Paul and the Gospels

[the Vital One]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

It's not that he didn't know, it is that he was preaching and teaching from the revelation that he was given. The best example of this is what he said to the Corinthians about the Lord's Supper. He said, "What I received from the Lord....." He did not get it second hand, so to speak.

Some Christians think that the gospels are far more important than the epistles. Not at all. There is a great deal of vital truth in the epistles that is not found in the gospels.

 

[Andrewn]

had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

I've always been amazed by the lack of contradiction between the Gospels and Paul's Epistles. Considering that the Gospels had not been written, he must have been familiar with their contents in an oral form.

 

[HTacianas]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Someone was on here a few days ago with the idea that the gospels were written earlier because Paul was familiar with them even though he never knew Jesus during his life.

Anyway, Paul is familiar with the teachings of Jesus both from his revelation and from meeting with and learning from the other apostles. Paul said that he received the teaching of the Eucharist "from the Lord", then also quoted Jesus as having said "better to give than to receive". Whether Paul received the quote by revelation or from the apostles I don't know but I suspect that he received it from them.

 

[JackRT]

I've always been amazed by the lack of contradiction between the Gospels and Paul's Epistles. Considering that the Gospels had not been written, he must have been familiar with their contents in an oral form.

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This research focused on societies which were largely illiterate. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. The researchers discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it
becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Why Didn’t Paul Quote Jesus?

 

[Andrewn]

The researchers discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme.

I wasn't aware of these studies but always suspected this to be the case based on the way my great grandmother told us her stories.

This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.

This quite likely happened with Jewish stories, which came to be written much later during the Babylonian captivity. If it happened with the Gospels it must be to a much lesser degree, if at all, due to the short period of time involved. We see more variability in the Gnostic gospels.

 

[disciple Clint]

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This research focused on societies which were largely illiterate. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. The researchers discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it
becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. This is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. What we are reading are very human documents.

Are you familiar with Dr. Bart Ehrman and his historical Bible source positions? You might find his work interesting, I do not accept some of his conclusions but it is a intellectual challenge.

 

[com7fy8]

He did not get it second hand, so to speak.

There is a great deal of vital truth in the epistles that is not found in the gospels.

I've always been amazed by the lack of contradiction between the Gospels and Paul's Epistles.

I agree. It appears to me, that Paul is meant to be a confirming witness, by writing independently yet spiritually matching all Jesus does and says in the Gospels.

The love meaning is the same.

 

[JackRT]

Many years ago I took a red-letter KJV Bible and mined the epistles of Paul for words attributed to Jesus. I found about 100 words but nothing of any real consequence. There are two gospel stories that Paul seems to be completely unaware of. The first is the birth of Jesus. The closest Paul comes to reference it is when he says it was "according to the flesh" which I interpret to mean "perfectly natural" or "nothing remarkable". The second is the actions of Judas. He does not refer to Judas directly at all but does suggest that "the twelve" were all witnesses to the resurrection. But the suicide of Judas took place before that. This would suggest that the Birth Narratives and the Judas Narratives did not enter Christian tradition till some forty to fifty years after the crucifixion.

 

[JackRT]

Are you familiar with Dr. Bart Ehrman and his historical Bible source positions? You might find his work interesting, I do not accept some of his conclusions but it is a intellectual challenge.

I am aware of his work but have not read him much at all.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello everyone,

It has crossed my mind that Paul never references most of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. He never mentions the parables, teachings or specific miracles other than the Resurrection.

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime, but had all of the information we know from them been circulating among the earliest Christians, how did he not seem to know about any of it? Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Paul had his own revelation of Jesus and the ministry he was assigned to. So Paul taught the meaning of this revelation of the Christ to the church.

The day to day life of Jesus was more than catered for by the eye witnesses themselves.

 

[disciple Clint]

Paul had his own revelation of Jesus and the ministry he was assigned to. So Paul taught the meaning of this revelation of the Christ to the church.

The day to day life of Jesus was more than catered for by the eye witnesses themselves.

Luke did a good job too.

 

[Radagast]

The Gospels were not written during his lifetime

Yes they were. Luke was written before Acts, and Acts was written at about the time that the storyline stops (that is, while Paul was still alive). Mark and proto-Matthew were written before Luke, because Luke uses them.

Paul is clearly a major fan of Jesus, but doesn't seem to know much about his ministry.

Paul's letters are written to Christians, who already know the Gospel. He summarises the most important things in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles."

 

[klutedavid]

Luke did a good job too.

Luke did an excellent job and a very important job at that.

 

[Radagast]

He does not refer to Judas directly at all but does suggest that "the twelve" were all witnesses to the resurrection. But the suicide of Judas took place before that.

Read Acts of the Apostles 1:15-26:

In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” ... So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” ... And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Matthias was one of the 12 (replacing Judas), and he also had seen the risen Christ (that's why he was chosen).

Therefore all of the 12 (the new 12) saw the risen Christ.

 

[Radagast]

Are you familiar with Dr. Bart Ehrman and his historical Bible source positions? You might find his work interesting, I do not accept some of his conclusions but it is a intellectual challenge.

He is an apostate who has rejected Jesus and become an atheist (Hebrews 6:4-6). Not the best source of theological advice.

 

[disciple Clint]

He is an apostate who has rejected Jesus and become an atheist (Hebrews 6:4-6). Not the best source of theological advice.

yes that is true but his information regarding the history of the Bible is still valid, I did not say he was not strange, or that you should ask him for theological advice. He is useful in his field.

 

[Andrewn]

The first is the birth of Jesus. The closest Paul comes to reference it is when he says it was "according to the flesh" which I interpret to mean "perfectly natural" or "nothing remarkable".

You're probably referring to the following:

Rom 1:3 This gospel is about his Son—who in the flesh was born a descendant of David,

It is true that Paul doesn't mention the miraculous conception. But Jesus' descent from David is in agreement with the Gospels and arguing that it was "perfectly natural" is an argument from silence. As a writer, Paul just didn't find it necessary to interrupt his thoughts and deviate from the point he wanted to make.

The second is the actions of Judas. He does not refer to Judas directly at all but does suggest that "the twelve" were all witnesses to the resurrection.

Another argument from silence. Remember that Matthias had replaced Judas as the 12th Apostle and that all 12, including Matthias, had accompanied Jesus beginning from His baptism by John until the day He was taken up, and are witnesses of His resurrection (Act 1:21-22). All 12 Apostles were witnesses to the resurrection, as Paul wrote.

 

[Radagast]

yes that is true but his information regarding the history of the Bible is still valid

Well, no, it's not actually. Most of what he says is false.

I an astounded that you should recommend him to Christians, when there are so many reliable, Christian scholars to refer to.