Vivisector

For what it's worth, some quote 1 Tim 5:18 (" ... the worker deserves his wages") as evidence that Paul had a copy of Luke and attributed scriptural status to this gospel. And yes, but of course, Paul wrote the Pastorals (or so the argument goes).

Cheers,

V.

spin

The thing about evidence is that it has that rare quality known as "relevance". Data just may as well be the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow.

Vivisector

Hi Avi,

I think you'll find the majority opinion squarely on Stephan's and Doug's side. For Paul, the "scripture" was basically the HB (LXX). The texts that came to be known as the gospels apparently were not in anything approaching final form for another 15 years at the least. That Paul considered Jesus's suffering and resurrection to have been foretold by the scriptures as he knew them was an idea that seems to have been in circulation fairly early; this idea seems to have predated the gospels, which developed the idea even more. In other words, Paul couldn't have been thinking of the gospels here, unless one adopts J.A.T. Robinson's ideas about the gospels' dates. Rather, the earliest Christians interpreted Jesus's death and resurrection as the fulfillment of HB passages they took as prophetic, and this interpretation happened at a relatively early date. The gospels are evidence of popularity of this interpretation (the one Paul expresses), and not the other way around. At least, I think so.

Cheers,

V.

spin

Then does this...

Paul is saying that he explained to his followers that the Passion narrative was predicted in the Jewish writings... The Marcionites definitely held this was not the case...

...mean that Marcion might be disagreeing with himself?

The corollary is that it's dangerous to insinuate things we can't fully show the relevance for in order to make something more familiar.

stephan huller

No it only means that 'Paul' (not even a real name of the man in the Catholic tradition but an appelation applied after conversion for reasons unclear in Acts) and his story as developed in Catholic sources was false. So the Marcionite rejection of Acts and the Marcionite rejection of 'Paul' (cf. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.15,16; Tertullian Against Marcion 5.1; Adamantius Dialogues 1 all from memory but the citations are in the 'environs' cited here).

We can't just continue to assume that all of our inherited Catholic tradition about 'Paul' and the 'Pauline tradition' is sancrosact. It was developed to refute the original Marcionite attachment to the apostle and their authority over the proper interpretation of literary corpus.

In short, 'Paul' was created out of Mark's rib to allow for a new interpretation of his gospel. Remember the Marcionites viewed the Pauline epistles as commentaries of sorts on the gospel which was his original composition (i.e. 'my gospel' according to my gospel etc).

It would have been impossible to create the Catholic tradition and continue to allow for the original Marcionite paradigm. There had to be a way of proving the Marcionites wrong and so distance between 'Paul' and 'Marcion' was invented.

stephan huller

For what it is worth I have always suspected that Paulos is a development of an original understanding of the apostle as the 'tamym po'olo' (Samaritan pronunciation) of Deut 32:4. In other words, the apostle is Jesus 'new creation' as interpreted in Marqe's Mimar Book 4 chapter 2. I assume the Samaritan apostle is one and the same as the Christian apostle. Again only stating this as a sidebar. Not essential to the conversation.

It is common in the Samaritan Targum to substitute Aram. maroq for tamym. I think a faux etymology of the name Mark (marqe) from maroq was known to the Samaritans.

avi

Good Afternoon, Doug.

Thanks for your comment. Always welcome.
Umm, I guess I cannot quite fathom your idea here.

You indicate clearly, an opinion that Paul had little or no knowledge of the four gospels, yet, you have not commented on the complete passage:
1 Corinthians 15: 1-6, which, for me, at least, is convincing evidence that Paul did know of the gospel stories. How else can one interpret the words, "Cephas", and "the twelve"? Do you mean to write, here, Doug, that the ancient Jewish prophecies referenced twelve disciples, one of whom had been named "Cephas"?

When Paul writes "according to the scriptures", as he does in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 & 4, then, he has persuaded me, at least, that he intends the reader to consider the four gospels on a plane equivalent to the ancient Hebrew texts, i.e. our "old testament".

apologies, my error.

Hmm.
Is that what you posted here?

My questions remain unanswered.
When did ai grafai first refer to the four gospels?

(I acknowledge that most folks consider these two greek words to represent the ancient Jewish writings, i.e. "scriptures", and NOT the four gospels.)

(I anticipate encountering one of the cute icons from spin, showing me beating the poor dead horse...) what can you do, eh?

So, whether Catholic, or any other tradition, I am asking about the "correct" interpretation of 1Corinthians 15: 1-6.

I don't agree that these sentences intend to communicate that Paul was telling the folks in Corinth about the passover story, in terms of the old testament texts. I am looking for someone to explain WHY this passage should not be interpreted as referring, convincingly, to the four gospels?

In particular, how does one explain "Cephas" and "the twelve" if one imagines that this letter to the folks in Corinth refers only to ancient Jewish scriptures, and NOT to the four gospels?

avi

DrZoidberg

If we're to trust Bart Ehrman it's simply a copyist error. We don't have any original gospels left. The oldest we have is Mark. Over time it, or another it evolved from, got changed meanings. Eventually four of them took distinct shapes and their own traditions. So it was never really a point where it became four gospels. All in all, if you count difference as it's own gospel, there are many more than just four. The limit to how different a gospel needs to be to count as a separate gospel is entirely arbitrary.

At one point the bishop of Alexandria (Athanasius I think it was) decided to list a number of books that were considered canon. His priest were asking him which books to buy. At this point the Bible wasn't compiled. He simply did an inventory of which books his churches had, and to avoid wasting money of throwing books away he tried to include the books the churches already had.

Much later, at the council of Nicea when they were deciding which books to include there were economic reasons to use the Egyptian compilation, since Egypt was the largest diocese with the most Bibles already owned. It was simply practical to adopt the Egyptian Bible as is. And that's the Bible we now have as the Vulgate Bible. So it was mostly a bottom up, partly random and a highly pragmatic compilation. The official story is a lot more complicated than this. But I think my summary is more accurate. There was a lot of random involved.

Bottom line, there's no logical reason it couldn't have been fewer or more gospels. This is just how it ended up for no good theological reason at all.

spin

I really loath theoretical etymologies for individual personal names. They are generally unfalsifiable, making them of only of entertainment value.

spin

Your story doesn't match my story. But I probably understand your presuppositions better than I do mine, so I don't know where I stand.