Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Gospels

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17 AT epix.net>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Gospels
  • Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:31:10 -0500


> From: "George Blaisdell"

> Were the gospels then written with the Pauline Corpus clearly in view?

No. There is no reason to think that any author of a gospel
ever had heard of Paul. And yet Luke certainly had great
respect for him and his ideas not one of which, so far as I know,
is certainly reflected in the Gospel of Luke. Therefore,
oddly enough, one can say that Luke's gospel was written
with the Pauline Corpus (broadly speaking, there's no evidence
of any written Paul material being known by Luke) clearly in
Luke's view, which nevertheless had no impact at all on the text
Luke wrote. Go figure.

> And what about the presumed "Q"? Prior or post Paul?

Q is generally dated around 60, based on nothing. IF Q was used by
Mt and if Mt was prior to Luke and if Mt was written ca. 85 then
Q existed prior to 85. That's about all we know, if that.

Dale Allison recently wrote "The Jesus Tradition in Q" reviewed online
by Edward Meadors

http://www.sbl-site.org/SBL/Reviews/1563382075.html

from which I quote the following:

"Allison advances his own past arguments that Paul knew and alluded
to Q's missionary
discourse (Q 10:1-16). After carefully analyzing 1 Cor 9:14=Q 10:7b;
1 Cor 9:4=Q 10:7a; 1 Cor
10:27=Q 10:8; and 1 Thess 4:8=Q 10:16, he concludes "Paul
indisputably knew at least one saying that
appeared in Q's missionary discourse; and the apostle's letters
contain several lines that echo portions of
Lk 10:1-16. Are we not invited to reckon seriously with the possibility
that Paul knew a form of the
missionary discourse related to Q 10:2-16?" (p. 111). This is a
bold proposal. Especially when only one
of the allusions he cites is uncontested (1 Cor 9:14=Lk 10:26),
while the rest are hotly debated. The
theory, however, is historically plausible and provocative.
Though it cannot be proven (or disproven!), in
my judgment the author should be commended for being the
first to cite the saturation of possible Pauline
allusions to Q 10:1-16 in 1 Corinthians and authoring the theory
that Paul knew and used these sayings
not as independent logia but as excerpts from a single block of
Q material."

There's too many "ifs" in this for me, but perhaps a full reading
of Allison's arguments will convince.

Steve Davies
College Misericordia




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page