zaitzeff

Were the synoptic gospels written by Judaizing Christians?

As we know from the letters of Paul, there were people who preached a different gospel from Paul. Paul preached justification by faith. The alien preachers, he says, preach justification by works.

II Cor 11:
13 [there] are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Philippians 3:
2Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
18 they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

Galatians 2:
4 . . . because of false brethren secretly brought in . . .
12 [Peter], fearing them which were of the circumcision.
15 Paul says to Peter: "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.. .
21 if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

The alien preachers had entered into and were attempting to subvert, from Paul's point of view, every church Paul knew.

According to Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas split up just after the so-called apostolic council. Acts 15:38 [Paul] went not with them [Barnabas and Mark] to the work [of gospel preaching].
39 And the contention was so sharp between them [those who had previously been friends, Paul and Barnabas], that they split up: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed . . .

Actually, the sharp contention that Acts says was over the question of Mark coming with them, was likely over another issue. Galations 2:13 says:
"Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."

The way that Acts 15 describes things, the Judaizers disappear in eventual submission to the Apostolic Decree. The way that Paul tells things, a group of people are in revolt against his gospel and are subverting the churches, and still doing so after the "Apostolic Council." In fact, Paul claims that he has to preach his gospel to Peter at Antioch!

If a group of people were preaching a "gospel" of Jesus, but one which taught justification by works, what would that look like? Actually, it would look like Matthew, and to a lesser extent, like it would look like Mark, Q, and Luke! The works that save in Matthew seem to include the whole Jewish law, including an overzealous interpretation of the Sabbath. The works that save in Mark, Q and Luke do not include the kosher food law (mark7) or circumcision (Acts 15) but do include selling one's property, (Luke 14:33)living poor and keeping the 9 or 10 commandments (Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18ff).

The other day I was reading a book with selections from the history of the Universalist movement and denomination and one fellow was commenting about the synoptic gospels teaching on wealth. Basically, he said, we can't and shouldn't take it literally because the words were for another time and culture. When I read this, I remembered that when I was first attending Community Chapel (1984-1988 for me), the fundamentalist preacher Don Barnett had taught approximately the same thing: We could not take the gospel instructions literally, nor were we expected to do so. Don said he had one fellow who came to the church who challenged him on this subject and Don asks for his coat and shirt until the fellow refused for reasons of modesty to part with any more clothing. Don used this to illustrate the unreasonableness of taking Matthew 5:40 literally.

I had a further wondering re the synoptic gospels, because of both the eternal punishment issue and because of Mark 10:17ff and its parallel passages, Mt 19:16ff and Luke 18:18ff, which is the story of the rich young ruler.

For centuries the church has puzzled over this passage for two reasons:
1) in Jesus's answer, He seems to preach salvation by works;
2) Jesus says that it is impossible for a rich man to be saved, followed immediately by His denying it.

Mark 10:
25 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.� [I.e. what is impossible to happen is more likely to happen than that a rich man be saved.]

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?�

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.�

In fact, one of the first Christian writings after the Bible writings is
from Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-210), "Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?"

Clement says,
"For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, 'that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,' despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God."

In other words, Clement says, the story and the words of Jesus cause some to believe that they cannot be saved and so they despair and do not seek God.

Chris Weimer

There is much more evidence that Mark was based at least on several points in Paul's writings with the rest coming from the Old Testament. Matthew extremes to be both a Judaizer, and an antiJudaean, which was common to his theme as an epic, with the hero hailed from the promised people to their downfall. A reverse tragedy if you will. Luke also wrote Acts, much of which follows the hero "Paul" the purpoted writer of the epistles (an example of mythizing the character). John definitely marks a distinction from the Gospels, yet uses both Mark and Secret Mark in abundance and often seems to parallel some thought of the mystic Jesus.

So no, the gospels aren't written against Paul.

Clivedurdle

I thought the eye of the needle was colloquial for a small gate in the main gate of a city wall - a camel could get through it - so long as its baggage was removed first. Or is this another preacher "urban myth"?

Diogenes the Cynic

Medievel myth. There was never any such gate.

Clivedurdle

Fascinating! My ancient New Bible Commentary Revised IVF agrees it is a myth!

zaitzeff

Other than Mark's freeing people from the food laws in Mark 7, what evidence do you or we have that Mark is depending on the theology of Paul?

If it is true that there were Judaizing Christians of the type that Paul says were attempting to subvert his converts, how would their theology have been different from that of Matthew? Isn't Matthew a perfect example of the kind of thing that someone might have written, who came from the circles that believed in Jesus but denied the Pauline revelation, and who were attempting to subvert Paul's churches? And, in looking at Luke, do not we find that Luke also teaches a gospel of works, but one without the requirement of circumcision or the Sabbath? Luke and Matthew both preach justification by works, but the set of works differs!

In the evangelical world, it should be noted that Mark 10:17ff is given various sorts of "explanations." For those who believe the gospel as Paul explains it, it is alleged that Jesus does not mean what He says about the way to salvation, but that he points the rich young ruler to the law as a means of demonstrating to him that he could not be saved by keeping the law. By calling his attention to the law, so the theory goes Jesus was hoping to elicit from the young rich ruler an admission of guilt and inability. Of course, that is not at all in the text of Mark, Matt or Luke nor is it even implied in any way. Such an interpretation only presents itself to Protestants would read and believe Paul, as we see in Romans 3:20 "for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
In fact, "Jesus" seems to be saying exactly the opposite, that people such as the rich ruler would be saved by keeping the law.

Paul says, Romans 3:20
"by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:"
and
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

And, when some hard Protestants wish to critique their brethren about their gospel presentations, they appeal, not to Paul, but to Mark 10:17ff or, when that is not sufficient, to Luke 13:5 "repent or you will all perish!"

See also Luke 10:25ff

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,� he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?�
26 “What is written in the Law?� he replied. “How do you read it?�

27 He answered: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]�

28 “You have answered correctly,� Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.�

To this, Paul would have answered,
But no man can love God with all his heart and all his soul. You can't make
loving God with all one's heart and loving neighbor the way to salvation; that would guarantee that none receive it.

Lets look more at Paul and the synoptics and Q.

Paul says that justification is a free gift
Romans 3
22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace

Romans 5:15
so also is the free gift.

See in contrast Q as found in Luke 13:24, Matt 7:13
Agonizomai [strive, agonize and suffer] to enter in by the narrow door.

According to Luke, baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and washes away sins, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16.

Could Paul have taught this or believes this, who says,

I Cor 1:

14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . .

So, John uses Mark perhaps. So what? John is Pauline in his soteriology; Mark is not. In fact, any student of Paul's, after reading the synoptics, would be inclined to say that a different gospel needed to be written, deleting
the teachings of salvation by works and eternal punishment, and replacing those teachings with salvation by faith.

Romans 4
14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15 because law brings wrath. NIV

Compare also the teaching of Paul with Luke re wealth. Paul expects and hopes that his converts will give, each one as he has received, i.e. hopefully the rich will give more than the poor to the work of God. However, there is nothing obligatory about giving any specific amount in Paul.

II Cor 9:
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Luke 14:33
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple [i.e. be saved].

If you have to give up all your wealth or even a portion of it to be saved, how then can Paul write, "let him give . . . not of necessity."

Paul and Q on the Law:

II Cor 3:11 For if that [The Law, and the Old Covenant] which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Q and Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Chris Weimer

Well, if you read carefully, you'd catch on to the subtler things. If Matthew was so pro-Jew, why did he have them claim "His blood be on us and our children"? Matthew wasn't writing for people to become Jews, he wrote so that Jews would become Christians. Luke is an entirely different story. Luke tried to subvert Paul just as much Marcion did. Luke's gospel and follow-up portrays Jesus very differently than Mark or Matthew, and, here I'm still researching, but if I'm correct, he also wrote the Pastorals, then we get some sort of founding church by this author, much like Marcion or the Johannine community. And ask Vorkosigan about his Markan/Pauline parallels. I congratulate him on that one.

zaitzeff

I did not say that Matthew (whomever wrote Matthew, around 80 or 90AD)
was pro-Jew. I said that Mark, Q, Matthew and Luke all reflect a pattern of thinking that is more akin to the Jewish Christian law-keeping-for-justification
movement with which Paul had quarrels than with Paul. Surely you admit that those who were entering into and subverting the Pauline churches and Antioch were not mere Jews, but Jews who believed in Christ, but in a way that Paul disapproves of their doctrine? And, if they were to write a gospel or a book, would it not look like Matthew?

Chris Weimer

No, and I think Matthew makes it pretty clear that the Jewishness of Christianity should be destroyed by the end of his book. Luke is very hellenized, and Mark was written from Paul. Q is unfound, so your point is moot.

If the synoptics were so anti-Pauline, why were they consistent with changing the thoughts of the Law? Were they Judaizers, as Paul attacks in Galatians, we wouldn't have seen such phrases as "turn the other cheek" or the abolishment of the dietary laws. This was Paul's thoughts as well as the thoughts of the synoptics.

Amaleq13

Or would it look more like the Gospel of the Ebionites?