Paulean Epistles

OK, who knows anything about Saul's works? Specifically:

Is there any way they can be time-related to the Gospels?

Are there any apparent contradictions with the Gospels' teachings?

Theological thanks for your ecclesiastical exegeses!

Erm are we talking about Saul or Paul here. I'm a bit cautious after the God/Nietzche thread.

Is there any way they can be time-related to the Gospels?

RationalAtheist

Absolutely.  Though there are some of the Pauline epistles whose authorship is either debatable or basically known not to have been written by Paul (those being 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews), there remain seven that most believe were indeed genuinely written by the man named Paul, whose likely dates of having been written are as follows:

Romans - 55-58 AD
Philippians - 52-62 AD
Galatians - 45-55 AD
Philemon - 52-56 AD
1 Corinthians - 53-57 AD
2 Corinthians - 55-57 AD
1 Thessalonians - 50-51 AD

Of the other alleged Pauline epistles, scholarly opinion is mixed on Colossians and 2 Thessalonians, which are dated at ~60 AD and ~50 AD, respectively.  Most scholars agree that Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Ephesians, which are dated at 60-100 AD, 60-100 AD, and 65 AD, respectively.  And basically all scholars agree that Hebrews was definitely not written by Paul, which is dated at 80-90 AD.

All of the genuine epistles, and probably at least some of the pseudographical or anonymous epistles, were written before the four gospels, which are dated as follows:

Matthew - 70-100 AD
Mark - 63-85 AD
Luke - 70-100 AD
John - 90-110 AD

Are there any apparent contradictions with the Gospels' teachings?

RationalAtheist

I don't know if there are any direct contradictions, but perhaps one of the most interesting things I find in the Pauline epistles is how relatively little of what Jesus actually said or touched upon while on Earth is mentioned at all.  One must keep in mind that, despite the fact that the majority of the New Testament is made up of letters written by or said to have been written by Paul and that he is called an apostle, the man himself never actually even attempted to assert that he met Jesus in the flesh.  Rather, he is said to have come face-to-face with Jesus in a vision.

Of course, if one believes that all Biblical text is directly inspired by God, then this is no problem, but for one who does not, this explains precisely why Paul seemed to have really quite little to say that was actually directly related to that which Jesus had to say during his time on Earth.  So, there aren't so much contradictions as much as there are a whole bunch of extra things said by Paul that Jesus never really touched on at all, at least according to the accounts in the four gospels.  Which makes sense, considering that he had never actually met Jesus and that none of the four gospels about Jesus had been written yet.

There are, in fact, those who assert that there are effectively two Christianities: the Christianity of those who knew Jesus in the flesh, and the Christianity of Paul, and that the one asserted by Paul won out because of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD that left Paul's voice effectively unopposed.  I tend to feel that this seems to have at least some merit, given the apparent discrepancy between the exhortations of Jesus for us to love one another and that one's actions will speak for one at judgment, and the declarations of Paul that tend to appear to say more that faith in Jesus is what matters (something that Jesus did not really say) and that all things stem from that... heretical as such a suggestion of merit might be. :P

Erm are we talking about Saul or Paul here. I'm a bit cautious after the God/Nietzche thread.

domatron23

Paul is his Greek name; Saul is his Hebrew name.  Same guy.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Erm are we talking about Saul or Paul here. I'm a bit cautious after the God/Nietzche thread.

GabuEx

Paul is his Greek name; Saul is his Hebrew name.  Same guy.

Ah, ok. Cheers.

Thanks GabuEx! You are a star!

I've been reading some dodgy book that's made some allegations about this period of Christian history. In essense, it says that:

The 13 Epistles of Paul (that constitute most of the New Testament) make some serious ommissions over Jesus' teachings:

1. There are no accounts of a virgin birth or miraculous portents at all.

2. There are no accounts of Jesus' miracles at all. 

3. In ministering the teaching of Jesus, actual mention of Jesus works is rare. Paul omitted "the Lords Prayer", the parable of the prodigal son, the good Samaritan and the like. In this vein, is it conceivable that someone could travel the world trying to convert people to Jesus, without quoting one of his sayings or doings? If Paul had such knowledge (indispensable for conversion), why leave it out? 

These omissions have been heavily criticised in my book. The assumption that miracles and divine births were tacked on in the Gospels - and written after the epistles is being made.  Its supported by the authorship gap in the Gospels.

Further allegations are made that Jesus would have not been "Hellenised" at the time of Paul's ministry. Paul would have preached about a Jewish Messiah, like the prophet Moses, whose coming was foretold in the Old Testament - and without any supernatural trappings! At the time of the early Christian Churches that Paul was setting up, there was no written doctrine, so Gospels would have to have been made by the church to fit and embellish Paulean epistles after the fact.

Now, I should mention the name of this "dodgy book" - "You Are Being Lied To - The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths". The article is by M. M. Magasarian; called "The Truth About Jesus - Is He A Myth?" See why I got a second opinion? (It is an interesting book of inflammatory articles on society though!)

There does seem to be more than an element of truth to these assertions, but If anyone has any other ideas, please educate me!

Thanks GabuEx! You are a star!

I've been reading some dodgy book that's made some allegations about this period of Christian history. In essense, it says that:

The 13 Epistles of Paul (that constitute most of the New Testament) make some serious ommissions over Jesus' teachings:

1. There are no accounts of a virgin birth or miraculous portents at all.

2. There are no accounts of Jesus' miracles at all. 

3. In ministering the teaching of Jesus, actual mention of Jesus works is rare. Paul omitted "the Lords Prayer", the parable of the prodigal son, the good Samaritan and the like. In this vein, is it conceivable that someone could travel the world trying to convert people to Jesus, without quoting one of his sayings or doings? If Paul had such knowledge (indispensable for conversion), why leave it out? 

RationalAtheist

Assertion 1 is true, as far as I can tell.  In fact, Paul had a golden opportunity to present Jesus' virgin birth in his letter to the Galatians, but he did not:

"What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir." (Galatians 4:1-7, emph. added)

Bolded is the line I'm talking about.  The Greek word for "woman" is gunaikos, which refers simply to any woman at all - young, old, married, single, virgin, or not.  It would seem like a rather strange thing to do to mention that Jesus had been born to a woman without mentioning that she was a virgin (if indeed that is what she was supposed to have been).  In doing a bit of research into the matter, I can in fact find no apparent fault in the charge that Paul seemed apparently unaware of Jesus' supposed virgin birth.  It was, it seems, never mentioned.

Assertion 2, the idea that there is no accounts of Jesus' miracles at all, is wrong, however, and assertion 3 is not quite true.  The fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians - a letter that scholars do affirm as a legitimate Pauline writing - makes it pretty clear (along with other parts of his writings) that Paul at the very least was aware of the assertion that Jesus was raised from the dead and showed himself to his apostles.  There also appears to be a certain vague degree of knowledge of certain things that Jesus said or did, such as his resurrection (as above), the idea that he came to be a servant (Romans 15:8, resembles Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45), and that there will be a day on which all will be judged (1 Corinthians 1:8, resembles Matthew 25:31-46).

I do think that there is a certain degree of merit, however, in the assertion that Paul's writings about Jesus bear the hallmarks of someone who has heard everything he knows on a second-hand basis.  I just searched through all of his writings in the New Testament on BibleGateway.com for mentions of "Jesus" or "Christ", and I turned up not one single mention of anything that Jesus ever actually said or did (excepting of course his resurrection) - curious, in my view, if indeed Jesus did reveal himself to Paul as asserted.  In the Revelation of John, another point in time during which Jesus is said to have appeared to a human, many alleged direct quotations from Jesus are recorded verbatim.

I also did turn up one passage in the process that I do actually think could be viewed as a direct contradiction, although I am almost certain what Christians who adhere to Biblical inerrancy would suggest as a resolution.  Nevertheless:

"On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit aionion life?'

"'What is written in the Law?' he replied. 'How do you read it?'

"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'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' '

"'You have answered correctly,' Jesus replied. 'Do this and you will live.'

29 "But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'

"In reply Jesus said: 'A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"'Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?'

"The expert in the law replied, 'The one who had mercy on him.'
      Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:25-37)

Here, we see that Jesus is asked by an expert in the law what he must do.  Jesus asks him what is written in the law, and he replies with the two commandments that Jesus is said on another occasion to have declared to be the greatest commandments in the law.  Jesus replies that he is correct, and that if he does that, he will live.  Note here the use of the word "justify" in verse 29, which I've numbered above.  The Greek word is dikaioun, which refers to the action of becoming righteous, or becoming what one ought to be.  Jesus thus appears to be telling him how to become righteous.  Keep this word in mind, because here it is again, in something Paul writes:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15-16)

"Justified" here is dikaiouti, which is the exact same word as in Luke 10:29.  Yet look here - Paul is telling the Galatians that no one may become justified by observing the law, but only by faith in Jesus.  Then look back at what Jesus said in Luke 10 - he is asked by one who wants to justify himself what he must do, and Jesus asks him what is in the law and then tells him to do that.  At no point did Jesus even mention in any sense belief in himself during his whole recorded encounter with the expert in the law.

I'll leave the commentary here, as I am actually not quite sure what to make of this, as I've just found this myself.  It would at least appear, however, to be a very real discrepancy between Paul's teachings and Jesus' teachings.

These omissions have been heavily criticised in my book. The assumption that miracles and divine births were tacked on in the Gospels - and written after the epistles is being made.  Its supported by the authorship gap in the Gospels.

RationalAtheist

To be honest, I would not really be surprised.  Nor would I be surprised if it was discovered that the gospels themselves had been - ahem - "augmented" since their original creation.  The very earliest manuscript we have available of any of the four gospels is the Gospel of John Papyrus 52, which most agree can be dated to the mid to late second century, probably around fifty years or so after the original was written - but it's just a very tiny segment.  The largest discrepancy can be found in the Gospel of Mark, where the earliest known manuscript is Papyrus 88, which is dated all the way in the mid fourth century, almost three hundred years after most agree the gospel was written - and it, too, is only a very small fragment.

To get larger and more comprehensive texts, you have to go many, many years in the future, time over which any number of alterations may have been made for any number of reasons, both innocuous and deliberate alike.  A good example of a very well-known case of this is in Mark 16 - when the King James Version was compiled, this chapter contained twenty verses; however, it later came to light that older manuscripts of this chapter were entirely missing the last twelve verses, which has caused newer translations such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible to add statements saying as much.  In short, it is highly likely that the Gospel of Mark in its original form did not contain these last eight verses at all, and that they were added at a later date.

So who knows what we might find if we somehow got a full copy of the original gospels.  I would not at all rule out the possibility of differences, perhaps even dramatic differences, between what they might say and what our current versions of them say.

Of course, the text themselves are not our only sources for determining just what was written in the gospels.  The Nicene Creed, adopted in 325 AD, would certainly put a hard upper bound on the time at which the doctrine of the virgin birth was well-known, as it enshrines it as a pivotal part of Christian doctrine.  An earlier upper bound can probably be found, as well, in the charge of a critic known as Celsus, made around 180 AD, that the idea that Jesus had been born to a virgin was actually nothing more than an attempt to hide the fact that Jesus had been an illegitimate baby.  This would indicate that this doctrine had at least surfaced by this time, although 180 AD is still at least eighty years after the writing of the latest gospel, that of John (and John doesn't even mention the virgin birth; only Matthew and Luke do).  I don't know if there is any earlier indication of the first existence of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus.

It is actually interesting to note that in the alleged Old Testament prophecy that Jesus' virgin birth supposedly fulfilled, which is Isaiah 7:14...

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The almah will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

...the Hebrew word here, almah, may not actually necessarily refer to a virgin, but rather more broadly to any young woman.

 

Further allegations are made that Jesus would have not been "Hellenised" at the time of Paul's ministry. Paul would have preached about a Jewish Messiah, like the prophet Moses, whose coming was foretold in the Old Testament - and without any supernatural trappings! At the time of the early Christian Churches that Paul was setting up, there was no written doctrine, so Gospels would have to have been made by the church to fit and embellish Paulean epistles after the fact.

RationalAtheist

Well, as I noted above, it's not really true to say that Paul's writings had no "supernatural trappings" - I would assume that the idea that Jesus rose from the dead would be cIassified as such.

 

Now, I should mention the name of this "dodgy book" - "You Are Being Lied To - The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths". The article is by M. M. Magasarian; called "The Truth About Jesus - Is He A Myth?" See why I got a second opinion? (It is an interesting book of inflammatory articles on society though!)

There does seem to be more than an element of truth to these assertions, but If anyone has any other ideas, please educate me!

RationalAtheist

"Is Jesus a myth?"  To that I would answer almost certainly not - there is sufficient evidence that there was a man named Jesus who preached to people around 30 AD that one would have to throw out most of human history if one were to reject the idea that Jesus even existed at all.  But was Jesus born from a virgin, and was he crucified and then resurrected?  I would not exactly suppose I am even remotely equipped to answer those sorts of questions with any degree of certainty.

Cripes - Thanks again for putting some meat on those bones!

I'm going to need some time to digest all your information, but in the mean-time, I'll offer some defense of the original article and apology for my inferences: That I assume the miracle-making Jesus excludes the miracle of the ressurrection story because this wasn't somehow part of Jesus' explicit teachings while he lived. The article itself does discuss the resurrection as part of Paul's evangelising of Jesus life and teachings. I should have mentioned that.

Without going into too much textual criticism about who actually did write the Paulean Epistles, and taking it as read that they were all written or dictated by Paul, it does seem curious how this most import carrier of early Christian faith held so much back. 

The contradiction you highlighted between faith through good actions and faith alone as a potential conflict within the bible is one that I tried to raise in another thread somewhere, although I think you've defined it far more accureately here. At least I think I have a better understanding of the reasons for differing Christian salvation strategies now.

I'm going to need some time to digest all your information, but in the mean-time, I'll offer some defense of the original article and apology for my inferences: That I assume the miracle-making Jesus excludes the miracle of the ressurrection story because this wasn't somehow part of Jesus' explicit teachings while he lived. The article itself does discuss the resurrection as part of Paul's evangelising of Jesus life and teachings. I should have mentioned that.

RationalAtheist

Ah, well, then I suppose the assertion that none of the miracles are mentioned is true, then.

Without going into too much textual criticism about who actually did write the Paulean Epistles, and taking it as read that they were all written or dictated by Paul, it does seem curious how this most import carrier of early Christian faith held so much back.

RationalAtheist

Well, to play Devil's advocate, all of Paul's writings were to established churches, which presumably already had faith in Jesus.  The letters' purpose were, thus, not evangelism, but rather exhortations to those who already believed.  So the fact that they weren't loaded full of talk about Jesus' miracles is not actually that odd - the people to whom he was writing probably did not need to be convinced about who Jesus was.

That he does not seem to have made any reference to Jesus' teachings or sayings, however, does seem odd even given this context.  I think a fair argument could be made that Paul almost seemed to be teaching things that were of his own invention, not based on Jesus' life and teachings. (Although, again, if one believes him to have been inspired by God, then this is no problem - he is simply providing the people with further God-inspired doctrine that Jesus did not cover.)

Although by now his writings have basically been portrayed in mainstream Christian thought as in total harmony with all others, this was not actually the case - he even admits in his letter to the Galatians that he and Peter had had a falling out, and proceeds to rebut Peter right there in the letter, which seems to me to be kind of a jerk move, really:

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'" (Galatians 2:11-14)

He seems, in fact, to be kind of prone to this sort of haughty behavior, in fact, such as this one he gives to the Corinthians, in which he actually seems to be almost contradicting Jesus' message of endless patience, forgiveness, and love for those who curse you:

"I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

"What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. .... If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying." (2 Corinthians 11:16-21,30-31)

He then seems to pull himself back together:

"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the 'super-apostles,' even though I am nothing. The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance. How were you inferior to the other churches, except that I was never a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!" (2 Corinthians 12:11-13)

At one point he even declared to the Corinthians - quite arrogantly, in my reading - that he was their father and that they ought to act and be like him, a declaration that follows what is in my view exceptionally biting sarcasm:

"Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have become kings—and that without us! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you! For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.

"I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." (1 Corinthians 4:8-16)

This is actually in quite strong contrast, interestingly enough, to Jesus' language in which he describes his followers as "brothers", not as "children", even as he is their teacher.  This might even be construed as the very first glimmerings of the now-prevalent attitude that there exist clergymen and laypersons, rather than that all are equal in their faith.

Of course, as I heard one evangelical Christian say, there's nothing arrogant about a person who is simply declaring the truth, and he said quite confidently that declarations of himself as arrogant are just proof that the Holy Spirit works within him.  So, obviously, staunch Christians who support Biblical inerrancy will not find anything amiss in what Paul says here.  I personally find it much richer, however, to accept that those writing the Bible were human beings with very real human tendencies in terms of their mannerisms, speech, behavior, and so on.  Reading the Bible like this, it becomes apparent - at least to me - that rather than the New Testament being an emotionless text from cover to cover, it in fact contains numerous examples of sarcasm, anger, arrogance, humility, love, and other human emotions that add, in my view, a lot of depth to the text that is just totally absent otherwise.

The contradiction you highlighted between faith through good actions and faith alone as a potential conflict within the bible is one that I tried to raise in another thread somewhere, although I think you've defined it far more accureately here. At least I think I have a better understanding of the reasons for differing Christian salvation strategies now.

RationalAtheist

I must admit that I myself actually feel that I have learned quite a bit that I hadn't noticed before I started investigating what you're talking about - so I must thank you for this most interesting line of discussion.

OK, who knows anything about Saul's works? Specifically:

Is there any way they can be time-related to the Gospels?

Are there any apparent contradictions with the Gospels' teachings?

Theological thanks for your ecclesiastical exegeses!

 

RationalAtheist

-The apparent contradictions are on the importance of the law of moses 

 

-The apparent contradictions are on the importance of the law of moses 

danwallacefan

As well as the silence on Jesus' miracles and origins?

What are the contradictions you see in the importance of the law of Moses?

Thanks. 

As a sort of response to what's being touted elsewhere - and to add to the differences between the 13 Paulean Epistles and the other books of the New Testament, I think some textual criticism is now due:

1Timothy, 2Timothy and Titus are collectively known as the "Pastoral Epistles" of the New Testament.

"Over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, while 2/3 of the non-Pauline vocabulary are used by second century Christian writers".

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#The_Pastoral_Epistles )

There are various other reasonings and valid inferences in the article for all but 7 "genuine" epistles.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] 

-The apparent contradictions are on the importance of the law of moses 

RationalAtheist

As well as the silence on Jesus' miracles and origins?

What are the contradictions you see in the importance of the law of Moses?

Thanks. 

Regarding the law of moses, some critics point to the numerous statements throughout Paul's epistles that say that we are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. However, Jesus said, specifically in Matthew 25, that he has not come to abolish the law, and that not one pen-stroke of the law shall pass away.