Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:42 am
E.P. Sanders' book
The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993), p.4:
Diligent study of the gospels can often distinguish the deposit of Jesus' own views from the views of his followers...Our confidence is increased by the fact that some of our sources are independent of one another. Paul gives important evidence that reveals some of Jesus' views and expectations [*cough*], and Paul's letters were written before the gospels. On the other hand, his letters were collected and published after the gospels were written; thus Paul did not know the gospels, and the authors of the gospels did not know Paul's letters.
What an inexcusable statement.
1) Paul's authentic letters are earliest in the NT canon. He is earlier than Jewish-Roman War, Mark is later. Mark writes after Paul has died. This is all mainstream consensus.
2) Paul preaches the crucifixion/resurrection of JC, and the four gospels are centered on the drama of a crucified/resurrected JC.
3) The only other crucial sources/texts relating to Jesus besides the 4 NT gospels themselves (Q, Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of James) say nothing about a death/resurrection of Jesus as a Christ.
4) At least one NT-era apocryphal text, the Odes of Solomon, talks of a "Christ" who is neither called Jesus, nor a dying/rising savior.
These factual considerations (and one can quibble about the phrasing or interpretation, but basically these are consensus facts of historical scholarship) provide strong warrant for the conclusion that the author of gMark wrote under the direct influence of Paul's preaching, letters, or church communities. At least one recent book, Tom Dykstra's Mark: Canonizer of Paul, explores the Pauline shadows in gMark
(
https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Canonizer-P ... om+Dykstra). Anyone know other books or articles that shed light on this topic?
At the very least, the position of Sanders (and the general run of high profile, mainstream Jesus scholars like Ehrman) that the gospel writers knew not Paul, ought to be defended specifically on historical grounds. They should not be permitted to rely tacitly on the sequencing of the NT canon.
I agree that there is good warrant for a "conclusion that the author of gMark wrote under the influence of Paul's preaching, letters, or church communities", but I find some of this slightly contradictory.
Recent scholarship or commentary has placed the writing of both the three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, & Luke) and the Pauline letters in the 2nd century, and possibly all associated with the Marcionite community - Joseph B Tyson, Matthias Klinghardt, Markus Vinzent, and Jason BeDuhn have all published books and mainstream-journal articles (ie. scholarship) to the effect the the synoptic gospels were written in and around the Marcionite
'Euanglion' (aka the 'Gospel of the Lord').
The recent 'commentary' by Robert M Price that places the writing of the Pauline letters around the same time could also be viewed as scholarly, though Price is not currently in an academic position and is viewed as an eccentric scholar by the academic community (not that that matters that much; the weight of his propositions and arguments are what matters). I'm pretty sure others have, over the years, and perhaps recently, noted the paucity of mention of or evidence for the Pauline epistles before Marcion is at least recorded as having 'collected' them.
So, I'm not sure the fact that (1.a) 'Paul's authentic letters are earliest in the NT canon' is relevant*, nor that (1.b) mainstream consensus says ''he is earlier than Jewish-Roman War, Mark is later" or that it has been widely asserted that "Mark writes after Paul has died."
- and you do say "the position of Sanders (and the general run of high profile, mainstream Jesus scholars like Ehrman) should not be permitted to rely tacitly on the sequencing of the NT canon", so I'm not sure why you make (1) a priority
Your points (2) and (3) provide contradictory positions about early Christian knowledge of 'the drama of a crucified/resurrected Jesus as Christ'; and I think the apocryphal texts like the Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of James are more relevant than has been previously proposed, given the propositions and arguments of Tyson, Klinghardt, Vinzent, and BeDuhn about the the synoptic gospels being written with or around the Marcionite
Euanglion.
So, I'm agreeing with most of what you say or proposed, but am adding some information for why I mostly agree, and why I slightly disagree with how you have laid out or seemed to emphasis some information.
This is a good point -
As James Tabor says in Paul and Jesus, one needs to learn to read the NT backwards, contrary to our cultural programming.
[
eta] though I would add: one ought to read the NT in light of a possible later dating of key NT texts,
and in conjunction with the idea the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts may be concurrent with or even precede the key NT texts.