Paul's shadow in the gospels
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:42 am
E.P. Sanders' book The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993), p.4:
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.
What an inexcusable statement.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.
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.