Paul's shadow in the gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Irish1975 »

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. As James Tabor says in Paul and Jesus, one needs to learn to read the NT backwards, contrary to our cultural programming.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

Once our Ben said somewhere that, from a mythicist POV, it's unfortunate that Mark didn't depend entirely on Paul. I wonder why this would be a "bad news" for mythicists, since the same Doherty, differently from Carrier, argues that the author of Mark wasn't a pauline, he didn't know nothing about Paul, but he came from an entirely different tradition (the Q tradition, precisely).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Jax »

"Diligent study of the gospels can often distinguish the deposit of Jesus' own views from the views of his followers"

This should be a huge red flag anyway imo.

How did you find Tom Dykstra's Mark: Canonizer of Paul? It's on my read list.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:11 am Once our Ben said somewhere that, from a mythicist POV, it's unfortunate that Mark didn't depend entirely on Paul. I wonder why this would be a "bad news" for mythicists, since the same Doherty, differently from Carrier, argues that the author of Mark wasn't a pauline, he didn't know nothing about Paul, but he came from an entirely different tradition (the Q tradition, precisely).
I don't understand that, since Q is largely defined in opposition to gMark. Isn't that why it's called the "two source theory," because Matthew and Luke both incorporate two different sources, Mark and Q? I am not deeply read in the Q literature, but I think I read Kloppenborg saying that some overlap between Mark and Q is postulated, based on sophisticated criteria. Nevertheless, the narrative arc and above all the crucifixion/resurrection story in gMark is exactly what we don't find in the Q material.

I have read enough Doherty to be surprised that he would make such an argument.

Anyhow, there are obvious Pauline themes in gMark, such as the mission to the gentiles.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Irish1975 »

Jax wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:50 am "Diligent study of the gospels can often distinguish the deposit of Jesus' own views from the views of his followers"

This should be a huge red flag anyway imo.
Yes indeed. But it's the premiss of all quests for the historical jesus.
How did you find Tom Dykstra's Mark: Canonizer of Paul? It's on my read list.
I think I just found him on Amazon. What I've read so far is quite good. He is close in method to the Irish Dominican priest mythicist and scholar Thomas Broadie (https://www.amazon.com/dp/190753458X/_e ... OSLR&psc=0)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by MrMacSon »

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.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by andrewcriddle »

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. As James Tabor says in Paul and Jesus, one needs to learn to read the NT backwards, contrary to our cultural programming.
One has to distinguish between the date of Paul's letters and the date of their general circulation.

Paul wrote his letters to specific churches in response to specific situations.

We find sometime later Paul's letters in general circulation as a collection. It is probable but not certain that the collecting of Paul's letters took place before their general circulation. I.E. it is on the whole unlikely that a number of individual letters were in general circulation among the Christian community before they were gathered into a collection.

The idea that Mark was influenced by Paul's letters involves:
either: a/ a specific claim such as Mark was a member of the Christian community at Rome and as such had access to the letter to the Romans.
or b/ a general claim that Mark wrote after Paul's letters came into general circulation.
Although both of these claims are entirely possible both are IMHO probably wrong.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Irish1975 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:32 am We find sometime later Paul's letters in general circulation as a collection. It is probable but not certain that the collecting of Paul's letters took place before their general circulation. I.E. it is on the whole unlikely that a number of individual letters were in general circulation among the Christian community before they were gathered into a collection.
This all seems speculative to me, and I don't see why Paul's letters would have needed to "come into general circulation" in order for some one person to write gMark.
The idea that Mark was influenced by Paul's letters involves:
either: a/ a specific claim such as Mark was a member of the Christian community at Rome and as such had access to the letter to the Romans.
or b/ a general claim that Mark wrote after Paul's letters came into general circulation.
Although both of these claims are entirely possible both are IMHO probably wrong.

Andrew Criddle
My argument, and any serious argument, has to be based on (1) the reasonable dating of Paul and Mark, and (2) on the internal textual relationships. For example, Mark refers to "the beginning of the gospel of JC" in the opening of his book. He presumes the reader has already heard of a "gospel of JC." Paul is the best and indeed only source for such preaching. Likewise, Mark presents Jesus' death as an atonement for sins (a "ransom for many"). Where did he get that idea? Well, Paul preached that. And so on.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove (since they haven't already) where Mark wrote, although it is said he used Roman lingo, and was ignorant of the geography of Judaea.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by Irish1975 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:01 pm 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.
I have already encountered on this forum the idea that Paul's letters were written in the 2nd century. What is the argument or evidence for that?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul's shadow in the gospels

Post by MrMacSon »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:26 pm I have already encountered on this forum the idea that Paul's letters were written in the 2nd century. What is the argument or evidence for that?
The lack of acknowledgement of Paul or his body of work by early 2nd century writers. Robert M Price thinks the Pauline letters are the product of a few people like Polycarcp, someone in the Marcionite community, and a 2nd century Paul.
Post Reply