Roland

Since Paul was such an impressive writer, why did he never feel compelled to write his own "gospel" of Jesus? Or, barring that, why didn't he at least write some tracts on the topic of "evidences for the faith" that the people he converted to Christianity coud use to help convert others? Why, in all of his writings, does he not lay out the case for believing in this man Jesus of Nazareth, who was so recently crucified and raised form the dead in Jerusalem? I realize that he was writing to already converted Christians, but wouldn't even they need constant encouragement in the plausibility in what they believed especially since Paul makes it quite clear that there are many people out there preaching "another gospel"? And again, wouldn't such a work have been helpful in the new converts' efforts to win more souls to Christ? Where is the true evangelistic thrust in Paul's writings?

atheist

Since it seems that Paul believed that the end was near (as in, within his lifetime), perhaps laying out a case for Jesus' existence, especially for future generations, was moot.

MortalWombat

My guess would be because Paul wrote before Mark, who is considered to be the inventor of the Gospel genre.

Atticus_Finch

Paul's close associate, Luke, wrote a gospel which was specifically intended to show the evidences for the faith. He probably thought there was no need to duplicate the effort.

Regards,

Finch

graymouser

Isn't the pseudepigraphical status of the gospels pretty much a settled matter? No "Luke" wrote any gospel, and there is no evidence that a gospel existed while Paul of Tarsus was alive.

-Wayne

Atticus_Finch

No. If you think there is convincing evidence that Luke, an associate of Paul, did not write the Gospel of Luke then I would be interested to see it.

Peter Kirby, a person greatly respected here, does not seem to agree with your statement. See his discussion of Luke here.

Regards,

Finch

graymouser

Even if a "Luke" wrote the Gospel of Luke, Paul of Tarsus was at least 14 years dead when it happened. Paul died in 66; 80 CE is the lower limit of the writing of the Gospel of Luke.

There is no strong consensus among Biblical scholars that Luke wrote the Gospel attributed to him; as far as I can tell, the consensus is such that we have no idea who wrote it. The burden of proof shifts to you, since you have asserted positively that it was written by a personal associate of Paul.

Even if you could establish this, it would not explain the original question - which is why Paul didn't write a Gospel. A book written after Paul's death doesn't give Paul the motivation you want to ascribe to him.

-Wayne

Atticus_Finch

I think you should read Mr. Kirby's article more closely. I believe he concludes that 80 is the earliest date in his estimation. However, he notes that some argue for a writing prior to Paul's death.

I personally believe that a total lack of reference to Paul's death argues persuasively for a dating prior to Paul's death. Acts is also a history of the early church. It seems impluasible that if the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred and the Jerusalem church had been dispersed that Luke would be silent on this point.

Paul was reportedly in Rome for at least 2 years. Maybe Luke occupied himself with writing the Gospel and Acts during that time.

Regards,

Finch

MortalWombat

I wouldn't say a total lack. See Acts 20:25But Luke already alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21:20

Gregg

Congratulations! You have noticed Paul's perplexing silence on any (well, a paltry few, but we can talk about that later--one thing at a time) details of the earthly life of one "Jesus of Nazareth." Take a look at all the other letters and epistles of the NT too. The silence is deafening, isn't it?

"But how can this BE!?" You ask. As you've correctly noted, wouldn't more references to Jesus' words and actions while on Earth have helped to encourage and inspire his readers? Wouldn't they have given his (Paul's) gospel more authority? Wouldn't they have been useful for refuting the claims--of other Christians!--that Jesus had not come "in the flesh" or been crucified?

Help is on the way! First, try reading through this thread. Then, go visit a very interesting website:

www.jesuspuzzle.org

Come back and let us know what you think!

Gregg
(Your cheerful guide on the liberating journey that is Jesus Mythicism!)

P.S. With your permission, I'd like to copy your post into the "Earl Doherty" thread on this forum, as an example of how Paul's silence on a historical Jesus is so noticeable and perplexing.

Edited to fix the Jesus Puzzle link.