JonA

What textual and contextual evidence do we have that might help us determine whether the gospel writers were aware of Paul and/or/specifically his 'interesting' theology?

Luke seems aware of a man named Paul who was a standard Jew persecuting Jesus followers until having a vision and becoming a follower himself. Beyond this, though, Luke's Paul is completely unlike the real Paul—as evidenced in his letters. Luke clearly knew of Paul; but if he was also aware of any of Paul's special theology, he certainly did not betray that fact in the volume additional to his gospel.

Beyond this specific mention, though, what evidence do we have that shows the gospel writers to have been aware of Paul and/or/specifically his 'interesting' theology?

I imagine the evidence, if it exists, will be of two types:

• Irrefutable
• Circumstantial

It should come in two forms:

• Textual
• Contextual

It should point to one of three things:

• Gospel knowledge of Paul
• Gospel knowledge of Pauline theology
• Gospel knowledge of both Paul and his theology

When it comes to Luke I think we can say for certain we have irrefutable textual evidence of Luke's knowledge of Paul. I don't know if we can say there is evidence of Pauline-specific theology in Acts, but the fact that the issues dealt with in Acts are similar to the issues Paul deals with can tell us that the author was likely aware of those issues and perhaps Paul's special solutions to those problems.

Of course, we only know this about Luke because he was kind enough to write for us a second volume. When we analyze the other gospels, it is going to be very difficult indeed to pick out what, if any, evidence exists that might point to the authors knowing of Paul. One demonstration of this difficulty: We know Luke knew of Paul, yet if we only read his gospel, we would probably not be so certain. Thus, we are already aware of the fact that knowledge of Paul (and perhaps even his special theology) might go unevidenced in a gospel, making it difficult to be sure whether our analysis can be trusted or not. But uncertainty is never a reason not to try.

So, what evidence do we have that shows the gospel writers to have been aware of Paul and/or/specifically his 'interesting' theology? And, if we do have evidence, how good is it?

Jon

aa5874

You have NOT provided any evidence for what you claim about Luke. I expected you to FIRST provide your evidence but again you have only made assertions that have no supporting evidence.

Well, it can easily be shown that the authors of the Synoptics were NOT aware of the Pauline writings.

The Synoptic Jesus CONTRADICTS the Pauline Jesus.

1. The Synoptic Jesus--

Mt 16:20 - Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

1. The Pauline Jesus

Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

2. The Synoptic Jesus
Matt 13.13 Therefore speak I to them in parables..... lest at any time they......should be converted, and I should heal them.

2.The Pauline Jesus
Ro 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

3. The Synoptic Jesus
Matt 5.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

3. The Pauline Jesus.
Ro 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

4. The Synoptic Jesus
Mark 16.6-8Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here.......And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre...... neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

4. The Pauline Jesus
1 Cor 15.....he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also....

5. The Synoptic Jesus
Mt 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

5. The Pauline Jesus
Galatians 2.77 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.


6. The Synoptic Jesus
Mr 9:31 -
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

6.The Pauline Jesus.

1Co 15:17 -
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

It is clear that the Synoptic Jesus was NOT sent to save the Jews and to start a new religion.

It is also clear that the Pauline writings are LATER Embellishments of the Gospels since all details in the Pauline writings that would have enhanced the Jesus story in the Gospels are missing.

For example, the claim that over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus would have ENHANCED the resurrection story. The Synoptic Jesus did NOT teach the disciples that without the resurrection there would be NO salvation

In the NT, the Pauline writers are AWARE of a written source of the Jesus story and mention Peter, James and John but no gospels story mentioned "Paul".

Andykiwi

There are really two questions... Did they know Paul? and Did they agree with Paul?

JonA

We can certainly ask both of those questions. But I think the second question would be a good tool in helping us answer the first one.

If we find that a gospel contains aspects which not only contradict Pauline theology but actively preach against his theology, then we can probably say that this is textual evidence that the author knew of Paul's theology. The strength of the evidence will depend on the nature of the particular aspect we are investigating.

For example, Barrie Wilson cites Matthew 5:17–19 and explains:

He further goes on to describe Matthew's "anti-Paul gospel" as providing a "stern warning to those who would find Paul's position attractive" (p. 151).

Such theological targeting would certainly seem to suggest that the author of Matthew possessed a conspicuous awareness of Pauline theology—even if not aware of Paul himself.

Jon
__________
Wilson, B. (2008) How Jesus Became Christian. New York: St. Martin's Press. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

ApostateAbe

Since Paul was apparently the leader of the Christian movement that was most influential in bringing Christianity to the gentiles, and Mark and John were gentiles, then it is highly probable that they knew of Paul, especially if we already know for damned sure that Luke regarded Paul as the central hero of his post-Jesus narrative.

aa5874

Well, if your logic is applied to the very Pauline writings then "Paul" was aware of gMatthew and gMark since "Paul" contradicts the Synoptic Jesus and actively preached against the Synoptic theology.

Paul was anti-Synoptic and was aware of written sources with the Jesus story.

The Synoptic Jesus claimed he came NOT to destroy the Law but to fulfill the Law but "Paul" claimed Jesus was the End of the Law.

Now, even an apologetic source claimed "Paul" was aware of the Gospel story. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25

JonA

Well, what parts of their theology seem to be adaptations or renderings of things specifically Pauline?

Mark speaks out against the Pharisaic interpretations of the Law, but never goes so far as to invalidate the law. The rest of his gospel, however, seems rather opposed to the Jewish Jesus movement.

A strong case can maybe be made for John knowing Paul, and I emphasize the maybe. Paul and John have a rather high Christology; but are their Christological views that similar? Can we pick Paul's thoughts apart from John's?

Jon

ApostateAbe

What would be the theologies that are specifically Pauline? I know of a large handful of doctrines that are shared between the gospels and Paul, and there are maybe a few doctrines that would be expected to be a development exclusively of Paul or his cult. Matthew 28:19 may be one of them: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..."

JonA

Was Paul the first and only preacher to the gentiles?

What about the gospel writers' view of Jesus? Particularly the significance they give to the crucifixion and resurrection; can their thoughts on this matter be seen as developments of Paul's? For Paul, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus comes with a victory over sin, a voiding of Torah, and a promise that everyone has a chance to be resurrected.

Is this the theology of the crucifixion/resurrection in the gospels?

Jon

ApostateAbe

Paul may or may not have been the first preacher to the gentiles, and he certainly was not the only preacher to the gentiles. But, he most certainly was THE preacher to the gentiles. That is how he made a name for himself--"The Apostle to the Gentiles"--and he took himself to be in the same league as the other leaders of the Christian church. If any doctrine is a Pauline doctrine, it is the doctrine of preaching the gospel to all nations.

John 11:24 seems to speak implicitly at the connection between the resurrection and salvation. Matthew 22:29-32 quotes Jesus as having belief in resurrection of believers for entry into God's kingdom, which I take to be analogous with Paul's belief in a resurrection of Jesus symbolizing victory over sin, though the connection is weak.