit of a shortcoming.
That is true; there is very little location data in Paul's letters. Then again, the Pauline letters do not contain a huge amount of information about Jesus, they are more focused on the Christ.

Of course, that does not mean that Paul does "not know anything at all" about Jesus, as is usually stated. It's possible to glean quite a few tidbits about the itinerant Galilean preacher, who would later become the Christ, from the Pauline texts.

Jesus was a Hebrew man, a descendant of Abraham, born under the law -- in other words a Jew -- in the flesh, from David's lineage. He was born of a Hebrew woman, circumcised and raised a Jew, the oldest of his siblings. Jesus had a ministry, and during his ministry, he had twelve disciples. He preached the message of reconciliation; He came into the world to save sinners. Jesus said, "Those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Jesus said, “A woman should not separate from her husband.” Jesus said, "Be chaste; take a wife for yourself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; no man shall transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things." Jesus instituted the ritual of sharing wine and bread, this is the sacrament of the Eucharist; the Eucharist is the breaking of bread as the body of the Christ, and drinking of wine as the blood of the Christ. The same evening that He instituted the sacrament, he was betrayed and delivered. Due to pressure from the Jews, He was sentenced to be executed; the execution method was crucifixion. Jesus suffered, was crucified, died on the Cross, and was buried. He was the Passover Lamb, the Son of God, sacrificed for us. His sacrifice on the Cross is atonement for our sins, in accordance with Scriptures; by His sacrifice He redeemed us from the curse of the law. He was raised from the dead on the third day, and after His resurrection, He appeared to a multitude of His followers; first to Peter Cephas, then to the twelve apostles, then to five hundred people overall, and lastly he appeared to Paul. After the Christ appeared to people, He ascended to the heavens and will in time return in glory, with a cry of command, to "judge the living and the dead".

That's pretty much the Gospel of Paul, paraphrased. Most Christians would probably rattle off a pretty similar biography if asked to summarize Jesus in "300 words or less".
FelixAndor wrote:I am new to this list, but maybe I was mistaken is thinking that (most of) the scholars here (who have studied more than I have, to be sure) are actual Christians.
I am quite certain most members here are atheists.

Regards,
QUAECUMQUE · SUNT · VERA
Post Reply