Paul and the Gospels

[Radagast]

"Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 116), has no quotations from the PE, but there are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental” (so Bernard, xv, citing seven passages and also several “peculiar” words that occur in Ignatius and elsewhere only in the PE; also Kelly, 3; cf. Spicq, 1:163). Hanson ([1983] 12–13) rightly points out that the Roman persecution reflected in Ignatius’ writings does not correspond to the background of the PE."

So Mounce is saying that they are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental.”

In other words, (loose) quotations.

 

[Radagast]

Could you rewrite this so that it makes sense?

It made perfect sense.

You have devalued the evidence of the early Church. That leaves you with zero evidence about the beliefs and governance of the early Church. Everything you say about the early Church is pure fiction.

 

[hedrick]

So Mounce is saying that they are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental.”

In other words, (loose) quotations.

No, coincidences in wording are not quotations. I found another source that lists them. They seem to be individual words whose only NT use is the Pastorals.

Incidentally, 120 may be a bit late. I think it's more common to date then 80 - 100. Wikipedia quotes Brown as saying that't the most common.

 

[JackRT]

It made perfect sense.

You have devalued the evidence of the early Church. That leaves you with zero evidence about the beliefs and governance of the early Church. Everything you say about the early Church is pure fiction.

I do know that the early church was synagogue based and that on top of that a hierarchal governance of elders, deacons and bishops gradually developed.

 

[disciple Clint]

Not all scholars.

We are discussing Theology, when has there ever been anything in this subject that is not disputed by someone?

 

[Radagast]

No, coincidences in wording are not quotations. I found another source that lists them. They seem to be individual words whose only NT use is the Pastorals.

You presumably refer e.g. to G2085 (ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω) found in the NT only in 1 Timothy, but also in The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp 3.

But in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 11, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν is almost a verbatim quote of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν (1 Timothy 1:1).

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

We are discussing Theology, when has there ever been anything in this subject that is not disputed by someone?

I think that was kind of the point I was trying to make. The question should be where the consensus lies. Based on modern scholarship, I think the tide is turning with the late dating for the Pastorals coming from Higher Criticism and later dating for pretty much everything. Now that it has been established that other writings were much earlier than originally posed, there is little objection to putting the Pastorals back into the first century.

Whether they were written by Paul or not is always going to be contentious, but if dating is the only reason to suppose not, then it is insufficient.

 

[Radagast]

I do know that the early church was synagogue based and that on top of that a hierarchal governance of elders, deacons and bishops gradually developed.

And how do you know this? You are discounting the writings of the early Church, because the early Church said that Paul wrote all the Pauline epistles, including the Pastorals.

The NT has Christians evicted from synagogues very early on.

Outside of the NT and the writings of the early Church, the earliest archaeological evidence of Christian worship we have is the Dura-Europos church from c. 240. It is quite definitely not synagogue based: Dura-Europos church - Wikipedia

I can only assume that you're going by the guesses of non-Christian scholars, who simply didn't understand what they were theorising about.

 

[The Liturgist]

So Mounce is saying that they are “coincidences in phraseology [that] can hardly be accidental.”

In other words, (loose) quotations.

These are certainly loose quotations.

I do know that the early church was synagogue based and that on top of that a hierarchal governance of elders, deacons and bishops gradually developed.

That’s a mere conjecture, and it is a conjecture disproven by not only the New Testament itself, but also by first century writings of the Church, including the Didache, the Didascalia, and the writings of St. Ignatius the Martyr.

All of these sources, which date from the first century, describe a church separated, against its will, from the synagogues, which was centered around the celebration of the Eucharist and ruled by bishops and presbyters, served by deacons, and committed to the maintenance of widows.

Ignatius himself wrote “Let nothing be done without the Bishop” and he was fed to lions in the year 107.

 

[The Liturgist]

Could you rewrite this so that it makes sense?

What @Radagast and I are saying is that when one discounts the writings produced by the early church, given that the history of the early church was neither extensively nor accurately recorded by any third party, logically, any opinions about the early church amount to little more than conjecture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

What we do know is that Paul confirmed many teachings in his writings. The Eucharist for one. But we also know that Paul was taught in 3 days by Jesus, then he went into the desert on retreat to contemplate what he knew, and formulated his Christian beliefs, then went to the Apostles to make sure he had it right.

 

[ralliann]

What we do know is that Paul confirmed many teachings in his writings. The Eucharist for one. But we also know that Paul was taught in 3 days by Jesus, then he went into the desert on retreat to contemplate what he knew, and formulated his Christian beliefs, then went to the Apostles to make sure he had it right.

All of the Apostles had their minds opened to understand the scriptures after Christ was resurrected.

Lu 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

I do not understand why so much fuss is made over Paul not being a disciple when Christ walked this earth. Clearly understanding did not depend on that. But eyewitness testimony did.

So it seems establishing his resurrection was foundational to looking to him and his disciples for understanding.

1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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's that his audience knew the Gospel story already. We are a third party essentially eavesdropping on a personal conversation between Paul and the churches/persons he wrote to, and we are only privy to half of that conversation, the one recorded by Paul in his letters. But behind those letters there are real, living, breathing, worshiping communities of believing Christians.

-CryptoLutheran