Ulrich

There is a very simple answer to the question of why Paul didn't write about anything in the gospels. The Gospels had not been written yet. Any biblical scholar will tell you that the Pauline epistles were written before the first Gospel. How is Paul supposed to comment on something that hadn't been written yet. Of course that does not mean that some of the material in the Gospels did not already exist in oral form, or even in a written form that we have not uncovered yet, just that Paul had no knowledge of the Gospels themselves.

This brings up the question, however, of how Paul could be expanding the meaning of the Gospels, as CS expects us to believe, when the Gospels had yet to be written.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited May 17, 2001).]

Toto: …I doubt if Doherty is going to show up here.

ChristianSkeptic (CS): Hello again Toto

Since Nomad has gone out of his way to address threads addressed to him it is not unreasonable to expect the same from Earl D.

Toto: Doherty's arguments go beyond the silence in Paul.

CS: OK, but my point is regarding all the NT books following Gospels and Acts and not just Paul's letters.

Moreover, Earl treats this argument separate from his other arguments. He wrote, “But my 'argument from silence' (only one part of the total case) is more than just pointing to a range of missing features in the epistles and other early, non-canonical, documents...The silence has a positive side as well. It extends... "

Toto: There is also silence about the historical Jesus in early church writings and contemporary pagan literature.

CS: First, Brian/Nomad is already addressing the issue of contemporary pagan literature.

Also, while Earl does spend a lot of energy addressing portions of the NT that he feels are not legitimate references to Jesus, maybe I missed the point, but I do not see any examples Earl D gives for silence from “early church writings” or “non-canonical documents” in his initial post, which is part of our debate not elements of his book which he did not bring up. (By the way, I have not read Earl’s book).

Lpetrich (LP): ChristianSkeptic's argument that the epistles are centered on Jesus Christ does not make any sense

ChristianSkeptic (CS): There must be some misunderstanding. I wrote, “…the epistles message is centered on Jesus.”

What I meant was that the theology/message/theme of the remaining books are centered on what was documented in the first four.

Anyway you look at it Jesus is central.

LP: … the Gospels also are [also centered on Jesus] And the Gospels discuss Herod, Lazarus, etc.

CS: Once again the Gospels are historical narrative while the epistles are theological that explains what was documented in the narrative.




[This message has been edited by ChristianSkeptic (edited May 17, 2001).]

Ulrich: There is a very simple answer to the question of why Paul didn't write about anything in the gospels. The Gospels had not been written yet.

ChristianSkeptic: Hello Ulrich

The issue you have raised will be addressed in more detail the Trafford-Doherty debate. Trafford wrote in his last post to Doherty, “ we will talk about the dating of the Gospels and the traditions presented within them, how reliable the Gospels are as historical documents…”

If you would like to raise this question to Trafford, all you have to do is start a new thread regarding your point that “the Pauline epistles were written before the first Gospel.”

Ulrich: Of course that does not mean that some of the material in the Gospels did not already exist in oral form…just that Paul had no knowledge of the Gospels themselves.

Paul had knowledge of the basic Gospel message as expressed In I Corinthians he writes, “15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 15:4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared…”

To me, it seems like the Lazarus story is more likely to indicate that JC's faithful followers can rise from the dead than the JC resurrection story.

And as to the premise that the Gospels are history while the Epistles are theology, I think that that is totally bogus. Theologians have been more than willing to give theological meanings to the Gospels. I remember a Catholic "Jerusalem Bible" from long ago which contained lots of footnotes. The Gospels footnotes were heavily theological, while the early OT footnotes were not very big on finding theological meanings, and were like the commentary in _Asimov's Guide to the Bible_.

As to Paul delivering "the basic Gospel message", it could have been the other way around, with the Gospel writers copying off of Paul. The "scriptures" that Paul referred to were likely the Old Testament / Tanakh; there was not a canonical New Testament when Paul was composing his letters.

That's it? No explanation? No scholarly reference? No insightul discussion of Paul's statements? Do you even ready commentaries? Historical works?

The reason you think as you do is because you are being wilfully ignorant.

There was no hope of eternal life in the resurrection of Lazarus. There was the hope for eternal life in the resurrection and transformation of Jesus.

The Corinthians were wanting to know about the general resurrection to come for all of God's righteous. They weren't worried about getting another 10 or 20 years out of life, and then dying. They wanted to know about the resurrection to eternal life! Lazarus, whether Paul knew of the story or not, would not do. He wasn't resurrected to eternal life. Paul has only one example of such a resurrection: Jesus.

And, I might add. This reinforces the overwhelmingly accepted understanding of Paul as referring to a human Jesus. Jesus is the best example of the resurrection that awaits us because he too lived and died. But, he rose again in a transformed state that would live forever.

1 Cor. 15:3-4.

Paul is clear that Jesus' resurrection is the example of the one to come for all Christians.

Now. Since Paul is talking about a resurrection to eternal life. How could Lazarus possibly be an example of this? Paul is clear: Jesus is the only example of such a resurrection.


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 17, 2001).]

Lpetrich (LP): …And as to the premise that the Gospels are history while the Epistles are theology, I think that that is totally bogus. Theologians have been more than willing to give theological meanings to the Gospels.

ChristianSkeptic: LP you need to read my post more carefully. Although they could be, I never stated that the Gospels were only historical.

As for “theological meaning,” in order to have doctrine (I guess this is what you mean) the Bible must teach a precept and/or concept that is commanded by God. Also, sometimes the Bible gives an example.

LP: I remember a Catholic "Jerusalem Bible" from long ago which contained lots of footnotes. The Gospels footnotes were heavily theological,

CS: So what? Doctrine is not based on footnotes, but the Biblical text.

Are you are asserting, LP, that Matthew, for example, used footnotes.

LP: As to Paul delivering "the basic Gospel message"… there was not a canonical New Testament when Paul was composing his letters.,

CS: You are missing the point. As even Ulrich is open to the point that “…[it] does not mean that some of the material in the Gospels did not already exist in oral form…” it could be the case that in 1 Corinthians as Paul wrote, and as I quoted, that what he had received is arguably the basic gospel message of Jesus’ resurrection .

Toto

He has a very long discussion of this issue in chapter 24. His analysis is that the last revision of Luke and Acts were written as part of a campaign against the Marcion heresy in the mid-2nd century. The Marcionites had appropriated the letters of Paul as their material. The anti-Marcionite faction produced the history in Acts, which has Paul espousing ideas that support the anti-Marcionite position, and which are contradictory to the ideas in his epistles. (e.g., Acts shows Paul subordinating himself to the apostles in Jerusalem, but his letters show him acting independently.) The Pauline letters were only later tamed by the victorious anti-Marcionites and made part of the official canon.

(Doherty cites John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, for this explanation.)

This is just a brief summary. Doherty's discussion is too long to reproduce in full.

Ulrich

No need for that, there really is scholarly consensus for the Pauline Epistles predating the Gospels, and I am sure that Nomad is aware of, and in agreement with the consensus. If any one wants to take me to task on that statement here, though, feel free.

The real question becomes did the Gospels draw upon Paul for their inspiration, did they both draw upon the same sources, or are they both entirely independent? Current biblical scholarship has it that they both drew upon common sources (i.e. the 'Q' document, and oral tradition), but it is not impossible that the gospels drew upon Paul, and this would strengthen the mythicists case if it were true. Of course it is hard to prove anything, especially in this area of knowledge.

Ulrich: there really is scholarly consensus for the Pauline Epistles predating the Gospels

CS: A scholarly consensus may serve to give you confidence in your position but is not a good reason to believe that the point is true-it’s the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Ulrich: If any one wants to take me to task on that statement here, though, feel free.

CS: OK make your case that Paul’s epistles predate the Gospels, but do so on another thread where I will join in.

What I propose makes sense as a means to prevent this thread from becoming like the Comments on the Jesus Puzzle Debate.

The last post there, by the moderator states, “People are finding it difficult to wade through this thread and make sense of all the different posts directed to Nomad and Earl and those directed at other responses and so on. Another reasonable solution is to post separate threads directed to Nomad and Earl.”

I simply want this thread to stay on topic as a matter of reason.

Ulrich: Of course it is hard to prove anything, especially in this area of knowledge.

CS: How will you prove your case if its “hard to prove anything, especially in this area of knowledge?”