Should not the original Gospel be an Epistle?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Should not the original Gospel be an Epistle?

Post by Joseph D. L. »


But though we or an angel should announce to you a gospel contrary to what ye have received, let him be accursed.

If we go by a purely literal definition of the terms Apostle (messenger) and Evangelion (good news), then does it not stand to reason that the original Gospel was in fact and Epistle (letter)?

There has been a standing debate as to what literary genre the Gospels belong to. Are they biographies? Are they acta? Are they romances? They certainly contain trace elements of all of the above.

But assuming for a moment that it was the Apostle (nonspecific) who was the first to deliver the Gospel of Christ, in what way would he go about that? Surely the distinction of Apostle and Epistle would be at once recognized as belonging with one another, and is as such in Marcion, where the Apostilikon is made up of epistles. So whence cometh the Evangelion?

What in God's holy name am I blathering about?

That the original Gospel was in fact an Epistle, a declaration of the Good News; that possibly there was at one point a single, long epistle that was sent out over the empire; and that the original Gospel of Jesus only existed so as to promote the Apostle as the Paraclete. (As a sort of PR tactic).

The closest text that I can think of that would match this long Epistle is Epistle of Barnabas.

But this brings us to the verse in Galatians quoted above. What other gospels is being referred to?

The evidence that these are letters written against the Apostle is made clear in 2 Peter, 1 John, James and Jude. Now whether these texts themselves bare evidence to another, opposing long epistle, I can't say myself. Indeed much of this pure speculation and conjecture--a thought experiment--and hope for a well deserved critique.
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Should not the original Gospel be an Epistle?

Post by gmx »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:17 am The evidence that these are letters written against the Apostle is made clear in 2 Peter, 1 John, James and Jude. Now whether these texts themselves bare evidence to another, opposing long epistle, I can't say myself. Indeed much of this pure speculation and conjecture--a thought experiment--and hope for a well deserved critique.
The fact that the question can be posed in all seriousness is testament to how little of Christian origins the NT scholar / interested outsider can rely upon with any certainty. Given the uncertainty in the dating of the NT individually and collectively, the uncertainty as to the historicity of the personages described, the uncertainty regarding authorship and pseudonymity, and the possibility that multiple letters have been combined into single super-letters, makes it very difficult to make any telling argument as to the origin of the belief system itself, or by association, any singular related document (ie the gospels)

It is a literary mystery.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Should not the original Gospel be an Epistle?

Post by Stuart »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:17 am What in God's holy name am I blathering about?
This statement deserves the the first annual BC&H Vice Admiral James Stockdale Award for self awareness :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :wave: - Dilly Dilly!

Now that the academy award is out of the way, I'll address the OP.

You actually ask an excellent and very important question, even if you display a compete lack of understanding about the economic and logistical impact of "a long epistle" ... "sent out over the empire." It's not like you have a post office or better yet an email server, where you can upload millions of people and spam them all at once. You have to write on paper (papyrus) by hand. (1) So let me rephrase the question to be a little more worthy of discussion.

Why are the Gospels so long, and so complete, and were they used for Evangelism as their name implies, and that could be read from description of their use in Galatians and elsewhere in Paul?

I intentionally loaded several sub-points in there and implied a few others:
1) Why was there Evangelism?
2) Was the Gospel (singular) used for Evangelism or was something else written used?
3) What Gospel is Paul talking about in Galatians, (a) that he preaches, (b) that other one which says has been perverted (v 1:7, μεταστρέψαι)

Paul says he took this Gospel to "Jerusalem" to those reputed to be something (v2:1-2, 6-7a), and that they approved its content and "added nothing," and entrusted him with spreading the Gospel (Apostleship). Mind you he says they have no value to him, but that they did not object. So I think we are looking at divisions at this point even among those he reports to.

What we know about correspondence in this era is that it required transport by a courier. For important business and statecraft matters this is no issue. Further writing material was expensive and relatively scarce. Parchments were often reused multiple times to save money. So for Evangelism, it makes greatest sense to send a single book with an Apostle (envoy/emissary) containing what they need to know. This means they must be literate, as they have to read the book they are bringing. But they are walking so they are not going to bring that much. A scripta continua manuscript maximizes space and could make a single book an easy travel item. There would be no 2nd copies. One had to carry ones bedding and supplies with them like camping in the mountains today, so the lighter the better.

The above description I make, says that letters would not make a lot of sense in the initial mission, but perhaps later when synagogues (really a "house church", and I am using the term synagogue in the NT writers sense, as a building where people met) were established for the assembly of followers. What mattered was conveying the story to believe,

"I have made known to you, brothers, that the Gospel which I preached ('evangelized') to you, which you received and also stood, through which you are also saved, provided you hold fast with that word (i.e., 'doctrine') I preached ('evangelized') to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed to you firstly, that Christ died for our sins, and he was buried, and he arose on the third day"

(shortest attested version of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, which strikes me as original, as it lacks later polemic element "according to scripture").

To me this very much is a Gospel, a Synoptic Gospel in fact, which he is preaching. The letters, even in shortest forms are simply focusing on key theological points of contention between rival Christian sects.

The above simply sets the table. We now have to get back to your question. Why is what was used for evangelism a long Gospel (Mark is even 13 chapters plus a couple verses in the 14th, the Marcionite form of what became Luke was probably similar size, maybe a bit smaller)?

The Didache, which is a monastic document, suggests there was a time when sayings and stories were formed, and prayers made, along with rules for the community, which found their way into a Gospel. The Didache is too much of a rules and regulations type document for evangelism. But it does show Christian documents were produced in monastic settings, possibly before evangelism took off. The Gospel would be the tool that succeeded. But where did the material come from? How did it go from sayings and prayers and OT exegesis in monasteries into a Gospel form? Was there an intermediary step? Is what we call prototype Gospel a failed Gospel that didn't work for evangelism, but was incorporated by the Synoptic Gospel writers in a second try? Or perhaps it used for something else (IMO the better explanation) and developed with another function and purpose before becoming the Gospel literature we know?

There are many more questions that come from the wellspring of your question about why the Gospel form for evangelism. Questions about the structure and organization of the pre-evangelical Christian movement. How did so many sects appear immediately after the writings appear (they must have existed before, with such developed systems and competing Gospels, of which four survive)? Was it a monastic movement from a single location or was it in many locations when evangelism began?

Footnote:
(1) it has been discovered that the truly ancient civilizations over 3000 years ago used to send letters to each other in Phoenician, carving the text in clay and then firing a couple of copies in the kiln. From this copper could be slightly heated and stamped to produce a hard copy for delivery. This was not cheap and probably limited to Kings. The Rosetta Stone was used to translate to the local tongue -- there have been a few of these type stones found in different locations. This is not a technique that would have been available to the early Christian writers and there is no evidence this clever method was used in the Roman days. ... or was it? We do have some copper scrolls from various sites such as the DSS. BUt we don't have any of the pottery dies.)
Last edited by Stuart on Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:27 am, edited 4 times in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Should not the original Gospel be an Epistle?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Hey Stuart

My thinking about this can be best summed as, what is the difference between Evangelium and Epistle. I'm not thinking about our standard model of gospels in this respect; only the definitions. Both infer the same principle--that of announcement. It is, I think, the initial announcement that has priority over the establishing life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus. All of that was secondary and redundant.

Perhaps I was too enthusiastic and mistaken in saying that this epistle would be sent over the empire (it also implies that the writer had that kind of power and material. Maybe he would if he had connections to Hadrian, but that's for another time).

But to simplify what I'm trying to get out further, that a long Epistle preceded both the Pauline epistles and the Gospel:

Revelation -> Epistle announcing revelation -> briefer epistles defending original -> competing Epistle -> Gospel, biography of Jesus (Note: steps three and four may be interchangeable)

Indeed, given our standard understanding of Paul and his writings, something that I've never seen explained is what was Paul using in his initial preaching to Corinth, Galatia, etc? It certainly couldn't have been a Gospel-esque text, but it was something he was reading from.

I also think the significance of the Epistle would go back to Ezra-Nehemiah, where it is from an epistle (letter) that Artaxerxes allows the rebuilding of the Temple. And if Paul is setting himself up as a new Ezra, he would have used that (Epistle form) for its significance and for its use of communication, a sort of divine communication.

Think about it like this: with an epistle you can set up around yourself a sense of mystique. You can be as far away from the writer and yet still feel a sense of connection. That letter, for all intents and purposes, came from on High, separated by geography. From that ethereal realm of mystery. That doesn't really work with more impersonal texts, like the Gospels.

Maybe this is still too theoretical and abstract. I've only gave this passing thoughts for two weeks, and there are areas that I haven't even worked on or considered. I will, though, keep it as an auxiliary hypothesis. Just in case.
Post Reply