JonA

So there is some similarity; these similarities might be standard Jesus Movement beliefs—they are rather basic. Paul has more to say, though; he has a higher Christology. Is this Christology evident anywhere in the gospels?

I just can't see it... So I'm genuinely interested in finding out if it is there.

Actually, I think the discussion over in Gospel of John as Earlier Gospel... is likely heading in a direction right in line with this thread as the Christology of John is examined and compared to the synoptics.

Jon

aa5874

If you assume "Paul" was earlier than than the Gospels then you are not really engaged in any real investigation of the matter.

You simply cannot use the words of of "Paul" as the very same corroborative source for "Paul".

Any claims from "Paul" should be externally corroborated.

Once the Gospels and the Pauline writings are examined it would be IMMEDIATELY noticed that not one author of the Gospels attended a Pauline Church or accepted the Pauline Gospel.

It is quite odd that the unknown obscure authors of the Synoptics copied details of their Jesus stories either from one another or some other source but did NOT use any detail from the Pauline writings that would have ENHANCED their stories.

"Paul" supposedly preached all over the Roman Empire for over 20 years that Salvation(Remission of Sins) and the Christian Faith was directly because of the Resurrection yet all the Gospel writers did NOT put those words in the mouth of their Jesus.

The Synoptic Jesus did NOT die to remit the Sins of the Jews or all mankind

The death of the Synoptic signified Destruction of the Jews.

It is clear that the Pauline writings are after the Synoptics.

The Pauline Jesus is Catholic (universal) but the Synoptic Jesus was ONLY for the Jews.

RogueBibleScholar

Lucas was listed as a traveling companion of Paul's. Eusebius recounts the legend that Paul used to run around with a copy of Luke, calling it "his gospel." In Paul's letters, he refers to "my Gospel" repeatedly. A similar example along the same lines has already been given: Galatians 2.77: "... they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me. ..." Paul is the hero of Luke/Acts.

Marcion is known as the first of the Church fathers to have developed a canon; but it consisted only of a version of Lk., with some of Paul's letters. Marcion claims that Paul gave these works to his father personally. Marcion's "heresy" was that he taught a different god than the Jewish god: the Demiurge; who was more loving than the jealous Hebrew god. What remains of his canon have no use for the Jewish law; including the Gospel of Marcion. The attitude of Marcion's canon toward Jewish law was in sharp contrast to statements exactly to the opposite in Mt.

I think there is more than a small chance that the original version of Lk. was the G. of Marcion. I'm going to add some studies to this effect on my site; one day when I can afford the time. Careful analysis of principles of textual precedence between Marcion and Lk. will further elucidate the matter. If this was indeed the case, then not only was the G. of Marcion not at odds with Paul - it was probably his reworking of a version of Mt. intended only for the Jews; made precisely to preclude the very law Mt. upheld. Thus, I think there is a fairly good chance that, instead of it being the case that "not one author of the Gospels ... accepted the Pauline Gospel"; that the author of the original draft of Lk. was Paul himself! By the time of Marcion, there was a version of Lk. around which did not reject Jewish law and the Jewish god entirely. I think that intense editing of Paul's letters and his Gospel probably resulted in the texts that we have today; which do not disparage Jewish law as much and do not worship a different god than the Jewish god. Keep in mind, a number of "heretics" followed Paul's teachings especially; eschewed or minimized the role of marriage; and had this and other similarities to Marcion's message. Some Gnostics also worshiped the Demiurge, which was a central element of Marcion's writings; and Paul's writings in particular were held in high regard among them. It seems that Marcion's version of Paul had much in common with other "heretical" versions of Paul's teachings.

I see this as indeed harmonious with Pauline doctrine, but I do not think Paul wrote it; nor that it was original with earliest versions of Mt. There are versions of Mt. which read entirely differently; lacking this "Great Commission," as scholars call it. I believe this would have been due to the influence of later orthodoxy, which was influenced by Paul; as opposed to being due to the influence of Paul on Mt. or Mk. when they were written.

Mk. is an odd bird. It was thought to have been written after Mt. by classical authors, but modern textual analysis shows that nearly all of Mk. was copied into Mt. and Lk. There is a catholic legend that a freedman named Marcus had written it; based on the preachings of Peter in Rome. This, however, does nothing to explain its bizarre method of pedimental composition. I suppose Paul may well have had Mt. and Mk. in sight when he reworked Lk. as a gospel for the gentiles.

I always supposed that Jn. was later than the others. It has a high Christiology, making Jesus out to be God in the intro ("the Word was God"). It has Jesus' crucifixion on the evening before Passover; apparently so as to coincide with the slaughtering of the Paschal lambs. In order to make this happen, it has two other Passovers come and go before the evening of the Crucifixion; which suggest to me a longer text that has been reworked for theological purposes. True, it doesn't recite all of the familiar names of the disciples; but it knows there were twelve. It gives most of their names; but has, at first glance, been remiss in not giving them all. I believe this is a difference added intentionally in order to appear more primitive; but does not necessarily mean that it was.

It is my opinion in general that any elements in Mt. and Mk. that are Trinitarian or speak of a world-wide mission, without reference to the Jews specifically, are later additions to the text; due to the development of Roman Orthodoxy. Jesus' denial in Mt. that He had come to abolish the law might have been due to an early writer of the Peter party could well have been due to Paul's influence, but I then think that Paul got the last laugh by completely reworking Mt. and making the Gospel of Marcion; which was reworked to be more orthodox and later become Lk. If my assessment is true, you should be able to spot 1) textual dependence of Lk. on the G. of Marcion, 2) lack of Pauline theologies in the earliest readings and strata of Mt. and Lk., and 3) at least some awareness of Paul's theology in Jn.

TRBS

Vorkosigan

Rogue,

I see things completely differently. The writer of Mark is thoroughly Pauline and draws heavily on what we think of as the authentic Paulines for the details of his story and Jesus' words.

dog-on

More than that. I think Mark is actively belittling, albeit allegorically, those group(s) claiming some sort of apostolic succession. He seems to be answering something.

Vorkosigan

I think that too. On behalf of Paul, he is waging war via satire on the Jerusalem crowd.

Vorkogisan

dog-on

Indeed, perhaps the "Jerusalem" crowd, though I believe that those guys were actually just some fools sitting on the other side of the circus. But hey, Jerusalem in spirit still counts, right?

JonA

The nature of the Lord's Supper may provide some useful clues regarding the gospel writers' level of familiarity with Pauline theology. Here is what Jesus did according to Paul:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
1 Corinthians 11:23–26 (NRSV):

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

This is similar to what Jesus did according to Mark and Matthew:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Mark 14:22–25 (NRSV):

While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Matthew 26:26–29 (NRSV):

While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.'

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

Luke, however, is something quite different—something quite 'Jewish'. Wilson tells us that the Ebionites enjoyed a communal meal more typical of a group of devout Jews:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Wilson in How Jesus Became Christian (2008):

The Didache takes us into the heart of one of the Ebionites' major ceremonies, and here we are afforded a rare treat, a glimpse into how this ritual was really conducted. This was an actual mean, and the appropriate blessings are indicated. These are especially intriguing for they differ markedly from Paul's account of the Eucharist and from later Christian tradition, which built on Paul's version.
...
The meal starts with a blessing over the cup of wine:

We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy Vine of they servant David which thou has made known to us through thy servant Jesus (Didache 9).

We notice that, unlike contemporary Christian practice, this dinner starts with the cup of wine rather than the bread. This corresponds to the Jewish Sabbath evening rituals with its blessing of the children, blessing over the wine (Kiddush), washing of hands, and then blessing over the bread—the cup first, then the bread. It also reflects the same practice at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scroll community. ... It is authentically Jewish.
...
Next comes the breaking of bread with its blessing:

We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge thou hast made known to us through thy servant Jesus (Didache 9).

...
As a thanksgiving meal, the Didache's prayers ring truer as a celebration stemming from a Jewish Jesus than the alternate version that originated with Paul in the Diaspora. Hyam Maccoby, for instance, has pointed out a number of powerful objections to Pal's version of the ceremony. For one thing, it is exceptionally difficult to imagine the injunction to drink blood arising in a Jewish context. The whole idea would have been absolutely abhorrent. The Torah provided stern prohibitions against the consumption of blood (Leviticus 7:26). In addition, the laws pertaining to the ritual slaughter of animals required the draining of all blood from the meat so that none of it is ingested. Equating wine with blood and encouraging adherents to consume this just doesn't sound right in a Jewish context. It would be like having Jesus say that it's okay to eat pork. Just not credible. (pp. 158–161)

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

This custom is surprisingly similar to what we find in the gospel of Luke:¹

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Luke 22:17–19a (NRSV):

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, 'Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

If the writers of Mark and Matthew were not aware of Paul, they were certainly aware of Pauline theology/customs. The writer of Luke was aware of Paul, but for certain reasons eradicated almost all Pauline theology from his gospel and Acts. Mark and Matthew seem to be inserting the few details of Jesus' life found in Paul (literally few) into their narrative of a Jewish messianic hopeful; Luke works off of a similar storyline, but tells of a more Jewish Jesus. This would suggest two traditions available for the gospel writers: Pauline and non-Pauline. If so, Mark and Matthew clearly chose to draw from the Pauline tradition when possible; Luke preferred the non-Pauline tradition.

It would seem that Paul was known to the writers of Mark and Matthew, and they openly accepted his theological interpretation of Jesus. Luke clearly knew of Paul regardless his opinions of Pauline theology. This leaves only the gospel of John. Where does this gospel stand in relation to Paul?

Jon
__________
¹ The footnote in the NRSV indicates doubt regarding the authenticity of Luke 22:19b–20; I have counted them as inauthentic for this reason. Including them as authentic admittedly destroys the significance of my interpretation given here.
__________
Wilson, B. (2008) How Jesus Became Christian. New York: St. Martin's Press. (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

We are virtually certain that the Synoptic authors were not familiar with the Pauline writings when they wrote their Jesus stories based on two primary factors.

1. SECRECY....In the Synoptics the authors claimed Jesus demanded that the disciples tell NO Jew he was Christ.

Mt 16:20 - 2. Destruction.....In the Synoptics the authors claimed Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted but to remain in sin.

Mark 4. The Synoptics are about SECRECY and destruction for the Jews. In the Synoptics Jesus Deliberately did NOT identify himself as Christ to the Jews and did NOT offer them Salvation.

The Synoptics are fundamentally non-Pauline.

"Paul" publicly preached Christ all over the Roman Empire and claimed SALVATION was FIRST offered to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.

Ro 1:16 - Examine the words of the Synoptic Jesus.

Luke 9 Absolutely amazing. Jesus was NOT a Saviour of the Jews in the Synoptics.

The Synoptic Jesus COMMANDED that the disciples tell NO man he was the Christ of God but "Paul" ALREADY did if he wrote the Jesus story FIRST.

The Synoptic authors appear to know NOTHING of "Paul", the Pauline writings, the Pauline gospel and the Pauline churches.

Perhaps the authors of gMatthew and gLuke went to a MARKAN Church but they don't seem to have come across even a Pauline tent.

Solo

Big time ! - I think though Mark started as a 'Letter to the Nazoreans' (I don't know that it was this title but Mark would not have titled his writing as gospel out of respect for Paul. As someone on Michael's Mark site suggested the 1:1 ur-Mark probably started as 'en arxh tou euaggeliou' from Phillipians 4:15).

It seems the Petrine Nazoreans - now exiled and proselytizing in Mark's neck of the woods asked for a copy of Paul's corpus (gospel). Mark sent them his allegory instead, with an invitation (4:10-12, 16:1-8) to join the Pauline faith. The problem was Mark overdid the parodying and trashing of the original Jesus' entourage, as cowards and idiots.

The reason I think that is Matthew chapter 7 (the whole of it), which I read as a passionate rebuff of the Paulines, and Mark specifically. 7:1 "judge not...." references Paul's 1 Cr 23:15 "The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."...Mark gets his share of the beatings from the Mount, 7:3-5 gets him for the Bethsaida "cure" which ridiculizes the Petrines and their idol. 7:6 - laughs at Mark for sending the gospel to the "Petrine psychic swine" (referencing the cure of the Gerasene demoniac) - quite a nasty Jesus Matthew unleashed there. The next item of the sermon is the " ask and it shall be given....". Now, I believe Matthew complains there about the request made to the Paulines for the collected letters of Paul and the 'serpent' that Mark sent instead (lampooned as the blind Bartimaeus at the gates of Jericho...yes JERICHO the town JOSHUA conquered !):

Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Mt 7:9-12

7:12 of course is a reference to the lawless ones, Paul and Mark. It is clear that Matthew had got hold of Paul's letters as well.

Best,
Jiri